This may be something obvious to a lot of people, and may be something subconsciously obvious to me, but nevertheless it’s something that today I noticed and paused to think about.

On a specific flaw question that asks you to identify an error in the reasoning (not sure if I’m allowed to discuss specific questions as a free user), I noticed that there were two sets of reasons that the author gave to support their argument. The first seemed legitimate, the second a clear error. In situations like this, do you accept the first reason as legitimate but then take issue with the second reason? I think I know that the answer is yes, but I’m still curious to hear what people have to say/think, and if people separate sets of reasonings like how I just did above. For curiosity’s sake.

Thanks.

I just upgraded to Ultimate plus, looking for advice.

I have only completed two preptests (yes i realize I am extremely behind for someone writing in June). I intend to write 3 a week from now until June 11. I just wrote my second preptest the other day and I scored a 154 (I was disappointed because in timed individual sections I was scoring in the low 160s). However, the next day I blind reviewed all the questions I had circled and I scored a 166. It was bittersweet because I was excited to know that I have more in the tank but also frustrated when I look at how large the gap is knowing that I have about five weeks left to prepare. I guess the purpose of me coming on here is I wanted to know if anyone was able to significantly narrow the gap between their PT score and BR score and if they have tips for doing that. Ps. I cannot postpone writing the LSAT. My personal and financial situation does not grant me that option so it's now or never kinda thing. So advice that I can use within the next month would be greatly appreciated.

Hi everyone! I took the Feb test and was disappointed in my score relative to where I was PTing/averaging, but had a good overall test day experience so I am optimistic about June from that perspective.

That being said, seeing the "T minus 4 weeks" note in my calendar for this upcoming test upped my stress level a bit and now I feel like my test anxiety/nerves are impeding the quality of my studying. I'm putting so much more pressure on each section and feel like I spend more time worrying about the aggregate score of a test/section and less time on the actual concept in a given question.

I can only remind myself to breathe and slow down so many times (read: 100 a day) so I was wondering if anyone else feels/has felt this way and had any tips/tricks? They can be actual study related or life/headspace clearing related.

Tangential question: for those of y'all who have previously taken an AM test, what did you change to feel comfortable with a PM test? I'm a morning person (wake up at 5am) so the AM tests are preferable but unfortunately the world doesn't revolve around my preferences so, alas, I will be surrendering to the fate of the 12:30pm test this June.

Thanks in advance!

I'm having trouble pinpointing the flaw in this stimulus as my conditional logic is as follows:

(G, H, J) -> T

T ->(G, H, J)

Any help would be much appreciated!

Hello ! This is actually my first post here on 7Sage though I have consistently browsed through the discussion boards. I am curious if anybody could give some general advice on my current struggles on LR. My original diagnostic test, never before seeing an LSAT in any form, was a 140. After the CC and taking roughly 3-4 PT's my scores are in the low 150's with the most obvious struggles coming in LR. I constantly go -8 to -12 in each LR section, though, what really perplexes me is that I seemingly only miss two or three questions at most throughout the first 15 or so questions in each LR section. I go on to miss as many as seven or eight of the remaining LR questions, sometimes as much as 5-6 in a row for the more challenging questions. I was just curious if anyone has experienced this before or if this is simply part of the beginning of doing the PT's.

I really appreciate any advice ! Thank You.

So I am just finishing up the LR section right now and looking forward to moving on to LG. I have the LG Study Bible by Powerscore, and some people have suggested that I read/work through that, then come back to 7sage to brush up on weak areas and watch the game review videos. Should I try this method, or should I stick to watching all the 7sage core course videos? How have you guys done it?

can someone provide an answer explanation?

really confused between answer choice A and answer choice C.

how i view it - stimulus has 2 things it's comparing: skill/knowledge and persuasion. persuasion is emphasized/prioritized, so someone with less skill but more persuasion is preferred.

It's very hard for me to see this fit AC A (the correct AC).

I guess i can say that 2 things compared: highly skilled at conducting an election campaign and have insight into important political issues. What's preferred is the latter, so successful politicians are "not always ones who understand how to help country?"

not sure if this makes sense. help would be appreciated - thanks!!

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-2-question-12/

I've been fool-proofing the earliest 30-40 games and have obviously come across several that are highly unusual and unrepresentative of games in general. Do you find it useful to fool-proof these games or do you try them watch explanation and just move on (this is what i've been doing)?

