So, the concept of an inclusive "or" was 100% foreign to me when introduced, and then even the exclusive "or" given another moment to think and allow the inclusive concept to sink in. In my English such as I've always understood it, "Or" is bi-conditional.

A (-) /B

Always, unless it means "and." Not neither, not both. I can't think of an example in English where this isn't the case. It's really screwing me up.

None of the examples given anywhere on the internet strike me as actually meaning anything else. People speak imprecisely all the time and all of the examples of inclusive or exclusive "or" unless "either" or "and/or" is actually used just strike me as imprecise verbal handles, not precise instances of or, which always means A (-) /B to me.

Help!

I recently discovered that sometimes I missed LR questions because I did not see the inherent connection in stimulus.

For example, in PT40 S1 Q23, I fail to connect the part "pre-existing state of health" to the part "illness". I thought it was introducing an additional cause (thus I chose D); but in fact, it is reversing the causation between the two.

I wonder whether people have similar experiences because of this failure.

I know this is very personal, but I'm wondering if anyone has been in (or is in) a similar situation. My choice to go back to school to finish my BS Chem degree and then pursue law school meant that we had to move and my husband changed companies, in addition to taking on debt. We're likely not staying in the same place for law school and will obviously be piling on more debt. One of the hardest parts of this decision was that we chose to delay having kids.

Thoughts on having kids (for the first time) while in law school? Is that downright nuts, or could it be manageable? I wouldn't do it as a 1L, but maybe into 2nd or 3rd year?

Thanks in advance

JY said if you don't how to do the exact game, print ten clean copy and finish it with control and speed.

The problem is, after i watched the video, i only need practice 2-5 copy right after the video to reach the time limit. And when should i finish the rest of the copys?

So for this tricky SA question ...

I was looking for a statement that would say “D”

A and D ——> M

Not M ——-> Not A or Not D

Conclusion: Not M --> Not A

Would a way to conclude Not A is if we have D?

Would this be logically sound?

Can another right AC be just D? Why did they decide to go with A -> D?

Any explanation would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Admin note: edited title and added link

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-71-section-3-question-11/

Hello,

Here is my reasoning for question 18 in section 4 for prep test 62. Since this is a sufficient assumption question, I want to be able to find a “connector” that would assure the conclusion from the premises, or evidence given.

Argument Analysis:

Premises:

• We can’t reach E.T aliens via spaceship

• If we can talk with the E.T aliens, then they need to be as smart as we are (most likely so they can understand what we are saying to them).

Conclusion:

• If there are E.T aliens, we won’t be able to know this unless they are as smart as we are.

Prephrase:

Initially, I was trying to look for something along the lines of connecting being able to communicate with the E.T aliens that are as smart as we are. For instance, maybe we don’t have the technology to transmit messages to them or perhaps they want their identity to remain hidden for all of eternity. However, looking more closely to the set up of this argument I found another primary issue. The issue is that we are only given two options for determining if they exist. Well, couldn’t there be other ways? For example, (this is purely made up) maybe we could get into a teleportation machine and teleport ourselves to their planet or we could build a massive slingshot to sling ourselves to their planet. My gist is that we have to get to the idea that it is necessary that the aliens be as smart as we are in order to determine if any actually do exist in the entire galaxy.

Answer Choices:

A. No. This doesn’t work because the person never rules this out.

B. I don’t believe that this guarantees anything. Maybe we could send them a signal and if they accept it, then we know there is life. A conversation isn’t necessary to prove that there is life.

C. No not need, the author never suggests that we need both options to determine if they exist.

D. Yes, because this AC rules out all other choices and substantiates the necessary condition in the conclusion.

E. This is slightly a premise booster and slightly a reversal of one of the premises mentioned in the stimulus.

Problem: My major problem with this question is that answer choice B is very compelling for me and I am afraid that I would select it during a timed test.

It would be great if I could have further feedback on why B is wrong or what we need to do for this particular type of SA question.

Admin note: edited title and added link: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-4-question-18/

Do I correctly understand the argument and why, especially, the correct answer is correct?

(s)PT13 S4 Q9(/s) Admin note: PT14.S2.Q10?

Premise: Government bans outdoor advertising, outside of particular type.

Premise: A Gov Report states that every industry using outdoor advertising, not necessarily of the particular class, had a larger market share than others.

Conclusion: Gov’s actions would reduce the overall volume of business.

(A) WRONG - The merchants seem to be protesting the government’s actions, which suggest that they are worried about loss of business, which is a good reason for NOT restricting the use of outdoor advertising.

