I'm getting between -4 and -7 on the more recent RC, and I'm wondering how I should review these sections, and what I should be doing differently. I read for the organization/structure and take note of author attitude/opinion, and main points. I also underline names and key words.

I'm not sure what else I can do in the allotted time. Do people quickly skim the questions first to get a sense of what to look for, or is this generally pointless?

Hi Everyone. I am a PhD student in biomedical and I will defend my PhD in 3-4 months. I took the September exam and ended up with 137. I had some practice but not much. Since then I had no more attempt and completely gave up. I do better at Games and worse at RC. The problem is, I have to translate it in my mind and the time is not sufficient for that.

Do you think I can get 160+ for next June if I keep practicing and what is your main advice to me?

Thanks

Hi guys,

Hope everyone is having a great Thanksgiving break!

I just had a quick question on Causation arguments. I know there are several ways to weaken a correlation/coincidence - causation arguments - providing a common cause that produced both the cause and the effect, showing the relationship is reversed, showing there is a problem with the sample data used, and providing alternate/competing cause.

My question is when stimulus gives a single coincidence (as opposed to correlation) as the support for causal conclusion, would it be safe to assume the answer will most likely be providing alternate/competing cause? I think I came across this concept in one of JY's videos on causations and I don't think I recall any question with coincidence-causation arguments of which the correct answer was not an alternate cause?

What do you guys think??

Thanks.

Hi Everyone-

Do you know where/how we can access resources to RCs with the two mini-passages (passages A and B)? They seem to be more common on the more recent prep tests, however, I was wondering if they are, in fact, available on 7 Sage? Also, Is there a specific instructional video JY has made on this topic (that I am overlooking in the course syllabus)?

Finally, if the answer is no to both these questions, does anyone know of a solid outside resources that can help with this RC problem?

Hi everyone,

I am stumbling upon this concept on this lesson https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/4-possible-explanations/

Correlation implies causation but, according to logic and lawgic, causation DOES NOT imply correlation. To my understanding, this lesson is telling me a completely different story and I cannot see the nuance. How is it possible that if A causes B, B can cause A???

Thanks very much!

Hello,

As we all know, matching the formal elements in answer choices to the stimulus is a good way to find the correct answer on Parallel type questions. However, on this question, only the flaw matches and but the formal elements don't, in particular the certainty of the conclusion. In the stimulus, the conclusion states "probably did not" and the correct answer states "we will be unable."

I am curious if anyone else has come across questions like this and how often they come up.

Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-76-section-2-question-21/

Hi Everyone

So I have been cramming in LG sections lately to some rather good results. The first I only had -6, but I realized I selected the right AC on the test but not the paper/scantron (which I will be more careful from here on out). I'd be -2/-3 without it. I averaged -2/-3 on the rest of the LGs I took.

I took them originally a few months ago and only redid them each a couple times three months ago. If I'm doing good now and BRing my circled Qs keeps me at that range or better, is it because I did them before or because I make good inferences now?

Nate

I just wanted to bring it to people's attention who may have not gotten to the later PTs, that for the first question of logic games (The one usually involving a standard check of the rules) JY has been eliminating answer choices when he reads each part of the stimulus. This is a change from the earlier PTs, but I really like this, because there are times where you forget a rule and search frantically for the rule you forgot. I would highly suggest transitioning to this method, I think it will speed up your time and accuracy for logic games!

The flaw is very apparent, however the wording in this confused me. Whats the best way to parse out the answer choices under timed conditions?

So I 100% understand why A is the correct answer. I don't need an explanation on that.

I need an explanation on how answer choice C, when negated, does not destroy our argument.

P1: Government polices have significantly increased consumer demand for fuel.

P2: Result of increased demand the prices of gas have risen.

C: There is not doubt that the government is responsible for the increased cost of gasoline.

Answer choice C: Consumer demand cannot increase without causing gasoline prices to increase.

Negated: Consumer demand CAN increase without causing gasoline prices to increase.

Okay, so if we place the negated version of AC C into the argument doesn't it fall apart?

If consumer demand can increase without causing gas prices to increase. Then the government policy that increased the consumer demand is not necessarily responsible for the increased cost of gasoline. So his conclusion that there "is no doubt" is completely screwed right?

What am I missing, I feel like it should be obvious but it is not.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-3-question-22/

Hi guys,

So with about 9 days to go until the Dec 2nd Lsat, definitely looking for some advice regarding how to approach this last stretch. Context: I did a PT on Tuesday and finished reviewing today. The plan as of now is to do PT's tomorrow, Saturday, Monday & Wednesday. Then use Thursday as a logic game drill day to get as much final practice on games as I can. Finishing off with Friday maybe doing a few timed LR, LG or RC problems just to maintain the mindset. My concern is what if I'm not using my time wisely? or possibly burning out before the test. The PT's I have set aside to take are 78, 79, 80 & 82. Don't know if I should change up the PT schedule, maybe drop 1 or drop 2? Use them as timed sections instead. Any advice on structuring the study plan for the final stretch, advice regarding the sections or advice on what I can do to make sure I use these last 9 days as effectively as possible to maximize my score, would be much appreciated. Feel free to lay out a study plan you think will work best. Drills, timed sections, pt's etc.

