Hey guys,

I'm having a bit of a hard time understanding how "yet" functions in this MP question.

I guess my question is in the context of this question how does yet function differently than although?

Any help is much appreciated.

Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-4-question-25/

So I have always had really good memory - which has not helped me on the LSAT but I digress - and I haven't been fool proofing for very long but I do notice that when I fool proof a game I have a tendency to remember what the answers were for certain games even when I am doing a game a week later. I know for fool proofing you're really supposed to focus on memorizing the inferences but my brain can't help it, even after waiting and entire week my brain will still remind me of the correct answer choice and it's making it really difficult to focus on memorizing inferences. Any suggestions?

I'll say Mar 2nd.

I havent applied to schools yet and I want to apply for Aug 2018. justttt want the results to be out. I cant wait to apply after that and see how many points did i increase after bringing 7sage to my life.

Ouch! According to Dave K.

I understand that (c) is a better answer choice than (b), but I couldn't rule (b) out either. Isn't the direction of public policy out of scope with regards to the stimulus? Is there something in the passage that I am missing here? Many thanks in advance!

Admin note: edited title

Seeing that scores are probably gonna be released this week, I have to mentally prepare to see my score ( which might be terrible because I got like no sleep the night before from my lovely anxiety / insomnia). Anyway, I don't know about you but I'm gonna need many glasses of wine before reviewing my score. I really need to be in a state of relaxation before getting that Lsac notification. That being said, you guys have any good wine suggestions from Trader Joe's? I Don't want to spend too much, and I'm open to any type of wine.

lsat9.s2.question-16.misc

Hi, I'm working through the drills for Psets 1-9 and since there aren't videos I thinks it's a win-win for me to type up the solutions to the ones I get wrong. Would appreciate if fellow 7Sager's could ground or critique my logic.

Type: MBF

Conclusion: cannot have something legally permissible and immoral (note: they used 'inconceivable'... I'm taking a leap by making converting that to cannot. Is this ok ?)

Lawgic:

cannot group four, negate immoral and we get

Legally Permissible -> Moral

Morally wrong -> Legally impermissible

(A) Says the law does not cover all circumstances of moral wrongs. But from stimulus, if something is morally wrong then it is necessarily legally impermissible, which means that it is covered by the law. Correct MBF answer choice

(B) never group four, negate legally impermissible: Morally excusable -> legally permissible....this is saying that legally permissible acts are morally good, tricky language using the negations and word 'excusable' makes it a good trap answer choice. but definitely could be true

(C) Could be true. stimulus says nothing about gov officals

(D) Could be true. unrelated

(E) Could be true. Moral permisability has nothing to do with burdens on the economy

Admin note: edited title

We all know that for "without" "unless" "except" and "until", we're supposed to negate one of the ideas and make that the sufficient.

"I will not get a scholarship without studying" = No study -> No scholarship

But there are situations where that translation method seems clearly incorrect. For example:

"I sleep without wearing a shirt."

Does this mean If No Shirt -> Sleep? Clearly not, yet that's what happens if we negate "wearing a shirt" and make it the sufficient. I submit that the correct way to diagram the sentence above is:

If Sleep -> Not wearing shirt.

This is the correct meaning of the sentence, and yet it is the reverse of what the ordinary method would produce. Why does the ordinary translation method fail in this example?

Also, consider the following sentence:

"I do not sleep without wearing an eyemask."

The ordinary translation method does work for this one: If not eyemask -> No sleep.

What explains why the ordinary method fails for "I sleep without wearing a shirt" but works for "I do not sleep without wearing an eyemask"?

Also, consider these examples.

"No one will become a great physicist without going to Harvard"

No Harvard -> Not great physicist

That one is pretty straightforward, and the ordinary method works.

"One can become great lawyer without getting a 180 on the LSAT.

