So I am watching the Webinar on Weakening and Strengthening questions and I have a questions about the first question. The first question is a strengthening question and I have typed the stimulus and answer choices below.

Stimulus: Several years ago, as a measure to reduce the population of gypsy moths, which depended on oak leaves for food, entomologists introduced into many oak forests a species of fungus that is poisonous to gypsy moth caterpillars. Since then, the population of both caterpillars and adult moths has significantly declined in those areas. Entomologists have concluded that the decline is attributable to the presence of poisonous fungus.

A. A strain of gypsy moths whose caterpillars are unaffected by the fungus has increased its share of the total gypsy population.

B. The fungus that was introduced to control the gypsy moth population is poisonous to few insect species other than the gypsy moth.

C. An increase in numbers of both gypsy moth caterpillars and gypsy moth adults followed a drop in the number of some of the species that prey on the moths.

D. In the past several years, air pollution and acid rain have been responsible for substantial decline in oak tree populations

E. The current decline in gypsy moth population in forests where the fungus was introduced is no greater than a decline that occurred concurrently in other forests. (I thought that this was the answer.)

Questions

I know that with strengthening questions you are looking for the answer choice that strengthens the argument and blocks the alternative. I am a little confused on what exactly does it mean to block the alternative. After looking at the explanation of the webinar video for this question it seems as if blocking the alternative is an answer choice that provides another alternative. Is that correct? I believe that the whole concept of "blocking the alternative" is going over my head and I would like further clarification on this strategy. In addition, can someone explain how A strengthens the argument....A does not seem like it supports thew conclusion if the conclusion is saying that the fungus contributes to the decline of moths and A is talking about that the population increased.

Can someone explain this theory? These are the notes that I have taken based off the webinar video

Strengthen: Answer choices introduce the additional areas of key similarties

Weakening: Answer choices introduce key areas of dissimilarities

" The similarity vs. dissimilarity" is throwing me off.

University Administrator: Graduate students incorrectly claim that teaching assistants should be considered university employees and thus entitled to the usual employee benefits. Granted, teaching assistants teach classes, for which they receive financial compensation. However, the sole purpose of having teaching assistants perform services for the university is to enable them to fund their education. If they were not pushing degrees here or if they could otherwise fund their education, they would not hold their teaching posts at all.

This is a weakening question.

A. The administrator is cognizant of the extra costs involved in granting employee benefits to teaching assistants.

B. The university employs adjunct instructors who receive compensation similar to that of its teaching assistants.

C. The university has proposed that in the interest of economy, 10 percent of the faculty be replaced with teaching assistants.

D. Most teaching assistants earn stipends that exceed their cost of tuition.

E. Teaching assistants work as much and hard as hard as do other university employees. ( I thought E was the answer because its proving how hard teacher assistants work so therefore they should receive other benefits but I guess I can see how the administrator never said that they did not work hard.)

Nicole said that C was the answer because they are so similar that they are interchangeable and this is where I got confused. I thought that with weakening questions you had to pick answers that were different from what the conclusion was saying. How does this answer weaken the argument. I think that I am struggling with reading the answer choices incorrectly. Are there any tips that you guys could provide that will aide me with this problem?

Hi everyone,

Whenever I take practice tests I don't actively parse out the stimulus like JY shows us in the CC. I might make a quick line or circle to note the conclusion indicator and then proceed to scan the answer choices. Is that the proper approach?

Thanks in advance!

Hey all,

i just spent 3 hours BR'ing my RC section. I would reread the passage (do low and high res summary, VIEWSTAMP, etc.), and then go over questions i circled. I would prove 1 AC right and 4 AC wrong, often with specific line references. It took 3 hours.

I usually hit around -4/5 timed and -1/2 for BR.

IS this normal? how long do you guys usually take for BR'ing RC?

Any other advice, suggestions, or comments would be appreciated :)

Thanks!

I have been drilling LR sections for a while, and I used to have a -4/-6 for LR sections in PT 18-35.

However, I began doing PT 1-16 four days ago, and I found that I now have a -1/-3 for these older PTs (I have done 6 of them so far).