(B) Correct. Marketshare (P2) and volume of business (Con) are not the same. Nevertheless, this answer implies that the outdoor advertising increased advertiser’s market share in a manner that wouldn’t necessarily just change where Penglai consumers spend their money on that island. A small mental leap is required to see that if the market traffic isn’t just diverted at current levels then overall volume can be damaged, for which there is no support.

(C) Whether the survey is objective or not, the conclusion that the overall volume of business would be reduced isn’t warranted.

(D) Even if the market share was proportionate to the use of outdoor advertising, that doesn’t mean that the volume of business would change.

(E) We have no idea what the Penglai constitution says.

Admin note: edited title

I marked (A) and eliminated (C), which is the correct answer, without hesitation. My reasoning was that if certain types of trees are less effectively pollinated, then honey production will decrease. At the same time, (A) seemed compelling to me because if the honeybees native to Brazil and those native to the United States are different, it's possible that the bees native to the U.S. might off the bat be superior to the Africanized honeybees. But I do realize that even if (A) were granted as true, whether they're superior or inferior to the Africanized honeybees is not determined and, while it could potentially weaken the argument, as stated, it doesn't necessarily do so.

Looking back, knowing the right answer, I can see how this is an assumption I made on my own since it's possible that the "certain types of ornamental trees" might not even contribute to the honey production to begin with, but I'm still not sure that I would come back to this question in the future and approach it this way.

Are there any additional and/or complementary reasons for why (C) is the best answer?

Admin note: edited title

Hello 7sage! :)

I am in Orange, CA and am looking for someone with a little bit experience to Blind Review with starting after the holidays! I'm new to 7sage, so I want to make sure I master this method correctly. I'm looking to break the 160s hopefully. Would prefer in person but am open to other options too!

Hello All.

Are there any of you studying for the January LSAT in the Pittsburgh, PA area? I took the test a few weeks ago and I am working on making a better showing of it in two months. I thought if there were a couple of other people in the area we could put together a local study group, like the group in NYC did/does.

Thanks

Chris

So I understand and see how valid arguments relate to LSAT questions, but can someone explain how I would apply invalid arguments into LSAT questions. What type of question would invalid arguments be useful for, I understand they are important to know, but how can I apply them.

Hello 7sage!

I am new to the blind review process and a little bit confused about writing out explanations. Does anyone have any drafts of what they wrote for one of their PT's specifically for LR sections that was helpful to them?

Additionally, I am trying to break the 160 mark by March or June depending. My past PT's have been somewhat inconsistent. 149 diagnostic, 152, 153, 157, 150... I took a few weeks off after the 150 because I felt discouraged, but I'm back now! :)

I took the Kaplan online course and feel like I have an okay grasp on the the core concepts of LR and RC. I've also started the fool proof method for LG and purchased 7Sage LSAT starter course. But I'm wondering, should I go through the 7sage CC meticulously again, or can I just watch videos on concepts I feel weak in and skip around?

Will it give me an edge that Kaplan couldn't? Or should I just head straight into weekly PTs and Blind Review? I can only give about 15 hours/week to studying because of work and school, so I want to be as efficient as possible!

Thank you!

Hello,

I have several questions for those who score close to -0 on Logic Games.

Do you usually have time left over at the end of the section? How much time do you have left and how do you make use of that time?

Do you ever skip questions or games and how do you decide to make that decision?

How much time do you spend on the first two games? Is it recommended to get them done in less than 13 minutes so that I have at least 22 minutes for the last two games? I know that sometimes Game 2 can be really time consuming, but since usually game 1 can be done quickly, I am wondering if you have a max. time limit for games 1 and 2, even given the circumstances that game 2 is difficult.

I ask this question because I usually find myself at 15min at the end of game 2 and I often run out of time by the time I am at game 4.

Thank you so much for reading this.

Hey all,

I am taking the lsat again in January. I’m in my last semester of college and have already applied. I’m having difficulty carving out time each day to study. How much time should I be spending each day on the exam? I’ll have more free time once school is over but have a lot of anxiety about the test when I am not studying for it.

Thanks!

Good Afternoon, Everyone

I am trying to understand the incorrect answer choices for this Question. What would answer choice b look like in an argument.

Admin note: edited title

Hello. I have been having some trouble with actually solidifying my understanding of the meaning of Sufficient Conditions and Necessary Conditions as I found the information provided in the core curriculum in regard to the topic to be a bit vague. I seem to always get confused and lack confidence when I have to deal with a conditional relationship in an argument because I just take the Premises of the argument to mean the Sufficient Condition and the Conclusion of the argument to mean the Necessary Condition. If someone can please clarify it for me or correct my understanding of this it would be much appreciated.

