Can i get anyones take on this one, i dont really understand the argument, or the flaw

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-61-section-4-question-24/

Does anyone have suggestions for how to approach parallel method of reasoning questions under time pressure? I feel like these questions in particular take up a lot of time during a timed LSAT. Any recommendations for how to approach these questions under time pressure?

Can someone verify whether my conditional diagraming of the statement and its negation are correct? I get confused...

Not all hierarchical organizations operate in the same way: HO -> /Operate same way

Negation: HO -> Operate same way

Thank you in advance! :D

"All that is needed to save the koala is to stop deforestation"...

How would you write it as conditionality?

.

SAVE KOALA --> DEFORESTATION......? (Since ALL indicates sufficiency whereas IS indicates necessity)

.

.

I am getting confused because of this LR question where I need to pick an answer choice that contradicts the statement written above. The correct answer is "deforestation is stopped and the koala becomes extinct", which is not a negation but a contrapositive of "SAVE KOALA --> DEFORESTATION". How can it be a contradiction when it is just a mere restatement of the stimulus?

.

This is from PT2.S2.Q11

.

Thank you in advance

I diagramed the stimulus as follow:

.

Conflicting behavior organization --> More pain and distress

Conflicting behavior organization --> Animals resist --> Less efficient

.

My question is I don't understand why (E) is correct. I feel like (E) negates the sufficient condition to state the answer, which is an error.

.

Somebody please help! Thank you!!!!!

I did my first fully timed LR section today since the Sept test. I created a simplified skipping strategy...basically there were ones I knew and ones that confused me. I skipped the ones that confused me as soon as I realized I was spinning my wheels (total 4 questions). I finished the section in 25:43 (okay so sue me it's not exactly 25/25) which gave me AMPLE time to go back and address the ones I was confused on. I was able to tackle one of the 4 no problem but the other three still gave me pause. After struggling with them for roughly 10min or so I finished up and graded the section. -2 total.

My question is when you go back to the questions you skipped over in the initial 25 in 25 phase (had a rough answer but were not 100% on) how do you approach which ones you tackle first? I kind of skipped back and forth between all 4 because I was too scared to get entrenched in one and run out of time for the other 3.

Is there a method to identify which problems I should address first? Should I just go in order until I solve them and keep E bubbled for the rest if I don't get to them?

So I took an online Powerscore course from August to September in prep for the December course. Since taking the course, I've decided to push back my test date to February. I've also been foolproofing the LGs from PT 1-35 and and working on LR/LG sections. LG-taking a while but slowly seeing improvement. LR struggling much more than I want to... I inputted the past 11 PTS I've done into analytics and I'm avging -6. My analytics tells me I need to brush up on weaken/strengthen, flaw and assumption questions. I'm at this point where I'm struggling to figure out whether I should enroll in a 7sage minimum course to have access to the core curriculum re LR. Problem is I don't know how different it is from PS's curriculum seeing that I've looked at some excerpts on the 7sage blog. Is it worth it to spend more money? Or will the real improvement come from doing more PTs and BRs?

Would appreciate any and all help. Also would appreciate any tips on how others have made major improvements in LR.

Goal: To further refine my process of elimination (P.O.E.) and answering skills for LR by building a crowd-sourced taxonomy of techniques.

How you can help me (and all other 7Sages): Contribute your favorite(s) below. Be sure to mention...

Here are two examples:

EXAMPLE A:

EXAMPLE B:

The more people that reply, the better we'll all get!

Hi, all. I'm curious to get your input about how you evaluate answer choices (ACs) on LR. Specifically, comparing the pros/cons of the two strategies below. If you're a "Sage" or have strong feelings on this topic, then I'm especially interested in hearing from you.

(1) Top-to-Bottom: Regardless of question type, start with reading A, decide to eliminate or keep, then repeat D-E. Finally, after process of elimination, selecting the best one among the remaining ACs.

(2) Scan-and-Select: Depending on question type, scan the ACs for what you think might be the correct one, read and evaluate, then repeat for the remaining ACs, always going from "most likely" to be correct to "least likely".

Of course, I have my own thoughts on both approaches, but for validity's sake, I don't want to bias your opinions one way or another. Here are some more factors to consider, as well:

So, what do you all think? Do you use one strategy over another? Do you use both, but under different conditions? Thanks in advance for anyone who has something helpful to contribute.

any times on quickly properly identifying what kind of game it is?

