Hello, everyone.

I've done the core curriculum and am (trying) to solve all the LG problems from PT 1-70 but things are not looking up.

I've done 40 PTs so far. This is what usually happens. First, I will try to solve the problems on my own. I will probably get the sequencing and simple in-out games and make all the inferences. On a good PT, three sets with maybe 4-5 wrong. On a particularly bad one I might get two or even one set properly done, missing up to two digits. The latter has been happening a lot and on the September LSAT, I did not fare well on this section and had to randomly guess for about twelve of the questions.

I understand JY's explanations and they have been very helpful. But are you supposedly to go over EVERY single game set with explanations? For me, that seems to be the reality. And even with 40 PTs down, I am not making the leap I had been hoping for.

The Games are holding me back and I have not done anything else for some time. It's making me really depressed, guys. I hope to hear some words of wisdom. Thanks and have a nice one.

I have encountered certain questions where often means "Some". I had made a note about it until I came across PT37 S2 Q18 where in answer choice C says " often sacrificed" and it was eliminated because it said often based on one example.

I'd love an explanation for this question along with how to deal with "Often"

Thanks in advance!

Hi all.

This is an intentionally short and to-the-point discussion post. I want as much input and insight as I can gain and don't want to turn away any potential comments with a huge long prompt. So please forgive my lack of details.

Things were going so well. I crushed my first prep test, skated through introduction to logic and strengthening questions. I felt good about my LSAT studies and had confidence. Until I started the Validity and Must Be True Questions section. My progress immediately halted. The concepts stopped sticking and I have begun to start losing the confidence and swagger I once had. Specifically, the Valid Argument Forms 1-9 might as well be Greek to me. I have trouble understanding why I need to keep nine fucking argument forms in my head. They appear to have only subtle differences and I don't see how memorizing those details could help increase my LSAT score.

I just want to get back to studying LSAT questions and study things that are directly applicable to the exam.

Now, let's be real. It isn't the awesome service of 7Sage that is discouraging me. I have been really exhausting myself trying to study every minute I have available. Additionally, I have almost completely stopped exercising and my sleep has been disrupted with stress about the exam. I realize that these lifestyle factors play a large part in my academic productivity and I am addressing them. But in the meantime, somebody - ANYBODY - please let me know how I can survive validity/invalidity sections.

Help me! Anyone! I'm losing my fucking mind!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-3-question-26/

I got this question right during the PT by POE (A-B reverses necessary and sufficient terms, ACD all use most-statements) but in BR I really had to labor over the logic. It in fact took several sessions to feel good about my interpretation. However, my translation differs slightly from JY due to the presence of nested terms so I'm curious what ya'll think about it.

expect benefits outweigh cost → (acquire info → R)

Therefore

acquire info → R

This appears to be the most basic logical structure in the book. A→B, therefore B. We need A. But the nested terms muddy the waters a bit. We need to conclude R which is nested within the necessary condition. Because of the odd form, there are more ways of doing that than just A→B. But, most importantly, we can't conclude R if one expects the "benefits outweigh the cost".

This is really where I had my difficult. the easiest correct AC would have just said "The benefits never outweigh the cost". However, what they gave us was

acquire info → expect benefits outweigh cost

That results in a perfectly valid but unusual form. Our final chain looks like

expect benefits outweigh cost ↔ acquire info → R

"Consumers who do not bother to acquire this info are acting rationally". We can safely say that now because consumers who don't bother to acquire this info also don't expect the benefits to outweigh the costs.

Hello Folks,

I posted this in the powerscore forum as well, but it looks a little dead over there. I was hoping I might be able to pick someone's brain about a particular question.

Hello everyone,

I'm working on conditional reasoning. Overall, I find using my intuition works 80% of the time, but sometimes I'm going to need to use the techniques discuss in Powerscore Logical Reasoning Bible Chapter 6 in order to maximize my score.

