I studied philosophy in undergrad so I never expected to struggle with RC. Hundreds of pages every night were common but RC has nonetheless kicked my ass. I've been studying for over 8 months and nothing really ever "clicked"... until today.

I decided to switch it up a bit today and completed an RC section while sitting comfortably on my sofa (much like I would while reading a novel). A few things happened. Because I was incredibly relaxed I accidentally spent more time reading and understanding the passage (probably about 4 minutes). I also found eliminating answer choices to be a lot easier because I remembered what I read more clearly. In the end, I was pressed for time on the last passage but I imagine that is because I was moving at such a different pace. I only missed one question. This is significant for me because my average falls around -7 and my best RC score was previously -4. So this is obviously a huge outlier and I'm still not sure how it will work out for me in the long run. For now I'm just excited to try something new that might work!

Has anyone else experienced a significant jump after calming down and reading the passage a bit more naturally? I know spending more time up front on the passage leaves little room for error but maybe that's a better method for some people. I still had plenty of time to revisit each passage for the questions that called for it.

Does anyone else have a hard time remembering what they were thinking when they got a logic game question wrong? I can always remember my (wrong) thinking on LR and RC, so it's easier to learn from my mistakes. But when I do a logic game a second time through and get it right, I draw a blank. I don't know what I was thinking. I got it right this time. Geez. Anyway, it makes it harder to correct errors of thought. Anyone else in this situation?

Yay for small victories! Studying works guys (who'd've thought lol). The only thing I've been doing differently is doing the last passage first. It's helped my timing and confidence. Woo hoo!

Can someone explain PT13 S2 Q18 to me

Admin note: edited title

I'm taking the September exam and really want to nail down LG since it's killing my scores. It can get as bad as -11, BR -0/-1. I foolproofed games 1-35 and I can get -0/-1 on almost all games that I do untimed but I can't seem to nail down consistency and timing. Since some games take longer than others I think I get panicked when I don't have set time benchmarks to refer to (I tried finishing the 1st in 5 min, the second in 7, the third in 8 and the last in 10ish but that gets way too confusing to keep track of) so I end of wasting a lot of time skipping around and setting up gameboards for each game but freaking out on the naked questions. Does anyone have any tips or a process they work through during a timed LG section? I am thinking of foolproofing again but I also want to be able to consistently scoring well on new material, I think I've memorized too much of the bundle to create good inference habits, but I might try it if I decide it can help.

I can't seem to find the rhythm for the Logical Reasoning sections, I keep getting at least 10 wrong per section. I am taking the LSAT in less than a month, any recommendations?

No matter how many videos and notes I take I am still having trouble understanding when the necessary is being satisfied or failed and the same for sufficient. I understand what the rules are saying but I still am not understanding how to recognize the two when it comes to in/out games.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-9-section-3-game-2/

In reference to this game, in game board three we have In: K, N ,L and Q. I understood why L went in but for Q this is when I get lost. If K went in then I thought that the sufficient was being satisfied but if the sufficient is being satisfied then the necessary must be satisfied but that wasn't the case because Q became a floater which means that the necessary was satisfied. Can someone please clear up this confusion? I am not sure what I am missing or what isn't clicking.

I'm currently on this section of the CC right now. When I was watching JY diagram the game with the chart, I thought it was very useful/fast. However, I am still confused on when it is appropriate to use the chart. How do you know which grouping games to use it for?

I am scoring in the 150-155 range and really want to improve. Sometimes, I do great on the games and get 20 correct. Other times, I get only 13 correct. I don't have a lot of time to fool proof by September test, but which ones should be my MAIN priority to fool proof for now? What would help the most? Thank you!

Pardon my panicking, but I'm a month away from the LSAT and decided to change my approach to RC, with major emphasis placed on structure as opposed to details. In doing so, I managed to get -12 (woah!) on the RC section in PrepTest 63. Has anybody experimented with RC and fallen into such a rut in the past? In particular, has anybody experimented with an emphasis on structure? If so, do you have any advice as how to adopt this approach (in other words, what should I be doing to inculcate such an approach into my strategy)? (If it is relevant, my inspiration came from Mike Kim's free RC video online.)

So I just wanted to start a survey regarding my thoughts on logic games. As we all know, although logic games can be really fun in the beginning they can certainly become very daunting and cumbersome under pressure and the stakes of an official exam. Who here would prefer to take LSAT with an extra LR or RC section instead? Who think he or she would score higher if LSAC were to take out the logic games section?

