Discussions

LSAT

New post

206 posts in the last 30 days

So I am having two issues. A brief background: I was briefly in medical school but decided to switch to law. I have been prepping for the June LSAT for a few months, starting from a 148 baseline score and up to a 155 currently. I KNOW I could get it to a 160+ if I could figure out these LOGIC GAMES!!! No problems on any other section, but I can't for the life of me figure these out. I've gone through the powerscore books, but my mind just can't seem to think that way. Anyone have any ideas?!

Second thing, I get migraines with auras; these lead to visual disturbances that actually physically prevent me from seeing clearly. They last about 30 minutes. A couple of times this has happened during practice tests where I end up not being able to clearly see the questions I'm doing. Does anyone have any experience with this?

0

Good morning all. I am currently stuck in a score range of a 157-161. I have been here for quite some time. I have spent most of the time trying to hammer down LR because it is my weakest section. However on LG I am consistently -2 to -4. These missed points need to be eliminated.

My fear is, I learned LG through a different course. I am scared if I relearn logic games through 7sage methods I will either get confused, or my score will suffer. This may be a completely unfounded fear but it is there.

So, does anyone have any suggestions on how I can go about perfecting these games? Is taking timed 35min sections with review enough to hammer out these last few points? Just looking for some general advice to help me nudge my score ever so slightly forward.

0

For this question (it's helpful to watch the video), JY does the logic and it comes out to this:

Capable and (PI or 500) --> Report

~Report

not (capable) or not (PI or 500)

From this point, JY says that you implement the group 3 rule. meaning that you have to either negate the (capable) or the (PI or 500). But when you look at the problem, why couldn't you negate both? If they are BOTH negated, Ted would still not be required to report?

Basically, I'm not sure why you suddenly would need to implement group three on this problem when it seems you could absolutely negate both and still have the sufficient condition (~Report) stand correct.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-1-question-24/

0

for statements like this, when there are two sufficiency indicators,

can they have two possible translations?

If student, then he or she will be served well in later life by any philo class. ( S --> SWBPC)

if philo class, then will serve any students well later in life. ( PC --> SWLL )

the statement is from PT39, Section 2 Question 2.

it's a flaw question and the statement itself is not imperative to solve the question, but it did make me hesitate during timed PT when I tried to translate them into lawgic.

0

Hey, guys! Can you help me make sense of my reasoning for selecting this answer choice, if that makes sense?! Lol

Ok so I chose D but I get why B is correct. I still don't know for certain that I wouldn't have the same thoughts that lead me to choose D, if presented again.

D) draws conclusion about a specific belief (more ppl believe elected officials should resign if indicted than believe that they should resign if convicted. I -> R and C - > R) based on responses to inquiries (I -> R and R - > C) about two diff specific beliefs. So basically, I said the conclusion was based on I - R and C - > R and not based on I -> R and R - > C. I said this equaled two different specific beliefs.

Does this make sense to anyone?? Or, am I just doing too much? Was I just totally off here? Hopefully I wrote this up correctly and you guys understand what I mean here. TIA

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-2-question-25/

0

My big issue with this question is about why B is the correct answer. It seems to equate "exploiting" with "destroy" and I'm not sure how reasonable of an assumption that is to make. Since this is a logically inferred question, I assumed that the right answer would have a higher degree of validity than an MSS answer choice.

But answer B, the right answer, seems to combine the two groups of environmentalists into one group, and I'm not sure that's implied anywhere in the argument. Noneconomic justification appears in the second sentence with the many group. The defensibility of exploiting features appear in the previous sentence with the some group.

How are we to infer that we have to combine these groups? Does it have to do with the economic costs in the last part of the second sentence?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-3-question-08/

0

So I chose answer choice A because author Q simply states, " ought to have been effective, but he has not been" the author is just saying that he's been ineffective but doesn't offer up any evidence as to why he is ineffective. Can someone explain to me why my reasoning is wrong? that would be greatly appreciated! thank you!!!!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-2-question-11/

0

Hey guys!

Hope everyone had an amazing holiday weekend!

I've decided to go back over some of the very beginning core stuff to make sure I have a solid understanding before moving on in the curriculum. I have the LSAT Trainer and I'm trying to use that as supplemental material to explain the concepts I'm having trouble with. This is going to seem really silly...maybe it's because I'm just starting out, but this threw me for a loop:

"When we are asked to evaluate the reasoning in an argument, it is always in terms of a very specific task: our job is always to evaluate and understand why the reasons given DO NOT justify the point that is made. For every one of these questions, your understanding of why the support doesn't justify the conclusion will be your primary gauge for evaluating right and wrong answers (p.35)."

So every argument is wrong? For some reason I remember hearing JY say don't worry about whether the argument is RIGHT OR WRONG..... What is the logical reasoning section asking me to DO?

If anyone could help clarify this, I'd greatly appreciate it!

Thanks guys!

0

The definition is "if two variables cannot be next to one another, there must be at least one space separating them", and the equation is Total slots – # w/i variable = # empty slots between the variables.

Can any body give a full explanation on what separation principle is? I don't get what w/i variable represents... Thanks in advance!

