Discussions

LSAT

New post

291 posts in the last 30 days

I am rereading PS Bible for MSS/MBT and encountered this statement (FYI; I am using 2017 edition; page 122)

The statement is "many people have some type of security system in their home"

PS classifies this reverse statement "some people have many type of security system in their home" as wrong;

while reading, I did have the sense that the statement is wrong; but I am interested in the logic behind this reversal;

I thought many is some; wouldn't these two statements be the same or am i missing something?

0

Hello 7Sagers!

I am wondering if someone could give me advice about what they think is the most efficient way to retain and review lR material. I want to create something that I can review everyday and that in the end will help me put all of the pieces together. So far I have been writing notes from all of my lessons, and then I rewrite them to make them look neater. I want to kind of create a cheat sheet for all of the things I am learning in the LR section.For example: I have a sheet on MBT questions. Am I doing too much? Is there a better way?

0

Right now I am more focused on the quality of school over scholarship opportunity. I am already signed up for November and will definitely score it, but If I am not satisfied with my score, can I still apply to a upper tier school (#10-30 range), or is my chance of getting in too low to even bother applying.

1

Can someone please explain why answer choice A is correct.

My understanding from the reading of 43-48 is that biologist were transformed into the new discipline of Molecular Biology. It makes me think two things.Either that they simply revised the old discipline of molecular biology. Or they former a new disciple of molecular biology that was not around yet.

Please help me with this question because I eliminated A based on the fact that I thought that molecular biology might had already been around and that this discover just furthered the already existing discipline making it the new discipline.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-1-section-1-passage-2-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-1-section-1-passage-2-questions/

0

Hey guys, I have been having a lot of trouble with this question type. The easy ones I don't really have problems with, but for the harder NA questions, It seems I can always get it down to two answers, and always the correct answer is one of the two, but I sometimes end up choosing the other answer -_____-.

I always Find the conclusion first, identify the support (premise) after, then try to spot the gap in the argument. I always am able to get it down to 2 answer choices (always the correct answer choice is one of the two) and then I try to Negate the last two choices. It seems that because its difficult to pre-phrase NA questions, I have more trouble with this type. Also have been practicing the Negation techniques and seem to be improving on those as well. Any advice on what I can add in or what I have to change with what i'm doing? PLEASE HELP!! Taking test in November, I feel almost every question type I have improved so much on, just these NA questions are killing me!!! ANY ADVICE WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED! Thank you!

0

hello!

so for a lot of Phen/Hypo Weaken questions, the way to attack them is to find an alternative explanation. One example of this is PT61.2.11.

My question is - how do you know if an answer choice's "alternative explanation" is TRULY an alternative explanation that weakens the argument? I ask this because there are often TRAP answer choices that seem to be "alternative explanations" but are actually consistent with the argument.

For example, in PT55.1.7, a weaken phen/hypo question, answer choice E seems to provide an alternate explanation but is actually consistent with the conclusion, and is thus a trap wrong AC.

But back to PT 61.2.11, AC A is the right AC. But how do we know it's actually an alternate explanation? Can't it also be consistent with the explanation? Can't it be the case that drivers feel possessive of their parking space and are also less quickly able to perform maneuvers with their car?

When you provide an alternate explanation to weaken a phenomenon, does it have to be completely distinguished from the original hypothesis in the conclusion?

In sum, how do you tell the difference between trap wrong AC's that seem to provide "alternate explanations" but are actually consistent with the original hypothesis in the stimulus, and real right AC that are actually alternate explanations that weaken the argument.

Many thanks!

0

I am confused because the correct answer to this question seems like it's a necessary assumption and not a sufficient assumption, as the question stem would describe it to be. I generally regard necessary assumptions to be the "bare minimum" standard. It seems that "societies being geographically isolated enough not to have been influenced by any other society" only allows for, and does not guarantee, the conclusion to be drawn. When I really analyze the question I guess I could see how it's sufficient, but am I crazy to think that this reads so similarly to a necessary assumption? Is there a helpful technique for distinguishing the two in a situation like this?

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-1-question-22/

0

So I've noticed that in recent commentaries, JY says that when you do a LG, as you write down the rules, for each rule you write, go down to the 1st question and eliminate AC's if that's an acceptable situation question.

That way, by the time you finish writing down your rules, you would've already finished the 1st question (if it's an acceptable situation question).

Is this protocol? Should we do this for every Logic Game? Why is this a good strategy?

Any advice or comments would be appreciated.

Thanks.

0

Hey 7sagers,

First of - hope this personal learning story of mine helps.

I still think I am in my early stages of studying. I feel like I see a huge improvement in LR and LG. However, RC is still my worst section thus far. It takes me sometimes 14 + mins to do one passage, which sucks. Reason being my reading speed was to slow. I was focussed on annotating and really trying to remember the nitty gritty details. However, I analyzed my approach, why I got questions wrong and made a few changes. Here they are:

Note taking: From reading a bunch of online stuff, watching webinars, etc. - note taking in my opinion is off two types: 1) to help you UNDERSTAND the passage 2) to help you find things in the passage quickly. For the second one (finding things in the passage quickly) - it requires you to have your note symbols down solid + forces you to note take A LOT. I tried this second method in great detail - but I felt it really did not help me much + wasted more time. Reason being that it forces you to go back to the passage back way to often when most RC questions in my opinion are not designed for that. From what I have read and heard dozen times from JY - RC is about big picture. Unless a question refers to specific line - then go back to it. If not, going back to the passage to analyze your notes is a MAJOR TIME SINK. Again this is based upon my learning styles, might be different for others. Now, I focus more on understanding when reading a passage. Meaning - I won't circle/underline/etc. a lot - rather after a reading few sentences, pause and make some connections in my head and move forward. I felt this cut down my overall passage time by 4 mins + gave me a strong understanding of the passage. This does not mean I do not annotate - it just forces me to be more selective with the process.

