I have been studying logical reasoning stimuli that include a sentence about what someone OTHER than the author says, usually near the start of the paragraph. I call these the "some people say" statements. They are different from "expert testimony," which supports the conclusion. These "some people say" statements do NOT support the conclusion. In fact, after looking at them carefully, it looks like almost every conclusion in a "some people say" stimulus is a simple negation of the "some people say" statement.

I like the term "antithesis" for these statements, since the "thesis" of the stimulus is the conclusion and the "some people say" text is the logical opposite of that.

Admin: Removed link to blog. Please read rules on advertising:

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion#/discussion/15/forum-rules

I would love to know if anybody can find any counterexamples to this "some people say" rule. If not, then it would provide a simple and teachable logical reasoning shortcut. Just "find the anthithesis" near the top of the stimulus, negate it, and find the evidence to support that negation. It's easy to find if you know what you're looking for.

Hello!

My last few preptests have been roughly the same in terms of score (164 average) but my LG score has been decreasing rapidly. For example, the last few preptest have been -1, -2, -3, -5, and -7, respectively, on LG. I was just wondering if anyone else has gone through this and if you could recommend a plan of action to fix this before the June test. I was thinking about going back and redoing all of the lessons, and focusing more on fool proof review, but I am not sure what else to do.

Thanks!

I am approaching this question as a pseudo-assumption Q, how an I translate to lawgic?

Jarrett-->should not have criticized (premise)

Pointing out defects benefitted no one (conclusion)

???? Stuck at this point....

Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-3-question-20

I have been analyzing all the June 2007 (public domain) questions one by one, and find that they all neatly fit into very neat symbolic argument patterns--except for Section II Question 24. I would appreciate any comments on this particular question, especially if someone can help me write up a symbolic logic representation of it.

Please don't post full questions on the discussion forums, even if this is a free PT! You can see the question and explanation here:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-2-question-24

Why is B incorrect? How does C weaken the argument?

Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-1-question-13

Hi, I'm a bit confused with the rule "M and N cannot be selected together."

Is this a biconditional with never together always apart? so, M (--) ~N

Or do I use 'cannot' and think of it as group 4? so, M --> ~N

Which one would be correct?

Thanks for the help.

I need confirmation whether my understanding of OR rule is correct.

There is a rule in the last game of PT24 that says: G cannot be prescribed if both N and U are prescribed.

N & U -->/G

Contrapositive= G --> /N or /U

So there are 3 possibilities if the contrapositive is triggered: 1) N is out 2) U is out or 3) N and U are both out.

If I CHANGE the rule to G --> N or U, would 3 possibilities be 1) N is in 2) U is in or 3) N and U are both in?

Is it correct to consider OR in the above examples as inclusive(and/or), not exclusive?

One of the RC videos that I watched mentioned that when something (call it X) happens more & more frequently, it does not mean that X happens most of the time. But I read it from one of the PowerScore posts that "more often than not" means MOST. They sound quite similar to me, so I'm not sure how to make a distinction between them. If I change it to "X happens more & more frequently THAN NOT" would it equate to most?

I'm currently working on the logic games bundle. While I've been getting -1 or -2 per game untimed I continue to test every answer choice even after getting an answer just to be sure it's correct. I'm wondering if this will hinder my speed while doing actual timed games. Should I just pick the correct answer and continue or actually double check. At this point I'm focusing on accuracy not speed. Any comments would help. Thank you :)

I was going through the core curriculum and encountered this weakening question: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-4-question-18

I chose C, and the correct answer choice turned out to be B.

After going through the video, I understood that answer choice B is correct. But I still couldn't figure out why C is wrong. In the video, the explanation given is that "if they (book publisher) do make sizable money, they would continue doing it. The fact that they stop makes it even less reasonably that it is a money-grab... therefore C is incorrect".

But why? If C makes it less reasonable for book publisher to be money-grab, then it weakens the argument.

I wonder if anyone can help me on that...

Hey All,

Had a question that I was confused about. Statement is, "People who aren't handsome are happy". Isn't the logical indicator "not" here, meaning it is in group 4 (Negate Necessary). Translated into lawgic, shouldn't this be, "Happy -> /Handsome ; Handsome -> /Happy". However, in the lessons, I found it to be " /Handsome -> Happy ; /Happy -> Handsome".

Any help would be appreciated. Thank you for reading this.

Hi Everyone,

I am having difficulties understanding why Answer E is correct for this LR question.

Can someone please explain this to me?

Admin edit: Removed question. Please don't pull full questions!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-36-section-1-question-23

Thank you

I thought it was, but I'm second-guessing myself. Can you help me better understand this concept?

I'm having the hardest time improving my timing on games. I can get the questions right but I can't do them fast enough to finish all four games-- on average I only get through 3 games. I'm doing my practice using Jy's method -- I can improve my timing on games that I've done over again. But I can't improve my timing on games I've never done before. Any tips are greatly appreciated.