I feel like I've probably done a majority of LGs 1-35 almost 10x each. A handful of times back in summer 2016 and then in January 2018 I (Pacifico) FP'd 1-25. Didnt touch another logic game until April. I stupidly thought that that invested time in January would hold over while I studied the LR section of the CC. I was either very wrong and totally lost my competency in LG, or I was lulled into a false sense of confidence from having done those same games so many times.

For the past couple weeks I've been drilling one LR and one RC and then one LG section (from a random PT that I haven't seen before) in a row so I get used to having to do LG in the middle of a PT. I sporadically do really well on LG and I sporadically totally bomb like -10. I've started FP'ing LG 1-35 in reverse order and I'm doing really well...so I'm trying to figure out what exactly my problem is here and how to fix it

I'm not sure if there is a point in FPing games I havent encountered as often like 35-60, since it seems like that range doesnt have the weird LGs that PT1-35 and the most recent PTs have. I was thinking about FP'ing outside of the 1-35 range, and adding in a random 4-5star game from 1-35, so I get a lot of practice on the weird games, while also getting used to doing games that I havent seen before..

Will FPing LG1-35 be sufficient for taking on new games that I've never seen before in the middle of a PT or is there something different/additional I could/should be doing?

Hi Everyone,

It seems that some students, including me, spend a lot of time on PMR or PF questions. This has made me skip them in timed tests, even sections, which I just realized is not a good strategy. I tend to get them correct like 80% of the time in BR, but I am just worried that I'd end up spending 3 minutes per question, which is like 10% of the section time on one question. I am wondering how long it typically takes students scoring 165 and higher to answer these questions? Also, if you are sure that an AC is the correct one, do you still read the remaining ACs?

Thank you and I hope others taking the June exam can use this thread, we still have more than 4 weeks to go!!

Okay people, this is probably one of the hardest LR questions I've ever done, but also why I like talking about it. It's also why I think learning to think in terms of "lawgic" could sometimes make things more difficult. Allow me to explain.

If you give the question a quick read and attempt, the difficulty lies in the fact that the conclusion is a conditional statement with 2 pieces to the sufficient condition - e.g. (A&B) => C. We are given a premise in the form of P => Q, and another that states Q => C. However, in the correct answer choice, the answer states A => P, which is supposed to connect the missing gap.

In the explanation, we're told that the "B" piece in the above sufficient condition is redundant, but how are we supposed to decide when elements are redundant and when they aren't? Typically, when a sufficient condition has two pieces, we NEED two pieces in order to infer the necessary condition. In this question, we don't. Is this supposed to be something we just intuit on test day?

I realize that this post might not make any sense at all so let me know if what I'm asking is hard to follow.

Edit: In short, I'm kind of an idiot. I just realized that B is, in fact, redundant because it's just a random variable tacked on in the conclusion. It's pretty worthless as long as we have that A piece linking us up with that P piece. I didn't realize this until I typed all this up and wasted everyone's time, but I thought I'd just leave this here anyway. Typing up reasoning is gold. I was confused because of where the conclusion is placed in the argument. It jumps out as a premise, hence why I thought that B piece was important.

Admin note: edited title and added link

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-69-section-4-question-21/

Or do you write the inferences down along with JY while he does it in the video, then try to recreate them on the next copie?

Those are the five diagnostics I've taken. I've got about 5 weeks.

I'm pretty consistently about -5 on RC, when I got a 169 I got -1 and -2 on LR, on the others that has fluctuated around -3/-4.

LG usually around -3 > -5.

Do you guys think I can hit 170 in five weeks?

If so, what steps do you think I should start taking?

I know I need to get my LG to -2 at most, hopefully I can do a bit better on RC, and if I can reduce my mistakes on LR to the -1/-2 that I've achieved, I think I'll be in good shape. I just can't seem to remain focused throughout the entirety of the test enough to consistently score well in EVERY section, like I do when I just do individual sections.

I am just trying to get an idea, how many games should someone do a day?

Dear Community,

I have been a reader for a long time and owe a lot to the writing I've seen on the forums. I am signed up for June 2018 and was hoping some readers might be willing to provide opinions on my LSAT situation.

I took a full-fledged live course back in February, and have been practicing for about 1.5-2 months using 7sage and my copies of the tests in between then and now. I scored around a 161 in the middle of the live course. By fool-proofing, and practicing individual sections of RC and LR (based on question/passage type), I have been able to get to a point where I've scored 170 on two consecutive 5-section tests and feel ready to break towards an even higher score if I can lock down a perfect score on LG (both 170s had 5-6 LG wrong because of a minor setup mistake that screwed up one game, my LG skills improve with each test).

