Discussions

LSAT

New post

206 posts in the last 30 days

I am having so much trouble getting more than half of In/Out game questions right. I have a moderate grasp on conditional rules and when they trigger or fail, but I’m so slow at In/Out games because I can’t set the rules up well because I get thrown off by “not both” rules. I’m taking the December 2 LSAT, so I don’t have time to pay for and go through the course on here. Any advice on how to nail this type of game?

0

Typically I go -2 to -0 on LG, -4-5 on LR, and -2-5 on each LR. Right now my schedule looks like this:

Sunday: 1 LR & LG timed section; BR

Monday: 1 LR& RC timed section; BR

Tuesday: 1 LR & LG timed section; BR

Wednesday: Full PT; BR

Thursday: 1 LR & RC timed section; BR

Friday: 1 LR & LG timed section; BR

Saturday: Full PT; BR

I'm also a full time student with a part time job, so I probably miss one day a week, but I kinda see that as a mental day off tbh. For those of you who have made the 170 jump, do you remember when it clicked? If you had been doing anything specific?

5

Hi guys!

So usually I'm pretty good at timing but for some reason today I was off. How can you tell if you're spending too much time on a game? I'm usually good at telling if I'm spending too much time on a specific problem but I'm asking for a game in general. How much time is recommended for a harder game?

Thanks in advanced!

0

Hi I was just wondering if someone could clear this up for me, because this confusion cost me quite a few points on in-out games, by making me hesitate

Example rules:

(1) K (----) /M

(2) K ----> /M

(1) would be a bi-conditional (always apart never together) and (2) would be a typical not-both rule.

My confusion centers around what would happen if given the premise K is out ( /K )...

The second rule would be considered irrelevant (sufficient failed), and "M" is free to float (correct me on this if I'm wrong); but would the first rule get "triggered" (meaning M would be in) because its an always apart never together bi-conditional?OR would the bi-conditional also be considered irrelevant because the sufficient condition is also getting failed in (1)? I'm hoping somebody could explain the logic behind how/what happens. I mean in the explanation videos JY usually splits the master game board if provided with a rule like (1) where K is in and M is out on one, and vice versa on the other, so you never have to really deal with the situation I've presented, since its already represented.

I guess I'm just curious lol

1

I’m taking the December LSAT and I’ve been scoring from 167-174 on my PTs. It’s a pretty wide range, so I’m hoping to get results that are more consistently in the 170s. What’s a realistic goal for improving my score in time for the LSAT? What should I be doing? I work full time, but I could take time off if that would make a difference in my score.

0

I have neglected logic games for a while now thinking I was good to go and focused all my attention on LR (which btw I have seen hardly any improvement)...

Is there any way I can achieve -0 by December test?

Right now I am fool-proofing the CC LG problem sets.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

0

Hey 7sagers,

I have started to focus on doing individual untimed/timed sections and question type drilling to tackle Logical Reasoning.

I've saved PT 50~80+ for full time PT's and dedicated PT 1~49 for drilling (QT+ Sections). More specifically, I have designated PT 1~20 for question type drilling and PT 21~49 for section drills.

I'm wondering if this is similar to how you guys are drilling LR.

If possible, could you also share at which point (after how many section drills/QT drills) you started to see improvement in the section?

I'm unsure how many sections I should be doing per week to gain stamina and develop a sense to do well on LR.

any help is appreciated!

Thank you!

0

I took the test in Sept. and I have been able to narrow down the parts of the test that I struggled on. I struggled on the necessary assumptions and the sufficient assumptions on both the practice and real test. I have gone through all of the videos and looked through multiple articles to try to figure out exactly what I am doing wrong and I can't figure it out. It is like when I follow along with JY, I understand perfectly, but when I am doing the questions myself, I never figure it out like he does. Can anyone offer any hints, or articles online that might clear up the situation for me? I would really appreciate it.

0

Hey everyone,

Can anyone explain the difference between the main point of a passage and a passage's purpose?

I understand that the passage's purpose answers the question "Why is the author writing this?" but to me, the answer to that question seems to be the main point.

For example, if a passage is about how new scientific research techniques have allowed us to definitively conclude that climate change is real, the answer to "why is the author writing this?" would be "to tell me how new scientific research techniques have allowed us to conclude that climate change is real." That would imply that main point and purpose are more or less the same, so I feel like I'm thinking about this wrong.

Thanks!!

0

This is for assumption family questions (flaw, na, sa, psa)

I see the conclusion. I see the support. But even for the easiest questions (as in one of the 0-12ish), I still can't go into the answer choices with an idea of what the a/c should be. The passages usually look right, but I know it's not perfect and there's a missing link/connection, there is an assumption the author is making. I try to make a prediction, but I end up not finding one I am confident in and I move on to the a/c. Once I go through the a/c's I usually can get the right answer. But within that time, I am losing a lot of precious time that I know can be used to 1. finish the entire section (usually 5 that I don't finish) and then 2. not rushing the 15+ questions, which are usually the more complex ones. I know that another problem with this is my mind wanders a lot still, leading me to re-read a lot.