For the following statement "I only work on Tuesday," i translated it as Tuesday -> Work.. but I guess it's Work -> Tuesday.

Not sure why. "Only" is group 2 and introduces necessary condition (in this case, it's work). Did I get something wrong?

Thanks!

I'm really stuck. I understand that the correct answer is A, but I can't diagram the logic out. I'm fairly certain it involves subsets, which has always thrown me. So if anyone knows how, please share!

Mystery loves company....I don't really study with people but it will be great to have a study buddy to hold each other accountable. We could meet up in public areas like cafes...library (preference)....etc. DM me if interested. Please only serious ppl...no crazy ppl. : )

Can someone explain why C is wrong? I don't understand the reasoning for it. I think B is correct because if the amount of child passengers remain the same, then it indicates less deaths.

Hey guys, I've been hearing from various sources that pattern games have been popping up on the recent LSATs. However, I'm not sure what exactly a pattern game is. Could anybody refer me to some examples of pattern games? Tried googling already, but didn't find much :/ LSAT blog's classification page says PT 20 Game 3, and PT 23 Game 4 are pattern games. Just wanted to confirm and maybe find some other examples.

Also side note, I noticed that every PT question explanation vid has tagged keywords. Is there a search function on the site that lets you search for questions based on keywords?? That would be really helpful!

Thanks!

[Mod note: edited original title that read "Recent LG: Pattern Games?"]

Hey All,

Can anyone help me with this question (PT27 S4 Q15). This one is confusing and bothering me at the same time.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-4-question-15

The passage says "It is often said that beauty is subjective. But this judgement has to be false..." From what I understand, the author is saying that beauty isn't subjective (meaning, your opinion will be different from my opinion about what we consider to be beautiful). We are asked to weaken this argument where the correct answer is "C" (Our own standard of beauty was strongly influenced by our exposure to works that were considered beautiful in other cultures").

Doesn't that actually strengthen the argument rather than weaken it? If my standard of beautiful art was shaped by what my art teacher thinks is beautiful art, then that means that I am just following her opinion and have no say of my own (therefore, my opinion is not subjective at all), which actually strengthens the argument.

I know I am missing something but am totally confused as to what it is. Any help would be appreciated :)

Been trying for several months to tie down logic games. Hasn't happened yet. I'm averaging about -3 on my last several preptests, but that belies big swings. For example, PT 60 crushed me, PT 61 was -0, and PT 62 was -6.

I don't know if I'm very good at diagnosing my own problems. The only trend I can maybe see -- and this might just be recency bias -- is that I struggle with open-ended and even slightly nonstandard games. For example, PT 62 game 2 is definitely a grouping game, broadly defined, but it's a weird one. Same with game 3 from that test. I've done literally every game ever published multiple times but I don't have the pattern recognition necessary to adapt on my first time through lots of games.

Is there any specific remedy for this type of thing? Should I just keep "foolproofing?" I don't want to keep banging my head against the wall if there's something more targeted I can do, because time is becoming precious for us June takers.

I realize as I work on my speed in the LR section that it is very important to be able to compartmentalize each part of the stim in your mind to quickly attack the question. But, I find myself having to re-read those pesky convoluted stims which is killing my time on certain questions.

Do any of you map out (basic bracketing) the premises and conclusion on the convoluted stims? My theory is that if I do map on these types of questions I will be able to really hone in on the P and C and if there is weird language it will be out of the way.

Should I try and keep practicing doing it all in the brains lol ?

I just formed a in person BR group with one other person. Given the fact that our meeting are relatively short cannot be extended. Could you tell me how the BR group process can be improved?

We use LR sections from PT 1-35, we take one section together and BR the section after a 5 minutes break; because our meeting are about two hours long we only manage to go through those questions that our answers differ from each other (usually 9 to 10 questions) and leave the other questions untouched.

Hi all,

I'm wondering if you have thoughts and advice for someone who is consistently running out of time on the logic games section of practice tests. On my most recent practice test, I did 3/4 games and got every answer correct on those that I got to, but completely ran out of time on one of the games. In blind review, I was able to get all the correct answers on that 4th game, in under 8 minutes.

Maybe it's partly a confidence thing? I feel like I'm checking answers very carefully and maybe should trust my diagrams more...? I'm not quite sure. Any advice for how to proceed would be greatly appreciated! Thanks so much

I started working through the LG bundle concurrently with LSAT Trainer 20 days ago, I manged to finish PT 1 to PT 11 logic games using Pacifico attack strategy, while trying to push down the time one minute under target time recommended for each game. The problem is that despite the fact I took every logic game from PT 1-35 at least once (nearly four months ago) my first attempt time always is at least 2-3 minutes higher than target time and for some wired games it is much higher.

Any idea how can I solve this problem? I am afraid that I am burning the Bundle without getting much out of it.