The "rub" is that while I'm happy with my diagnostic scores on 5-section LSATs, I really haven't taken that many full-length tests. I think I've taken maybe 7 total since starting the full live course. While I'm happy to rely on timed sections and weekly full tests for practice, the hunch I really want to test is whether there is a large benefit to be gained from taking, say, 15 more tests rather than 3 or 4 more, which is all I'll have time for with my schedule if I take June.

Basically, my options are as follows:

--take in June, have time for 3-4 more full tests, have time for 10-20 timed sections of LG plus other practice (or more tests if I can pull off taking a test after work — that is a full work day and then 3.25 hours of LSAT).

-delay to July or September, have time for 15+ additional full tests

Obviously, no one will ever turn down additional time. I fully understand the argument that "there is no reason to not take more time." My goal is to apply in the fall no later than immediately after the September test, so basically I have June, July and September. I won't be taking the test later than that unless for whatever reason I test way below what I am practicing at.

The one hunch I have is that even if full tests don't necessarily increase one's score, they do increase the chances that one is able to achieve their practice scores on test day. That is the worry that I have about skimping on tests.

Thanks, ya'll.

In the order the stimulus presents info (this may be way off):

CTX - Proposals to bring US inline with rest of the world are met with objection that it would violate US tradition

C --- The objection that curtailing US school's summer vacation would violate tradition misses the mark

P --- US schools only closed because harvests needed child labor

Extra info (? unsure) --- A policy change justified by those appeals to tradition are determined by needs of the economy

Which principle if accepted justifies the conclusion?

(a) Social needs are irrelevant. Eliminate

(b) No appeal to tradition excuses a country from getting in line with legitimate expectations of the rest of the world. If it didn't say "legitimate expectations of the rest of the world" I'd think this is good but European and Japanese expectations are never mentioned

(c) masking real issues isn't in stimulus. Eliminate

(d) traditional principles should be discarded when they no longer serve the economy. If this said 'practices' instead of 'principles' I'd think it was perfect but we are not trying to change the principles of the past just the school years practices so we can eliminate

(e) actual tradition of a practice can only be identified by original reasons that prompted the practice

I got this wrong and struggled during BR only making progress through process of elimination, now I see that answer choice (E) connects the last sentence of the stimulus to what I identified as the conclusion. But now I'm thinking that the last sentence is the main conclusion and I've muddled up my own thinking.

Can someone help me identify each part of the argument better and flush this out? #help

Admin note: edited title

Hey there! I think I need some direction.The first time I took the LSAT I made a 144. I am registered to take the test again in June. I am studying every day in May and hope to get my score up one or two points at least.I bought the $180 corse in 7sage, and have only done some of it. But I just took a practice test to see where I stood. I digressed. Because time is limited, are there any sections I should specifically zoom in on before I try my text practice test? Any advice on where I should devote my time?

Thanks for any #help!!

Khloe

Hi guys,

Can anyone explain why the answer choice (c) is the correct answer? It's hard to see why this has to be the case when logs already have each ring representing one year. With this fact, it's already possible to know how old these logs are so why do we need this information?

Thank you!

Admin note: edited title

How do you tackle logical reasoning statements without having to read it three to four times just to comprehend what the statement is saying? Should you read the statement first then the question or the question then the statement? Am I the only one who keeps reading it over and over again?

Erased because of forum rule of not posting info direct from PT's.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-56-section-3-question-16/

Admin note: edited title and added link

Can somebody explain to me why answer choice (b) is the correct answer? I can't understand how renovating the houses would be the choice that precludes the possibility of trying the other approach. Isn't it the other way around with demolition?

Please help. Thank you!

Admin note: edited title

Hey all,

In every single practice test I've taken, I've had a significant difference in score in my first and second LR sections. First section I average between 5-8 wrong, second section between 1-3 wrong....there's no pattern with question type. Thoughts on why this might be happening? I don't feel like I go faster in the first section so I'm not sure that it's rushing...Thanks!

The correct answer is A. I see why it is correct but I wonder if this answer choice makes an additional assumption that is not explicitly stated.

(A) says "failure to prove a claim"

We're only told that "these studies... seriously flawed in their methodology." We aren't explicitly told that therefore this experiment failed to prove the claim. Aren't we making an additional assumption that flawed methodology = failed to prove claim? Or even more, we're assuming that these independent scientists were can actually be trusted?

I can see why B, C, D, and E are incorrect. But aren't we making additional assumptions for (A)?

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-1-question-23/

Should I start taking the time to practice diagramming LR (especially SA) questions in my head more than actually writing the diagram down? Anyone have any experience with this?