I have been seeking clarification on a frequent logic game rule. If the rule says A1---->B2, does that also mean if B is second A will be first?

Hi everyone,

I am stumbling upon this concept on this lesson https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/4-possible-explanations/

Correlation implies causation but, according to logic and lawgic, causation DOES NOT imply correlation. To my understanding, this lesson is telling me a completely different story and I cannot see the nuance. How is it possible that if A causes B, B can cause A???

Thanks very much!

Can any one tell me what the last sentence of the stimulant? I smudged mine and couldn't do this one. Thank you!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-78-section-1-question-08/

Hey guys, had a 7Sager message me with a question and I thought you could help out! Here it is:

Hi I had a question regarding the 5th question on Section 2 of preptest 78 (June 2016). you came to the conclusion that B is correct. but cant we also say that A (i.e. QS) is also true? I mean QS were also out so how do we differentiate in the end?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-78-section-2-game-1/

Hey everyone, I’m trying to figure out a good game plan for this week. I want to be adequately rested, I burned out my first time taking in February and I don’t want that to happen again.

Anyone who has good tips on how I should approach these last few days, I am all ears.

Blessed to be a part of the LSAT journey with 7Sagers challenging themselves to raise the bar higher to achieve their dreams. Your dedication to this test and most importantly your dedication to this community has raised the bar for future 7Sagers to gain knowledge to achieve their goals.

Believe in your knowledge and yourself... Be smart in your timing strategies, do not forget to breathe, and most of all - when the sh!t hits the fan, which it will no matter how awesome you are, don't sh!t in your pants - skip and get the heck out of that situation! Confidence is the key to this test and never let this test rule you!! The greatest feeling when leaving the test site is to know that you took the test the way you wanted to - no matter what the score is - no regrets:)

For everyone that I had the chance to meet during our LSAT journey, you made a difference in my life and I am truly thankful and wish you all the best on Saturday:)

Looking forward to the announcement for the Pep Rally - @"Cant Get Right" :)

Hi everyone,

I was just wondering if someone could please give me some advice. I have listened to JY's videos and engaged myself in MANY weakening questions, but I'm still struggling with them. I used JY's advice in terms of "tackling LR questions" via the flow chart, along with focusing on how I can "weaken" the support between the premises and conclusion.... but what I think I'm struggling with is finding other assumptions that would weaken the original support.

Does anyone have any tips or advice?

Thanks so much!! xx

Ps - I seem to be doing very well on strengthening questions, but weakening seems to be much more difficult.

Hey guys, I am having trouble understanding what is wrong with C. Even though I initially picked the right answer which is A I can't seem up eliminate C.

A) the proposed explanation for the decline in applications applies to this case

C) an increase in tuition and fees at the university would guarantee a larger applicant pool

the conclusion of the of this question is "so, if we want to increase the size of our applicant pool we need to raise our tuition and fees"

I just felt like A did a better job of capturing the relationship between the argument and the conclusion. Also even if C is negated it wouldn't destroy the argument because I can reply by saying "well it wouldn't guarantee but there is still a high possibility"

thoughts?

Thanks in advance

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-25/

So guys, I found a strategy that worked for me on logic games and this may not necessarily work for everyone.

But with days before the test day, for those of you who are struggling with logic games this MAY help you out. The sections I struggle with the most are RC and LR, hence I spent a lot of my time on these sections to improve my score while I neglected LG a bit since everyone was saying it's the easiest section to improve on.

I went from scoring -6 on LG to 0/-2 in only a few days.

This is what I did. Last week, I reviewed all the CC logic game videos (ie. I watched JY do the diagramming/questions for each type of game type not including the problem sets). I already did the problem sets in the past but it was a while since I touched logic games and I wasn't scoring as high as I would like.

Logic games is one of those sections that you can improve on. People on this forum aren't lying!! Thank you to everyone who helped me out with games btw!

After going through all the CC videos, I would recommend doing some of the games on the CC if you found it pretty hard to follow along with JY's inferences/diagrams etc. I know the miscellaneous games can be pretty nerve-racking but honestly, those games all involve the basics that we have been taught with logic games. Diagramming for misc. games might be the most difficult part but I would honestly recommend visualizing the scenario in your head. This helps a lot with diagramming, especially for me. I feel like once you dive into the game.. they aren't actually that hard since they involve the same type of questions etc. Reviewing the CC videos again just refreshed my mind with the possible types of logic games and I tried to draw the same types of inferences that JY was drawing. The games are really repetitive hence why I think this approach worked.

After I had re-watched the CC logic games videos, I printed 1-2 copies of PT 60-82 sections. I did all the sections timed and then re did the games or sections that I really had trouble with timed. I can honestly say, this process has helped me so much with logic games.

I obviously am pretty proficient with the conditional rules, diagramming, etc. so I found majority of the games to be pretty easy.

Again, this worked for me and may not work for everyone but I think it was worth sharing!

Feel free to ask me questions below incase I missed anything!

Good luck on the December test everyone!