So, my question stems from question 2 of chapter 6 on page 171. The question is:

Admin Edit: Please don't post LSAT materials. LSAC owns a copyright on this and posting is a violation of the copyright. For reference, I believe this is from PT 31 Section 3 Number 22.

So, when I use my intuition, I get answer E. But I am practicing my conditional reasoning, and I am not able to get that answer.

I managed to get the following:

NEOR: Nucleomorph is the remains of an engulfed organism's nucleus

SVG: Single version of the gene

(I use slashed /// in order to designate "not")

/NEOR ------> SVG

and the contrapositive

/SVG -------> NEOR

Which, in the book is generally correct. However, the book then suggests that because:

Premise 1: /NEOR --------> SVG (I understand this as noted above)

Premise 2: /SVG

Conclusion: NEOR

And then somehow, to my bafflment, they come up with the statement that:

SVG ------> /NEOR (This is neither the contrapositive or the replication of the original conditional reasoning as it appears in the last sentence. In fact, it simply looks like a Mistaken Reveral to me.)

I am NOT understanding how they build this conditional reasoning argument. Indeed, my only clue is that maybe a premise=sufficient condition and that a conclusion=necessary condition that maybe this is how they ended up doing it? But my searches online don't show this to be true.

Additionally, answer choice E does not have any conditional indicators, making it difficult to decide what is the necessary and sufficient condition for choosing your answer. Are there any resources out there that help with doing this? Could I ask anyone for a little help? Thanks a tonne!!!

I'm 70% complete with the CC and on the LG section. Should I use these lessons to just learn Logic Games or should I start fool proofing the practice problems JY has listed in the lessons now? For some reason I got the impression that Fool Proofing should be saved for after the CC is completed and when you start PT-ing...

Hey everyone,

I was wondering if there is any interest out there to also blind review the hardest RC passage together each time we do a PT . Maybe we can set aside one separate day to do this. On previous RC tutoring sessions I have noticed blind reviewing RC to take at most 2 hours. I am working on seeing what time we can do this by seeing openings on 7sage calendar. I hope to find an opening on Sunday.

Let me know if there is any interest out there to do this.

UPDATE:

Thanks for all the interest. I went ahead and scheduled the blind review RC meetings for every Sunday at 7 pm. Please treat this blind review call the same as our LR calls by not checking your answers before hand. Also, please have a clean copy of the section and a pencil with you. We will first read the passage together and do low-high resolution summaries and then do the questions under time before going over them as a group.

Here is the link to the meeting. Just click the link at the specified date and time and I will see you there.

70 Plus Series (December LSAT Study Group)

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/305261573

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States: +1 (669) 224-3412

Access Code: 305-261-573

Joining from a video-conferencing room or system?

Dial: 67.217.95.2##305261573

Cisco devices: 305261573@67.217.95.2

First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: http://link.gotomeeting.com/email-welcome

Reading Comprehension is my lowest scoring section. Does anyone have any good tips for improving this area? I know a few people who find RC the easiest read magazines such as the Economist and WSJ. I used to read WSJ when I had the student discount, but only because it didn't cost a lot and their topics actually interested me. Most RC passages aren't as interesting for me. For those of you who have seen improvement and/or do well on RC, do you have any Publications/Magazines that you recommend reading for practice? How often do you read them and what is your strategy for reading them (do you read all the way through, or mark conclusions/premises/etc.)?

Hello everyone!

So, I have started fool proofing, and I feel like I am not doing it effectively. I generally use the concept of doing the game once. Watched the video explanation. Do it again the same day. Then, do the same game the next day. Wait a week and do the same game again. However, I do not seem to be getting some of the games within time by the 4th try and some of them I am still answering wrong. So, I have thought of some reasons why I may not be grasping the concepts and wanted to get ya'll take on it.

First, I am not focusing specifically on LG. I have split my study times between LG and LR or LG and RC. My LR is doing better, but I also think I put more emphasis on LR. Do you think I should take it section by section instead to focus?

