Hi guys! I know this has probably been asked many times before but I just want to know how you exactly go about BR for LR? I just took a practice section after not taking one in a long time and I got 6 wrong and skipped 2 which is making me feel a little down. LR has been pretty good for me and I have never really done BR but I think the time has come now to implement it so I can really be confident about LR. Thanks for all your advice in advance!

Can someone break down valid argument form two for me? I'm confused about the contrapositive. /B therefore /A, but isn't shouldn't "does not treat patients" be a contrapositive"?

Valid form 2 of 9

Denying the Necessary

[English] All doctors treat patients. Hercules does not treat patients. Therefore, Hercules is not a doctor.

[Lawgic]

A –> B

/B

/A

Does anyone know how in/out game is categorized?

In the drilling packet, I see the instructor has categorized into (1)Basic In/Out, (2)Advanced In/Out, (3)Sequencing In/Out, and (4)Sub-categories In/Out. I get how (3) and (4) are sorted, but what about (1) and (2)? Are they divided up according to their difficulties?

Thanks!

Whyyyy is this so hard for me?? I am on RC on the Ultimate + (I upgraded yay!) and I'm finding that the hardest questions in the set for me are the first ones -- 'What is the main point'. In my mind there is just so much information, I can't seem to figure out which concept is the main point unless it's a super easy passage. Anyone have any tips? Is there anything that gives a general 'clue' about what sentence/thought is the Main point?

Am I understanding MBT true right?

Conditional Statements and their Contrapositives are the only things that can be proven as Must Be True. These are in the notes that I made...and I just want to confirm that I understood the lesson properly.

So, when I'm looking at the answer choices...I'm only looking for conditional logic answers?

Hi y'all!

I hope y'all can give me some advice. I have done several practice timed sections, untimed sections, and PT's and I have noticed a pattern when I look back at my scantrons. I have been consistently missing the early 20's questions in any LR section!! For example, I will nearly always miss questions from 19-25, and unfortunately, sometimes I just miss all of those.. The rest of LR has been going pretty good. occasionally, I'll miss maybe one question before #19 but I catch it during BR and it's actually a silly mistake.. After that, it's just awful. It's not a timing issue either, as I have been doing this timing strategy: 15 mins for questions 1-15 so I have approx one minute per question, then I can take up to two mins per question on question 16 and after. Generally, i don't use that much time, but it's nice to have that cushion and the timing strategy really works for me! Is there something I am missing about these questions? Are they the hardest of the section? During BR, I can usually get them right my second go, but some of them have left me stumped. so I watch JY's videos, and then I get it. I have also checked Q types and i can deff say it's not a specific Q type (besides MSS and SA... those are my weaknesses annoyingly). I also do skip Q's and they are almost always 1-2 of this range of questions. At this point, I have been missing 5 or 6 on both my LR sections in JUST THESE QUESTIONS which is driving me up the walls!

TL;DR: is there something special about the 19-25 questions in an LR section? How do I fix this strange problem of mine? Should i switch up my timing method? Am I overthinking these last few questions and thus costing myself points?

So I chose B because this is true almost all of the books from the past 150 will gradually destroy themselves. it says in the stimulus that it will slow down the process it doesn't say that it will reverse the deterioration and I didn't choose A because I thought "completely" was too strong and in the stimulus it seemed to me that the historically insignificant books could still have a chance of survival because they could be put in a cool, dry environment and then it says that the books of historical significance will have the new techniques but it doesn't say the insignificant books wouldn't be placed in the cool dry environment. Can someone please explain the reasoning of this question? TYA!!!!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-4-question-10/

So I chose A because I thought that answer was the one that was most proven based upon on the stimulus and I thought E was a close second but I didn't choose it because it seems a little far fetched saying that the cleanser will " make relatively greater contributions" and another forum had said " If the chlorofluorocarbons were a contributing factor in meeting the emissions standards and they are phased out of the process, something else must have allowed auto makers to continue to mee the more stringent emissions standards - best expressed in answer choice (E)" but I don't see the stimulus saying that the standards have been met, I saw it as that they (in the future) will have to meet the emission standards. Can someone explain the reasoning to me please??? TYA!

