Just wondering how other people go about drilling specific question types.

I have narrowed down my problem question types and now wondering what the best way to drill those weaknesses .

Should i time them in groups? Or individually?

Just trying to set out a feeler for what worked for other people.

P.S. of course, no matter, what there will be an intensive BR and Review of every question

Hello,

This is an NA question that I have been trying to grasp. It's REALLY hard.

I will explain how I can justify the to myself and I would be so grateful if anyone wants to chime in and add any additional analysis.

The stimulus -

CTX: There is frozen nitrogen, methane, and carbon monoxide on the surface of Pluto, which vaporize to make Pluto's atmosphere.

P: The proportion of each gas in Pluto's atmosphere results how readily the gas vaporizes.

C: Pluto's atmosphere is made of nitrogen, methane, and carbon monoxide gas, listed from greatest to lowest proportion.

The correct answer states that there is no frozen substance (let's call it X) on Pluto that vaporizes more readily than methane but less readily than carbon monoxide. In other words there is no gas X in the atmosphere of which there is more than methane and less than carbon monoxide. The negation would read like this: C > X > M , there is a fourth gas in the atmosphere and there is more carbon monoxide than methane (if I understand correctly).

I think my issue at first was that I did not read the conclusion to say there were only three gases in the atmosphere and no others; I suppose stating "the components are..." does imply that. So, if there was a fourth gas in the atmosphere, there are not three, as the conclusions claim. Moreover, with the CA negated, there would be more carbon monoxide than methane, which wrecks the argument. This seems to be an example of a really bare minimum NA, that makes you go "doi."

I chose (D), which states that nitrogen is only found in the atmosphere if it is also found as ice on the planet's surface. It's useless to the argument. Natm --> Nps ; /Nps --> /Natm. Neither of these statements reveal anything new or relevant about the situation.

Thanks in advance for any input!

In the Fool Proof Method for LG in the CC, step 6 tells us to write down all inferences from memory. What exactly does this mean in practice? For every game I'm not perfect at -- I take another clean copy, and go through the game and simply write down what I remember? Am I not reading the questions; just jotting down what I recall?

One of the biggest issues I have is not reading the sentences in the stimuli carefully...

Do you have any suggestions to prevent such mistakes besides underlining?

Also, I found paraphrasing/re-wording what I just read in my own words before moving on to the next sentence is incredibly helpful to comprehend the RC passages. For those who have mastered LR, how do you read the stimuli? do you think paraphrasing would be helpful in LR as well or do you think such step is unnecessary in LR?

Thanks everyone! :)

Math and I have never been close. Now with Lsat, I often come across questions that J.Y. marks as "high-school algebra" or "mathematical question in disguise" and almost always, I get them wrong.

It seems that I have to overcome my life-long battle with math. But, I think repetitively practicing these math questions aren't going to cut it. So, I want to ask those who has struggled and defeated these type of questions, what was your approach/strategy? Also, do you know any books/outside material that could supplement and improve my lack of mathematical reasoning skills?

Any advice will be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance :)

Heres the problem so Im getting all of the easy questions correct and some of the hard ones too but I really want to drill the really difficult questions so I know that I am actually improving, do you guys know where to find the harder LR questions to drill? Thank you so much!!!!!!!!

So i have taken my second PT since foolproofing and i have seen major improvement. But i still seem to be struggling with parrallel flaw, some flaw qs, and NA. I have rewatched the cc on them and read the LSAT trainer on them. Was wondering what the general concensus is on taking the older tests, say 7-20, and locating all the specific question types above and just doing one after another with an extensive BR/ review of each?

Hey everyone,

My LSAT analytics are showing me that my Parallel Flaw and Parallel Reasoning questions are of the highest priority. I've made some strong improvements in these two question types, but want to continue getting better at them. I'm hoping someone could shed some light on their approach to these questions. I will lay down my basic approach to them, and perhaps someone could tell me whether my approach needs work.

