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

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.

I am unsure why A is wrong. I see the evidence for it at the very last sentence of the passage...

Thank you!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-2-passage-3-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-2-passage-3-questions/

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.

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?

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/only-planet-with-life-flaw-question/

for AC b i equated many=some and chose e instead as it was a statement for “most” systems….but suppose since it is ratios in consideration similarity weighs more (hence not requiring exact no of planets to match) making b the correct answer choice….

does my line of reasoning sound right??

Anyone here interested in studying for the December LSAT in PST?

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!

Hi all 7-sagers! Does anyone have a list or know where I can find a list of Weaken questions that contain causality? I've pin pointed this as an area to work on. Thanks!!

Hi there, looking for someone to talk through some question with over skype maybe 1x a week in prep for December test. Scoring pretty well overall, but would love to bounce some ideas/reasoning off of others.

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!

After receiving a shocking RC score on the September LSAT, I'm working on improving it for December. I've found that "read for structure" is a common suggestion. I've had trouble implementing that, but when I do manage to do so, the passage is super easy. I've found these common structures for LSAT passages:

If I manage to identify the passage as one of those four things, it's almost like having a road map. Often I won't miss any on that passage. Are there any other obvious structures I'm missing or am I maybe just bad at identifying them?

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?

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?

In almost every reading passage I've done, there's always ONE paragraph that gets complex and it requires me to take some extra time to re-read and understand that paragraph. But I hesitate to do this bc I feel this monster breathing down my neck yelling me to GO FASTER. Trust me, I KNOWWWWW it's only going to hurt me if I don't understand the passage, so does anyone have any mental tips on how they allow themselves to take extra time to read something when needed? I'm feeling this especially now as I'm doing the memory method and am trying to meet the 3:30 mark.

Also, any tips on how people have come to craft effective low res main points for paragraphs? I feel like I'm missing the mark sometimes....

Thanks!!

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

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-1-game-2/

For this game I misunderstood the rule. Can someone explain what consecutive would translate to in logic games? I assumed consecutive could mean two L's are placed on the same day as well. Also having trouble in general with games that have more slots than characters. Any advice?

I do not see any in the CC

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.

Hey guys!

So I have consistently been getting a BR Score that is on average close to my Target score nonetheless getting questions correct and completing them all within the time allotted has proven to be difficult for me.

I would still like to aim for higher than my target score though I only have so much time until the December test so I feel like it's wise to start working on timing now.

I have one month until Test Day. What has worked for you guys in terms of timing for each section?

As for trying to still get those harder LR questions. I plan on drilling down specific question types, however I find that near the end of each LR section is when I start having trouble with questions.

(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/

Can someone please explain and map out the logic for this question, and explain why (E) is the correct answer? The last sentence of the stimulus is tripping me up. Greatly appreciated!

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-2-question-21/

I could not detect the conclusion in the stimulus, therefore initially chose answer choice (A).

After reviewing, I just want to confirm if the conclusion is the sentence that starts with "Increasing the number of electric cars on the road..."

Hi everyone!

I was going over the questions I got wrong and I really do not understand what C is saying. I understand why all of the other AC are incorrect, I also understand why D is correct; however, I am having trouble understanding what C is saying. From what I understand: is C saying that only one cause can have one effect? But isn’t Ray saying that the effect (trunk popping) could be caused by anything other than a pothole? Or maybe I’m not understanding the logic of this question? It was shocking that I got this question wrong because I have usually only been getting questions near the end wrong. I really don’t understand why C is wrong. Can someone please clarify?

Thank you!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-4-question-04/

Is the sentence that starts with "As plausible as this may sound, at least one thing remains mysterious...," the conclusion of this stimulus?

So the main point would not be whatever comes after the sentence, which mainly talks about how there were no increases in temperature following earthquakes. Therefore, we can eliminate (A) and (D)...right?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-4-question-02/