Stats

Avg PT Score: 165

PT's Since Mid-Sept: 15

Avg per Section: LR - 45 RC - 19/20 LG -16/17 (although whenever I hit 165, LR is 46/47 or RC is 22 etc)

I was BR-ing but it took way too much time while working full-time, so I started just reviewing normally and trying to see why the answers were wrong and why they were right. Don't see how I'd be able to BR the legit way if I do a PT every other day as intended in my study plan.

RC, honestly is my most understudied section. My approach is really just reading each para and answering the relevant questions and continuing through the passage this way and answer any remaining questions, if any. I've tried other methods such as breaking down the passaging, writing notes, reading the whole passage then going to questions and vice versa. The current approach has had a more consistent result so I've been going with that. I doubt changing the approach and trying to learn a new one would be wise at this point. Any tips/advice would be great though. I am always rushing one passage (comparative which I save for last) in the 5min warning if I get to it, If I don't I guess and somehow score the same. RC errors are spread out across the passages, 1-2 per usually when I do get to all of them.

The LG scores are mainly due to timing issues, I almost always only get to 3 games. I rarely get time to get to the fourth game. I want to focus on getting as much LG practice as it's the section where typically most people can make gains.

Can't wait until I never have to look at or solve another logic game, RC or a LR set in a timed setting ever again. :)

With only days before the December test... I am struggling to improve RC.

I have tried every possible strategy to improve my timing on this section and it ranges from -11 to -15 and sometimes -9.

What can I do at this point to increase my RC score? The struggle is real guys... I would like to score min. 18 on this section by test day.

Hi guys,

I am having trouble understanding JY's reasoning behind choosing correct answers in the above problems.

PT73.4.19 is a necessary assumption question and PT34.2.2 is a sufficient assumption question, and their premise - conclusion reasoning is essentially identical:

We should do A, so the author concludes that we should do B.

In PT34.2.2, the correct answer was (E), which says A -> B.

However in PT73.4.19, the correct answer was (B), which says, B helps A, which kind of sounds like the typical reversal answer choice. I understand how the correct answer choice was necessary for the argument to make sense, but if (B) said A helps B, would this be incorrect answer choice?

On a side note, how should I approach a conditional statement containing the word, "do"?

In PT34.2.2, JY draws a conditional diagram using "Do it," because the stimulus says "the city should always do what makes good economic sense," whereas in PT73.4.19 JY does not, even though the stimulus says "we must do what we can to prevent this loss of motivation." I understand either approach can lead to choosing the correct answer, but what should be the rule of thumb?

Any help would be appreciated.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this question. I originally chose (C) thinking that it would close the gap between premises and conclusion, but realize now that it doesn't address the issue of cost. Can someone please provide a number example and corresponding explanation for (D)? Thanks!!

What is the best way to approach these types of questions? I'm not completely sure how I should think about them.

Hi all! I'm taking the December LSAT, although a bit behind on studying, especially for LGs. Right now, I'm spending basically all my time FP-ing LGs and slowly adding in news ones. But I'm concerned that I won't have exposed myself to enough overall LGs to be able to deploy my skills when faced with new LG scenarios on the test. Do y'all think I should keep doing this or focus more on taking timed sections and new LGs in order to get the best LG score?

Thanks for any/all advice!

Hi everyone!

I have been studying since June and took the test in September and scored a 163. My test was not disclosed (Irma makeup) but I felt like I did the worst on the LG because I had a bit of an anxiety attack during the section and had to guess on the entire last game. I have been foolproofing games nonstop (doing at least a section a day) since I received my score. I have also

done the LG curriculum twice. Because of this, I have seen my accuracy go up--I can get minus zero on any section during blind review, and I understand LG patterns/inferences a lot better now--but I have yet to see a significant improvement when it comes to speed. I am still going about two minutes over the target time for the medium/harder games.

If anyone has any personal tips/tricks they used to get faster with games, please share! I am looking to really cut down time in the next 11 days and am really open to any suggestions!!

Thank you so much in advance!

For those getting -0 in LG, would you have any advice for strategies during timed conditions? How did you finally make it to -0 in the whole section? Do you get -0 during timed conditions as well? If so, what do you think it was that finally got you there? When studying, I do a lot of drilling and fool proofing, but I still feel like there are so many points left on the table. Thank you!

Hey everyone!