Second, I vary in how many games I will do a day mostly since I split time in studying. For example, I may do 2, 3, or 4 games on my study session. Should I do a whole section each time?

Third, I think my Foolproof cycling is not good. I do the four tries, but since I vary on how many I do, I may start a new game. Also, I have not returned to some of the games that I have done 4 times and not got all the answer right/within time frame. Should I increase my intervals such as: do game x twice in a day, then next week do game x, then next month do game x?

It's funny because the more I type, the more I am seeing what the problem is lol.

I was wondering what the best way to approach RC is following completion of CC. I usually miss between 8 and 4 consistently, but that's too wide a range. I want to get down to -2, which I believe I am capable of doing. I usually blow it and miss 2 and 2 or 3 and 2 on the harder RC sections, and miss only 1 on the easier sections. Should I review "Hard RC" sections from the CC or does anyone have any tips on something that would be more constructive? Should I go backwards from PT35 and review only the hardest RC passages per test and then BR them? I imagine that that would be best strategy, but if anyone has any thoughts I'd love to hear. Thanks for all and any feedback!

Hi everyone,

I'm on the LR part of the curriculum, specifically just finishing up strengthening questions.

I'm super confident with the first 4 or 5 drills, and without BR, I'm getting 4/5 or 5/5 on the questions. Unfortunately, as soon as I get to the 6th drill and above, where the difficulty gets worse, I continuously bomb each drill.

It's really frustrating to study causation theory & strategy for 6 hours and then barely see any results when doing weakening & strengthening. I guess I'm having difficulty because when J.Y. does the questions in his videos, he doesn't really use a 'strategy' to do strengthening questions. He simply figures out the assumption the argument is making and exploits it. I, however, cannot seem to pinpoint the assumption very easily. Is there a strategy for this or is it just something you get good at with practice? Does anyone have any advice on how they mastered strengthening/weakening questions?

Appreciate any advice or simply relating :)

Please let me know if you'd like to join and have not yet received info in your inbox. :)

Hi everyone,

I logged into the LSAC's website to change my test center and came across the notice that the December 2017 LSAT scores will not be available until February 2018. I was planning to complete my applications by the end of November/beginning of December but I am worried that I might be at a disadvantage to get into some law schools. Is anyone planning on taking the December LSAT as well? Should I just take the test this year and apply in September of 2018 instead?

Hi everyone,I was wondering if anybody had any strategies on how to study misc or really weird/one of a kind type games?

As an example consider G4 from Prep-Test 72. I bombed that game during my practice test, and I'm not sure what else to do besides watch the video. Its not like bombing an in-out game where you can refer to back to many other examples of in-out games and practice those. This game seems like a one of a kind sort of thing.

I'm writing the test in Dec. and I'm just worried because if something along the lines of the above example game comes up, I don't think I'll do very well on that game. The silver-lining in the clouds here is that I'm comfortable with all the more formulaic or generic types of games (e.g. in/out, sequencing etc.). But if I run into a G4 from PT 72 in dec. that could be a big score difference, and affect my admissions chances for specific schools :/

The title says it all

Any suggestions would be much appreciated

I'd like to sharpen my technique on questions with lots of difficult conditional reasoning (arcane content, lots of confusing negations, embedded conditionals, etc.) Unfortunately, there is no "conditional reasoning" tag in the LR section of the 7Sage Question Bank (hint, hint @"Dillon A. Wright")

Does anyone have an efficient strategy for culling together and drilling questions?

So I have been trying to fool-proof the in/out and grouping games in the CC... But I never do good on a game on the first attempt. I either find myself interpreting rules wrong or not making enough inferences or anything else basically LOL.

Of course, after looking at the video explanation I can do it... not sure if this is my anxiety kicking in or I just suck at these types of games.

Is this normal? Because I feel like I am never going to get through this :(

Hey everyone!

