Hey!

I am having a strange problem on logical reasoning – I consistently predict the correct answer (I identify the precise gap for a SA for example), but then somehow choose the wrong answer choice. This keeps happening despite my attempts to be more careful. I’m curious if anyone else has had this problem, and if so how they were able to get past it?

Thanks!!

I know this is odd to ask but is there any rules against wearing say a coat during the lsat in the winters? I'm planning on just wearing a long sleeve and hoping the centre isnt cold.

Hello fellow December test-takers! I'm brushing up on PSA questions for this Saturday, and I came across a question that I think is an excellent learning opportunity in regards to domains and precision within the wider scope of tackling LSAT arguments that deal with assumptions. Below I offer my explanation of the question, PT68 S3 Q02, (link to JY's explanation: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-3-question-12/) and a link to another question with a similar layout of argument and trap answer choices.

I’ve noticed that PSA questions that are “curvebreaker” level difficulty often have a very tempting trap answer that exactly mimics what you would formulate as your pre-phrase, and the right answer uses more veiled or sideways language that requires you to stop and think about the argument for a second. An analogous PSA question is PT 67 S4Q08, regarding burden of policy changes and salt on roads. Link: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-67-section-4-question-08/

For the parsley question, a general pre-phrase would go something along the lines of,

“If you have two varieties (V) of a cooking ingredient, and one is LESS GOOD on two particular qualities (T and H), NEVER use the worse variety.”

Note that the reasoning never tells us what variety we SHOULD use, only what we should not; and that it’s a comparative statement, not absolute.

But here’s where the curvebreaker feature of a PSA question comes in: PRECISION. Especially, precision in relation to which domain of item the argument is referring to. The trap answer will use all the keywords that sound appealing to you, so if you aren’t reading carefully, you might just think you lucked out on prephrasing the answer, choose it quickly, and move on.

But WAIT: D is a trap because it is out of the proper domain of the argument, so it’s useless to justify our conclusion. D tells us that we shouldn’t use V that have no T and H. But that doesn’t apply to dried parsley: all we know is that it has LESS T and H than fresh parsley. It’s an unwarranted assumption to say that it has no T and H at all.

B, on the other hand, seems at first to not be substantial enough to justify the argument, and it doesn't use all of the matching keywords from the argument; but remember, we’re laying out a sufficient condition (Pseudo SUFFICIENT assumption), so if an AC points the precise premise to the precise conclusion in a pretty much airtight way, then we have a winner. And B definitely does this, because it correctly references the COMPARATIVE quality of the argument, and tells us to not use the lesser T & H Variety.

My takeaway: be concise when figuring out what the conclusion of the argument is, and make sure on PSAs that your correct answer is connecting the premises to THAT conclusion, and not just repeating words from the stimulus. With a clearer understanding of what the conclusion of the argument is, you'll be able to solve all assumption questions more quickly and with increased confidence.

Hey y'all

I have been fool-proofing LG's Prep-test 1-20 and I have a really hard time with the games that the target time is 5 minutes. I'll get them perfect but I'll end up at 6 mins or 6:30 even after doing them loads of times. Is it worth it to keep pounding away at them or is it sucking up my time that I could be doing other games? It feels like the latter. As always I'm looking for efficiency in study method. Your two cents would be appreciated.

I read the question twice before the answers. Anybody else do this? It seems to be the way my brain absorbs things..

I have made this mistake more often than I should be. Working PT 28, Game 1; simple sequencing game. My only mistake was misinterpreting the rule: "N must be assigned to a higher numbered position than M." I paused because I have messed it up before but still did it wrong and put N-M. Cost me 2 questions.

My question is in sequencing games how to distinguish which number is higher. Let's use 7 spots numbered 1-7. I have had games where 1 is the highest and others like the one I did that 7 is. When 1 is the highest, I have noticed that the rule specifically states this instead of being as casual as the PT 28 was. Is this typically the case? Should I always assume 7 is highest unless specified otherwise?

Thanks in advance!

I have been seeking clarification on a frequent logic game rule. If the rule says A1---->B2, does that also mean if B is second A will be first?

Hi everyone,

I am stumbling upon this concept on this lesson https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/4-possible-explanations/

Correlation implies causation but, according to logic and lawgic, causation DOES NOT imply correlation. To my understanding, this lesson is telling me a completely different story and I cannot see the nuance. How is it possible that if A causes B, B can cause A???

