Hi everyone!

I was wondering if someone could share their understanding of this question. I was able to eliminate B, D, and E very quickly, but got tied up between A and C and ended up picking C. I can see why A is a good answer, but I'm having a harder time seeing why C is definitively wrong.

To me, the stimulus seems like it's saying that the equipment was not available during the review period. Thus adding the equipment will have no effect. I mean, I guess the stimulus doesn't explicitly say that the absence of equipment caused the result, but it seems sort of implied?

Totally dropped the ball on both of these. Help?

For Q4: I thought D was totally wrong and I was completely sure of it because I thought to myself, "How could we possibly know what's in the best interest for the military?" I fell for answers A, C (second choice).

For Q21: I had no idea that "some" came into the mix; totally out of left field.I picked A even though I knew it made no sense. It just made the most sense.

(Warning: Spoiler aler... t?)

In an ideal world, each of us would treat each RC passage equally. No passage (type) would be preferred over another; all LSAT candidates from different backgrounds would embrace all passages with same curiosity, eagerness, and love. Reality, alas, proves otherwise. One person might hate a specific passage type because he or she finds its subject matter boring or daunting; another might not like a specific passage because the passage was just too hard; still another might dislike a specific passage because there was that one brutal question that affected his or her performance on the rest of the section, along with many others'.

What the title says. Which RC passage(s) haunts you to this date? I do not like the passages on Roy Lichtenstein (the pop artist who used elements from comic books) and Eileen Gray (the architect who used lacquer). I just don't get art except music, but art passages can be quite interesting - passages on Noguchi (the Japanese American sculptor who created the "negative light" sculpture), Cameron (cheesy photography), Schoenberg (and his three-stage musical development), and perfume ("Perfumes are art too!"), for instance. I did not like those two, however. Especially Eileen Gray.

I know I’m gonna feel like an idiot when this is explained, however, right now I feel like an even bigger idiot because the correct AC (B), is really confusing me. If there is much less methane in Earth’s atmosphere today than there was 3billion years ago, then less greenhouse gas equals less heat trapped, and therefore, cooler climate today than 3billion years ago. This appears to strengthen rather than weaken the argument. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME WITH MY CONFUSION?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-59-section-2-question-25/

Admin note: edited title

So I'm posting here in part to rant, and in part in hopes that someone on the forum has had a similar situation and can offer some advice.

As you might ascertain from the title, this GoodValue™-Soduko of a section is the bane of my existence at this point. On my diagnostic, I started with a -20+. I had no clue how to solve any of the questions. After studying diagramming and using the 7sage CC, I was able to bring it down to -15 to -10, but I cannot seem to break above that plateau. I've been studying for a little longer than a year now, and I've made significant progress in both RC and LR, but LG just won't budge. This is especially frustrating because almost everyone on the forum says that LG is the easiest area to improve -- it just makes me feel stupid every time I go -15+ on a PT.

For the past month I've been foolproofing games, 6-8 hours a day, but I'm not seeing any progress. I've FP'd all the games from PTs 1-12, 35-40, and 60,61,62. When I foolproof, I do the games until I'm -0 and under time on day 1, then I do the same the next day, and then I wait a week and attempt it again. Only when I can get -0 and under time under all three scenarios do I discard the game. So far I haven't had any problems -- I'm able to remember the inferences and complete the game under timed conditions even after 1 week of not seeing the game.

The problem is, I feel that every single time I take a PT or a timed section, the test writers do something that I've never seen before, and I just don't have the intuition to handle the twist. If they give me an unfamiliar rule, I almost invariably represent it inefficiently and make false inferences, flunking the game. If it's a miscellaneous game, I'll almost invariably set the game board up incorrectly -- tanking the game. For example (Spoiler regarding PT61), on PT61 S3 G1, I didn't realize that the two groups were interchangeable (I had never seen this before) so I didn't split, tried to brute force and went way over time and flunked the game.