Reading by going at the flow of your pencil: It helps me having my pencil underneath the word and leading my reading pace, whereas just reading without doing that. I am not sure if it helps others but I feel it sort of helps me go at my "own" speed when reading.

Choosing Questions to Tackle: As JY has mentioned before in LG - to go about the game by choosing question types that are more restrictive and allow you to attack the game in a more efficient manner. For example, do a must be true question in LG before a could be true question. Similarly, I felt in RC, certain questions are set up in the same manner. For example, before I read the passage I take 15 seconds to number my questions in the way I will attack them. Usually I go about in this manner: 1) Main Point of the Passage 2) Primary Purpose of the author/ Primary purpose of a certain paragraph 3) Questions that refer to specific lines in the passage 4) Inference & Most Strongly supported. Usually I go about in this manner b/c the Inference/MSS questions are usually time sinks and challenge your understanding of the passage. This will allow you to continuously get the "low hanging fruit" in each passage + enable you to use more time on questions that actually need it.

Wrong Answers always have the same Clues - Just got to quickly find them: This can be said again for most of LR answer choices, however I feel this pattern is a lot more obvious in RC. Common tricks I see in RC is strengthening words (for example: something is the "best" - usually that's a detail in a passage I would circle and not BIG Picture understanding), comparison between two things (for example: Person A will know more than Person B), wrong viewpoint (for example: the question specifically asks about the author's viewpoint, whereas the answer choice states a critics viewpoint).

Right now my goal in RC before going to timed actual sections is to get from 10-11 minutes (which I am currently at) down to 9 mins and under. Hopefully by the time I finish all the problem sets in RC I get to that. Wish me luck and I hope this helps you all!

Cheers!

6

I feel like I make most my mistakes on LR because I'm rushing too much and don't catch the little details/nuances in the question stem. When I do BR, I usually get these rushed questions right. Anyone have any advice on how to tackle this?

0

Hi everyone,

I'm having a very difficult time finding the answer to these sort of questions. I completely understand the Premises and the conclusion. I'm able to break down the prompt very well.

My issue comes in when I start reading the answer choices and nothing seems to click. Normally I'll look at the answer choices and the ones that are wrong I can pick out easily. But, for these I just see words on a page that just don't make sense to me.

How do I engage these questions?

P.S. I've watched the webinar and it still doesn't fix my problem, I feel like it's very broad and very little explanation now how to view these in a different light. Again, that's just my opinion.

0

Apologies if theres another discussion that already covers this!

I finished the CC a while back and am planning on taking the January LSAT. I've noticed that my main area of weakness is with LG. Right now, i'm only getting each section about half right and I tend to run out of time for one game in each section. At this point I know I need to focus on fool--proofing LG but am wondering what the best strategy for this would be?

I've read some people say to do PT's 1-35 over and over again to fool--proof but i've also heard from others that the LG sections in those PT's are vastly different to newer PT's (and that those PT's might not be as useful).

I was wondering if anyone could give me some guidance on which PT's are the best to fool--proof?

0

Hi wonderful people,

I am just reaching the end of the LR portion of the CC and I am feeling good, but nervous for logic games. Do you think I should review all of the LR i studied from the beginning for a few days and then move to logic games, or just carry on or alternatively, do both at the same time.

Any advice and encouragement for logic games is appreciated :')

0

hey all,

has anyone had experiences/thoughts on applying the negation test to certain RC questions?

So, I feel that for certain "infer" Q's, they're kind of like Must be True questions.

Where there is 1 Must be true AC, and 4 Can be False wrong answer choices.

Thus, for the wrong answer choices, if you negate it, it can be consistent with the passage and true.

On the other hand, for right answer choices, if you negate it, it clearly contradicts the passage.

For example: pretend the passage is just one sentence: The dog is brown.

What can we infer from this passage?

A) The dog is brown

B) The dog can fly

C) Unicorns are blue

D) Dogs are ugly

For Answer choice A, if we negate it (the dog is NOT brown), that directly contradicts the passage, and is thus the right answer choice.

For the other 3 answer choices, they're unsupported, so even if we negate it, it can still be true.

Anyway, does anyone have any feedback/thoughts about this analysis?

0

Hello,

I've been scoring anywhere between -3 and -6 in each LR section for the past 7 months.

On some lucky days, I have -3 section, but I more frequently get -5 to -6 per section. I just realized that this is a probably score plateau. I use skipping strategies and timing isn't so much of an issue to me.

But I'm starting to think that I'm not improving at this point in LR. Every time I take a fresh LR section, I find it very challenging. I often think, "how am I supposed to tackle all these traps gracefully under 35 minutes?" Too much information to juggle in my poor brain! I've been studying for almost two years, and I've gotten so much better at LR, but it is still so, amazingly difficult!

When you score -3 or under in an LR section, how did you feel when you were taking the section? Did you feel like you nailed it or you had control over it? How many questions were you uncertain of? Did you nevertheless get most of them right?

Based on my plateau experience, I'm sort of developing a hypothesis that in order to score -4 or under per LR section, you shouldn't find the section too challening while taking it. Does LR get/feel easier after you break the plateau?

LSAT is incredibly hard for me, and it's really hard to trust my brain.

I invite a diverse range of scorers to participate in the poll below (vulernable to many flaws, probably :'(). I'd like to inquire into the hearts and minds of other LSAT students and evaluate my own heart and mind.

If you could comment why you selected a particular option and possibly share your score range, that'd be great!

Thank you so much.

1

Confirm action

Are you sure?