Hi,

I've been taking PTs with 32 minutes for all sections and felt quite challenging to get those difficult curve-breakers right in 32 minutes, especially for LR. I definitely think those extra 2-3 minutes could be very useful (currently getting 5-6 wrong combined), but for those who score high in LR, do you think 2-3 less minutes should not make a huge difference? How do you guys use the last 5 minutes of the section (in full 35 min section)? Should I rather go back to doing 35 min section PTs?

With these being a bit wordier than your average LR question (especially with the AC's), what is an appropriate time to shoot for?

Hi All,

I could use some help with this necessary assumption question. I definitely see why C is a necessary assumption, but I'm having a hard time figuring out why E is not also an equally necessary assumption. I have yet to find an explanation online that addresses my thought process.

The argument is as follows:

P1: Nuclear reactors are sometimes built in “geologically quiet” regions.

P2: Geologists call these regions “geologically quiet” because such regions are distant from plate boundaries and contain only minor faults.

P3: No minor fault in a geologically quiet region produces an earthquake more often than once in any given 100,000- year period.

C: Out of all the potential nuclear reactor sites in such a region, the ones that are least likely to be struck by an earthquake are ones located near a fault that has produced an earthquake within living memory.

I had chosen E, but the correct answer is C. I see why C is a necessary assumption, but my current issue is seeing why E is not.

C is correct because we cannot assume the relative location of the nuclear reactors to the minor faults. It could be that some nuclear reactors are on one end of the "geologically quiet" region and that the minor faults are miles away. C addresses the assumption necessary to position all the nuclear reactors on the same playing field (proximity wise), which renders the conclusion's validity possible.

When I chose E, it was based on a similar thought process that I believe C requires...I chose E because the stimulus never said that the faults had to produce earthquakes. The stimulus says that the maximum is one earthquake every 100,000 years, but what if there are some faults (or entire regions...) that produce NO earthquakes? In that case, it is not the faults that have had an earthquake in living memory that are the least likely to be struck by an earthquake-- the least likely would be the faults that are "dormant" or "inactive." E fixes this by establishing that there will be at least 1 every 100,000 years (in conjunction with the stimulus, that means there will be exactly 1 every 100,000 years).

Can someone help me out here? I see two equally necessary assumptions and I know I'm most likely misinterpreting the stimulus? Or E?

Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-2-question-21/

For logic games, if the question is asking for a CBT could a MBT be correct? For example, if R has to go into the 9th spot and R being in the 9th spot is one of the answer choices, could that be correct? TYA!

Hi could someone help me out with the diagramming on this one? I found it absolutely confounding and I'm usually pretty decent at conditional phrasing.

So what I took away from this after looking at this thoroughly was that the original logic chain is something to the effect of:

P1: EW (Weak Economy) -> PRC (Prices Remain Constant) and UR (Unemployment Rises)

P2: UR -> ID (Investment Decreases)

P3: /ID

What I got from this was: EW-> PRC

-> UR -> ID

Arrow in the second line after the blank is supposed to symbolize the "and." (And is split after, Or is split before)

From there: /ID ->/UR ->/EW

PRC seems irrelevant now since you've already failed part of the "and". Sufficient (EW) is already failed by /UR, therefore PRC floats. It can do whatever.

How do we get from /ID ->/UR ->/EW

to /EW -> ID must be false

Not sure how this is correct. Obviously, since we know ID is stated in the stimulus, this must be true. Then it says EW, which we know not to be true.

Similarly, with D, we know that the economy is not weak, must be true, but prices remaining constant, I have no idea how this figures in.

Same thing with E. Either unemployment is rising, and we know that it isn't, or the economy is not weak, which also must be true. We know both of these must be true. Still not sure how this translates into an either...or statement.

What am I missing here? Is it something to with the either...or statements?

Principle or PSA question?

In LR, I try to identify the question type as quickly as possible, but sometimes I cannot identify immediately. I have hard time differentiating PSA and Principle questions under timed conditions.

Typical PSA questions are like:

"Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning above?"

and I can identify it as PSA immediately.

But for example, PT57.S2.Q1. says:

"The reasoning above most closely conforms to which one of the following principles?"

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-57-section-2-question-01/

This is a fairly easy question, but I didn't know that this is a PSA question until after I read the stimulus and ACs.