Hey everyone! Having a bit of difficulty with this passage. It's from the first RC problem set in the core curriculum. I was wondering if anyone could add to JY's explanation for #26 and explain how (E) is supported? I chose (A), but I felt uneasy about both because I didn't think the author would agree with either of the options. Thanks so much!

Here's the link to JY's explanation:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-2-passage-4-questions/

So i studied for 3 months and sat for the december LSAT, were i received a score i was unhappy with. During that time i studied in a hap-hazardous way, not tracking my growth and understanding. To make a long story short i wasted tons of PTs. Now that i am back on track, with a proper study schedule, i am looking what i have to work with. I have 1-35 which i am drilling with. I have 40-52 and 71-80 which are fresh. Since i plan on sitting for september i only planned on taking 20 or so timed PTs, so that is fine. I am looking through my spent tests and noticing that i only did random sections out of these and have 2 or 3 sections per tests that are fresh. My question is should i drill these instead of 1-35?

Hey all,

So I just took PT 53 and scored a 169. Hoooray, right? Not quite. I scored a -1 in LG, -2 between both LR sections and a -9 in RC. Yes, a -9!!!!!!!

I don't know exactly what my problem is with RC. Maybe I just hate it and I know that I hate it so my mindset isn't right or maybe I just don't understand the questions. I understand what it's asking, but I've just read so much dense material in 2 minutes so to then answer a densely worded question with 4 answer choices that are all eerily similar in 40 seconds seems like a lot...

Anyone else gone through something like this? How did you beat RC? I know that you track the viewpoints, arguments, tone, structure etc.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated as I am at my wits end with RC...

LR is by far and away the section I struggle with the most. Some question types I have no issue with but there are others (NA, Flaw mainly) that just blow me out of the water sometimes.

My question is, what is your method of studying for LR in general? How do you break things down to better understand question types? I'm starting to see how answering "why" is so important and I want to be more effective with my study time. I typically have used the problem sets and mixed timed and un-timed individual questions and tried to break them down, along with watching J.Y.'s videos. However, I just don't know if this is effective or not.

So what do you all say? What is your weapon (strategy) of choice when it comes to general LR studying?

Hi team!

as the title says, does anyone have an idea where LSAC adopts its RC material? any journal, book, magazine you'd recommend?

I would like to start reading material that is similar to what's on the RC in my spare time.

LG has been by far my worst section, and I've been focusing on it the past few weeks. I've seen some improvement: I used to only be able to do the setup for 2-3 out of the 4 games, and now I can usually get the setup and most questions right, but I usually run out of time on the out-of-ordinary games.

I'm wondering if I'm full-proofing correctly? I was following the method in the CC, but when I go to re-do the games back-to-back, I'm not really sure I'm actually making the inferences. I usually can remember all the inferences, especially the ones I missed the first time around, but I'm not making them. Does that make sense? So I've started to do a timed section, and then full-proof for the next few days so that I can't just remember all the inferences, and I'm actually forcing myself to make them. Does anyone else experience this?

It's seems like from the CC we're supposed to do them over and over again, back to back, until we own the game. But if I do that, is it really benefiting me since most of the time I'm just remembering what I just did instead of actually making the inferences again?

Any advice would help. Thanks!

Hi I was just hoping someone could help me sort out the conditional logic in this stimulus. I feel like there's a gap in my understanding of the first sentence of the stimulus.

The first statement is about archaic spellings being preserved if they are infrequent and do not interfere with reading comprehension. I think the negation of preserved is modernized.

F: frequent

I: interfere

M: modernize

I originally diagrammed this statement as:

/F & /I -> /M

M -> F or I

The correct diagram is:

/M->/F & /I

F or I -> M

What is the difference I'm missing here?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-3-question-19/

So I'm currently studying for the September LSAT, but wondering if the December one would be too late to take when it comes to the admissions process. Would it be better to take the September LSAT because it is right when the admissions cycle opens up?

