I am looking at the LSAT Prep book distributed by Kaplan and I am already confused about the material. (I have not purchased a 7Sage course yet as I'm on the trial, so I hope it is okay that I am already asking questions). The first chapter is about LSAT Reasoning and Levels of Truth (true, false, and possible). I know this may sound stupid since we already think about Levels of Truth in our daily lives, but I'm really not understanding the material based on the way they have worded things...

The book says that possible can be described as "could be true" and "could be false". Can a statement possibly be true and possibly be false at the same time, or is it just one or the other? For example, one "question stem" they gave was "Which of the following must be true?" The analysis was the answer must be true and "Therefore, the four wrong answers must be false, or are merely possible (i.e., could be false)." When they said the wrong answers could be "merely possible (i.e., could be false)", why did they not describe "merely possible" as could be false OR could be true? Is it because a could be true statement can be proven to be false?

Another example is when they ask the question, "Which of the following could be true?" The analysis was the answer could be true and that a "must be true" answer would also fit. Why is this? Isn't a "must be true" answer different from "could be true"? It has already been proven that it is true...

In other words, can a statement possibly be false or possibly be true at the same time, or is it just one or the other? Can a statement ALWAYS "possibly be true" and "must be true" at the same time?

I guess if I am getting tripped up on such a simple concept maybe I should just give up now...I really overthink things...

Thank you!

-Amanda

Most A are C; Most B are C, can we make the link that "some A are B"?

Wondering if anyone has had experience with different approaches to RC passages. I would specifically like to know what notation 'systems' have worked for other people. Thanks!

I watched the video explanation for this, but I don't think I understood it 100%.

I think the author's logic is simplified as farther=brighter=younger but I don't quite understand how a brighter star is supposed to be younger. Is this true in real life? Ha..

Maybe I'm overthinking this problem..?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-20/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-1-question-22/

Can anyone help me restate option B to better understand what it really says? I can't find anything that helps me understand this question.

For mastering the logic games, from what I've gathered, it's suggested to do JY's method for each game by watching the videos and repeating the inferences on blank copies until a firm understanding of each game is reached. However, in doing so won't my scores be affected on my PTs leading up to the test because I will have already seen the games and know how to do them? I'm worried that on the one hand this wouldn't give me a good indication of where my score would really be than if I hadn't previously seen the games, but I'm also worried that if I wait to drill on those games until after I've taken the PTs to which they belong I won't have enough time since it will be closer to the test date at that point.

Hypothetically speaking, if I plan to take PTs 41- the most recently available one (giving me 30+ PTs), should I drill those games before taking the PTs or wait until I take them?

What's the suggested practice for approaching this? I'm definitely aiming for a near perfect score on the games section come June and just want to make sure that whatever prep I do is as effective as it can be.

Hi 7Sagers!

I am scheduled to take the February administration and have a problem. (Don't we all?) For weeks, I've been hitting my target score range (157-160). However, the last two PT's I've taken (74 & 75) have been downhill for me. 150 & 153. (I haven't changed my diet or exercise routines since I was achieving my desired scores). I'm not sure how to handle this/react to it, as the exam is less than two weeks away and the last thing I want to do is postpone taking the exam since I want to apply for Fall admission.

Thanks everyone!

One of JY's reading comp explanations really helped me easily mentally compartmentalize 'than' in complex sentences saving me tons of time (eg whatever thing comes before 'than' is the winner). I am not sure if this even makes sense, but wondering if anyone could share a foolproof method for understanding the word 'against' in sentences?

I am retaking the test for a second time and have just come off an intense run with testmasters, but as you've some people here have pointed out so well, each test prep source has its own strengths/weaknesses. The first time I sat for the test, I was seriously underprepared and scored a 153, which was devastating. After recovering from that, I took up a testmasters tutoring course, and now I'm scoring higher, in the mid to high160's, but my scores on practice tests tend to fluctuate quite a bit and I also tend to struggle with keeping time, so most of these scores are not based on true test taking conditions (I think I'd score much lower in reality because as things are going I rarely tend to finish a section under 35 minutes!). Now I'm tempted to consider pushing back my scheduled test date (February 6th to June 6th) so that I can try out this blind review method... However I should say that I think pushing back the test will only be worth the sacrifice in time if this method is truly likely to help me significantly increase my score (ideally breaking into the low to mid 170's). Do you think I should do it? I would appreciate any thoughts/advice on this!

This is a hard SA question, and I don't see what I am missing. How is answer choice A a sufficient assumption?

My diagram:

(Solution to environmental problem not caused by the government)--->(Major change in consumer habits)--->(Economically Enticing)

Therefore, (Not Economically enticing)--->(Few serious ecological problems solved).

What I am looking for: This is a pretty simply A to B to C argument, and the conclusion as a Not C in it. To link up the chain, say (Not solution to environmental problem not caused by the government)--->(Few serious ecological problems solved).

Answers B-E are way wrong, but I don't see how answer A paraphrases the sufficient assumption at all.

