Hello,

I came across a puzzling question while I was answering this reading comprehension question. Just to be clear, my question is more a question on formal logic than that of reading comprehension. I was wondering if the following two statements (ideas) have the same meaning.

Statement 1: Since courts cannot decide such cases on legal grounds, for its resolution, they must consider exercising judicial discretion.

Statement 2: Since courts cannot decide such cases on legal grounds, they rely for its resolution only on judicial discretion.

These two statements are statements that I edited and recreated from the passage to fit the description of my question that came across my mind regarding conditional logic (the first hybrid statement is located at lines 24 - 29 in the passage, and the second statement is a hybrid statement of answer choice D of question 14). Using conditional logic, it seems that in both cases exercising judicial discretion is the necessary condition for the resolution of the case [Statement 1 has "must" and Statement 2 has "only"]. However, just intuitively, the first statement seems to imply that while judicial discretion is necessary, there may be more. On the other hand, the second statement seems to imply that judicial discretion is THE one and only necessary condition....

Is there something I am missing? Is there maybe a subtle difference of meaning between necessary condition indicators such as "require/must/only if/etc," and the indicator of "only"?? Or is it maybe because the necessary condition for the first statement is "CONSIDERING judicial discretion" while the necessary condition for the second statement is JUST judicial discretion? They look like logical equivalents, yet they seem to imply two different things.... Any help would be great!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-4-passage-2-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-4-passage-2-questions/

How to describe the situation: No one in this house will go to the party.

A. In this house ------》-- go to the party

B. -- in this house -------》go to the party

Hi everyone,

So i've been posting here semi-often these last two weeks as I work through the CC. I'm just over the 30% mark in material and I decided to take a timed LR section today. I took the June exam and got a 154 and the test we did at the beginning of CC got a 154 as well. I missed roughly -10/-11 on each LR section and even blind reviewed the same. Today I missed -11 and blind reviewed -8. Two questions I still felt foggy about, so I was ok with them being wrong. To say I was disappointed still is a bit of an understatement. I won't relive the gory details but I had a small kitten who has never seen anyone upset in my face and a friend show up with an entire container of ice-cream (I didn't eat the whole thing but I thought about it).

Can I do better by September? I feel so discouraged that this stuff just doesn't want to stick and even more upset that answers I felt like I could totally justify were plain wrong. I don't really want to postpone my exam to December for a multitude of reasons but I need a better score. I've just been doing the CC but should I start mixing in drilling? PTs? Timed PTs? I think I just need to put in more hours every week so if anyone if willing to give me a schedule to follow every day I will happily oblige.

Send help, good vibes, prayers to whoever you believe in, advice, funny memes, etc.

hi guys,

so when you have a SUPER long inference Q, how do you approach such questions?

I know that for argument type questions, we MUST understand the relationship between the support and the conclusion before moving on to the answer choices.

But since inference questions are just statements, not arguments, do you move on to the answer choices even if you don't fully understand the stimuli?

When answering questions on the logical reasoning section, I found myself having a difficult time distinguishing between common answer types. I feel as if my problem is that I don't know the clear cut distinction between these types. They are as follows:

Would someone be willing to help me out with this? Whenever I am doing a PT I often find myself delving into these answer stems for too long.

Thank you!

If I want to practice validity questions....which questions should I be drilling the most? NA, PSA, SA, and MBT....is there anything I'm missing?

Understanding and applying validity has been suuuuuch an uphill battle for me. And just to make sure it's sunk in, I want to drill as many of those question types as I can.

Thanks!

I am taking a 10 hr flight tomorrow, I would love to study in the air. There is no wifi, however. Any way I can view the lessons without internet?

Hey guys,

I plan on drilling every RC passage from PTs 1-35. Just wanted to get some input on whether this would be a good strategy? I understand that RC changes in newer tests with the addition of the comparative passages. I'm also unsure whether there's a drastic change in the question types in PTs 60+. Or does it not really matter, and it would still be useful to drill from RC 1-35?

Thanks for the help!

Hi all!

I just finished PT 38 and scored a 176, BR 179. These are absolutely wild scores for me, as I average around 165. I am studying for a retake in September, after scoring a 161 in June.

I am reminding myself this it is an outlier score, but noting that I am capable of it (somehow). Typically, I struggle with RC, can foolproof LG (though potentially missing 1-3 stupid questions, or a really hard game stumping me), and am I seeing lots of improvement on LR lately (missing 2-5 per section normally).

Thoughts? How should I approach/adjust my attitude after this score?

P.S. Planning another PT tomorrow, so that will be added to the bag-- taking 2-3 per week until Sept.

Im having a little trouble understanding why answer choice D is correct. I understood the flaw that an absence of proof for something to be false, does not make it true the minute i read it.