I'm getting between -4 and -7 on the more recent RC, and I'm wondering how I should review these sections, and what I should be doing differently. I read for the organization/structure and take note of author attitude/opinion, and main points. I also underline names and key words.

I'm not sure what else I can do in the allotted time. Do people quickly skim the questions first to get a sense of what to look for, or is this generally pointless?

I am taking the test next week, and I want to go from --2-5 to --0. I plan to drill straight for a couple days and watch JY's videos after, and redo any ones that I bombed. But should I strictly time myself or no? I really just need to get better at diagramming effectively, and when I time myself I spend less time thinking about that. I'm wondering if I think about strategy carefully during drills, I can pick up strategies to use during timed PTs? Idk...

I had a problem with the answer choice on this one. I initially chose the correct answer of A, but on second thought, I eliminated because of "disadvantages". I went with E, because of Erik's conclusion that it was pointless = inconvenience rather than a benefit. I can't seem to reconcile the correct answer. It seems too strong in comparison with E.

I just wanted to bring it to people's attention who may have not gotten to the later PTs, that for the first question of logic games (The one usually involving a standard check of the rules) JY has been eliminating answer choices when he reads each part of the stimulus. This is a change from the earlier PTs, but I really like this, because there are times where you forget a rule and search frantically for the rule you forgot. I would highly suggest transitioning to this method, I think it will speed up your time and accuracy for logic games!

Hi Everyone. I am a PhD student in biomedical and I will defend my PhD in 3-4 months. I took the September exam and ended up with 137. I had some practice but not much. Since then I had no more attempt and completely gave up. I do better at Games and worse at RC. The problem is, I have to translate it in my mind and the time is not sufficient for that.

Do you think I can get 160+ for next June if I keep practicing and what is your main advice to me?

Thanks

Hi guys,

Hope everyone is having a great Thanksgiving break!

I just had a quick question on Causation arguments. I know there are several ways to weaken a correlation/coincidence - causation arguments - providing a common cause that produced both the cause and the effect, showing the relationship is reversed, showing there is a problem with the sample data used, and providing alternate/competing cause.

My question is when stimulus gives a single coincidence (as opposed to correlation) as the support for causal conclusion, would it be safe to assume the answer will most likely be providing alternate/competing cause? I think I came across this concept in one of JY's videos on causations and I don't think I recall any question with coincidence-causation arguments of which the correct answer was not an alternate cause?

What do you guys think??

Thanks.

Hi Everyone-

Do you know where/how we can access resources to RCs with the two mini-passages (passages A and B)? They seem to be more common on the more recent prep tests, however, I was wondering if they are, in fact, available on 7 Sage? Also, Is there a specific instructional video JY has made on this topic (that I am overlooking in the course syllabus)?

Finally, if the answer is no to both these questions, does anyone know of a solid outside resources that can help with this RC problem?

Hello,

As we all know, matching the formal elements in answer choices to the stimulus is a good way to find the correct answer on Parallel type questions. However, on this question, only the flaw matches and but the formal elements don't, in particular the certainty of the conclusion. In the stimulus, the conclusion states "probably did not" and the correct answer states "we will be unable."

I am curious if anyone else has come across questions like this and how often they come up.

Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-76-section-2-question-21/

Hi Everyone

So I have been cramming in LG sections lately to some rather good results. The first I only had -6, but I realized I selected the right AC on the test but not the paper/scantron (which I will be more careful from here on out). I'd be -2/-3 without it. I averaged -2/-3 on the rest of the LGs I took.

I took them originally a few months ago and only redid them each a couple times three months ago. If I'm doing good now and BRing my circled Qs keeps me at that range or better, is it because I did them before or because I make good inferences now?

Nate

Hi all! I'm taking the December LSAT, although a bit behind on studying, especially for LGs. Right now, I'm spending basically all my time FP-ing LGs and slowly adding in news ones. But I'm concerned that I won't have exposed myself to enough overall LGs to be able to deploy my skills when faced with new LG scenarios on the test. Do y'all think I should keep doing this or focus more on taking timed sections and new LGs in order to get the best LG score?

Thanks for any/all advice!

Hey everyone!

I wanted to hear your advice regarding study plans for the last few days. Honestly, I feel I am a little burned out. I've been studying like crazy for the past 6 months (while working full time). I hit rock bottom about three weeks ago when I went from scoring 164 to 155 in a span of 1 week, and just got like crazy depressed. I've been working on chilling and slowing the pace lately, so that I don't feel burned out by the time of the test, and it has worked so far, I'm scoring once again around the161-163 range (my goal is a 165).

Now, what do you think about not blind reviewing as thoroughly in the next weeks? I feel I am no really going to grasp new concepts in such a short time. So I wanted to take as many PTs as I can instead, to get my mindset ready for the test. My schedule would look something like this: Wednesday full PT77; Friday half PT78; Saturday full PT82; Sunday Drilling LGs; Monday half PT 79 and Wednesday full PT 81. Thursday and Friday I would just chill.

