For LR, I'm officially scoring what I did before starting 7sage in January.

I began 7sage in january and made massive improvements in LR after the core curriculum. From Prep-test 36 through 38, I was getting just one to three wrong a section. On PT 36, however, my BR score (166) was only two points higher than my actual score (164), so I began to blind review in much more detail in nuance, revisiting parts of the core curriculum, and referring to the analytics tab on 7sage to help focus my studies.

However, I noticed that I was becoming more hesitant and more willing to circle questions, and the answers I gave to circled questions were more frequently wrong. I use to end each LR section with over 5 minutes to spare and around six questions circles, one or two of which would be corrected (my best overall performance was on Preptest 38, I scored a 166, with a 174 BR).By Preptest 40, I can barely finish an LR section, circle 8-12 questions, and end up correcting most of them.

I think this is best demonstrated in two timed drills I took from PT 73.

On section 2 in late February, I got four wrong initially, had circled 4, and corrected two.

On Section 4, which I took today, I got eleven wrong (many of which were not circled), and circled 12.

Does anyone have any other LR review methods besides Blind Reviewing?

I'm taking the March test and need advice. I thought I was in good shape when I stopped the core curriculum and truly believed the 7sage method, but now I feel like I wasted this time I took off to study for the LSAT (sorry for the mini rant).

So i’ve managed to improve my LR score to about 0-2 questions wrong per section. On good days I get every LR question right and on bad days I would get up to 3 or 4 wrong in total. I first finish the section in about 30 min and go back to the questions I circled as confusing. The thing is, when I solve questions I usually read every single answer choice (so even if I know that AC A is the correct answer, I would read B,C,D,E just to make sure). Sometimes, when i’m absolutely sure that the one I chose is the correct answer, I just skim through the rest of the answer choices, but I still spend time reading them.

What do you guys think about not reading the other answer choices once I choose an answer that i’m fairly sure is right? This way I would finish the section earlier and would have more time to spend on trickier questions. Right now I feel like i’m too nervous to do it but i’ve seen JY do it in his live commentaries and am thinking about it.

Has anyone tried this and improved their scores? Or should I still at least skim through every answer choice?

Hi Im new to this blog and would like to know if there are any suggestions on how to make accurate and complete (AS MUCH AS THERE ARE TO MAKE :-) ) inferences on this Logic Games section!

Thanks in advance.

Hey guys,

This is a burning question that's been bothering me since the beginning of my LR prep.

If you have seen PT64 S1 Q13 (joggers question) and PT73 S4 Q3 (skin cancers question) or would like to check them out, please continue reading.

In PT64 S1 Q13, the argument concludes that stretching doesn't help prevent injury because the group that stretched before jogging had the same number of injuries as those who didn't.

This is a weaken question.

We have Trap Answer Choice E, which states that in some forms of exercises stretching before engaging in an activity can reduce the severity of injuries. It is easy to eliminate E on the basis of "some forms of exercise" because we do not know that such a case includes jogging. But what if E had specifically mentioned jogging? Would it weaken the argument? Can the severity of an injury be a factor that contributes to the effectiveness of its prevention?

Similarly, in PT73 S4 Q3, the argument concludes that sunscreen lotions aren't effectively preventing UV rays causing skin cancer because the average number of the people who get skin cancer is as great for people using sun lotions as those who don't.

This is a flaw question.

Trap Answer Choice B says that the argument fails to see the difference between the number of cases and the severity of the cases in evaluating the effectiveness of skin cancer prevention.

One clear way to eliminate B is to realize that B does not pinpoint which group's skin cancers were more severe. If B had said that the argument fails to consider that the group without sun lotion had more severe cases of skin cancer, would it be the flaw of the argument?

I think the decision to accept modified versions of both PT73 S4 Q3 and PT64 S1 Q13 depends on how we understand the definition of prevention. To evaluate whether prevention of a disease/injury occurred effectively, is it sufficient to ONLY focus on the number of injuries/disease prevented OR do we also need to take into account whether any reduction in the severity of such disease/injury occurred?

In my opinion, measuring the severity of an injury does matter in assessing the effectiveness of a preventive measure.

If a thousand people who used sunscreen lotion developed stage 1 skin cancer but the same number of people who didn't use sunscreen lotion developed stage 4 skin cancer, the argument would be weakened because the sunscreen lotion indeed was effective in blocking a worse form of skin cancer. It would be unreasonable to say that sunscreen lotion wasn't effective in that case.

All in all, what is meant by effective prevention? Does it have it to be complete 100% prevention (as in no instances of injuries, whether severe or light) to be properly called effective prevention?

Thank you so much for reading my painful thought process. Please help!

Just a general question about NA question. What clues/cues do some of you have to help you determine from the get go if you need to bridge or find a shield answer? I notice I usually freak out in some of these situations. Any insight i deeply appreciated.