Hi y'all!

I took the Testmasters course for the September LSAT, started studying in July with a cold diagnostic of 153. My highest PT was a 169 two days before the LSAT (I had been steadily PTing around 165-170), and ended up with a 167 on test day.

During the course I had been knocked out by a nasty case of food poisoning for two weeks or so (I ended up in the hospital. Do NOT, I repeat, do NOT go to the Chipotle on N. State in Chicago) and had missed a lot of critical time for test prep. I sucked it up and took the LSAT anyway even though I knew I could've put more time in.

So, after the September scores came out, I registered for December. Upon realizing it was the basically the same price to reactivate my Testmasters account vs. getting 7sage (with like...50 more PTs, I mean c'mon), I have defected! I was wondering if anyone could give me any advice as to how I should go about using 7sage to prep.

My individual section breakdowns usually go something like -6/-7 on RC, -8/-9 on LR, and -0/-1 on LG. On the September test I posted -5 on RC (somehow got Judicial Candor all correct), -10 on LR (a whopping 7 points dropped on the second LR section), and -0 on LG.

LG was my weakest section starting out (I had missed something like 15-20 LG questions on my first diagnostic) so I had put most of my time into Games. Other than drilling individual LR question types and RC sections repeatedly, I didn't give my due diligence to those sections and suffered for it.

I've skimmed through a few course videos already but don't really know how to structure my study schedule around the material. I don't feel it's feasible (or efficient) to do all 800 hours of the course before December. Should I just be doing more PTs? Identify what weaknesses? Figure out what the hell a Blind Review is? Give up completely? Any advice is appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Is there any particular reason why the games chosen for the CC are chosen?

So we are around 7 weeks out from the December Test. I have the premium package on 7sage and I am wondering if it is worth it at this point to upgrade to Ultimate+. I completed the CC like 5 weeks ago and do return to it frequently.

I am currently missing around 10-13 on LR for both sections. Normally what happens is I go -3/4 on one section and around -7/8 on the other, not sure why but it is pretty consistent. While there is some randomness to the types of questions I'm getting wrong, there are definitely patterns as well. I consistently miss at least a couple SA or NA questions and also seem to struggle with flaw and parallel argument questions. Obviously it affects my test performance as I miss the question, but what's worse is that when I arrive at one of these types of questions on a PT I immediately think "oh no" because I'm worried I'll get it wrong. I then spend far too long on these questions, which sucks because when I BR I realize some of them are actually quite easy (rated around 2 or 3 difficulty stars). So obviously this lack of confidence is affecting me.

I've stopped PTing because it seems ineffective at the moment. I would like to drill LR questions by type. I've looked back to the CC several times at this point to review my trouble areas, so the questions in those problem sets are really familiar to me now. I also obviously have access to the questions I've missed in past PTs (I've taken about 8) and can sort by type using the analytics feature but I would like more.

Does this basically require me to get the Ultimate + ? I now wish I had just gotten it from the beginning, but when I initially began the 7sage curriculum only a month or so before the September test (woooo for underestimating the difficulty of this exam...) I knew I wouldn't have time to complete the ult+ package.

Another thing is that except for the LSAT I sat for in September, I have only taken rather "old" PTs. I know the difference is minimal, but I was also wondering if I should familiarize myself with newer tests, which are available in Ultimate +.

WHY is this post so long, what happened to my ability to be succinct.

TLDR: Is it worth upgrading to Ult+ with only 7 weeks to go mainly for additional LR problem sets?

Hi guys, I havent gone through the LR curriculum in over a year. I am wondering which lessons cover some, most, few statements, and LR diagramming. I think MBT questions and SA had some?

Okay so I've asked about this before and worked on it a little bit but these questions continue to bite me in the ass. I have a really hard time figuring out the authors attitude and what they would agree with in R.C.

How can I practice this? Should I look for indications in the writing? Should I practice making special note of areas where it looks like the author is revealing how they feel? Even if I find how they feel how the hell am I suppose to know what they'd be likely to agree with? What mindset should I have for these questions?