I'm in the middle of going through the CC and I'm on weakening questions at this point. I'm working on my problem sets, but the last five sets I've done, I've been getting three or more of the questions wrong- the last two I just did, I got all the questions wrong. I understand for weakening questions, I'm looking for AC that reduces the support between the premise and conclusion, and I'm able to identify the premise, conclusion, referential phases, etc. in each argument. But when it comes down to select my AC, this is where I trip up. I'm going through JY's explanations for each question, and I see where his argument came from in selecting the AC, but the next set I do, I miss the point again and get too many questions wrong. Help! Any tips of how to conquer the tough weakening questions? Should I review the whole lesson plan again? Should I look at another way of attacking these questions via other study guides? I'm getting frustrated and discouraged because I've been handling all other topics fine, but I'm at a road block with these questions. Thanks in advance!

Hey all,

I had scored a -5 on every single LR section for about 15 sections while I reviewed each section the following day.

Then, about a week ago I realized that I know the material, I just need to read with more intensity and put forth maximum effort in order to make the necessary connections between the premises and conclusion(s). Since this decision, I have scored -0, -0, and -1. I have answered all questions quicker and with certainty.

I've heard of people having a few defining moments in their prep where they take the step from 90% percentile to 99th%.

Is this normal?

Hi everyone,

I just started the logic games curriculum and I'm so confused. I under stand the basic principles of diagramming and the rules, but I look at the questions and I just don't know what the first step it, or any step is. Any help would be great!

Thanks!

So for the past month and a half I have been attacking LR and LG extremely hard. I've worked my way down to about -5 in LR and -2 or -3 in LG. I have finally seen a bit of improvement in my score thanks to these two sections. I still have one major mountain to climb however. I am sitting constantly at a -8 or -9 in RC. I would really like to see AT LEAST a 4 point improvement in this section consistently. I just am not quite sure where to start.

According to the analytics here on 7Sage my most missed question types are the Author Inference types. I have never really had tooooo much issue with timing. I'm always in the last passage when they announce the 5min mark. I would like to get some what faster, but I think accuracy is something I'm more concerned with. However with LR and LG I was able to see a clear way to attack my weak spots and make improvements. In RC I'm not as clear about how to go into the questions.

I have 7Sage and the RC Bible as well as the LSAT Trainer. Each has helped a little, but I would like maybe some more specific advice on how to lower my missed question count here.

So for this question, can someone help me out with why it's not "E" "The higher cancer rates of Japanese immigrants to North America are caused by fats in the North American diet."

I understand why "D" works. But I don't get what excludes "E" and since I operate on excluding incorrect answers first before selecting a correct answer, I got this question wrong both in my first pass and after my blind review.

If, "neither P nor K are cute", then can you say P+K→/C or do you have to keep them separate??

Lawgical Translations:

P → /C

AND

K → /C

Therefore, P+K→/C ?

Thank you!!!!

I've been studying for nearly exactly a month at this point. My diagnostic, with quite a few very lucky guesses, was 162. I'm currently hovering around 164-165, and I'm a little frustrated with my progress.

Do you think it is realistic, at this point, to still shoot for a 172+ on test day? Essentially, I have 3 months to go, and I'm still testing almost ~8 points below my goal, but I CAN do them…just not in the time…anyone have any personal tips for speeding up?

.

So I'm aware that the standard on 7sage for LG sections is that you should never erase and that you should always re-write out your game board for each question as needed in a set. I understand the argument for this and it is totally practical for easy sequencing games with minimal time involved in re-drawing game boards. But I highly question this strategy when it comes to more complex game boards, especially when you have say 4 different split game boards for the question. To re-write out 4 game boards fresh for every question in the set seems like a waste of time in these cases, especially when you have really involved game boards with sub-categories and everything.

As a result, I've found myself doing a lot of erasing. I tend to write in very lightly to the original board and then I can erase it easily for the next question. I'm wondering what others do with this?

I realize there is something lost in erasing in that when you write out the game boards fresh each time sometimes you can have inferences saved on different questions that can help you in later ones. But I'm not yet convinced the trade off in time lost is worth it.