I’m taking the June 2019 lsat. I am really good at lg but bad at everything else. Do you guys think I can achieve a perfect score. By June while working and taking classes if I study at least 6 hours everyday. I’ll prolly be doing more. I am just so nervous and I have so much anxiety I can’t even sleep.

I often make the mistake in flaw questions of -choosing an answer choice that's descriptively accurate and COULD describe a flaw, but doesn't describe THE flaw in the argument. For example: LSAT 86 - Section 1 - Question 19. I chose A. Any suggestions on how I can tackle this?? Pleeeease #help. Flaws are my biggest weakness and I'd love to improve.

I don't really understand answer choice A) if there is no overwhelming evidence for or against a hypo. then one should "suspend judgment as to its truth". What does it mean by "as to its truth"? Anyone could help?

Thanks!!

Admin note: edited title and added link

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-3-question-14/

I was wondering if instead of trying to bridge the gap of the premise to conclusion to make the argument valid, we could look for the AC's that strengthen the conclusion and eliminate the rest and then from that point determine which AC strengthens the argument the most?

TRUST THAT YOU CAN REMEMBER THE INFERENCES.

At times, when foolproofing a game and watching the explanation video, I get overwhelmed. I start thinking that there is no way I can reproduce the inferences that are detailed in this 15-20 minute video. I might even convince myself that I need to find an easier way to solve the game other than J.Y's explanation (like look for a split that no one has found yet, not always a bad thing obviously).

Then I decided I was just going to watch the explanation video and attempt the game immediately. Got both of the new games I did today within the target time on only my second attempts. What I learned from this is, that sometimes it's hard to realize that you actually DO remember the inferences, and WILL be able to recall them when tested on whether you can make the inference. Your mind is probably smarter than you think, so give it a little credit.

Since the LSAC says we have the option to cancel our scores after we see it, and also to retake it at a later date free of charge, I'm definitely leaning towards taking the July LSAT. However, I was wondering if those rules applied for those who get paper instead of digital on the actual exam day. The website doesn't differentiate at any point, but I was just curious if anyone knew for sure.

If you're taking the March 2019 LSAT and your account is inconveniently set to expire a few days before the test date, you can get a free 14-day extension from this page: https://classic.7sage.com/free-extension/

For those of you who are expiring after, good luck on the LSAT! We here at 7Sage are rooting for you.

Can anyone explain Q 22 for me? Why is the right answer D & not E? I’m also confused about diagramming this one.

Thank you.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-2-question-22/

I am not understanding the key concept of "only if/only when/only where" and how they are not biconditionals. Can someone help?

take this sentence:

"Lagitha performs fifth only if Norton performs third."

from the rules, I understand the translation to be:

L=5--------->N=3

BUT i don't understand for the life of me why. They seem to be biconditional.

As in: "Lagitha can perform anytime she wants unless norton is third, and in that case, she must be 5th." Confirming the necessary in this case, actually confirms the sufficient.

It seems to me that the english sentence

"If Lagitha performs 5, norton performs 3" has an entirely different meaning.

I thought i could just muddle through not understanding this, but now "only if" comes up all over logic games. I have tried just memorizing the rule, but it would be so much better to actually understand it. I have gone over all the lessons from this group, and I still don't get it. I'd really appreciate any advice.

Hey there! Hope everyone is doing well in their LSAT studies!

I stumbled upon a question that stated "otherwise" within the answer choices. (for reference: PT 63 Section 1 #21) J.Y. noted that otherwise means "or, and not both" which is a biconditional, however, I'm having trouble distinguishing this from "not otherwise"

If someone can kindly look over the two statements I have provided below, one with otherwise & the other with not otherwise.

Examples:

If a class involves science work, the class will be conducted in a laboratory; otherwise, it will be conducted in a normal room.

If a class involves science work, the class will be conducted in a laboratory or a normal room, but not otherwise.

Are these both the same in conditional logic? Laboratory (--) Normal room.

Also, would someone be able to provide an example that would likely be a rule on a logic game with those terms?

Thank you!

I'm writing this post in the hope that it will help me remember to follow my own advice, and perhaps help others as well in the process.

Here's my Foolproofing tip (mostly geared at people relatively new to Foolproofing):

I think this works for two reasons: 1. A calm mind works WAY better. So even though you may be going slower (less thoughts, not scribbling frantically) you're actually being much more efficient and deliberate. 2. Even if you don't complete the game within the target time this time around, by going slower you are giving yourself a chance to really understand and remember the inferences (it's much easier to remember things you understand, vs. rote memorization) thus giving you the best chance to solve the game quickly on the next go around.

P.S. In addition, I think this principle applies to LSAT studying in general. It's often very tempting to think that we can make ourselves cover more ground, understand things quicker, complete more prep-tests etc., through rushing. Unfortunately, the anxiety that comes with rushing deeply diminishes one's ability to focus and learn efficiently.