Basically...help...haha

So I took the LSAT in Sept (posted a similar discussion before) got a 157 and this past weekend I took a new diag without studying for 3 weeks and got a whopping 160! Which...I mean I'm glad but still wish I at least got that on the real one. Obviously I hope to move past 160 in Dec but I'm truly at a loss on how to study right now. I have the starter program with 7sage but I can see that I still have timing issues with LG and RC. On the real one I did terribly on RC. I can still polish my LR but I don't know if I should start from Square 1 or ... what. Please help! I posted a help discussion before but got no replies and also didn't have a new diag score then. Thanks!

what’s the difference?

I completely forget where the lesson is that outlines how to deny a conditional statement. Any help?

Hey, guys! Does anyone find strengthen questions harder than weaken questions? I'm not really sure if you should find one easier than the other but for some reason my brain says that strengthen should be easier than weaken. I get the task for strengthen questions but for some reason I'm having a harder time with strengthen than weaken questions.

Hi All,

So I have a bit of a problem. I have some natural ability, but I have a tendency to cram. I did all of the 7sage curriculum in a month and a half before the September test and was scoring in my PTs around 169-172. I then got a 167 on the September LSAT. I ran out of time for LG, which I'm not too surprised about, but am now gearing up for a December (or February/June) retake.

These questions are about LR/RC because in LG when I do something wrong I know exactly what and why but I can not for the life of me figure out the same for RC/LR:

I am wondering if it is useful to go through the curriculum again and if you do, how the many lessons stick in your head and solidify as testing strategies for later use? For example, I was horrible at strengthen questions, did the strengthen part of the curriculum, ended up getting those practice questions right, but then forgetting how to do strengthen questions on a PT because I can't hold all of that info together at once. How do you retain all of it or imbed the skills so you can keep them all in mind for a test? Flashcards? I took notes on each question type and how to solve but it didn't help and reading those notes again was like reading something out of context, and of course I can't just re-do the entire curriculum before every test.

I also found that even if I understood JY's explanations and how to solve for a certain problem, I still get it wrong. Does that mean I'm missing some integral link/understanding? How do I fix this? I will get his explanations perfectly and see exactly why he came to an answer in his sample Q but not be able to mirror that. Conversely, even when something is explained, I can't understand why the correct answer is correct still.

Sorry for the long post, I guess it's an awkward point to proceed when you've done something and now need to re-do it but better?

Also, for all of those with the Trainer, did you do his book before JY's curriculum? After? Or during (and if so, how?)

Thank you so much in advance !!!!

The definition of an intermediate conclusion is that it supports another sentence, at the same time it's being supported by another sentence.

But when I came across "PT70 - 1LR - Q17", I realized the difference between "cause and effect" and "premise and conclusion" can be quite subtle

Here's my question.

(1) A causes B,

(2) B causes C,

(3) C causes D.

Therefore, A causes D

Here, "B causes C" seems to be an intermediate cause between "A causes D".

Does it make (2) an intermediate conclusion? because it's supported by another sentence?

Just want some clarification because I think the different between Causation and Argument seem to be overlapping.

Like if say:

Because A, therefore B--- (That would be an Argument)

But if we say

B happens because of A--- (That seem to be both a Causation, and an Argument?)

Any thoughts?

This was just an incredibly difficult game for me. I had such a difficult time with it. What about you guys?

Hi!

I've spent about 30 minutes trying to figure out this question but it seems I've hit a wall. I was able to eliminate (A) and (D) quickly but had a hard time understanding what the "youngest" "oldest" phrases were referring to. I ultimately went with (C), considering that there is a majority of S that is older than D (which, I thought, leaves some of S that is not older and/or is the same age as D). But I was taken back to find out the answer if (E). I tried to wrap my head around why (C) or (B) is wrong and why (E) is right but I wasn't able to get far.

It would be really helpful if someone could help me with this question.

Thank you so much in advance! :)

Hi!

I am going through MBT and MSS questions because they seem to be my biggest weakness. I came across this question while drilling and I contended between (B) and (E). I ultimately chose (B) and again in BR.

I thought the "everyone sometimes acts in ways that are..." could be considered as "commonly performed actions", and thought (B) was regarding to those actions that occur as a result of treatment as infants and therefore, people are not morally responsible.

I understand why (E) is correct - within the scope of "everyone" includes adults, therefore adults are not responsible for every actions (because there could be those actions they perform as a consequence of treatments they received as infants) - but I can't exactly pinpoint why (B) is wrong.

It would be extremely helpful and greatly appreciated if someone could shed some light on this question!

Thank you :)

Purely after finishing the LR core curriculum? then after that how much after drilling?