Discussions

LSAT

New post

309 posts in the last 30 days

User Avatar
•

Thursday, Nov 2, 2017

lauraw918735

LR Drills

Hi everyone, so with the long LR drills from test 70-79. Do any of you time them? or do you just do these questions free form to further understand things.

Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks!

0

The whole argument is about SSH mechanism.But I think there is a huge mistake.All the author wants to prove is that the SSH is an independent factor affecting bird's status.And he did it.The question is that if a juvenile male bird with higher SSH confronts an adult male bird with lower SSH,who will win?And according to author, this question cannot be answered,because these factors are independent.So how can the SSH mechanism achieves its goal that it can reduce the conflicts?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-2-passage-3-passage/

0

Heyyy 7sagers,

I have literally looked at 7sage, LSAT Trainer, and Kaplan's approach to necessary assumption questions and I just don't get it.

I have been drilling these questions down and I still have trouble with them. It takes me super long to get the answer if I somehow do even get them correct.

What has worked for y'all? I can use all the help I can get.

0

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/flaw-questions-problem-set-12/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-10/

For this qs, while it fits well into the classic causation correlation flaw category with AC c as the correct answer, i am unable to get past AC e for its equitable validity as an answer choice as well....

can anyone help me get past this road block in my head please...

thanks heaps!

vini

0

I feel like I'm having trouble with the SAs and the PSAs, even though JY says they should be freebies on the test. I did really well on the SAs in the core curriculum, when just working in lawgic. But when working through the English statements in the stimulus, it takes me a long time to translate the English into lawgic that feels aligned with the valid argument steps we learned. And sometimes I think I would get the answer much more quickly if I didn't go through those steps.

I've been using the Question Bank to focus in on just SAs and PSAs - usually getting 1-2 wrong and the rest right, out of sets of 5-7 questions...but for freebies on the test, I should be getting 100% right.

Anyone else have a similar issue? I'm so frustrated by this. Does anyone have suggestions for getting better? And getting faster?

0

I was reviewing game 4 of preptest 81 and for question 23 JY mentioned the “core curriculum on substitution equivalence.” I’m on the cusp of understanding what he means with the knock out/sneak in test, but I need a little more. I can’t find the discussion listed as such in the core and assume it’s part of another lesson. Anyone know where so I don’t have to watch them all again? ? thank you!

0

Just want to throw out there what I think constitutes sufficient assumption questions. Sorry if this doesn't belong here but I like to just write it out.

Sufficient assumption questions: How can we take the premises we are given and make them lead to the conclusion we are given. Obviously there is a gap, the sufficient assumption + the premises will then help lead to the conclusion.

0

I am only starting out but I would like a simpler way to find premise/conclusion? Any help would be greatly appreciated! I struggled doing the problem set.

Also, is there a way I can print out the text underneath the videos w/out having to copy and paste them into a word document? I want to be able to highlight, etc...

0

I have been struggling with mainly questions where the conclusion is hard to understand. I have tried to drill down different LR question types but I honestly have trouble with any stimulus that I don't quite understand.

I am pretty good with logic and valid/invalid argument forms so I don't think that's the issue. Is this something just common on the older PTs?

I have been struggling on harder problems sets in the curriculum as well so I am not sure how to tackle this problem since doing drills at this point isn't really helping. I usually do fine with the first 10 questions on a LR section but it does downhill from there. I usually don't really move on to another problem set until I have completely understood why I have gotten it wrong but again, it's usually because I didn't identify the flaw with the argument or understand the stimulus.

In BR, I usually get around 17-19 correct on LR out of 25. Again, majority of the ones I get incorrect are near the end of the section.

0

I have been really struggling with NA questions and am working on understanding them better. I think I have figured something out but I want to confirm it.

When you do SA questions, we have to find the missing piece to make the argument valid. With NA questions we take the entire valid argument and accept the NA that come with it: [p1 + p2 = C] --> NA

So when I am looking at NA questions, do I accept the stimulus as a completed argument and am just looking for something an assumption that must be true/necessary? Almost like a MBT but I'm looking for something subtle?

Thoughts?

1

Hi everyone,

I was hoping to get some of your guys' sage advice on timing and accuracy. Recently, I've been doing a lot of focused drilling on LR. I took a PT yesterday, and I found my accuracy has improved. However, I'm finding it a little bit harder to complete all the questions ( I feel myself scrambling at times on the last five questions). Has this happened to anyone else? I used to be able to finish all 25 or 26 questions, but now I find myself leaving one or two blank. Is there a way to improve my timing while ensuring that my accuracy doesn't increase? At this point, should I continue drilling, or should I start doing timed section? Both?

