Hi guys,

RC is by far my worst section. Though I have improved by a point or two, I haven't seen any drastic improvements and I have been studying for a while now.

In the past, I could not get through the entire RC section. Doing timed sections has definitely helped me out in this regard. However, I still struggle with accurately answering the questions.

I score -7 on BR, which clearly indicates that I still can increase my BR score yet I haven't been able to increase my timed score much either despite doing a timed section everyday and then completing BR.

Any suggestions? What strategies have you tried to improve RC?

Hello everyone,

I took my first test in December and ended up scoring 8 points lower than my PTs leading up to it (164 down to a 156).I had been taking my PTs under normal testing conditions so I thought that I was prepared for the test setting. When I assessed my answers I realized that I missed some insanely easy questions in the first section. I remembered being very anxious and rushing through, which then spilled over into the next section. It turned out that I missed 80% of my questions in those two sections.

I feel like this is the only thing that is holding me back. Recently I've been scoring in the upper 160s and I want to do whatever I can to stay consistent on test day.

What do you do to start the test off calm and collected?

Thanks

I have a real hard time seeing the correct answer on this one. The correct AC is (B). I chose (E). I really didn't like E, but AC (B) I only liked 1/2. The 2nd half of the answer, ..."to make up for the attendant loss is tax-revenues" threw me off. I dismissed it in the last second because the stimulus stated that there was a side benefit to the government in relatively small cost in lost tax revenues. The stimulus goes on to say that there was never a net gain since folks just transferred money from account to another, and overall personal savings was unchanged. So there is my issues. (B) says nobody is going to save more, (I agree) and it's not going to make up for the attendant loss in tax revenue. BUT, there won't be any loss in tax revenue, since no additional money is going to be put into personal savings. I'm interpreting "attendant" as accompanying. Where did I go wrong?

In the "Logic Games Habits for Speed and Accuracy" section J.Y. lays out a particular approach.

As you start a new LG, always put your pencil down and read the stimulus, the indented set of rules, and the acceptable situation question (ASQ). Take some seconds to absorb the information. The ASQ's answers often reveal the game board. Visualize what the game board will look like. Then, pick up your pencil. Read the stimulus again. Jot down your game board.

Is this method meant to be used in all scenarios or just for practice (FP)? It seems that reading the stimulus/rules twice would really be a time suck, but I suppose if it gives a much deeper familiarity/understanding of the passage then it could be worth it. Is this method generally well-subscribed to in practice and test conditions?

I can process premise and conclusion and even anticipate the answer correctly. However, some answers are just so weirdly written and I end up picking wrong answers. I know practice is a key but is there other tip you 7sagers can share with me to spot the answer?

Hello all! I understand how Negation is different from the Contrapositive, as with Negation we are denying the relationship / conditionality (I think, right?), but I'm struggling to figure out where the Negation aspect fits into LR Question application - types of questions and how an answer / stimulus would fit into the mold - thoughts?

Hello,

I have two questions for you guys.

When we are fool proofing using Pacificos or JYs way, are we practicing "memorizing" the inferences and/or "making" inferences. The reason I am asking this is because it is extremely easy for me to remember the inferences from a game once I have watched the video explanation. I can knock the game out fairly quickly this way. However, if I focus on making an inference and going through the process of making the inference, it become a lot more time consuming. If anyone could clarify in regards to this is would be greatly appreciated.

I have noticed that some of the you here are writing out your answers when doing blind review for LG, explaining the inferences to gauge whether you fully understand the game or not. When it comes to writing out explanations, could some one please clarify their method as to how they go about writing out explanations?

Thanks and much appreciated!

Hello, everyone. I’ve been drilling strengthening questions and I’m having an issue with causation/correlation and phenomenon type arguments. The lines have become blurred for me. Often times I cannot tell which the argument is presenting because they seem to be so similar but my accuracy with this question type has increased. I think I have a strong definition of the two but I’m having a tough time differentiating between the two when presented in arguments. I initially had PT 25-S2-Q10 as causation because I thought the argument was stating the ultraviolet light is causing the insects to be attracted to the webs but I changed to phenomenon because I figured that the insects being attracted to the webs because of the ultraviolet light is an observed phenomenon and the info about Glomosus spiderwebs was given as supporting evidence. Does “probably” give hint to anything here? I figured it would give hint to phenomenon rather than causation but idk if you can saying something “probably” caused something in causation/correlation type arguments. Either it did or it didn’t. When i hit the AC I’m looking for specific AC types depending on whether it’s a phenomenon or causation/correlation type argument. I haven’t come across many arguments by analogy. I haven’t paid attention but could there be both types of AC to trip you up? This is my greatest worry. For PT23-S2-Q14 I initially chose phenomenon but changed to causation. I got the question right but looking back I actually think it’s phenomenon. Which is it??! Also, please let me know if I’m doing too much with this question type. I’ve seen improvement but maybe I’m focusing on this too much and not something else enough. TIA

Hi Group, I’m very frustrated because I cannot figure out if S and Y, W and Y, and V and Z are not both or biconditionals for Prep Test 26, Section 1, Game 3. I believe JY said it both ways on two different videos for the same game. Can someone help me? I just spent 1/2 hour reading through related discussions and my understanding is now at zero.

