@"JYP JYP" @twssmith @danielznelson @"Daniel.Sieradzki" @"Cant Get Right" @"Alex Divine"

Are any study group leaders, mentors or sages interested in leading a session on LG in CC and PT's??? Since we'll be having sessions for LR and RC, it seems practical to have one for LG as well. Any thoughts???

Is this right? And what is the meaning of No As are Bs? Are these three sentence the same one? Thx.

So i have foolproofed games 1-35 thoroughly. Probably 5 to 6 times each. And the hard ones closer to 10 times. Now i am in the pt phase and during the time after a pt, after review and drills, i spend time going through those old games and some newer ones. How many games do you foolproof a day.? New and old?

Hey guys, I just posted a

It's a difficult in/out game that can be made easier with a better game board. Have a look!

Given how much weight YouTube places on likes/dislikes, would you guys mind "liking" this video on YouTube if you actually find the new approach helpful?

Related: I also posted a

In a parallel q: does the order of the premises have to match the AC?

In PT11 S4 Q22 i diagrammed,

P->/L

/P->S

/S

/L

And AC 2:

/M->P

P->/C

/M

/C

So i see that they are identical but it came in a different order.?

It's the company sending out project managers LG,

which of the following if substituted for...would have the same effect

I was just looking over this past LSAT, which I took, and it hit me that there might be a bit of a trick to make substitution Qs easier. Part of the issue in substitution Qs, at least some of the time, is that once your diagrams, split game boards, etc. have become filled in to some degree, it's hard to unravel that and see exactly what the effect of a specific rule was. But if you check first, before making your diagram, if there's a substitution question, you can keep that specific rule in mind while diagramming and see clearly the effect of that rule. It happened to work like a charm for me while reviewing the substitution questions on the June 2017 LSAT. I'm wondering if anyone has tried this, and if not, perhaps it's worth a try.

Hey there I'm averaging -11 on RC. (156) I have done the CC method of RC and my score went up a little, but does anyone have any tips to further increase my score?

Particularly tips for speed. If I skip a passage I get -0 on the passage in which I take a little more time.

Any and every bit of info will be appreciated. Thanks :D

Is the use of a word like "should" prescriptive on the LSAT.? What i mean is: if a stimulus says that something will happen or could happen, will that exclude an AC that says something " should " happen?

I see many parallel questions that will have a word like "should" in one of the answer choices and im starting to suspect that they are wrong bc the stimulus is not suggesting what ought to happen. Am i crazy here??

So this is a weakening question. I was torn between two answers during the test, and switched from the right answer to the wrong answer.

I see why the correct answer is correct but not why the wrong one is wrong.

The conclusion of the argument is that Neanderthals probably preserved their meat by smoking it.

The support is that lichen and grass were found in the fire places. Which doesn't burn hot, but has a lot of smoke.

Answer choice A says: In close proximity to the fireplaces with lichen and grass are other fireplaces that, evidence suggest, burned material that produced more heat than smoke.

Doesn't that take away the support for smoking? We now see they had the ability to cook meat, which means they didn't have to smoke it.

Answer choice B says; (correct answer) In the region containing the Neanderthal fireplaces in which lichen and grass were burnt, no plants that could be burned more effectively to produce heat or light were available 60,000 years ago.

---- I see why this weakens too. They only had one option for heat or light, so it doesn't mean that they were using it to smoke their food.

I just don't see why A is less correct than B. They both seem right to me, what am I missing?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-79-section-4-question-19/

Hi all,

Having trouble with 2 questions in pretest 55, and I'd love to get some further explanation if anyone would be so kind!

In the second passage(s) in RC, for question #9, I chose C. Is this wrong because of the "most"; I see why B is also right, but can't figure out how to distinguish between the two. Is it simply because passage A doesn't explicitly address the issue of whether eradication advocates are genuine (though it is certainly implied, in my view)?

And for the last passage, can someone explain why #23 is D rather than C? Is it because "cheap substitute parts" are not a perfect analogue for tulips (as it suggests inferior quality) whereas book don't lose their quality when simply reproduced?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-2-passage-2-passage

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-2-passage-2-questions/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-2-passage-4-passage

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-2-passage-4-questions/

Hi all,

I just finished the first reading section "introduction on reading comprehension" in CC. I also watched @"nicole.hopkins" video about her RC notation strategy. Both inspire me a lot about how to approach RC.

Right now I finish reading a passage in 3.5-4 min, but I spend way too much time on answering questions. I can spend between 8-12min on questions! Passages about art review are especially hard for me. And the timing is a big issue. With in 35min I can only finish 3 passages, with average -1 per passage.

I realize that I spend time trying to prove a wrong choice is wrong from the passage, while it is never mentioned. I also find myself spend a lot of time on comparing the rest of the answers after eliminating. I look at one choice, feeling that there is a tiny part I don't like, but I can give reasons for why I can stand it, and repeatedly do the same thing to another choice. I am trying to switch my method/mindset, and I would love to know how you approach the questions and choose the answer confidently.