Do you have any tips in differentiating PSAs from Principles quickly?

=============================================

Is Q39.S2.Q11 a PSA question?

Also, 7Sage labeled Q39.S2.Q11 as PSA, but I feel like this is a Principle question since we're given a conditional statement in the stimulus, and answers give us a premise and a conclusion.

"Which one of the following judgements most closely conforms to the principle above?"

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-39-section-2-question-11/

Is this a PSA question? If so, can someone elaborate on the difference between PSA and Principle questions?

Thank you :)

I'm adding my explanation to this question since it doesn't currently exist on 7sage. Feel free to critique my reasoning.

This is a necessary assumption question. We know this because the question stem says the argument above makes which one of the following assumptions? The correct AC must be an assumption we know the argument makes. Therefore, it is a necessary assumption.

P: R bacteria provide nitrogen to bean plants and other legumes. Nitrogen is an essential plant nutrient. Wheat must normally be supplied nitrogen by nitrogen fertilizer.

C: If technology produces wheat strains that will host R bacteria, the need for fertilizers will be reduced.

Flaw: I originally thought but what if nitrogen is not the only essential plant nutrient for plants to grow? Might the need for fertilizer remain? B plays on this erroneous understanding. This isn't the actual flaw.

A. 'should' is irrelevant. This is not about what should happen it's about what is/will happen.

B. This was temping and it the trap answer choice. The conclusion says the need for artificial fertilizers will be reduced if biotech succeeds in producing wheat strains who host R bacteria. What about other reasons growers need to add fertilizer? Can we conclude from no longer needing nitrogen that fertilizer demand in general will be reduced? Even if nitrogen only comprises a small subset of all fertilizer use, if we eliminate the nitrogen need, then yes, the fertilizer demand will be reduced. This is true even if nitrogen is not the only soil nutrient that must be supplied. The key word to not falling for this trap answer choice is "reduced." Perhaps I was temped because I was thinking "eliminated." If the conclusion said the demand would be eliminated then yes nitrogen would have to be the only reason growers use fertilizer.

C. This is not necessary. It talks about other grasses but even if it didn't, even if there are strains of wheat that do have R naturally, we know there are some that aren't. That's what the whole argument is about so this is irrelevant.

D. Similar reasoning to C. We don't need legumes to be the only crops that produce nitrogen. We know some wheats don't and we know there is an existing need for nitrogen based fertilizer. The argument is simply saying the need will go down if wheat is modified to host R bacteria.

E. This is absolutely necessary. If the R bacteria did not produce nitrogen in the wheat roots then it wouldn't reduce the need for artificial fertilizer. This is the true flaw. Just because the plant will host the bacteria doesn't mean that it will necessarily have the desired effect.

Happy Sunday, everyone!

I'm currently working through the Core Curriculum, and for the harder problem sets in the Logical Reasoning modules (mostly Sufficient and Pseudo-Sufficient Assumption questions sets) I'm able to eliminate 3/5 answer choices without any problem. Of the remaining two answer choices (which is always the correct answer choice and one incorrect one) I end up eliminating the correct answer choice and choosing the incorrect one, even after carefully considering both options and writing down explanations for why I eliminated or chose each AC.

Has this ever happened to any of you, and what did you do to correct it?

Thank you for all your help ~ it has been invaluable in my study prep! =)

is it Some are not A and not B?

A --> C

B --> C

/A some /B

I was trying to translate this into english and was having some trouble.

for example,

all jedi use the force. all sith use the force.

if you are not a force user, you are not Jedi and not Sith

so..

some are not Jedi and Not Sith? ( /A some /B) is that correct?

Hi all,

I just did a full-simulated LR section and scored -5. I missed #2 so I feel like I missed a big opportunity there. I haven't finished going through the curriculum. I take the September LSAT.

What's it going to take to get that number down to -3 or better on every.single.section? Could this be a pattern recognition issue or just more practice?

I feel -3 or less is a good goal because LR and RC are nearly impossible to score perfect consistently because of the varying nature.