At this point, it seems inevitable that I'll choke when it comes to the real exam. This is especially frustrating because of how much time I've spent studying my other sections. I'm currently averaging -1.5 per LR section, -1 per RC section, and -12 per LG section. It took me hundreds of hours of study to get LR and RC to where they are, and it feels as though this damn LG section is just destroying that progress.

Has anyone else been in a similar situation and broken out of the rut? I apologize if the post sounds overly negative, but I just feel so defeated by this section. I would appreciate any advice or encouragement that ya'll could give, because I sure need it.

I just spent more than an hour studying and trying to understand the passage about riddled basins. I think i got it but what was LSAC thinking when they allowed this to be published. It is such an intricate passage and the questions ask for an actual understanding of what riddled basins are, not just testing our ability to understand reasoning structure

Ok so I feel as though I am interchanging methods of finding the answer for each of these questions. They're so similar to me and its starting to give me a headache. Can someone lay out in layman's terms how to approach these question types? These are the types I'm having trouble with and MBT are supposed to be freebies. Also is there a chart somewhere that outlines how often each question type appears on the LSAT?

Is there a PDF or print out with all of the valid argument types togther on one page? Am I just not looking hard enough? Thanks!

When doing this question I realize the gap between Wisdom of the masses and Artwork. But after becoming impatient I guess and chose E and moved on. I looked over my diagramming and did the question a second time and got D, I noticed that it was a little off and was hoping someone could walk me through this with a diagram, so I can compare it to mine and figure out how B is the right answer?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-58-section-4-question-19/

Admin note: edited title

Hey all,

This may be a stupid question because I haven't started on practice tests yet (except for my diagnostic) but I'm currently going through logic games in the CC and I was wondering if there's some sort of consistent ratio of hard to easy logic games in the 4 games on the actual test. Is it possible that you'd sit down on test day and get 4 easy games, 4 really hard games, 4 medium games, etc. or do they strive for some sort of even breakdown? Thank you!

"Although bacteria are unicellular."

I earned a 3/6 on BR on this one. I usually go -1 or -2 on entire RC section while BRing, let alone -3 for one passage.

I had issues with number 16 (after looking it over, I understand why/how I got this one wrong). I originally chose the correct answer when I did it cold, which is frustrating. But, I at the very least get what happened.

However, numbers 17 and 20 are really throwing me for a loop.

Number 17's correct AC is E. My BR was C. I can see as to why E would be sufficient for the bacteria to navigate away from the harmful substance. But, the Q-stem asks for what would "increase the likelihood" of it getting away from the area that is concentrated with the bad stuff. I'm having a hard time seeing why B would not be a better means of the bacteria leaving the bad concentration. The passage seems to imply that bacteria moving towards something it wants in a straight line is a viable means of moving, and it seems reasonable to assume that moving in a straight line is better than just tumbling away from the bad concentration, which is what E states. I guess what is really confusing me is that the passage never says anything about harmful concentration and what bacteria does when it encounters it, and that E ultimately requires us to assume that a bacteria's means of leaving the bad stuff is analogous to how it would leave an attractant, such as food and light. Is it fair to assume such a thing?

When I was BRing I was wrestling between these two ACs.

Number 20

Another question where I was battling between two ACs - I BR'd C and the correct AC is B. The two answer choices seem very close when I consider them. Upon review the only thing that I can find that disproves C is that it uses the word "flaws" when there is only one flaw, or one thing wrong with one of the proposed theories; that there is evidence proving it wrong. I feel like there is more to it than just that, though.

Honestly, any extra insight will help. This was one of those passages where, after finishing it, I felt like I knew it pretty well, but realized that was not the case upon taking on the questions.

Admin note: edited title for formatting

Hey guys, I just finished the LR section of the core curriculum which has always been my weakest. I took a slow approach and revisited lessons multiple times to make sure I'm actually absorbing everything and not on auto-pilot. I'm starting the LG section and I'm thinking that I should do one section of LR a week and BR it while going through the rest of the curriculum. Would you guys reccommend I do this timed, untimed, or a mix?