Also I have been having some difficulty with knowing when exactly to diagram Lawgic. Are we only supposed to diagram when we see words from Group 1-4 of the Sufficient and Necessary Condition indicators?

General Structure of Conditional Statements: Sufficient Condition --> Necessary Condition

Sufficient Condition

Necessary Condition

Hi everyone!

I just took the November Lsat, and although we haven't received our scores yet, I am strongly considering taking the Jan Lsat. I have registered for it alreay because I am sure I can increase my score from wherever it is right now, and I would like to guarantee a spot in law school for Fall 2019.

So while preparing for my November Lsat, I noticed that my strongest area is LG. However, i'm never able to finish all 4 games. I have a strong grasp of most rules, but is there a way I can get around to completing all 4 games on time? I'm not sure how i can do this, i've been practicing and practicing and practicing. (I've been studying on and off for the Lsat since April, and wrote my first lsat in September)

Another area I'm looking to improve on is LR. I have gone through the CC and understand all the concepts, i have even read the powerscore book, however I can't seem to improve when I do the actual questions (i always get approx. -8 to -11). There aren't any specific questions i get wrong, it's different kind every time, a mix of everything. So i'm not sure if I'm doing something wrong or missing something because i can't seem to get better at LR. Any tips?

My RC is alright, i haven't focused too much on this sections because it's the hardest to improve for me. So i've put all of my efforts on my improving on LG and LR.

My PT have been in the low 150s and I'm still waiting on my November Lsat score.

I'm aiming to get a score of 155-160 for the january lsat.

Before starting the 7sage course, no matter what I did, I could not improve on logic games. However, I took J.Y. Ping's advice and started drilling the same logic games problems until I was able to get them right on my own. It's been tedious and exhausting at times doing the same games over and over again until I get 100% accuracy, but I have noticed a significant improvement on my logic games score just from doing that. If you're feeling hopeless about logic games, keep practicing because practice really does make perfect, or close! :)

SO prep test 36 game 1 his my arch enemy! I figured out most of it after coming back to it a few weeks later, but this is where I am stuck. No T - K, so I understand I must have one or the other, But how do I still Have the option of having both? So no T or T, I still can have K....What is the rule here that I keep missing that I need to tattoo on my hand?

hey all

so there are some LR and RC questions where there are some "common sense" assumptions the LSAT expects us to make.

On the other hand, there are other "assumptions" that the LSAT uses to bait us into trap answer choices.

How can we distinguish between these two different kinds of assumptions? Any advice or suggestions would be appreciated.

An example on the top of my head would be .... a trap bait assumption is "exercise" = "more arthritis." According to the LSAT, that's a BAD assumption ( PT 69.1.5)

Another "common sense" assumption that was associated with the right answer choice was that "firms/companies want to make money."

Thanks!

#Help The LR section has really left me baffled. My average score per LR section was -2 while I was PTing through PT50s and PT60s. But in the series of 70s, it has drastically dropped to -5. I do notice some differences when I do more recent PTs but I can't figure out what. I've approximately a month and a half. How do you guys think I can get back on track?

Any advice or tips would be appreciated.

Thanks!

So, I was doing Game 4 of PT 61 in which

Q.19 asks J's position cannot be which one of these?

Answer choices:

A.2

B.3

C.5

Q.20 asks If J is in 3, which of these could be true?

Using Q.20 can we safely assume that J can in fact fit in 3 and then use that to eliminate answer choice B?

is "except" also "negate sufficient," just like "unless"?

Thanks!

Hi all-

I'm in the middle of full-proofing, and sometimes I come across a game that's categorized as "MISC" and they always give me a really hard time. How have you all approached these type of games? Do they get easier as I finish full-proofing? (I'm only on section 5 of 35)

Thanks.

Besides us all taking the November 2018 together, the one other thing we have in common is our disdain for that bloody mining game. But, for some reason, it felt like deja-vu (which doesn't mean I found it easy or anything; quite the contrary). Anyone remember PT60 -- Game 3? The only logic game I can compare the mining one to is this one about dirt vs. mulch loads. Just thought I'd share in case anyone wanted to inflict further torture on themselves. Also, if anyone knows of similar games from the PTs, please let it be known. I have nothing to do post-exam and feel impelled to do practice questions... for fun... (what's happened to me?).