Does that mean I made some improvements or are those older LR sections just easier in nature?

I haven't got to PT 36-83 yet. Could anyone please also tell me the estimated difficulties of the LR sections in those PTs (as compared to PT 1-35)?

Thanks!

Question 18 talks about the columnist and taking a strong position. I have had several people try to diagram this in conditional statements and I still don't understand 1. my task and 2. how to diagram this in conditionals, and how to get to the answer choice C. Please help

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-2-question-18/

Hello everyone,

I have been crushing it lately in Logic Games when I do timed sections/tests, but can't seem to improve at all on LR. I am thinking of going back through most of the LR curriculum, but I wanted to hear from you all on your tips and tricks to consistently get better at LR over time. I am currently averaging -14 per LR. I would truly appreciate any type of help as I am most likely going to consistently drill in my head how to get better at LR before July and most likely when I take the test again in September.

Thanks!

Whats going on 7sagers,

I wanted to get some opinions on using a wipe board to fool proof games. I know the best way to do it is on paper the way it is presented on the actual test. However printing sufficient amount of copies could get a little expensive. Has anyone used a wipe board to fool proof? Thanks for the input and good luck with the rest of studies!

Hello everyone- should we memorize the types of valid and invalid argument forms . I reviewed them from the cc but can’t seem to commit every single one to memory. What’s everyone’s take on this ?

Hello,

I just have a quick question and would appreciate anyone's comments on this. I somehow managed to go from -15 on RC sections consistently for a while to -11 and -9. I went -15 on PT 63,65,79,81,83 and went -11 and -9 on PT 76 and 78. Do you guys think PT 76 and 78 had an unusually easy set of passages??(If that's the consensus, that wouldn't be uplifting...) I mean yes PT 76 had an unusually easy set of logic games, no doubt about it... but since LG isn't as relative as RC, I would like to know whether my RC has improved or that those two RC sections were a breeze to most...

p.s_ I did notice that one passage in PT 78(that clay *hit) was very similar to the beads nonsense passage from PT 76 under timed condition.

I am open to any study, or performance ideas for my successful work with logic games. I study each day, do the games daily, and watch the videos. I have seen some improvement. However, not with my quickness to compete the games. I also seem to often created three or four boards, as opposed to possibly using two. I have cracked a 100 once on one of the games, sometimes I get 4/6. I have watched the videos repeatedly. Other than repetition, does anyone have any tips or suggestions?

I have a background in the humanities and social sciences, and my study techniques usually involve memorization of everything for any exam.

Perhaps, this is a form of test anxiety, and I am self defeating. However, any study tip would be greatly appreciated. No idea is too simple, and all advice I will take seriously. Thank you for taking the time to read my post.

I am currently drilling Main Point questions and I have come across question #3 from PT9 Section 2 and I am slightly confused. I chose "this concept of balance, however, does not justify concealing or glossing over basic injustices in an effort to be even-handed" as the main conclusion. I chose answer choice C but I am nonetheless confused as to why B is the correct answer choice.

Admin note: edited title

I'm still unclear on why I am to negate sufficient when I come across unless, or should it just introduce the necessary condition?

"K cannot be selected for honor roll, unless H is selected to honor roll."

would I take H selected and move it to the sufficient and negate it?

/H ---->/K or contrapositive K----->H

or would it simply be

K----->H right from the start and have the "unless" introduce the necessary?

Please Help!!!

I am somewhat struggling with diagramming sufficient and necessary conditions with logical reasoning. Some i can answer and some has me a little confused. Are there any tips that could help me understand this? I’m not on 7 sage core curriculum i am studying with LSATMAX, but i also have powerscore bibles and a book called the LSAT trainer that just came in. If anyone could please help me i would greatly appreciate it.

hi there! I'm curious to know where everyone scheduled to take the 9/8/18 test is in terms of studying - are you PTing? still working on the CC? drilling LGs?