Hey guys. I’m hoping some of you LSAT masters can help with this question. I’ve been trying to wrap my brain around it for the past few days with no luck. I understand it is a correlation/ causation flaw, but I can’t seem to understand why D is the AC and E is wrong

Thanks :)

Admin note: edited title

If cars drive faster, there will typically be a higher accident/fatality rate.

PT 57 Spoiler below

I'm writing out an explanation for https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-57-section-2-question-20/ and I got to AC C where it's wrong for different reason, but I do see another assumption that I stated above. I wanted to know if this is alright for the LSAT.

Conclusion: It is premature to conclude that telepathy is an alternative means of communication.

Can anyone explain why (A) is the answer? In what part of the premise does the author points to "the inadequacy of evidence for the opposite view?"

Admin note: edited title.

Hello everyone!

I am having trouble with point at issue questions and I know that you can either make a chart or just use your intuition.

I use the intuitive method and most of the time I overthink and choose answers that aren’t even mentioned by the two speakers. What if I try solving these questions like how JY solves the questions on comparative passages? Like read the first person’s argument and eliminate some answers and then read the next person’s argument to choose the right answer?

Does anyone use this kind of method?

Thank you!!

Hey guys. I recently was going through some comments in RC and came across a chat referencing the LOCI method that fellow 7Sager @Alex? Would anyone be able to point me toward more information on this or be able to describe to me what that method entails? Thanks a lot guys!

Hi all,

I am taking the September LSAT and I am not done with the Logic Game portion. As you can imagine, I am freaking out.

But, anyways. How should I be approaching these lessons?

Should I watch all the videos and do all the problem sets and then come back later to foolproof all the problem sets and questions I struggled with (which, is probably all of them at this point)?

OR should I watch the videos and full proof the crap out of the sets I struggled with until I get it right and then continue to go through the CC, stopping to foolproof before moving on?

Is Fool Proofing for after you're doing with the CC???

Thank you.

Good day to all! I need some help. I am always getting these type of questions wrong and have decided to make a brief overview of the typical question in the hopes that someone can PLEASE help. :)

Most strongly supports/stregthens/weakens/expresses/describes.

Is there a general strategy to these type of questions that any of you Jedi Masters have helped you to get these questions right?

Much appreciated and good luck to all!

Now that we're a little over a month away from the September LSAT, I'm just curious what everyone is focusing on/how you're hammering out your routines. I'm taking one PT per week and reviewing/drilling/fool proofing in between PTs. I'm a little bit nervous that that won't be enough PTs before the test, but I tend to do better when I do fewer PTs and put more focus on the other aspects of studying.

I just finished going over a warm up piece from LG PT46 and had a bit of a realization during BR. I commented at the link below and I would absolutely love to know what other 7Sagers think about this added step going onto each LG game.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-46-section-4-game-2/

It's sorry it's so long. Thank you!!

To those who consistently score well in RC, do you usually have significant time remaining at the end like in LG or LR?

Hello everyone!

I've taken about 15 PT's now, and am still consistently missing flaw/strengthen/weaken problems—basically the questions that force me to think outside of the box. When I go over questions I got wrong, the correct answer always makes sense, yet when test-taking I struggle with coming up with those types of answers myself. Has anyone else had this problem? Do you have any recommendations for working on this type of thinking and practicing it? I've gone over the CC a couple of times now for these types of questions, but it never seems to stick...

Hey everybody!

I had this idea for RC that I wanted to run by the community and get some input. After all is said and done, the gist of the RC is to actively read so that after every sentence, you are constantly building a puzzle and applying it back on the previously read sentences. At the end of the day, it isn't so simple to keep all that new info neatly filed away in your brain. A powerful tool that is missing here is review. The thing about reviewing is that you need downtime in between the material studied and the actual review for your brain to settle. Just skimming over the selection real quick after the initial read won't do it. So I was thinking, what if you read all four paragraphs in succession and then return to the first selection, skimming it in about two minutes and then doing the questions on it and continuing for the rest of the selections? I have tried it twice. Both times I finished by the skin of my teeth (not much improvement from doing the questions right after an initial read). However, I answered most questions more confidently and quickly than before although my overall score didn't improve much. Has anybody been doing it this way? I figured I could improve in this strategy but I'm still not convinced it is the best way.

I'm having a hard time brainstorming assumptions for SA, PSA, weaken and strengthen questions. Sometimes when I draw out the premises and conclusion and look for the missing assumption, I end up with something that's either not in the AC. It's been interfering with how well I can do on these questions. I've practiced quite a lot, but does anyone have any tips on how to be smart about working on this? Thanks!

Does anyone have a "cheat sheet" for how to approach different question types? ex. main point is to find conclusion then look for answer. same idea but for all the different question types