Also, Finding the correct test for this grouping game problem set 1 was unbelievably difficult. Honestly, sometimes it’s like pulling teeth just to get the basic stuff that you paid for.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-26-section-1-game-3/

According to the stimulus, the club president has disallowed Jeffrey to vote. Thomas is arguing that that was in violation of club rules.

(Structure)

Premise 1: Rule: Vote --> Good standing member

Premise 2: Jeffrey is a good standing member

Conclusion: The president’s action of disallowing Jeffrey to vote was in violation of club rules.

Here are club rules: only good standing members may vote. (vote—> good standing member)

Jeffrey paid his dues on time and therefore he is a good standing member. Necessary condition is satisfied, therefore we don’t know if he is allowed to vote or not allowed to vote. There could be other criteria to qualify to vote that Jeffrey does not meet, in which case he is not allowed to vote. Or Jeffrey meets all the criteria to vote, in which case he is allowed to vote. We have no information about it.

But, Thomas concludes that the president’s action of disallowing Jeffrey to vote was in violation of club rules. Disallowing Jeff's vote could or could not be in violation of the rules. In spite of this possibility that it may not be in violation, Thomas made a determination that it is in violation. This is the flaw. He is saying that allowing him to vote is in compliance with (authorized by) the rule. (In other words, to be in compliance, Jeffrey should be allowed to vote.)

And that is what answer choice (A) is saying. His argument fails to take into account the distinction between something not being prohibited (allowing Jeffrey to vote) and its being authorized (in compliance with the rule). He is saying that allowing to vote is in compliance with (authorized by) the rule. At the end of the answer choice A, words “by the rule” is omitted. “Authorized” here does not mean his being authorized to vote, but rather, it means being authorized by the rule.

We can also view it as sufficient condition, necessary condition confusion flaw. Because in reaching the conclusion, Thomas mistakenly assumed the club rule as: good standing member —> vote. But this is not in any of the answer choices.

(A) is the correct answer.

(B) There is no character attack here.

(C) There is no such statement being denied or regarded as true here.

(D) What they were voting about is irrelevant.

(E) Whether Althea is authority in club rules or not is irrelevant.

Answer choice (A) was written very tricky that it was difficult to recognize it was the right answer.

Hey guys

I took the LSAT in September and scored a 150, I studied quite vigorously all summer but unfortunately I was unable to balance summer school and a full course load in September. After the semester was over I picked my studying back up and am consistently scoring in the 156-159 area. I am writing a prep test every other day, and when not writing or reviewing I have decided to focus entirely on logic games. I can consistently score anywhere in the 17-21 range for RC and LR, but unfortunately I always bomb the LG section, timing being my biggest issue. I just bought the premium package today, but if anyone has any suggestions for where to allocate my study time from now until February tenth I would really appreciate it, I am aiming to score around the 162 area. Any advice helps!!!

This isn't a question so much as an admission of idiocy that to date I haven't been able to break. I read question stem and rules too fast and often assume something incorrectly. My panic over time constraint is a total psychological mind f***. Notwithstanding knowing that this is my issue, I continue to fall prey to this anxiety. Maybe posting this publicly will be like a "first step" in my rehabilitation ;)

When I read the Necessary assumption answer choices, I can only understand when the answer is wrong by negating it. How I understand why the answer is wrong without the negation, because, on the actual test I can't negate as it will take way to much time. Please if you have any suggestions, let me know :).

Can someone explain to me the difference between AC D and B

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-59-section-2-question-20/

I have been fool proofing for a few weeks now. The gains have been steady, and I am at the point where I can typically complete a game at least close to the target time while getting all the questions correct. Obviously, the goal is to finish below the target time with all questions correct every time, but I'm simply monitoring my progress. Last night I did the games section for PT 32 and scored a -9 in 35 minutes. Surprisingly, that's progress for me. I fool proofed each game by itself this morning, and will review the section again until i nail the thing with no problems.