This one does not appear to express a conditional relationship between "great lawyer" and "180", and in fact expresses the ABSENCE of a conditional relationship -- getting a 180 is not required to be a great lawyer. But the ordinary method would have us translate this to "Not 180 -> can become great lawyer." The contrapositive of that idea is "If one cannot become a great lawyer, then one got a 180." That seems very wrong.

What explains the different ways we treat the two examples above?

Now I'm very confused about "attacking a premise"

JY mentioned that LSAT weakening answer choices never provide plausible evidence that is incompatible with the stimulus.

However, negation, denying the relationship, is actually attacking a premise.

Did I miss something?

I can get through all the quizzes and exercises but I'm having a hard time knowing why or the meaning of things I'm doing. When I look at a SA question, instinctively it makes sense and just reading the question I can normally eliminate 2-3 wrong answers and narrow it down to 2 and if I re-read the Conclusion and Premises, I can pick the right answer. However, when I try to diagram it, it turns into a cluster fuck and I feel I just wasted a bunch of time. The last questions sets, thought, I can see why doing the diagram is important.

I need to understand how to know if an Assumption Question is Sufficient or Necessary, but I still don't understand the "why" aspect if that makes sense. I just read what I'm supposed to get out of the statment and try to predict what kind of answer they are

looking for after I read the argument then I just find what fits. I'm getting about 70% correct, but its the 30% that I know I can probably get a few more if I just understood the "why's" not just the "how". I just cant seem to get the logic to click.

I'm not even sure that this question makes sense. I get the whole X------->Y J (some)A stuff, its the application I'm having problem with.

Is anyone else having a conceptual problem?

So, I've seen on here quite a few times that it is a good idea to use a sheet protector for logic games. I've been doing the same for logical reasoning and loving it (~save the trees~). When I went through the lr cc at first, I was a "starter" level 7sager. So, I missed out on anything but easy questions. Now, I upgraded and I'm going back as I begin to fool proof sequencing games (I want to have those down 100% before I move into grouping; it is also a good opportunity to delve into the tougher lr problem sets).

I've ended up doing something I haven't seen yet (though I'm sure 50 people have already had this idea and posted it) for lr. I'm not br'ing these very intensely, as my focus is purely on getting it right, not on timing (that can come later in my opinion). When I get a question wrong or am not confident in how I got it right, I watch the video explanation and then (as I've seen in other posts) cut the question out and (lightly so I can't see through the paper) write the answer on the back. Here's the actual point of this post:

Starting on Monday, I put all of the cut outs throughout the week on questions I got wrong into the plastic sleeve (be it 2, 10, or 20). On Sunday evening, I write on the sleeve the dates I am allowed to/must go back and solve all of the cut out questions I had previously gotten wrong - the following Saturday-Sunday.

So, the weekdays become days to go through new problem sets in the morning before work (I work full-time) and on the commute to and from work (for once I love MTA delays as it gives me more time to go through questions). The weeknights become the time to move forward in the cc on new topics and the weekends become time to go back and retry questions and work at them. If I don't answer a question correctly or confidently that was already a cut out, then in it goes into the next week's plastic sleeve.

Just an idea! Hoping this helps me not let any question go unattacked from the cc. I also think this is an easy way to keep up my lr even as I move into the lg portion of the curriculum.

Also would love to hear advice from other folks on this! I'm approaching lg similarly and will begin to balance this out once I wrap up the cc and move into the stage of PT and br.

Hi! I'm hoping I can get some input on how people have fool proofed the logic games in the core curriculum--this is specifically referring to the ones used as examples and the problem sets (not PTs). I have yet to start drilling PTs so the questions I get come from the game examples and problem sets from the core curriculum. How have you guys scheduled in fool proofing these games? I'm really struggling as I seem to have problems with every game (or going over the designated time) trying to get the rules, diagramming, and inferences.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-1-question-02/

As for this question, could someone please break down the argument structure for me? i'm slightly confused with the 2 sentences that both look like possible conclusions.