Im having trouble understanding why answer choice E is correct. I chose answer choice D because the conclusion has to do with the experts being useless because they offered contradictory information. I thought that when were looking at reasoning method questions were supposed to look at the conclusion and see how it is flawed. Here is my reasoning for the other ones to be incorrect:

a) This isn’t the correct answer because its not talking about the argument

b) This is also incorrect because it has nothing to do with the argument

c) Why would we consider other opinions outside of health when were talking about health related issues

d) This is correct because Ive eliminated every other answer and also because they’re assuming that just because the expert opinions are trustworthy in one case that they have to be trustworthy in all cases

e) This is incorrect because the argument doesn’t have anything to with whether or not the coffee is good for you but rather the experts are useless

TYA!!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-1-question-06/

Through the BR process, I've noticed that I can attribute 1-2 missed questions per LR section to "misreading" the stimulus. It seems that I am prone to skip an important adjective that clarifies the correct AC. Most of the time, I approach the AC's with a good understanding of the argument/facts, but for the few questions that hinge on these small clarifiers, I often get burned.

When I read the stimulus, I typically follow the end of each line with my pencil. I've noticed in JY's live commentary videos, he tracks literally every word with his pencil. Does anyone have a method of reading (specifically in terms of pencil usage) that they feel allows them to capture even small details? Do you think I would benefit from switching to this more methodical approach? Thanks in advance!

My goal is a 168+ to get into my target law schools.

My PT score range is 164-166. I have burned PTs from 55 - 70.

Today I had the worst score (PT70) since I started studying earlier this year.

I am contemplating withdrawing or taking the June test and immediately canceling. If I withdraw, I will lose money. If I take and cancel, I will also lose money BUT I will at least have had the experience of sitting and taking an offical LSAT.

The only other consideration is that I can not take the September LSAT due to work scheduling and I will instead be taking the December LSAT. I would like to apply this upcoming fall and I am a bit worried that December is late for the LSAT...

Thoughts?

Thank you.

Hi 7sagers!

What kinds of patterns have you seen emerge in MBT/MSS questions? For example, I personally have seen that for conditional - heavy stimuli, LSAC loves to use mistaken reversals & mistaken negations as wrong answer choices.

Are there any other patterns that you have noticed -- perhaps other patterns in the answer choices, in the stimulus structure, or in the way the answer choices relate to the stimulus?

Hi I got the correct answer A, but only through the process of elimination. I am slightly bothered by the AC's somewhat extreme tone, "best."

Can I say that it is justified because the supporting textual evidence (line 10-11) says "preferred?"

I am just wondering in general: when is the extreme tone in the RC inference AC justified, and when is it not?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-4-passage-2-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-4-passage-2-questions/

So I fell for a sufficient assumption trap, I chose the answer that was basically a restated premise, so for the assumption questions, the answer that is basically a premise, is that always wrong? TYA!

Is there any sort of historical data somewhere that displays the likelihood of certain logic games appearing by type?

Hey all,

I've noticed that every now and then I will see an argument that doesn't seem to have any glaring flaws, if any at all. Sure enough, it's a principle question in the range of 17-23...so I know I better be hyper-alert because this is going to be tricky. I proceed to read through the answer choices and immediately throw away 2 of them because they are completely irrelevant. Now, to the nitty gritty :

Example: "...therefore, that ought not be done for it is both immoral and would cause more harm than good."

The correct answer would be something like "Anything that goes against common moral belief and does not help society but instead damages society ought not be done." Obviously, this happens to be an assumption as well.

BUT, among the answer choices one will find something along the lines of "anything immoral ought not be done" and "Actions that cause more harm than good are immoral." Both are attractive for their own reasons since the first seems to be reasonably supported by the conclusion, but not SO much as the conclusion mentions two criteria and the second combines the two elements of the conclusion but in reality is not supported by the conclusion.

All of this said, I think that I've identified a pattern here with principle questions and I'm looking for some validation. When answering a principle question, one must look for (and find) and exact match to the information discussed in the stimulus. There will be answer choices that maybe fall "inside the realm" of the stimulus but they are not an exact match that would validate the conclusion.

Thanks in advance!

Hey guys,

I plan on taking the LSAT in September and I want to focus on just logic games for about 3-4 weeks (as long as it takes to get to a near perfect score really). I took it back in December and the only thing that brought my score down was LG - so before I get back to PTing and targeting certain questions, I want to do LG

Right now I'm doing every LG section from PT 1-20 - two sections a day. Really trying to master it. My question is is my time better spent doing LG sections from PTs 40-60 instead?. Everyone knows that we should prioritize the modern PTs, and I want to get the most bang for my buck. So should I hop straight to those?