Today, a little frustrated with my performance from the night before, I decided to try another LG section from PT 10. (Might not be the smartest method, cramming 8 games in 2 days, idk) This time, I did each game by itself. If I skipped a question and went on to the next game, I would write the time down on my paper, restart my watch, then move on to the next game. By the end of it, I had 3 minutes do do the three questions I skipped. The entire section took me 36 minutes of actual work (it took me 4 minutes to finsih the last 3), and I only missed 1 question. So, in reality maybe I would have gotten -2, or even -3. But that is much better than -9... I understand variability in section difficulty can have an impact, perhaps I would have scored a little worse on an overall harder section. Despite this, it is obvious that I struggle with bearing the weight of having to do all 4 games in 35 minutes as opposed to 1 game in 8 minutes. When I do one game at a time, I feel like I am in control. When I try to do all 4, I feel like a rag doll that has strings pulling on it from all different directions.

Is the hardest part bringing the sections together? I don't really know what to make of this. Should I try doing two games from a section, master that, then three from a section, master that, then do a full section?

Any suggestions as to what I should try?

(My goal is to have -2 on LG at most, preferably -1 or -0)

Hi, I was wondering whether it is advisable/necessary to scan through all of the answer choices in a Main Point question, instead of just looking for the answer (which will be a paraphrase of the main conclusion that you already identified in the stimulus)?

Does this phrase introduce the sufficient or necessary condition? Ex. Tina will enter the pool, if and only if Mike enters.

T->M

or

M->T

Thanks!

PS, I'm thinking it is the latter of the two.

Hey Everyone,

With 15 days until the next LSAT -14 days of review time left - I would like to hear the opinion of others on how to spend the next 14 days. Would it be best to write PT's for the next two weeks, practicing everything under gametime conditions. Or, would it be better to drill types of games, and questions, while doing timed practice sections for the next weeks; keeping the mind sharp for the big day.

What are your thoughts on how to approach the next 14 days?

Cheers,

Here is my analysis of the answer choices. Grateful for commenting on my thoughts, please! Thank you!

(A): Both disagreed. Cynthia - the reason to be funded by Gov is to further theoretical knowledge not unforeseen practical applications. Luis - the "expected" to yield practical applications in the stimulus is more definite that "may have unforeseen.." in AC.

(B): Luis disagrees; Cynthia - not known because we don't know what project does she think the Gov should not fund. In the stimulus, we only know Cynthia would agree that the government should fund researches that further the theoretical knowledge, but that does not mean the Gov should not fund projects that have practical application.

(C): Luis - not known because the only thing we know from stimulus is "Gov fund projects --> research that is expected to yield practical applications" (ie. every gov funded research should have practical application), but that does not mean that every research that has practical application should be funded by Gov. As for Cynthia, I am confused because I am not sure if "research project in theoretical science" in AC is equivalent to "research project seeks to further theoretical knowledge of nature" in the stimulus. But in either way, the AC should be eliminated.

(D) Not known because we don't know if the new technologies will help further theoretical knowledge of nature or yield practical applications

(E) Cynthia agrees and Luis disagrees.

Are my interpretations correct?

Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-2-question-14/

Admin edit: title and link

Anyone have any suggestions as to the best way of tracking foolproofing?

Just starting out, but want a system in place before I do. I don't want to realize half way through that I should have kept track of something I hadn't previously considered, so would greatly appreciate input or suggestions of indicators from anyone who has gone this path before me. If I make a spreadsheet, listing each game (i.e. "PT 36, Game 1"), then what should I record to measure progress, and to make sure no games slip through the cracks? Time? Number correct? Date completed? All of the above?

Thanks!

When is it valid to add percentages of two different sets. I know that sometimes the two sets could be overlapping and their percentages can't be added together, but are there times when you could validly add them? For example, if we said 30% of dogs are brown and 40% of cats are brown, could we say that 70% of cats and dogs are brown?

I know JY advises against moving onto the ACs without coming up with a prephase for flaw questions, but there are unfortunately usually 2-3 flaw questions on PTs that I just can't seem to see the flaw, even after skipping and coming back to it. And as some of you can guess, I get trapped by attractive sounding answers because I'm wading in muddy waters. How have you all overcome this? Do you have a methodical way of approaching flaw questions? (I try to boil down the MP and the MC and see the gap each time.)

Is drilling flaw questions the best way to fundamentally fix this problem? I'm thinking maybe I just haven't been exposed to enough flaw qs to see the patterns.

Thanks :)

Hey all. 3 weeks till Feb LSAT. I’ve been doing some timed PT and I find myself consistently scoring -7 to -8 on both LR sections. I’m realizing my mistakes come from parallel reasoning and sufficient assumption questions. Any advice on how to approach both these sections and hopefully improve to 3-4 missed questions per LR section? Thanks

Hi.

I got this question correct but I was debating between A and C.

I chose C at the end because Max was harmed without consent and Wesley benefit from the Max's result in the report.

I just wanted to make sure why A is incorrect.

I assume that A was incorrect because Sonia did not benefit from having harm to another person because at the end both children were kept afterschool. Am I correct?

I've just started the LG section of the CC and I can't even set up the board game correctly in some of the questions. When did you start seeing improvement?