Hello 7sage club,

I've noticed in my last three PT's a weird pattern. When I do my first LR, I'm stuck getting -8, but then I'll do a LG section or RC in between before I do my second LR section and on that section I'll get -5, which is the lowest I've gotten on LR so far. Especially when I do RC, then do LR, it feels like running with weights(when I do RC), then running without weights (when I get to LR again). It's both encouraging that I've gotten my first -5 but also I'm wondering if this is not just a random pattern, and I should do some RC-style reading before I take a PT. Wondering if there are others that do some sort of mental startup before they do PT's or if I'm slowly going insane trying to make sense of inconsistencies.

Thanks,

L

Is it possible that you could do better on an lsat just because you understand certain topics better than others and those were the ones being tested heavily on the day of? For example, If I am good at SA and there were plenty of those tested or if I struggle with science RC passages and they weren't tested?

Is that just pure luck?

I'm curious if everyone else scratches out rules in LG after you have used up the rule creating your master game board. I think it is a good strategy EXCEPT when the occasional question arises that says to "keep all other rules," but eliminate one. At that moment, I look at the master game board and can't tell which game pieces are the result of inferences that may have been made from the rule I'm now required to abandon.

I also can't look at my simplified rule list that I condensed from the stimulus since most are sometimes scratched out. So I'm forced to translate all rules back to a condensed form again. Is the key to not scratch out? To only scratch out rules lightly? Or is there an alternative that I'm missing?

I would LOVE to hear from someone that just kills Reading Comp every time you get to a passage. What is it that you do? Have you always done well at RC or did you have to really work at it? what changes did you make?

I don’t get it. AC B looks to be necessary but not sufficient.

A->(B-most->C)

Therefore

B(-some-)D

AC B gives us C(-some-)D

Which allows us to draw: B-most->C(-some-)D

But we can’t conclude that any Bs are Ds from this conditional chain. That is an invalid argument.

I got this question right but only because B came the closest (C/D/E don't even contain the new idea which is found in the conclusion and A was intuitively wrong). Maybe I am misunderstanding the logical relationships? JY didn't mention this issue and neither does the Manhattan forum.

If we were to change the premise to C-most->B, then AC B would allow us to conclude B(-some-)D but I don't think that's the correct translation. The Manhattan forum agrees with me on this.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-4-question-22/

Admin note: edited title

Hi Guys,

In the P2 , line 25-32 , I am assuming that structure means physical properties[like homogeneous,network like,granular..etc] .

Admin edit: Please review our forum rules. Posting licensed LSAC materials is against our TOS.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-1-section-1-passage-2-passage/

My question is why cant we think that Biochemists were not interested in structure aka physical properties of the protoplasm so they stood apart from the debate(among the biochemists) over whether protoplasm is homogeneous,network-like, granular, or foamlike .

It is another way of saying that is the debate(among biochemists) didnot happen.

Then Next line meant Biochemists' interest was in the chemical nature of the protoplasm . Why cant we say both these statements were said of Biochemists? It can happen that the biochemists had a disinterest in the physical properties[structure] of protoplasm but they wanted to study chemical characteristics of protoplasm.

Please Help me out! I am in a soup.

Admin note: edited title for formatting

Hi everyone! This is my first post on here :)

I was wondering at which point in the syllabus y'all recommend incorporating the foolproof method...when we start doing full-length PTs, or earlier, at some point during the core curriculum?

Logic Games are currently my greatest challenge so I want to take the best approach from the get-go.

Thank you!

So I have a question regarding the rule used for negation ie 'All jedi use the force' is negated as 'some jedi do not use the force'.

Wouldn't 'some jedi do use the force' have the same effect, because both are inferring that if some do or don't, then the opposite must also be true and some don't or do?