This does not mean I wouldn't BR, but I would definitely do it more selectively. For instance, I'm stuck at -6/-7 on RC since I first started studying, so I wouldn't dedicate that much time to that section. As for LR, I would definitely not spend 20 to 25 minutes thinking about a tough question.

Do you think this is a good approach? If not, what do you recommend?

Thanks in advance!

The flaw is very apparent, however the wording in this confused me. Whats the best way to parse out the answer choices under timed conditions?

Hi, I'm currently studying for the December LSAT (20-25 hours a week + a full course load + clubs and a sport). I've changed my studying habits from the first time around I was studying. I began in early May with the expectations of taking the September test. I only depended on the PowerScore Bibles (all 3) and I purchased two PrepTest books. I honestly didn't utilize the best techniques at first and in a strange way, luck was on my side. I got stuck in Irma back home and LSAC moved my test for free to any date. I wanted to take it in December because I wanted to get it over with and I didn't want to keep prolonging it. Anyways, with the whole stress of balancing everything and keeping up with assignments, exams, and papers. Sometimes I'm overwhelmed especially at this point towards the end of the term. I've changed my studying to taking 1-2 PrepTests a week under timed conditions at the library on the silent floor. I'm seeing gradual improvements with fluctuations. I always return to the questions I got wrong and the ones I got correct. For the ones I get wrong, I identify the type of question and I also make note of questions that I narrow the two possible answers and answers that I second guess and either select the wrong answer or I just change the answer completely.

I'm noticing this is my main problem. If I didn't second guess myself, I would score 165+. I'd just like to know if anyone else encounters this and what is the best way to overcome this? I also had this same issue with the SAT but that was so long ago I honestly forgot what it felt like. Timing is really not my problem at this point, it's more an issue of accuracy and self-trust. Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

Hi guys,

So with about 9 days to go until the Dec 2nd Lsat, definitely looking for some advice regarding how to approach this last stretch. Context: I did a PT on Tuesday and finished reviewing today. The plan as of now is to do PT's tomorrow, Saturday, Monday & Wednesday. Then use Thursday as a logic game drill day to get as much final practice on games as I can. Finishing off with Friday maybe doing a few timed LR, LG or RC problems just to maintain the mindset. My concern is what if I'm not using my time wisely? or possibly burning out before the test. The PT's I have set aside to take are 78, 79, 80 & 82. Don't know if I should change up the PT schedule, maybe drop 1 or drop 2? Use them as timed sections instead. Any advice on structuring the study plan for the final stretch, advice regarding the sections or advice on what I can do to make sure I use these last 9 days as effectively as possible to maximize my score, would be much appreciated. Feel free to lay out a study plan you think will work best. Drills, timed sections, pt's etc.

Stats

Avg PT Score: 165

PT's Since Mid-Sept: 15

Avg per Section: LR - 45 RC - 19/20 LG -16/17 (although whenever I hit 165, LR is 46/47 or RC is 22 etc)

I was BR-ing but it took way too much time while working full-time, so I started just reviewing normally and trying to see why the answers were wrong and why they were right. Don't see how I'd be able to BR the legit way if I do a PT every other day as intended in my study plan.

RC, honestly is my most understudied section. My approach is really just reading each para and answering the relevant questions and continuing through the passage this way and answer any remaining questions, if any. I've tried other methods such as breaking down the passaging, writing notes, reading the whole passage then going to questions and vice versa. The current approach has had a more consistent result so I've been going with that. I doubt changing the approach and trying to learn a new one would be wise at this point. Any tips/advice would be great though. I am always rushing one passage (comparative which I save for last) in the 5min warning if I get to it, If I don't I guess and somehow score the same. RC errors are spread out across the passages, 1-2 per usually when I do get to all of them.

The LG scores are mainly due to timing issues, I almost always only get to 3 games. I rarely get time to get to the fourth game. I want to focus on getting as much LG practice as it's the section where typically most people can make gains.

Can't wait until I never have to look at or solve another logic game, RC or a LR set in a timed setting ever again. :)

With only days before the December test... I am struggling to improve RC.

I have tried every possible strategy to improve my timing on this section and it ranges from -11 to -15 and sometimes -9.

What can I do at this point to increase my RC score? The struggle is real guys... I would like to score min. 18 on this section by test day.

So I 100% understand why A is the correct answer. I don't need an explanation on that.

I need an explanation on how answer choice C, when negated, does not destroy our argument.

P1: Government polices have significantly increased consumer demand for fuel.

P2: Result of increased demand the prices of gas have risen.

C: There is not doubt that the government is responsible for the increased cost of gasoline.

Answer choice C: Consumer demand cannot increase without causing gasoline prices to increase.

Negated: Consumer demand CAN increase without causing gasoline prices to increase.

Okay, so if we place the negated version of AC C into the argument doesn't it fall apart?

If consumer demand can increase without causing gas prices to increase. Then the government policy that increased the consumer demand is not necessarily responsible for the increased cost of gasoline. So his conclusion that there "is no doubt" is completely screwed right?

What am I missing, I feel like it should be obvious but it is not.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-3-question-22/