Other than just keep drilling and keep practicing, any strategies on predictions? Memory retention? Or is there something I wrote in this post that seems worrying? Please point it out.

Thanks!

0

So I came across a discussion and someone mentioned that for weakening questions he/she uses this strategy from time to time: negate the conclusion and then find the answer choice that supports that conclusion.

I mean there's more probably to this so maybe someone can explain this a little bit better but I honestly can say this works.

It has helped me find the correct answer choice much easier for more harder weakening questions.

Thought I would share for some of those having trouble with weakening questions.

Has anyone else experienced this or used this strategy?

0

So the title of the discussion is gigantic but it summarizes it pretty accurately. I ask because during the 40's and 50's PTs, I was essentially scanning them just to get a sense of what to expect and whether I had to focus perhaps on a specific point of view or paragraph and I would also make a mark on sentences that are asked. For these PTs, I would get -1/-4 consistently and now that I am with the 60s and 70s PTs, the RC is just destroying me. Sometimes I do what I mentioned above with some success and sometimes I don't. Just wanted to get a sense of what people do here, especially of course if you are super successful with the RC passages. Maybe it all boils down to the RC passages becoming more and more difficult over the years, I don't know! Thanks!

0

I'm a bit confused with the wording in the right answer choice-

This is how I worked on this question, please let me know if there is a different way for getting this question right -

1980 (A) GDP = 10,000

1980 ( EEC) GDP = 5000

1990 (A) GDP =11,000

1990 (EEC) GDP = 5000

OR

1990 (A) GDP= 10,000

1990 (EEC) GDP= 4000

I chose D through POC but still a bit unclear on the math!

Thanks in advance

0

Hello fellow 7sagers,

I have been struggling with SA questions. I can't seem to translate the stimulus into the valid argument form. I can draw the connections once I have translated it correctly but I often struggle just to translate the ideas. I have the argument forms memorized but now it just comes to the translation of the stimulus.

I am writing in December.

Any tips?

0

So this is my first time posting and not sure how much background I should give lol

I’ve taken the LSAT once in September 2016 and I had only been studying for about 2 months and I also got really nervous and during the exam I kept changing my answers, and I got a 149.

I took a break from studying after that and started re studying in July 2017 and I signed up for the September exam but I hadn’t scored during my PTs in the 160s so I withdrew and signed up for the December LSAT. And right now my average is 157.7 for 28 PTs, my goal is to score 165 and the highest I’ve scored so far is a 163 one time, two weeks ago on PT 31. I'm not sure if I should just take the December LSAT and hope I get in the 160s and apply this cycle (my goal is to get into a T14 law school) or if I should take the February one since everything is kinda still fresh in my head and use that score to be really early for next cycle.

I'm just so conflicted because the last two months all of my BR are 170 and above, I even got a 179 on one ?

I would really appreciate any advice! Thanks in advance!

0

I'm currently working through the CC right now and I just finished the lesson on grouping games with a chart. I'm understanding the concepts alright but when it comes to application, I'm having trouble. My biggest question is... How do I know when to just do regular grouping and when to use a chart? Thanks in advance!

0

Hi all I am a bit confused about the sufficient and necessary condition for (C).

According to JY, (C) should be interpreted as "no[Physically addictive --> psychoactive]" , but shouldn't the relative clause "to which people can become physically addicted" introduce the necessary condition to make the argument no[psychoactive --> physically active]? Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-1-question-11/

0

I know this sounds counter intuitive as this method seems to be dedicated toward LG but this was my thought process.

I attended the recent webinars (AMA) and everyone seems to say that I should fool proof RC because it would help in increasing your score. So I took their advice and now I’m fool proofing an entire RC section every day for all the PT’s that I’ve taken so far.

So their recommended method was to

  • Write a brief summary of each paragraph,

  • Write the main point of the passage,

  • Write the attitude of the individuals within the passage (ex. Author, some people, crazy philosopher, overqualified chemist,

    • Gustavo Fring etc.),

  • Write the structure of the passage,

  • Repeat for all the passages in that section.

    • Do you think there is something I’m missing out in this process?

    Anything I should add to ensure my fool proofing method is good?

    Any advice would be welcome at this point because RC is a real roller coaster for me (-10 ~ -3)

    Thank you!

    4

    Hi everyone,

    I'm just wondering if anyone has any advice, resources or recommendations on how to sharpen one's skills at recognizing valid / invalid argument forms in the LR sections. I know there is lots about this is in the core curriculum but it's mainly within the context of formal diagramming lawgic-type methods. I feel like this is giving me trouble in Flaw, NA/SA/PSA question types which are my worst along with Strengthen and Weakening questions. I can actually get Parallel Method of Reasoning (Flaw and Regular) questions because of how basic the structures tend to be, but usually only in blind review. I'm basically terrible at every type of question that involves being critical about and analyzing the merits of an abstract argument :( Any help would be appreciated!

    0

    Confirm action

    Are you sure?