In conclusion: Anxiety while studying or around studying is NOT a necessary component for LSAT success, and is possibly a sufficient condition for failure in certain cases.

Hello!

I was looking for some insight as to what I am doing wrong. I have read all of the Bible books and perform very well with respect to time and accuracy. Yet whenever I do an exam, I have trouble maintaining that same performance. It struggle with improving my score but I continuously do well on all of my practice. Do you have any suggestions as to what I can do? I am aware that the time constraints are a factor but it doesn’t make sense as to why I perform well even when I do timed sections but still bomb my practice tests.

I look forward to hearing from you all!

Hi all,

I’ve taken the LSAT twice now - once in Sept. 2018 and again in Nov. 2018 - and both times my experimental section was LG. In each of the experimental LG were games containing multiple (or even exclusively, in one game) rules that combined sequencing rules (such as A — B or [AB]) with conditionals packed into them.

For example: (A — B ) —> (C — D)

For whatever reason, I found that having multiple rules in a single game like that to be very difficult to conceptualize and make quick inferences. I’m worried that I may run into one for March or June given they’ve been on separate experimental sections twice now. While I’m fairly experienced in LG, I haven’t taken every section out there. Would any of you happen to know if there are games with rules like this and which PTs they’re on? I’m having trouble off the top of my head. Thanks so much for any help!

I've repeatedly watched the lesson titled "Advanced: Negate All Statements" and in the video the statement used is:

"All cats are pretentious"

JY states there isn't a word that is a direct opposite of "all" so he uses "some... not..." to directly contradict the statement into:

"Some cats are not pretentious"

.

Here's my problem with this.

If "some" means at least one but not all. How is it that the logical opposite of "All cats are pretentious" is "Some cats are not pretentious"??

If we're dealing with the group "cat" and "things that are not pretentious" wouldn't the statement "some cars are not pretentious" leaves the possibility that ZERO cats are not pretentious? Which directly contradicts the definition of some which is at LEAST one but not all?

I'm confused to why he doesn't just use "not all" as the contradiction to "all" which would leave the range (0-99) which would make things simpler by not directly going against the definition of "some"

So I finished the curriculum a little over a month ago and have just started fool proofing LG 1-35 using Pacifico's method. My problem is that for most of the games I have come across thus far I have a lot of trouble with them at the start. So since I don't really know how to approach it I stop and go to JY's video and I immediately understand it after he sets up the game board. So I guess my question is how do I eliminate that gap between having no idea how to approach the game to completely understanding it after watching the set-up.

Any help is greatly appreciated!

Thanks,

Will

Hi everyone --

I'm averaging around 158 on my 5 most recent practice tests right now and really want to break 160's consistently! I'm averaging around -7 on LR sections, and not really seeing a trend as to missed question types. I feel like I have the foundation/CC down pretty well and am running into over confidence errors a lot of the time.

Should I be drilling LR sections instead of taking full PT's? Or should I go through CC again? I've also read the LSAT trainer. I just feel a little stuck! Would love to be getting -3/-4 consistently...

Anyone else run into this problem and overcome it?

For me, taking the Logical Reasoning and Reading sections under timed condition makes a lot of sense. Since I have a bad habit of taking my sweet time, and this will train me to read faster, etc.. However, I am really struggling with doing the game section on time. If I sit there and take as much time as I need, I actually do kind of well. However, if I have to do it under time, I will end up guessing most of my answers.

So, my question is: should I practice logic games for my prep tests at the time I'm comfortable at, and then work on my speed?

Or, should I always take it the first time under timed condition?

Thank y'all so much for your time,

Paul

The section I have the most trouble on is Logic Games, Ive drilled and fool proofed many many games but I still end up missing around 5-7 questions on preptests. If I can improve on my LG I will be borderline at 170. I was wondering if any 7sagers, that score high on the LG sections, can provide any tips and/or insight on how they study or approach LG sections. Thank you in advance!!

Hey guys,

I'm having trouble understanding question 8 from PT4 section 1. I diagrammed it:

-PWP ---> -GLS and realized that the passage makes an illegal reverse. It should have been GLS ---> PWP (the contrapositive) instead of PWP---> GLS. However, even with that in mind, I wasn't able to find the right answer. Now, I don't understand why D is the right answer. Can someone please help me?

Cheers!

Hello,

I am unable to understand lines 28-36.

I cannot understand what the author means by concentrating its resources on areas brought inadvertently within the scope. What does he mean by concentrating resources? Does he mean that he would enforce the law on those for whom it wasn't intended? Or does he mean that the agency would spend resources to avoid prosecuting innocent people who were inadvertently brought within the scope of the law?

I'm unsure if the author is saying that capricious enforcement seems unlikely or something else is unlikely.

Thank you so much.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-1-passage-4-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-1-passage-4-questions/