I used to never really struggle too hard with PSA/SA. Pretty easy to identify the P --> C gap in the ACs. As I've moved onto the newer exams, I'm finding myself missing points on the harder 4/5-level PSA/SA questions. JY has referenced in the videos that the newer exams do require more mental massaging with SA qs especially. I spent some time drilling SA q's from PT 36-58, but still ended up struggling with difficult PSA/SA qs on PT 60.

I'm going for the choices that somewhat match my predetermined P-->C gap. But the issue here, is under time pressure, I go for the AC that has some of the buzzwords aka is only partially right, and unfortunately end up inviting parts of the answer choice that make it completely wrong. In the process, I end up eliminating AC's that are subtle/don't match my prephase, aka are not the formulaic AC's I typically expect.

I'm wondering now if I need to adopt a new PSA/SA methodology... aka be less dependent on the typical identify the P-->C gap. Asking if anyone has noticed this trend as well and how they dealt with it? Did you change your approach to these questions? Do you still depend on the diagram? How do you prephase?

Thanks!

Hello All,

I'm planning on taking the june 2018 lsat and applying to a few Canadian law schools ( I'm not looking for the highest ranking one, any one will do ). I took a PT before 7sage- scored in the 130s/140 range. After taking the course I thought I would see a vast increase on my second PT. Not the case. Wondering if I didn't absorb the material well- or that I need to take more PT's. I understand the concepts, but having issues memorising all the methods/indicators ect. My gpa was high from undergrad 3.7 + .. but I'm concerned that a low lsat score will keep me from getting into law school even with a high gpa and good app. I'm aiming for the university of windsor.

QUESTIONS....

1- did anyone see a similar pattern ? Is it just a matter of taking more PT ?

2- should I prep for the june lsat and have applications for the schools or , should I not even bother unless I get a decent lsat score. the school I'm applying to avg score is 155.

3-Noticed the first choice I circled was right - second one was wrong- for majority of the questions. Clearly I am second guessing myself. Should I just do the questions faster ? or is a better method needed ?

Thank you in advance.

I am stumped by the question PT44-S4-Q7, and the following is the question:

Admin note: edited; violation of rule 4. "Do not post LSAT questions, any copyrighted content, or links to content that infringe on copyright."

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-4-question-07/

the model is: MC→E

(C→MC）

therefore, C→E

I am wondering why 'ignore their own welfare to help others' is not included in the model when explain the question?

Besides, if it is in the model, where can I put it? Can I understand 'sometimes' as 'some' then use double arrow like:

IG ←sometimes→ MC→E

therefore, C→IG

Admin note: edited title

Can anyone help me with this negation?

The sentence is: “The highest point of any volcanic ash cloud will eventually exceed an altitude of 5 km”

I negated it like this: “The highest point of any volcanic ash cloud will not eventually exceed an altitude of 5km”

I ran into trouble with this question bc I negated the answer choice wrong and it should have been negated as: “It is not the case that the highest point of any volcanic ash loud will eventually exceed an altitude of 5km”

I am having trouble seeing how these two negated sentences differ. Will using the word “not” get me into trouble? I reviewed the negation lesson and “not” was a word used to negate. I thought the meaning of negation (and from what I got from the lesson) was to say the logical opposite of something. But now I am wondering if the logical opposite means the thing you're negating can sometimes happen?

My sentence is saying that no volcanic ash cloud will exceed 5km. But the recommended negated sentence seems to mean that some volcanic ash clouds will exceed and some volcanic ash clouds won’t exceed 5km. Maybe I put the word “not” in the wrong place. If my negated sentence read “The highest point of not any volcanic ash cloud will eventually exceed an altitude of 5km” would that be right? Why?

This is from PT 83, S1, Q17.

Thanks in advance, sorry if this is super confusing but I am right there with you haha

I am currently in the phase of doing timed logical reasoning drills! Today, was my second day and my results were horrible. I feel like I have grasped the concept of all the logical reasoning question types, BUT, when I put a time to it, I feel like I have lost brain cells..... My goal is to get at least the first 10 questions in under 10 minutes or possibly start on the harder questions first.... Some encouragement and explanation please

Problem: PT 2 - S2 - #13

To simplify,

If A then, either B or C. And we were given No C. What Must Be True?