Thanks very much!

Can any one tell me what the last sentence of the stimulant? I smudged mine and couldn't do this one. Thank you!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-78-section-1-question-08/

Hey guys, had a 7Sager message me with a question and I thought you could help out! Here it is:

Hi I had a question regarding the 5th question on Section 2 of preptest 78 (June 2016). you came to the conclusion that B is correct. but cant we also say that A (i.e. QS) is also true? I mean QS were also out so how do we differentiate in the end?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-78-section-2-game-1/

Hey everyone, I’m trying to figure out a good game plan for this week. I want to be adequately rested, I burned out my first time taking in February and I don’t want that to happen again.

Anyone who has good tips on how I should approach these last few days, I am all ears.

Blessed to be a part of the LSAT journey with 7Sagers challenging themselves to raise the bar higher to achieve their dreams. Your dedication to this test and most importantly your dedication to this community has raised the bar for future 7Sagers to gain knowledge to achieve their goals.

Believe in your knowledge and yourself... Be smart in your timing strategies, do not forget to breathe, and most of all - when the sh!t hits the fan, which it will no matter how awesome you are, don't sh!t in your pants - skip and get the heck out of that situation! Confidence is the key to this test and never let this test rule you!! The greatest feeling when leaving the test site is to know that you took the test the way you wanted to - no matter what the score is - no regrets:)

For everyone that I had the chance to meet during our LSAT journey, you made a difference in my life and I am truly thankful and wish you all the best on Saturday:)

Looking forward to the announcement for the Pep Rally - @"Cant Get Right" :)

Hi everyone,

I was just wondering if someone could please give me some advice. I have listened to JY's videos and engaged myself in MANY weakening questions, but I'm still struggling with them. I used JY's advice in terms of "tackling LR questions" via the flow chart, along with focusing on how I can "weaken" the support between the premises and conclusion.... but what I think I'm struggling with is finding other assumptions that would weaken the original support.

Does anyone have any tips or advice?

Thanks so much!! xx

Ps - I seem to be doing very well on strengthening questions, but weakening seems to be much more difficult.

Hey guys, I am having trouble understanding what is wrong with C. Even though I initially picked the right answer which is A I can't seem up eliminate C.

A) the proposed explanation for the decline in applications applies to this case

C) an increase in tuition and fees at the university would guarantee a larger applicant pool

the conclusion of the of this question is "so, if we want to increase the size of our applicant pool we need to raise our tuition and fees"

I just felt like A did a better job of capturing the relationship between the argument and the conclusion. Also even if C is negated it wouldn't destroy the argument because I can reply by saying "well it wouldn't guarantee but there is still a high possibility"

thoughts?

Thanks in advance

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-25/

So guys, I found a strategy that worked for me on logic games and this may not necessarily work for everyone.

But with days before the test day, for those of you who are struggling with logic games this MAY help you out. The sections I struggle with the most are RC and LR, hence I spent a lot of my time on these sections to improve my score while I neglected LG a bit since everyone was saying it's the easiest section to improve on.

I went from scoring -6 on LG to 0/-2 in only a few days.

This is what I did. Last week, I reviewed all the CC logic game videos (ie. I watched JY do the diagramming/questions for each type of game type not including the problem sets). I already did the problem sets in the past but it was a while since I touched logic games and I wasn't scoring as high as I would like.

Logic games is one of those sections that you can improve on. People on this forum aren't lying!! Thank you to everyone who helped me out with games btw!

After going through all the CC videos, I would recommend doing some of the games on the CC if you found it pretty hard to follow along with JY's inferences/diagrams etc. I know the miscellaneous games can be pretty nerve-racking but honestly, those games all involve the basics that we have been taught with logic games. Diagramming for misc. games might be the most difficult part but I would honestly recommend visualizing the scenario in your head. This helps a lot with diagramming, especially for me. I feel like once you dive into the game.. they aren't actually that hard since they involve the same type of questions etc. Reviewing the CC videos again just refreshed my mind with the possible types of logic games and I tried to draw the same types of inferences that JY was drawing. The games are really repetitive hence why I think this approach worked.

After I had re-watched the CC logic games videos, I printed 1-2 copies of PT 60-82 sections. I did all the sections timed and then re did the games or sections that I really had trouble with timed. I can honestly say, this process has helped me so much with logic games.