0

Hi,

Would this be the best plan to perfect the logic games by September 15?

Finish the core material as fast as I can. I am 40 percent of the way through and started last Thursday. I'll obviously slow down a little now that I am through a lot of the logical reasoning stuff.

Foolproof games 1-35.

Resume PTing with blind review. I haven't used any of the newest 20 tests. I have the newest book of tests on its way in the mail and will purchase the next ten whenever they come out after the June test. I have used a lot of the other old tests, but may add one of them in directly before or after each of my new practice tests in order to build endurance.

Thanks for any feedback, especially by people who have improved on and ideally nearly perfected logic games. They are my one hangup on the test and thankfully according to 7sage are a weakness that seems fixable.

Context about me and the test:

I am retaking a 172 from the February test in September. For the February test, I studied for about 3 weeks predominantly by PTing and have been intermittantly since. Logical reasoning is very intuitive to me. I miss an average of one in the two sections on each test. Reading comprehension is similar, though I miss a few more (about 1-3 in the one section). Logic games I can get the right answers with sufficient time, but struggle to finish. I did not complete the last game during my test in February guessing blindly on the last 2 questions and close to blindly on the preceding ones from that game. I really haven't got better or worse by practice testing and reviewing (but not blind reviewing) since February(however I did discover 7sage through the logic games explanations). I average 173 with the vast majority of errors on logic games.

0

Hey everyone,

I'm currently registered for the June LSAT, and have been studying since December. I've been aiming for the 166-170 range since my diagnostic. I eventually worked my way up throughout the semester to averaging a 163, and immediately following my final exams, I scored a 169 (maybe because I had a break from looking at the LSAT for 2 weeks?). For about 3 PTs after the 169, I averaged a 166 or so. Since then (so in the last week and a half/two weeks) I've seen a steady decline in my scores, to averaging a 164 again after another 4 PTs and a low 160 this afternoon (sigh). Other than the few tests that I performed really sub-par on, my BR has been sitting consistently around 173-175.

Has anyone else had a similar experience while studying, or have any advice about this? Obviously it's pretty frustrating to see a decrease in your scores when you'd expect some improvement in the final stretch.

Thanks!

0

This one tripped me up quite a bit. I need a better explanation than J.Y. gave in the video. In a flaw question, are we to assume all the premise are true? In this question it says;

"...to play a card game devised to test perception and memory."

When I read this, and this might be my major issue, I automatically assumed that this card game was perfect to test perception and memory. I did not see a reason to question its credibility. Then I read the conclusion which said the idea that perception and memory are reduced by 80 is false.

This lead me to believe that I had to show that perception and memory could not be tested in any real way. So I chose answer C.

C.) Perception and memory are interrelated in ways of which we are not currently aware.

My reasoning here was that if we didn't know how perception and memory interact, then the card game could not have allowed for an accurate reading and therefore the conclusion could not be properly drawn.

the correct answer choice just seemed to easy and to not really do anything to counter the argument. Answer E. says;

E.) Playing the study's card game perfectly requires fairly low levels of perception and memory.

this just seemed so weird to me. How can I just say "oh hey, your card game that you designed to test perception and memory does not actually test perception and memory"? This seems like I'm attacking the premise directly, and I thought in arguments we were not allowed to do that.

help...

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-4-question-08/

1

So i am just finishing the CC and i have always struggled with LGs. I find that sometimes i can finish a game which is rated at a 5 in difficulty with no problem at all. But then i will completely bomb a game that is apparently really easy and after 7 or 8 minutes i give up and watch JYs explanation. Not sure why this is happening. Any insight would be much appreciated.

0

Alright, so I've been grinding for the last 3 months to prep for the the June LSAT. Done upwards of 30 PTs with Blind Review and I seem to have plateaued at about a 168-172 score under timed conditions. Wondering if anybody has any tips for the next two weeks that might help me eke out a few more points. I would be ecstatic with a 170, I know what an achievement that is, but the difference in scholarship money between a 170 and a 173 is probably tens of thousands... I usually ace the Logic games unless I run out of time, LR is usually -2 or 3 per section, and RC is toughest for me, averaging -5/6.

2

I am currently hovering round a BR score of 174.

I usually make about 4 to 5 overconfidence errors, spread out over LR and RC.

Sometimes I get a question wrong in my BR as well. How do I fix that?

I usually go through the whole exam.

Also, what are your thoughts on retaking PTs?

0

Hi dear 7sagers, and sages,

First of all, I am having trouble understanding the difference between negation and contrapositive but I think I am slowly getting it.

What troubles me, however, is how to negate a relationship, or in other words deny it, which has an And/Or statement in the conditionals. So, for example, I will use @JY's example from his lesson on DeMorgan's Law:

"If Tom plays, then Jerome and Simmi play too"

Translated into lawgic that would be: T→(J and S) (which could be split)

Now, if we negate the statement altogether, what happens then? "It could be the case that if Tom plays, neither Jerome nor Simmi play" am I right? ....T→NOT(J and S)

Moreover, how do you translate that? T→/J and T→/S ??? Or in other words, T→(/J and /S) (which could also be split)

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?