Thanks in advance!

0

Hey all,

I thought I'd share this discovery.

7Sage advocates doing what works best for you, but to be honest my "works best for me" patterns were heavily influenced by the first prep-materials I used: PowerScore. From what I remember, PowerScore heavily advocates diagramming RC passages. Of course then, I have been diagramming the heck out of RC passages since forever. But consequently, RC has always been my slowest section.

But I didn't care! I was doing really well on RC, at least in the earlier exams. But then RC changed. Starting in the mid-2000s RC became a lot more "big picture" and less "fact-test-y." I started missing a lot of questions (from -1 or -2 in early PTs to -5 or -6 on later PTs), usually because of rushing with timing, but also because diagramming for these didn't really help! The modern PTs were a lot less about "can you remember this specific word usage in this specific part" to "What statements would the author agree with?"

AKA - RC went more from specific to big picture.

Being stubborn, I didn't change my RC methods. And consequently, RC was consistently my worst section.

Coming back to PrepTesting after a months break (since Sept. exam), I tried a new method of approaching RC: just reading.

That's right. Just reading.

Underline stuff here or there, but no real marking of viewpoints, no circling indicator words, no writing "CC" or "Quest" beside certain passages. I just read. I focused less on the little details, and more on internalizing the text and really understanding what I was reading.

What has this given me? -0 to -1 on modern RC. (3 modern PTs so far!)

I thought I'd share this with you all; maybe it will help some of you!

TL;DR - Modern RC is less nitpicky about certain word usage, and will ask more questions that do not pertain directly to the text (the author would agree with which statement?). Consequently, just reading the passage, and not trying to diagram everything, could prove much more helpful.

Best,

Paul

12

Hi all,

I noticed in some recent videos JY recommends checking the MBT question answer choices as you make inferences so you don't do extra work. And in principle that makes sense. But it doesn't seem like that rule is consistently followed? Sometimes the videos go significantly further in making inferences before going to the answer choices, even going as far as to draw out multiple boards for a single question rather than checking the answers after an inference, then, if that's not there, going further down the inference chain. And sometimes the videos end up with the ultimate inference and then checks the answer choices for that ultimate inference even though there are multiple MBT inferences along the way. Is that process just skipped for time reasons in the videos? Or because checking in between each inference is sometimes counterproductive (makes you lose your train of thought)? Is there an element of hindsight when explaining knowing when to stop with a certain inference and when to go further?

The explanation for #21 in the PT82 game 4 is a good example (at ~14:00 minute mark):

The first MBT inference is that W gets S. The second MBT inference is that R doesn't get S. The third MBT inference is that R doesn't get M. The fourth MBT inference is that R gets J. Should we be checking the answers after every inference?

0
User Avatar
•

Sunday, Oct 29, 2017

cp954

PSA strategy

Hey guys! Fiesta here again.

So I have come across some points of confusion with PSA question types on my last PT runs. Usually, I found success with PSA questions by thinking about them like SA questions. Find the conditional that triggers P and concludes C. However, there have been a couple PSA questions that I have had trouble with because they do not fit this mold (68.2.5/68.2.13/68.2.16). I can't remember the specific video, but J.Y mentioned that PSA questions can be treated like STRENGTHEN questions under certain circumstances. I can see how that is helpful, but I was wondering what tactics yall have for attacking these PSA types that do not conform to the usual SA structure?

0

I understand why answer choice C is correct, but I can't seem to be able to rule answer choice B out. Can someone explain why answer choice B isn't the answer/ why answer choice C is better?

The way I see it answer choice B does significantly weaken the argument because it's showing that people are in fact motivated by money in their job choices, especially if they're identical in all other aspects.

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

0

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-43-section-2-question-20/

I find this to be the most interesting LR question I've come across, because I'm pretty darn sure it requires you to make an inference leap based on common sense. Rule #1 about LSAT logical reasoning -- common sense inferences are thrown out the window unless they're supported by the passage.

Answer choice D is the credited answer. Answer choice D requires you to make an assumption that's not in LSAT world. What's your thoughts?

I chose B.

0

(P1) A recent study shows that there is a correlation between refusing to think about your problems and getting gum disease.

(P2) Stress causes suppression of the immune system.

(C) The recent study shows that suppression of the immune system causes higher levels of gum disease

(NA) Refusing to think about your problems increases a person's level of stress.

Why do we have to assume that refusing to think about your problems CAUSES increased levels of stress? To me, it just seems that we are only required to assume that those who refuse to think about there problems are more stressed. Maybe it is the stress that causes them not to think about their problems... Who knows! I don't see why we have to assume a causal relationship between the two for the argument to work.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-4-question-10/

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?