I am a bit confused... Any helps will be very much appreciated! Thank you in advance!!!!! : )

I just want to confirm that when you do the "negation" technique for NA answer choices, you take the common sense version of negation (as in pretty much just say the opposite of what the statement says). I've noticed that, even with ACs which have conditional logic, JY will negate by the common-sense negation, rather than how we learned to negate "all" statements to "some..not" statements.

i.e. I will go to the store

Negation: I will NOT go to the store.

If I go to the store, I will buy eggs.

Negation: If I go to the store, I will NOT buy eggs.

PT example:

PT.33.3.16

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/stewards-of-cultural-heritage-na-question/

JY negates the conditional statement in B.) by saying private support will become necessary. Rather than saying private support will sometimes not be unnecessary

Hello,

I was recently reviewing PT2.S2.Q2. One of the answer says "The author appeals to conscience rather than reason."

Could you give me an example when the author appeals to conscience?

Hey everyone, I’ll take all the perspectives I can get on this. I am having trouble differentiating the type of game board set-up according to the stimulus.

I have finished the CC, and getting ready to begin foolproofing. I just keep getting confused and I know the set-up is the foundation so it’s really important to get it right.

Is there any ‘standard’ way to go about setting up the board? I mean, any ‘standard’ way to tell what type of game it is from reading the stimulus??

I apologize if this is going to sound elementary.

I'm struggling with the following sections: Validity and MBT, Some and Most Relationships, and Invalid Argument forms.

Should I be making review-sheets for these sections?

Thanks.

Chuggin' Maple Syrup.

So, I have been feeling incredibly anxious with my prep. I was able to move quickly through the logical reasoning CC, because each question took less time and it didn't feel like I was learning a completely new approach to answering a question every time I hit the "next" button.

Moving into LG, I expected it to be even quicker - it is my strongest section in the (4) practice tests I've taken. However, I began and it was a slow journey. Learning each game board and how it worked made me exhausted. I just couldn't do as much in a day. My studying pace slowed down and I felt like I had stunted my progress and was falling behind. I continued to do sets of my weakest logical reasoning question types in hopes of helping out with the anxiety that began to build.

However, I'm finally feeling like it is okay I took that time. I finished the LG CC and am now fool proofing LG 1-35 (admittedly, I'm doing every other PT to help my morale of feeling like I'm doing PTs that are too old; I'll then go back once I get through the odd numbered PTs). After all of the hard work and mounted anxiety, I've been able to get my first 3 sections done with 5+ minutes to spare and -0. I'm finally feeling like taking the time I needed was worth it, versus feeling like I should've continued at a steady pace throughout the entire CC.

So, this is a both a self-congratulatory post (which I recognize and apologize for the obnoxious nature of) and a post on hopefully reminding one other studier to let the material guide your pace, not your stress or anxiety. In the end, I'm so glad I took the upfront time so that I am not bogged down spending hours early on in the fool-proof portion of my prep.

Also, let's be real, I'm sure this weekend I'll hit road bumps. But every learning is worth putting down. I've also found it helps to write these things out or share them so that you can go back and remind yourself that you felt excited enough on one day to share it with the community. So, you can do it.

Good evening 7SAGE family,

I have been studying for the LSAT for around six months. Although I've finished all CC for reading comprehension I continue to struggle in this area. My gains have been great in LG and LR, but I have only improved minimally in RC. My scores range from 155-158 with a raw score of 16-20 on RC. This has come to me as no surprise as RC is the hardest to improve, but it's still discouraging to do so poorly. Even a small gain in the raw score of reading comprehension would be huge. I am scheduled to take the June LSAT. What advice can you give to help me with this reading stagnation?

Thank you in advance

I just started the LG portion of the CC yesterday. I am brand new to logic games. As I am advancing through the CC, should I be fool proofing the games in the CC or should I wait to fool proof these games until after I'm done with the CC?