Another example 'Every doctor in this hospital is qualified to work on combating the city's zombie epidemic.', isn't 'some doctors in this hospital are not qualified to work on combating the city's zombie epidemic' conveying the same information as 'some doctors in this hospital are qualified to work on combating the city's zombie epidemic' would? that if some are qualified, than others aren't. That if some aren't qualified, others are? What is the significance of the negative?

I have to say I was skeptical about the fool proofing piece of the process but it really does work! Just wanted to send along some encouragement to anyone struggling with LG. Hang in there!

So I'm about to embark on the journey of improving RC. Just for some background, I started studying in June of 2017. The bulk of my studies has gone to LG and LR. My diagnostic was just flat out bad in all sections. It's been a battle; but, I am fully committed to earning a 170, or at least extremely close. I worked my ass off for 4 years to earn a stellar GPA; I'm not about to waste those efforts because I wasn't patient enough to master this test. I started out with Powerscore, but in September I FINALLY went with 7Sage. Since then I have improved with RC slightly. I'm currently sitting at a -10 in RC (yes, that is improvement). I'm only able to do 3 out of the 4 passages right now, and that is something that will change; I refuse to only do 3 out of the 4. I'm realizing that this is simply just going to take a long time, which I'm fine with. I want to make sure I'm not making huge mistakes in terms of how I invest my time, which is why I've decided to confer with some of you who might have some wise words to share. So, I'll give you an idea as to what I plan on doing for the next month (2, 3, maybe 4 months?), or however long it takes to figure RC out.

(I only have about 3 hours per weekday to do this, and 5-6 hours per day on weekends. On the easier to medium difficulty passages I can get anywhere from zero to three wrong, but it will take me 10 minutes to do this. I would say I average getting one wrong on easy and medium passages.)

First, I plan to do all the passages and questions from 1-36. If I'm already wrong on this front, please let me know. I've read just about everywhere that RC changes quite a bit in later tests. I don't want to dedicate countless hours to something if it will actually hurt me in the long run. I think that is a reasonable concern. But, I've also read that RC for the most part is similar, and doing earlier tests would be beneficial. So, basically, is doing RC 1-36 valuable for someone in my situation? Or, would my time be better spent focusing on newer tests? My guess, because I am missing so many questions, is that I need as many RC sections as I can get my hands on.

As far as my methods, I plan on doing each passage three times. The first time will be timed, and in the beginning of my studies I will use the memory method, although I've already experienced with this quite a bit and haven't seen too much improvement, but I haven't ruled it out yet. The second attempt will be traditional BR - no worries with time, just accuracy. Then I will look to see which ones I got wrong, then watch video explanations for the passage and the questions. I also will be writing out explanations for questions that I got wrong on the first attempt and/or during BR. The third attempt will be similar to fool proofing. I just feel that I need to be training my brain how fast it will have to be processing the information from the passage and the questions. At the end of the week, I will review and maybe even redo any passages and questions that tripped me up substantially. I'm also considering having a "redo date" for each one, similar to one of the LG fool proofing methods that I've seen floating around the forums here. I'm aware that RC cannot be fool proofed in a sense that is analogous to that of LG. If RC could be fool proofed to the extent that LG can, RC wouldn't be as hard as it is.

In doing all of this, I feel that I would be getting the most out of each passage and its questions. But, I'm not totally positive. I could very well be wrong in using this method. Of course, I'll be looking for patterns in passages, questions, and things I get tripped up on. I will also be keeping track of my performance on each passage and its questions.

Do you think this method has potential to help? Or, is it overkill or maybe not enough?

Thanks!

I was going through PT 47 and wanted some clarification on phrases.

Section 1 Q23 of PT47 uses the phrase "accompanied by" and this indicates positive correlation.

However, in section 3 of the same test Q19 uses the phrase "associated with" and this indicates causation. Links below for the two questions.

For most phrases I find it easy to determine if it is causation or correlation, but this seemed really arbitrary. Are there other similar phrases you have found to be confusing or can someone provide insight?

Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-3-question-19/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-1-question-23/