Parallel Flaw

For these question types I want to find the AC with the most similar flaw. Argument structure is not SO much as important (but still a consideration) as the flaw itself. So first, I check to see if I can diagram the argument in pure Lawgic. If I can do that and find a similar glaring flaw in the AC - BOOM - done. If the question doesn't translate well into logic, I try to use 'pseudo-logic' diagramming - much like the questions you encounter in PF section of the CC. If that doesn't work, I then try to to just understand and vocalize the flaw as a whole. Is the argument moving from relative evidence to absolute, is it confusing sufficient with necessary, etc etc?

These 3 approaches is essentially how I attack PF questions. What I find is however, that I'm usually unable to diagram the questions in pure Lawgic, so I either 'psuedo-diagram' or I try to vocalize the flaw. Is this a good tactic?

Parallel Reasoning

For these question types we want to find the AC with the same reasoning structure! First I try to see if the stimulus lends itself neatly into Lawgic. If that doesn't work, I attempt to use 'pseudo-logic' terms to better understand the parts of the argument and how they relate (structure). Finally, if that doesn't work, I try to vocalize the way in which the argument moves from premises to conclusion and find a similar conclusion. I find this question type easier because I can turn to the conclusion and eliminate answer choices which do not have similar conclusions.

SO, do you think my approach is good? Can I make improvements? If so, how?

Thanks, and good luck!

I just came across the circular subway game from PT18 S1 G3. I was wondering if there are any other games similar to this one that I can practice? Anything that makes use of a circle would be very useful.

Hello All,

I just started the 7Sage course cause I'm hoping to obtain a better approach towards logical reasoning and reading comprehension. I started with Powerscore and I've read the Logical Reasoning and Games bibles from cover to cover. I've already taken the June 2007 diagnostic before. Should I take it again with 7 Sage's approach or just put in the answers from when I first took the exam? Also, with two months to go till the September exam, is it ok to just skip over to sections that I need immediate help on or start everything from the beginning?

Do you focus on finding the flaw in the argument and then matching that to an AC? Like any other flaw q, just instead of naming it you find another example of that? Or do you focus on the argument structure?

Thr biggest time sink questions for myself are the parallel questions and if i have to go through the same method for parallel flaw, i dont see how i will have enough time

So I think i'm confused at how these are different. I completely understand the definitions of valid and invalid arguments. I'm just confused at how you would be able to distinguish these two things on the LSAT. Does the question stem typically tell you it wants "invalid" or "valid" or will you just have to make a decision based off the stimulus?

So I have printed all the LG and grouped them by type (basic linear, advanced linear, grouping etc). I am also using the spreadsheet to track my times, questions wrong and date taken. I am trying to figure out when do I repeat the same LG? Should I do the game, watch the video, and immediately redo the game? Or should I wait to redo the game until the next day? How much lag time should I have between the initial time doing the game and redoing the game after watching the video?

Thanks for the help!!

Hi,

I am planning to write the LSAT this September. I had taken my first diagnostic in early May and had scored 143. After preparing with the LSAT Trainer and PT 52-61 and reviewing, I have taken my second timed PT (PT 74, using the 7sage proctor) today and have scored a 157 (-14 on RC, -4 and -5 on the LRs, and -9 on the LG).

I still have PTs 62-73, 75-80, and 81 (yet to purchase) left for further PTing, and I do plan to go serially through them. I intend to score in the real LSAT in the 160-164 range. Given that I only have 8 weeks left now, in what ways can I make that jump by at least 5 points?

Thanks for any advice!

Is it necessary to identify premise, context and conclusions in Most strongly support questions? So far I don't and have done well.

I can't print any of the prep tests or problem sets. Always prepares, then gives me a "print failed: print job cancelled" error.

Anyone know how to fix this?

I'm using a Chromebook, would it be better to use my parent's (crappy) Windows laptop to print?