A lot of high scorers suggest that we should read for reasoning structure. It sounds like making a lot of sense to me, but I am not very clear about how to apply it. And I don't feel that simply asking "what's the main idea of the paragraph" can't ensure me catch the structure. Actually, sometimes I feel interrupted by these questions. I mechanically ask myself about MP simply because I am trying to follow JY's method. Also, I find that not all "transaction/switch" of the meaning happen between the paragraphs. There can be more than one level of meaning within a single paragraph. How does the reading process look like when you are reading for structure? I am so curious.

I am also trying Nicole's notation strategy, and I think it can be very helpful in locating details asked in questions. But I also find that I am not very used to the strategy, and by taking notes I am slowing down my reading speed. I keep on asking "should I circle/box this?" And I don't find that making notation helps in reading for structure. I suppose it should, is it? I will keep on practicing, maybe modify some of the notation strategy, and I would love to know if anyone also take note while you read, and any suggestions would be helpful.

Thanks a lot in advance! :)

Can someone clarify the following?

At least B as A: B≥A

At most B as A: B≤A

Or vice versa....?

I am getting confused so much! plz help!!! :D (3 Thank you 7sagers!(/p)

Hello! I didn't see any prior discussions on this question, and it's confusing me a bit so I wanted to get some outside opinions!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-4-question-17/

We have an underlying principle/SA question which means that our answer needs to fill the logic gap pretty much completely.

Background info says that confidence of a testimony has little correlation with the accuracy of said testimony.

Support says that factors can alter the confidence of a testimony without changing its accuracy.

Conclusion says that police officers shouldn't allow situations where witnesses giving testimony can hear other witnesses giving testimonies.

The designated correct answer for gives us the principle that the confidence in one's testimony is affected by seeing other testimonies. To me, this leaped out as a wrong answer choice because the passage seems to suggest that confidence in one's testimony doesn't really matter, so there would be no incentive to prevent it.

D, on the other hand, seemed to fill the gap using unusual, but plausibly correct logic. If the police, for some reason, cared about confidence more than accuracy, factors that change confidence would want to be controlled. I don't know why Police would want to know about confidence rather than accuracy, but it's not our job as test takers to question the likelihood of a gap-closer to occur in the real world; we want to know if that gap closer, taken as it is, would bridge the support with the conclusion.

D does it in an ugly fashion, but I don't think A does it at all. Knowing that viewing other testimonies can alter confidence doesn't give us any logical reason for police officers wanting to prevent it. We can't bridge the gap between evidence and officers stopping testimony exposure without understanding the criterion based on which an officer would want to prevent testimony exposure. Even if you make the least extreme assumption and consider that police would want to stop something that alters the accuracy of a testimony, (since accuracy of evidence is important to court cases) answer A becomes more flawed in that it gives the support an attribute that the police wouldn't care about, or use in a decision for policy.

Any help is appreciated :) Thanks guys!

Hey everyone,

So question 24 in section 2 of Prep Test 61.

This question I've been trying to grapple with for 3 days (seriously). I understand how conditionals work, but this question just doesn't work for me no matter how many times I do it, or listen to J.Y's explanation. I'm getting caught up on two things:

Here is the question:

Stimulus: It is unlikely that someone would see history as the working out of moral themes unless he or she held clear and unambiguous moral beliefs. However, one's inclination to morally judge human behavior decreases as one's knowledge of history increases. Consequently, the more history a person knows, the less likely that person is to view history as the working out of moral themes.

Stem: The conclusion of the argument is properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?

So the right answer is:

B) The less inclined one is to morally judge human behavior, the less likely it is that one holds clear and unambiguous moral beliefs.

I actually got the right answer, but only through process of eliminating the wrong answers. I couldn't get full connection in this argument to get the answer as the missing sufficient assumption and it is driving me full out mad :)

The first thing that bothers me about this argument is the "unlikely" at the beginning, which I'm not sure exactly what to do with. The second thing is that the second premise [one's inclination to morally judge human behavior decreases as one's knowledge of history increases] does not ring to me as a conditional if/then type of sentence. I see that they are connected, but decreasing/increasing relationships aren't something I see fitting well into a conditional sentence sequence.

Secondly, even if I grant that this is a conditional statement, this is the logic drawing I end up with:

[P1] See history as working out of moral themes (SHWMT) ---> holds clear and unambiguous beliefs (HCUMB)

[P2] Morally judge human behavior decreases (MJHBd) ---> Knowledge of history increases (KHi)

[Conclusion] The more history a person knows (KHi) --> the less likely they are to view history as the working out of moral themes (/SHWMT)

So if I was to write this out in pure logic:

SHWMT --> HCUMB

MJHBd --> KHi

KHi --> /SHWMT

So even if I grant the weird statements around increasing/decreasing I still can't get from this to the missing premise:

The less inclined one is to morally judge human behavior (MJHBd) --> the less likely it is that one holds clear and unambiguous moral beliefs (/HCUMB)

MJHBd --> /HCUMB

I just can't wrap my head around this one as logically connecting in a sequence chain. Am I just having a brain stall?