Thanks

I chose C because it is weakening the argument which is saying that people are more concerned about their finances than politics and C says that they are JUST AS concerned about their finances and politics thus weakening the argument and I thought E was incorrect because 1) it is bringing outside information that wasn't mentioned in the stimulus and 2) it says that they are concerned with politics and their finances but it doesn't say to what degree. I mean the conclusion is saying that they are concerned about their politics but the degree of concern is different.

Can someone explain this to me? Thank you!!!!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-1-question-15/

Hey everyone,

I want to get feedback and see if there is an interest out their in studying LR but with a focus on strategies that increase your understanding beyond just that PT and question.

Instead of the traditional method where we are just just blind reviewing and trying to understand the question in front of us, we will be focusing on identifying patterns behind each argument so we can carry what we learned over to other LR stimulus in future PT's.

A lot of speed in LR comes from our ability to quickly spot these patterns that are constantly repeating. These patterns are not about learning question types - the core curriculum does a phenomenal job of that - but more about argument types.

So yeah, let me know what you guys think and if you are interested. : )

Update:

I am going to let all of you decide what PT series you would like to use to study these patterns.

PT 30-39:

Pros: These are basically drill materials PT's and are considered ideal for burning in order to study. Even the very beginners can join this.

Con: These are older PT's and hence a little less relevant than 40 series. We have also seen a lot of these questions as part of our core curriculum.

PT 40-49

Pros: They are a bit more relevant though I think there is not that much difference as the logic has not changed much from PT 1. I think it's fine to burn these for drills as well since we still have 46 plus fresh PT's left after these.

Cons: Some people still like to use them as fresh PT's.

PT 50-59:

I had a private request for this but since I cannot edit the poll if this series is your preference you can just write this down as a comment below and I would count it in the poll.

Hi,

I have seen a couple threads regarding how people get ready before a test but I was hoping to get some more opinions. The June 2017 test is a noon test so does anyone prepare differently or have suggestions on how to prep/warm up for a noon test? Also, what do people normally do a week before their test?

hi, can someone explain why answer choice e isnt a match? I'm still not 100% sure after BRing and watching the explination vid.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-2-question-21/

I have completed fool proofing PTs 1-35. I'm now 11 preptests into my PT phase. Getting -0/-1 on tests, though admittedly some of the mid/early 40s are supposed to be easier than average.

Anyway, what are y'alls thoughts on fool proofing LG on PTs36+? Obviously I BRed them when I took, but should I go ahead and just start repeatedly doing these PTs' LG sections after I take them? I'm up in the high 40's now, so I was thinking I'd do 10 PT chunks of fool proofing the LG games, by the time I'm done with that, I'd be another 10 PTs ahead in testing. Repeat.

The advantage is just more and more practice on LG. The disadvantage is that such PTs would be "ruined" for retakes. Then again, I don't personally plan on doing many retakes because I've got so many untouched PTs in front of me and am already scoring well so I don't think I'll need to retake the real thing more than once.

Thoughts? What have others done to keep LG skills robust after completing the traditional fool proofing method?

Hey Everyone,

This week again we will keep practicing the low-high resolution summary method. The point of practice is to get better at what we already know so we will sharpen our skills a bit more this time. : )

I had a few requests this week about doing an Economics Passage. So this week we will be doing PT 8, Section 3, Passage 2. The PT is available for print on 7sage as an e-doc.

Just like last time all you need for the session is a copy of the passage and the questions in front of you. We will work through the passage together and do the questions under time before we go over them. So I would recommend not doing the passage before joining.

For people who will be joining for the first time, I will review the method we will be using to go over the passage beforehand. So you will quickly catch on. : )

To join the meeting all you have to do is click the link below at the specified date and time.

I'll see you all there! : )

Free RC Tutoring - Sami [Econ Passage]

Sun, May 28, 2017 6:00 PM - 7:30 PM EDT

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/765397405

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States: +1 (646) 749-3112

Access Code: 765-397-405

First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: https://care.citrixonline.com/g2m/getready