I was originally scheduled to take the 7/23/18 test but realized that I wasn't likely going to be ready for it so just pushed it back to September. I'm nearly finished with the CC (finishing up LG section) and will start PTing within the next two weeks. I've been trying to follow the study scheduled generated by 7sage but I'm currently about two weeks behind, which makes me nervous. but I'm pressing forward, studying at least 4-6 hours each day.

oh, also - how do you manage LG drilling, LR and RC practice, and PTing at the same time? I was planning on PTing in the morning, BR in the afternoon/evening (3 days each week, if possible), then 3 days each week alternating between LR and RC practice with LG drilling on all 3 days. I realize this sounds like an ambitious schedule and admittedly won't be able to stick with it all of the time due to personal obligations - if you would suggest any modifications, what would they be?

I am planning on taking the September LSAT. I only began studying a few weeks ago, and have been following the study schedule provided by 7sage. However, I am most concerned with working on the logic games which is the section I struggle the most with. Does anyone know if it is necessary to follow the syllabus in the order in which the study schedule provides it? Or would I be fine skipping right to logic games?

Thanks!

I’ve been looking through many logical reasoning weaken questions and I’ve trying to look for patterns. The only one I found was correlation—> causation. I was wondering if there are any other common patterns that would be discernible in the stimulus for the questions.

Im really struggling with SA questions, does anybody have any tips to help me out?

What the title says. I'm sure each of us had at least one passage that really piqued his or her interest, found amusing for one reason or another, turned his or her life upside down, etc.

I'm not a big fan of art passages, but I really liked the passages about perfume (PT 74) and Julia Margaret Cameron's photography (PT 73). The former was quite engaging, as I have never given a thought about perfume as an art form. As for the latter, I found its descriptions about unhappy children and sloppy decors hilarious.

How can you get better at Flaw questions? I always isolate the premise(s) and the conclusion, and know that you are suppose to weaken the link between the premise and the conclusion. But a lot of times, I just don't know how/can't prephrase. So I go to the answer choices and then almost always end up picking the tricky wrong answer (i.e. descriptively accurate but is not actually the flaw). I have done this part of the CC and have completed some of the Flaw problem sets.

Author POV

Purpose of paragraphs

Rough structure

What else?

#help

I was wondering if anyone could provide/explain the general set of rules for this statement: Nothing that one should have desired in the first place fails to be a pleasure.

D: Nothing that one should have desired in the first place

P: Fails to be a pleasure

JY wrote the statements like so (/D -> P), but I was wondering if someone could help explain? I am confused why only one of the statements is negated.

I foolproofed every game from PT 19-38. Then I shifted my focus to Logical Reasoning and I've found I'm slower than I was at the height of my foolproofing. Will this speed come back if I incorporate a LG section into my prep every day? I suppose I'm worried I might regress while studying for LR and RC.

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/advanced-valid-forms-review/

We have B-most->Z which implies two inferences B-most->C and B-most->/O. When you combine B-most->Z with B-most->/P, that gives you the inference /P some Z. But can you also then take the two previous inferences, B-most->C and B-most->/O, in combination with B-most->/P to create to additional inferences, /P some C and /P some /O, respectively? If those last two inferences are not valid inferences, then why are they not? I ask because in the comments on the lesson, someone stated that you can infer /P some Z but NOT /P some C and /P some /O, which makes zero sense to me.

Hey all,

So I've been drilling RC for a few weeks. I've done all RC sections from PT's 19-47.

During my drills from PT 19-40, I was averaging around -3/4 after blind review and -6 timed.

I took the RC section from PT 47 today, and managed to get a -0 blind review (my first one ever!!!!! the closest I've ever been on my RC blind review score was a -2). My timed score for that section though was like a -7 though, and I was really struggling to finish under time.

My questions are:

I find myself often rushing at the last passage. I try to average about 3:30 for reading passages and about 5 minutes for questions.

I also try skipping strategies by skipping questions once I read through the answer choices twice and still can't choose an answer.

Any advice or suggestions is appreciated. I know there have been previous threads on this topic in general of bridging the BR/timed gap, but I'm hoping for advice tailored to RC on this topic. Thanks so much in advance - you guys rock!!