I've realized that I'm consistently failing the Necessary Assumption, MSS and Flaw/Weakening Questions (Among the most frequent questions in the test). I know that I need to have intensives on each type of questions, but during my practice tests, would you recommend that I skip every single one of those types of questions and leave them for the end?

Also, Parallel reasoning and flaw questions, since they are always so long, I also leave them to the end, because I consider them a time sink. Would you recommend that?

Any help is appreciated!

Hi again,

As with yesterday, I made another parallel (flawed) argument for an LR stimulus I had troubles with. I would appreciate it if you could help out by answering :)

:cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie:

Letter to the editor: Your newspaper seems to heavily biased against renewable energy. The study presented in the article "Can We Survive on Renewable Energy?" distorts evidence and shows flawed reasoning. The article states that countries with lower rates of renewable energy had lower average cost of electricity than other countries. However, that will not be the case for long, since the average cost of electricity is increasing in the countries with lower rates of renewable energy. Thus, the evidence actually supports the view that the use of renewable energy should be increased.

The reasoning in the letter writer's argument is flawed in that it

(A)　concludes based on evidence from the article it criticizes

(B)　fails to take in to account the possibility that using renewable energy is often costly

(C)　fails to take in to account the possibility that not everyone wants to use renewable energy

(D)　fails to take in to account the possibility that the average cost of electricity in other countries is also increasing

(E)　does not show any evidence against the viewpoint in the article

https://media.giphy.com/media/Lt3VrZ2WqL3W0/giphy.gif

Is there a clean way to diagram 'nothing' in LR using LAWGIC?

Hi everyone,

As @Sami did recently, I made an analogous argument for an LR stimulus I had troubles with. But I am not sure if I did correctly, so I would like to hear what you guys think. Let me know which answer choice you think is correct :blush:

The playwright’s newest play received a negative review from the city’s most influential newspaper. Therefore, the review will not as positively affect the box office performance in the opening week as would the unpublished review by the other critic, who has been favorable to his previous plays; people who have a negative impression of the play are unlikely to pay the standard ticket price.

The argument relies on which one of the following assumptions?

(A) Most theatergoers who see the play on the will do so because of the review appeared in the city’s most influential newspaper.

(B) The unpublished review by the other critic would not have been negative.

(C) Most people who go to see the play and pay the standard ticket price will not have gone to the play as a result of the review appeared in the city’s most influential newspaper.

(D) If the unpublished review written by the other critic were used instead of the review appeared in the city’s most influential newspaper, almost all of who went to see the play would pay the standard ticket price.

(E) Most people who pay the standard ticket price do not miss a performance of the play in the opening week.

Hey sagers,

So I am currently working on fool-proofing logic games, however I do not always meet the suggested target time. I sometimes score 2-3 mins over the suggested target time. I was wondering if that is okay or normal? Is it a big deal if I don't hit the target time for each game. I find myself doing better on sequencing games, and even score below the target time. Grouping games on the other hand.. not so much.

Basically, I want to know if meeting the target time is crucial or does it vary from person to person? Like I can get an entire game correct but I sometimes just take 2 additional minutes to finish it.

Not sure if I will get better once I do more games?

Any tips on how to improve time for logic games?

Thanks!

While I'm doing the practice sets for different question types, I somehow find myself doing the BR method as I go through it the first time around and for that reason I take a significantly greater time finishing the sets than I should. I go way over 35 min.Does anyone have any tips on how to move faster through questions when doing these sets, and in general?

Thanks!

"A brief analysis of the table reveals that Linear and Grouping games dominate the percentages, and 91% of games on past tests were Grouping, Linear, or Grouping/Linear Combination games (almost 95% if you consider that Pattern games are also Linear in nature). Other game types appeared relatively infrequently. A student with limited preparation time would obviously be well-served to tilt their preparation towards the Linear and Grouping games as these types appear on every LSAT and are by far the most frequently appearing types of games".