I obviously am pretty proficient with the conditional rules, diagramming, etc. so I found majority of the games to be pretty easy.

Again, this worked for me and may not work for everyone but I think it was worth sharing!

Feel free to ask me questions below incase I missed anything!

Good luck on the December test everyone!

I'm getting between -4 and -7 on the more recent RC, and I'm wondering how I should review these sections, and what I should be doing differently. I read for the organization/structure and take note of author attitude/opinion, and main points. I also underline names and key words.

I'm not sure what else I can do in the allotted time. Do people quickly skim the questions first to get a sense of what to look for, or is this generally pointless?

I am taking the test next week, and I want to go from --2-5 to --0. I plan to drill straight for a couple days and watch JY's videos after, and redo any ones that I bombed. But should I strictly time myself or no? I really just need to get better at diagramming effectively, and when I time myself I spend less time thinking about that. I'm wondering if I think about strategy carefully during drills, I can pick up strategies to use during timed PTs? Idk...

I had a problem with the answer choice on this one. I initially chose the correct answer of A, but on second thought, I eliminated because of "disadvantages". I went with E, because of Erik's conclusion that it was pointless = inconvenience rather than a benefit. I can't seem to reconcile the correct answer. It seems too strong in comparison with E.

I just wanted to bring it to people's attention who may have not gotten to the later PTs, that for the first question of logic games (The one usually involving a standard check of the rules) JY has been eliminating answer choices when he reads each part of the stimulus. This is a change from the earlier PTs, but I really like this, because there are times where you forget a rule and search frantically for the rule you forgot. I would highly suggest transitioning to this method, I think it will speed up your time and accuracy for logic games!

Hi Everyone. I am a PhD student in biomedical and I will defend my PhD in 3-4 months. I took the September exam and ended up with 137. I had some practice but not much. Since then I had no more attempt and completely gave up. I do better at Games and worse at RC. The problem is, I have to translate it in my mind and the time is not sufficient for that.

Do you think I can get 160+ for next June if I keep practicing and what is your main advice to me?

Thanks

Hi guys,

Hope everyone is having a great Thanksgiving break!

I just had a quick question on Causation arguments. I know there are several ways to weaken a correlation/coincidence - causation arguments - providing a common cause that produced both the cause and the effect, showing the relationship is reversed, showing there is a problem with the sample data used, and providing alternate/competing cause.

My question is when stimulus gives a single coincidence (as opposed to correlation) as the support for causal conclusion, would it be safe to assume the answer will most likely be providing alternate/competing cause? I think I came across this concept in one of JY's videos on causations and I don't think I recall any question with coincidence-causation arguments of which the correct answer was not an alternate cause?

What do you guys think??

Thanks.

Hi Everyone-

Do you know where/how we can access resources to RCs with the two mini-passages (passages A and B)? They seem to be more common on the more recent prep tests, however, I was wondering if they are, in fact, available on 7 Sage? Also, Is there a specific instructional video JY has made on this topic (that I am overlooking in the course syllabus)?

Finally, if the answer is no to both these questions, does anyone know of a solid outside resources that can help with this RC problem?

Hello,

As we all know, matching the formal elements in answer choices to the stimulus is a good way to find the correct answer on Parallel type questions. However, on this question, only the flaw matches and but the formal elements don't, in particular the certainty of the conclusion. In the stimulus, the conclusion states "probably did not" and the correct answer states "we will be unable."

I am curious if anyone else has come across questions like this and how often they come up.

Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-76-section-2-question-21/

Hi Everyone

So I have been cramming in LG sections lately to some rather good results. The first I only had -6, but I realized I selected the right AC on the test but not the paper/scantron (which I will be more careful from here on out). I'd be -2/-3 without it. I averaged -2/-3 on the rest of the LGs I took.

I took them originally a few months ago and only redid them each a couple times three months ago. If I'm doing good now and BRing my circled Qs keeps me at that range or better, is it because I did them before or because I make good inferences now?

Nate

Hi all! I'm taking the December LSAT, although a bit behind on studying, especially for LGs. Right now, I'm spending basically all my time FP-ing LGs and slowly adding in news ones. But I'm concerned that I won't have exposed myself to enough overall LGs to be able to deploy my skills when faced with new LG scenarios on the test. Do y'all think I should keep doing this or focus more on taking timed sections and new LGs in order to get the best LG score?

Thanks for any/all advice!