Link: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-2-question-13/

I've noticed that one of my big problems with LG (and there are _many_, are maximum/minimum questions. For example, "the maximum number of Bs that can be in group F is___?" These questions are difficult for me because it's tough to know when I'm getting them wrong. In other words, I don't know when I've done all I can to get to the solution. Now, you might just say, "Run down your rules and make sure you haven't failed anything." Right, OK, but sometimes you do that and you still haven't maximized or minimized because there are other valid solutions that contain more or less of the variable in question. Unfortunately, I don't find JY's videos particularly helpful here because it seems like he just sees the best way to do the problem (and/or he has the benefit of hindsight and an answer key). Are there any actual strategies I can use here, or am I at the mercy of my intuition?

Hello 7sagers, does anyone have any idea how to get the correct answer of question 20 of the second section of logical reasoning from dec 15 lsat? Trying to diagram out the conditionals and am struggling. My tutor couldn't even figure out this question.... JY Ping?? Advice from a logical expert would be greatly appreciated as this question is haunting my dreams!!

I originally signed up for October, but that's just not happening anymore. So I decided to sit out this cycle and study hard throughout the winter. Anyone else considering the February LSAT? Just created a schedule up until the end of January, and would love to connect with others to keep each other accountable.

So I'm am struggling to make improvements in reading comprehension section big time. I was hoping to find a strategy for highlighting/pinpointing certain texts in the passage that are generally (in all likelihood) ascertained in the questions that follow, but I'm not having any luck finding it. The videos tend to highlight the passages as an exhaustive study, which is great, but what I'm looking for is an efficient method to practice with on the PTs. Is there a strategy anyone can recommend?

Also, does anyone know of a list of question types/categories for RC stems, e.g, main point, author's intention, passage structure, etc? The categories used for the LR questions are great, but so far I haven't come across anything that breaks down RC questions.

Thanks guys!

Well I knew I messed up on the Oct. LSAT but not as badly as I actually did.... I scored about 10 points lower than what I was consistently scoring on PTs and now I am a little shell shocked on how to proceed for the Dec. test. I just joined 7sage however I have already done every PT in preparation for the Oct. test. I haven't gone over the actual test yet to see where I messed up, but considering I went from scoring in the upper 160s on practice tests to an upper 150 on the actual test, I'm guessing I just messed up everywhere and would like to chalk it up to just nerves. Does anyone know if its common to just perform poorly on the first LSAT you take? If anyone is/has been in a similar situation or just has any advice at all on how I should proceed I would greatly appreciate it. I've learned that I'm what's known as a "splitter", so I am heavily depending on obtaining the score that I know I can get. Appreciate it

Hello everyone, I have narrowed down my weakness in LR section to Flaw, PFlaw and SA questions. Mostly getting these questions wrong. I was wondering if there is anything I can do besides just drilling a bunch of these question types?

I was reading the Trainer and I came through a simple example "She does not consume too much caffeine because she only drinks one cup of coffee a day and one cup of coffee is not too much caffeine for a person to consume daily"

Coffee is the only substance she consumes that contains caffeine - this is something which fills the gap but is not necessary. I am, however, having trouble in understanding this cause its negation can really hurt the way premise supports the conclusion. Could anyone help in clarifying?

All right, folks. You asked for 'em. Some of you even begged (and there's no shame in that). Get 'em while they're fresh—PT77 LG Explanations, always free:

Game 1:

Game 2:

Game 3:

Game 4:

Deleted.

I've been averaging in the mid-150s on the prep tests and I don't know what to do. I have been studying fiendishly for the last two months and my scores haven't improved. I really, really need a higher score and with test day only a month away I'm having a hard time keeping my spirits up and my head in the game. Does anyone have advice for how I could maybe approach this in a new, more useful way? Thanks, guys.

I don't think we can draw any valid inferences from the following two statements, but Manhattan LR says we can (pg.412)

1. Some cars are sedans, and some cars are red.

2. Most children play sports, and some children play instruments.

But no, we can't draw any valid inferences from them right??

If we do the RC practice passages and get all the questions right, is it worth spending our time going through the videos as well? I'm not sure I'm really getting much out of them, at least not at this point (I'm on practice set two, and I had some prior LSAT study a couple years ago so these aren't my first passages). I like to follow J.Y.'s reasoning for LR questions even if I get them right, because he often has more efficient/different approaches, but for RC passages, there doesn't seem to be much insight gained from going over questions I answered correctly (at least not thus far). Thanks!

I'm reviewing my December 2015 LSAT report, practicing/drilling the LG section. I'm going over G1 and no matter how many times I work it, it seems like 2 of the 'correct' answers are just wrong. It's driving me crazy because this is a simple 1:1 sequencing game. Can I post the game or is that verboten?

Hi 7sagers!

Although it's very basic, the word ONLY is bugging me time to time.

I wrote the conditional translations below. Are these correct?

given: The only reason that any problem remains unsovled is B.

Reason that any problem remains unsovled -> B

given: A is the only incentive that will be effective

incentive that will be effective -> A

given: Only reason that any problem remains unsovled is B

B -> reason that any problem remains unsolved

given: A is only incentive that will be effective

A-> incentive that will be effective

Thanks alot!!

When an author starts off a RC passage with a Question is that generally a phenom begging 4 an explanation? or generally speaking what is the purpose of questions posed throughout an RC passage? thanks