Any thoughts @Sami ? :)

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-61-section-2-question-24/

Hi when will the logic game explanations be available for June 2017 lsat PT81?

Thanks

So I've been reading a lot about how the recent exams have started incorporating more "weird games," i.e. ones that aren't the traditional grouping, sequencing, in/out games (labelled as Misc. here at 7sage). For example, the infamous "virus" game, which I haven't tried yet, but from what I understand was notoriously difficult and weird.

I was just wondering whether these "weird" games are completely new, or are actually just a different form of one of the Misc. games that have appeared in older tests. In other words, if I fool proofed 1-35, will I be safe in tackling these sorts of games? Have any of these recent weird games been completely new and have no analogous counterparts in PTs 1-35?

Thanks for the help!

I got some questions... Can someone help me find the inferences of following?

.

• M←/→N→O inference:

I believe no inference can be made ….. or is it O←s→/M?????

.

• P -m→ Q ←/→R inference:

P -m→/R

.

• A←s→B←/→C inference:

Again, I don't think there is any inference that can be made …….. but some people say A←s→/C, /C←s→A...

.

.

.

.

.

Can someone plz help me find the correct inference? Thank you!!! (3(/p)

I might just be venting right now, but I can not for the life of me get LR down to 0 - 2 range. My brain just doesn't want to grasp it! The questions always seem to stump me in just the right way during timed sections and then when I see them again with time make 100% of sense. I sit down and right out why every answer is wrong and why one is right. I go back to the CC on how to approach different types, I do LR many, many many, times per week.

GAH.

Okay sorry, but for real its getting under my skin.

I took the June 2017 test, scored a 172. Goal was 176+. I definitely have room for improvement on LR, but I think I know how to approach that. RC I'm a little more unsure about. For reference, I was -3 on RC on the June test and that's right around where I usually score.

I've heard of people drilling RC but I don't know what that actually entails. Anyone have experience with that?

I've used PowerScore, LSAT Hacks, LSAT Trainer, and other tutor's videos on how to approach a passage. I've found that notation is distracting and prevents me from reading the passage. I just sort of read the passage, don't move on to the questions until I understand it and then when I answer questions I either go back and reference lines or I just know the answer. In other words, I just wing it.

If you had 6 weeks to dedicate just to RC, how would you structure that time?

Hey all, could anyone please help with finding grouping games wherein there are subcategories BUT we are not given which game piece belongs to which category and we are also not given the number of game pieces to be alloted to each group. For example - 3 groups - A, B and C, 7 game pieces, sub categories scientists and philosophers, atleast 2 scientists are there and maximum 3 people in group A, something of this sort.

I have been able to find grouping games with sub categories but the games do give which game piece falls in which category.

Similarly sequencing games with sub categories in which the game pieces are undefined with respect to their categories AND not all game pieces are to be sequenced, some are left out so there is a little subsidiary in out game going on as well.

Hello, 7Sage!

So I just took the LSAT for the second time in June and got a 163. I took it the previous June and got a 159. I'm trying to stay positive about the improvement, but I was consistently scoring around 168 for the two weeks before my last test after 4 months of studying and working through the 7Sage basic curriculum - so I'm feeling like there is potential for improvement. BUT is it worth it to take the test for a third time? Does anyone know if the third attempt looks bad on an application, even if it is an improvement?

Thanks for the advice!!

I was thrown off by the question stem for A.1.23, in which it asks, "The Y's response would most seriously call into question which one of the following conclusions, if that conclusion were drawn on the basis of the evidence given by X?" Does this question stem appear in the recent PTs (70+)?

Fellow 7Sagers,

My current situation is the following: I score in the 171-177 range, and my most consistent scores lie between 172 and 174. The only reason I'm not scoring consistently in the high 170s is the RC section. I currently miss anywhere from 3 to 6 questions. My pacing strategy is good, so I'm not suffering from time issues. I usually do really well on 3 passages and miss a couple questions on one of the passages, which negatively impacts my raw score in the section. I'm interested in feedback from people who are currently scoring -0 - -2 on the RC section. Thank you.

Sup y'all,

So just got my score back (159), but I really wanted closer to a 165 so I def plan on retaking it in September. My weakest section was Reading Comp, and I was wondering if I could get some input on how I should go about studying these next few months. I was thinking about getting a power score bible for reading, and doing that 4 days a week,then doing 2 days a week LR and 1 day a week LG.

Open to suggestions though if anyone with more experience thinks my game plan is faulty.

Thanks in advance.