However the wording in Answer choice D is confusing me. Specifically, " Rejects the possibility"

I'd love some inputs!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-26-section-3-question-10/

Here's the situation: during many of my times practice tests I find that I get bogged down in the middle of the section. I can make it through the first 10 questions with little issue and recover by the end but I find large chunks of wrong answers in the middle. Of course, there are questions I still struggle with and I understand that I can approach individual question types but does anyone have experience with this? Is it also true that the middle of the section is where the hardest questions are?

Hello,

I was working on PT35.S4.Q11, and came across the expression "if all and only those", and it seemed to me as a biconditional indicator, but I haven't come across it yet. Do you agree?

Lawgic: real (---) "entities posited by the most explanatorily powerful theory of the science"

In one of the lessons, JY states:

"Some dogs are cute. All cute things are loveable.

Therefore, some dogs are lovable".

My question is, why is it not, "Therefore, ALL dogs are loveable"?

once I get the setup right I can do quite well on making inferences and completing the game. But I am horrible when there are multiple sets that must be assigned. I don't know what the base should be, and I am quite poor at determining if they should be in columns, how many per Collum, or rows. Overall I am just horrible at setting the games up. How can I improve?

So i have made tremendous strides in my RC method and technique over the past couple of weeks. Contrary to populer belief, i think RC is a very doable section, especially with the proper incorporation of the memory method.

My question is: does it ever get to the point when one is comfortable with every passage they encounter? I realize this is subjective, but i am asking about your personal experience.

Alot of times i will read a passage and BAM, i feel super in control of the content and absolutely breeze through the questions. And these arent necessarily based on the content or the difficulty. And sometimes i just seem pretty blurry even after a couple of reads. Any thoughts?

I have not done as many of tests to get a conclusion, but I heard there is a difference, is that true? anything you guys noticed?

I'm at a point with Logic Games where I can consistently get -0 in 30 minutes, but I acknowledge a significant reason for this is that I've done every game at least twice -- the ones that gave me particular trouble, many more times.

I want to stay sharp on the section as I gear up to retake in September, but I also don't want to be blind-sighted on test day, when I will be faced with a new set of logic games for the first time in over 3 months.

So -- is anyone else in the same boat? Would anyone recommend a testing prep company that writes their own logic games instead of using LSAC official ones? For LR or RC, I'd be very skeptical about using questions not asked on the actual exam, but given the nature of LG, I think the benefits outweigh the cost, as I'd be supplementing the made-up games with real sets.

I am learning MBT Questions. JY uses diagrams. Should we, too?

Anyone feel like commenting on ACs A and E? Having trouble totally ruling out A.

Thanks

I've heard very little about this. Does anyone use a particular method for triaging LR questions you want to return to? Dark/light circles/squares? Marking a question "completed" after you return and feel 100% confident?

Thanks!

Anyone in the Durham Region or GTA planning on taking the December 2017 test?

Interested in possibly starting a study group if I get any takers. Open to online and/or in person.

Message me!

Hi guys! General question about strengthening questions. I know from reviewing the core curriculum that, in theory, you can strengthen an argument one of two ways:

1.) adding premises that support the conclusion

2.) increasing the relevance of an existing premise to a conclusion

However, the more strengthening explanations I watch, the more I notice the right answer never really adds an independent extra premise. It always relates back to an existing premise, and makes it more relevant. Also JY mentions in several videos that the AC's that seem to add extra premises are the trap answers.

So, are there examples of correct strengthening AC's that do add an extra premise that in no way has to do with any of the premises already in the stimulus? Because if so, that would be quite useful in identifying trap answer choices. Thank you!

Hi guys,

This is such a stupid question but as the title says, how do you translate: "Jack must wear every colour Fred wears" into Lawgic

Is it F-->J ?

My confusion stems from the fact that there are 2 lawgic indicators (must and every) here. I actually missed "every" initially and thought it was only must so I diagrammed it as J-->F.

Should I interpret it as: "Every colour Fred wears must be worn by Jack" ?

Sorry for the silly question haha just want to be sure.

Any idea when the LR videos for test question explanation will be back up and running?

I am by no means a master of this test BUT i had located a recurring question type that i struggled with.. NA, and i am proud to say that i have conquered it!!!

How? With intense drilling.

I took all the NA questions from PT 1-20 and broke them into small digestible groups of 5s

I then did them at random times through the day for a week.

NA is the strangest question type for me bc it asks for something that is so obvious that my brain fills in the information for me.

By becoming sensitive to the kind of "in your face" obviousness that the question is asking for, makes the AC stand out like a sore thumb.

If anyone else has success stories or methods of slaying the beast (lsat), i would love to hear them