Some LR questions have answer choices that say that an argument "assumes without providing justification that (xyz)", and some say that an argument "takes (xyz) for granted". Do these phrases mean the same thing? If not, please explain the difference(s). Thanks! :)

My question here stems from the situation presented in PT36.S3.Q26 (https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-36-section-3-question-26/)

It seems that the explanation for the right answer is that by falsifying a factor that would harm an argument if otherwise true, you are therefor strengthening it. This seems odd to me, as establishing a lack of past dissent doesn't equal some degree of current support in my opinion. It's neutral if anything.

But anyway, if we accept the aforementioned logic as fact for LSAT purposes, here are my

Does this mean that scratching off a potential weakening factor always counts, and will always be the answer for a "Most Strengthen" question?

And if so, does it happen in the reverse? Does scratching off a potential strengthener always qualify as the answer which most weakens?

Would we ever have to choose between an answer that merely hurts a weakening factor (which I see as being closer to neutral) vs. deliberately supports a strengthening factor?

Thanks ^_^

Hey, yall. For weaken type questions do you think it's safe to double check your AC by determining if it precludes the conclusion from being properly drawn from the evidence? If not, it's not the correct AC. We have a way to double check NA AC why not for all?? Ugh! It's been a minute since I've gone through the curriculum so this may have been mentioned. My bad if so. I get the task for weaken questions: weaken the support between the premise and conclusion. I'm just trying to help it become more intuitive for me. Thoughts? Anyone think I could get turned around or confused in higher degree of difficulty questions?

Hey guys,

Looking for pointers on how you guys use the LR drill packets. What have you found helpful?

Since we only have a finite number of 'fresh' questions from PT 1-35 I don't want to squander my packets needlessly. I'm at the stage where I really only need to reinforce some fundamental strategies (like looking for weak claims among NA answer choices etc.) and solidify my trust in my intuitions.

So say I want to work on RRE questions having bombed an easy one during a PT. To reinforce my approach I revisit the CC, work through the example RRE questions again with JY (the ones before the problem sets). What do you guys do after this point? Problem sets? Drill packets?

At the moment we've got 3 and a half LR packets covering PT 1-35. In the first group (1-9) there is something like 20+ RRE questions. As a drill "session" would you burn through all 20+ of these RRE questions? Would you do fewer of them and do them in more detail? Do them timed or untimed? Do only do the harder ones (I don't even know if they're arranged by difficulty in the drill packets)?

Sorry this is dense and I hope it makes sense :)

Hi All,

Let's say we have the conditional statement "If I go to the market and go to the mall, then I will reward myself with ice cream."

Then I have the statement "Even if I go to the mall, I will not reward myself with ice cream."

What implications does this have? "Even if" is not a conditional indicator, so I believe all this statement is really saying is that "I will not reward myself with ice cream." From this we can infer that "I will not go to the market." We know that even if I do go the mall, it still not sufficient to trigger the conditional, so therefore we must know that I am not going to the market.

Thoughts on this? For a point of reference, PT71.S3.Q11 is what prompted this consideration-- answer choice B specifically.

Does anyone else find these questions insanely hard?

Granted I only started working with them in the newer Prep Tests since they didn't show up prior to the 60s, so I don't have as much practice with them. But I have tried watching J.Y's explanation on these and it still isn't helping me get them. I feel like when I do get them it is more luck than anything

I'm wondering if I should devote a day to just trying to figure out how to do these questions, or whether it is worth the time and effort. Anyone have any strategies they use?

Having a rough time w this one. Can anyone help out?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-1-question-08/

The correct answer on this question doesn't make sense to me. The main conclusion of the argument is very narrow, and the answer goes outside the scope of the argument in order to weaken it. Can someone please explain this to me? Maybe in a private message? I'm trying not to break any rules by revealing too much here.

I understand that a key to master the LR section is to focus only on the core of the stimulus as a stimulus usually consists of unimportant details and fluffs (especially stimuli in the recent tests are denser than those in the old ones). But do you guys ever skim when the stimulus is very long and dense? Or do you just decide to focus on certain parts of the stimulus (the core) AFTER reading/understanding everything said in the stimulus?

Thanks!!! :)