I wanted to hear your advice regarding study plans for the last few days. Honestly, I feel I am a little burned out. I've been studying like crazy for the past 6 months (while working full time). I hit rock bottom about three weeks ago when I went from scoring 164 to 155 in a span of 1 week, and just got like crazy depressed. I've been working on chilling and slowing the pace lately, so that I don't feel burned out by the time of the test, and it has worked so far, I'm scoring once again around the161-163 range (my goal is a 165).

Now, what do you think about not blind reviewing as thoroughly in the next weeks? I feel I am no really going to grasp new concepts in such a short time. So I wanted to take as many PTs as I can instead, to get my mindset ready for the test. My schedule would look something like this: Wednesday full PT77; Friday half PT78; Saturday full PT82; Sunday Drilling LGs; Monday half PT 79 and Wednesday full PT 81. Thursday and Friday I would just chill.

This does not mean I wouldn't BR, but I would definitely do it more selectively. For instance, I'm stuck at -6/-7 on RC since I first started studying, so I wouldn't dedicate that much time to that section. As for LR, I would definitely not spend 20 to 25 minutes thinking about a tough question.

Do you think this is a good approach? If not, what do you recommend?

Thanks in advance!

Joining in the chorus of people who are gearing up for December 2nd! Here's where I'm at right now:

PT scores 165-167

BR scores 177-180

Average per section around -4 each LR, -3 for LG, and (gulp) -6 to -8 or so in RC.

Obviously RC is my biggest weakness, but don't think I could get significantly better in that during the next 2 weeks. My biggest problem with LG is speed (I rarely answer incorrectly, just run out of time before getting to the last few questions).

Speed is a factor in RC as well, usually hit the 5 minute warning right as I turn the page to the last passage. Also inferring perspective questions, ughhhh. Probably 95% of the RC questions I get wrong (but did have time to answer) were inferring perspective questions.

Thoughts? Drill drill drill LG to try to improve speed? Drill LR to try to push that even a bit higher? Try to tackle RC?

Thanks!

So I have done just a few PT's now and I keep getting 145s. I miss early questions in LR that I am trying to fine tune and I miss about 8 to 10 questions in LG and I am missing about 16 in RC. Currently I am working on improving RC and making sure I can get a couple more questions on LR since I think that is easier for me to improve on than some of the other sections. Does anyone think that this could be possible? I have been working really hard and I keep getting stuck at this score, I just need a 150 to get automatic admission in my 3+3 program.

So I've been getting pretty low scores on my PT's before BR, but my BR scores are significantly higher: 10+ points. Clearly, I grasp most of the material. It seems I just am having trouble executing under timed conditions. How should I study for the next 2 weeks before the December test?

Hey guy's, are there any especially difficult or abnormal games that you've come across from PTs 60/70 to Present?

This is for the Ultimate and Ultimate+ers out there. I wish I could provide the link, but I don't have access to it...

Here's the deal. Sentence 1 we're given the context. Sentences 2 and 3 we're given separate conditional relationships.

I fell for trap answer (D), knowing fully well it was the "oldest trick in the book" (i.e. switching sufficient and necessary conditions), but still believing it was MSS. I knew it was weak, and I gave (B) -- the accredited response -- another look-over before committing to my answer, ultimately rejecting (B) because I felt like the conditional relationship from sentence 3 did not suggest unique use of plants.

(B): the people in question used plants in a unique way at the time

Sentence 2's conditional: If plants were cultivated --> the people discovered agriculture before anyone else

(yes, this would be unique)

Sentence 3's conditional: If plants were uncultivated --> the people ate a wider variety of plants than did any other people at the time

(unique? questionable...)

Here's my issue with sentence 3's conditional and thus its support for (B) -- let's say there's 5 different plants. In the whole world. 5 plants. Let's say the people in question ate 4/5 of those plants and everyone else in the world ate 1/5 of those plants. However, in my "LSAT bubble" brain, I did not conflate this scenario with saying that, of the people around the world eating 1/5 plants, none of them altogether ever ate any one of the 4/5 plants these people ate (e.g. the people in question ate plants 1, 2, 3, and 4; another group ate plant 1; another group ate plant 2; another 3; another 4; heck, another group ate 5, the elusive plant that the people in question did not have).

Thus, (B) would not be true. Granted, this is a MSS question, which means that I have incorrectly gauged the plausibility of (B) and (D) by assuming (D) is more likely in my thought experiment. My question, above simply "why is (B) the right answer" (which is still at the heart of my question), is why is (D) wrong? Are all answer choices for MSS questions that flip sufficient and necessary conditions traps? Or does the context make (D) wrong in this case?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-69-section-4-question-09/

Hi there,

Does anyone have any tips on how to answer an LR question that has a passage that you simply can't understand? This happens infrequently, but it is quite troubling for me when it does happen. When this happens, I will know how to attack the question (according to the question stem) using the strategies learned from the 7sage CC, but if I don't understand what the argument is, I obviously will be unable to use this strategy properly.

Should I just guess on these questions and move on?

Thanks,

Michael Elliott