Hey All,

The short question is: are any LG books compatible with the 7Sage LG method and/or categories?

The longer question is: I'm an imbecile at LG's. Like really, really bad. I have always tested low on any spatial reasoning stuff and I feel like LGs are kicking my butt. I can logic myself to the right answers most of the time, I've gotten straight 100% on some drill sets I've done, but one game can easily take me half an hour so I know I'm not doing it "right." I'm not seeing all the inferences I should be at the outset, or not setting up the diagram efficiently.

I'm probably going to purchase the 7Sage Starter, because I simply can't afford more than that, but since I'm likely (barring a miracle) testing in September I probably will not buy the curriculum just yet. I work as a substitute during the day, so I can read books easily, but can't easily watch videos or read explanations online, so I'm saving buying the curriculum until I leave school in late June and can use it all day everyday : )

What books can I study now that are compatible with the methods I'll eventually learn through 7Sage? I own the PowerScore LGB and am working my way through that, but every time I've watched video explanations for the questions, it seems like they make it a lot more difficult than J.Y. does, and sometimes even categorize their games differently. Are any other LG books out there closer to his methods?

Thanks!

So I am still working on figuring out SA questions. I came across this question the other day in drills and have no idea how the correct answer connects with the passage above.

I can see where the connection may be but it still doesn't make sense. These are the type of questions I'm struggling with because there is very little, if any, lawgic used here and I seem to be thrown off by these all the time.

Thoughts?

Just started Group 3 Logical Indicators, and I'm confused. I'm not confused about the process (or at least I don't think I am). With Group 3 Indicators, you pick an idea, negate it and make it the sufficient indicator. I'm going through the flashcards, and when I'm applying the rule, it's not making any logical sense. I'm getting the correct answer, but translating it back into English, makes no sense to me. Here's my logic for some of them:

Add pennies until I tell you to stop.

/P > S

Do not add pennies until I tell you to stop

Logically doesn't match or make sense with original statement.

There is no point unless we win

P > W

There is point unless we win

Logically doesn't match or make sense with original statement

Sing until the cows return

/S > CR

Don't sing until the cows return.

Logically doesn't match or make sense with original statement.

I know I"m doing something wrong. I don't know if I"m properly picking the binary opposite, or what I'm doing wrong. Please someone walk me through it.

Thank you

Hello all,

I am a little bit confused with how to study LG.

In the foolproof lesson in our CC, J.Y. recommended watching video explanations right after you solve games, if you did not kill the games. Then, what about BR? Do we skip BR in case of LG? Because watching video explanations right after doing games means you do not do blind review or resolve the games on your own.

Any thoughts?

Thank you

Is it always the case that if an argument for a sufficient assumption question has descriptive premises with a normative conclusion (saying one should do something or ought to do it) then the answer choice must have normative language to close that gap?

Looking at PT 22, Section 4, Q13 and PT 62, Section 2, Q17, I can see many reasons to eliminate the other incorrect answer choices besides them lacking the normative language. However, I'm still hesitant to skip straight to the answer choices that say "should" because I'm still not sure if you need the word "should" or similar language to close the logical gap between the conclusion and premises. Is normative language in the answer choice always necessary to prove a normative conclusion when the premises don't have it?

Thanks!

I am afraid I will use up all my LR questions while drilling in the span of 7 months. Is drilling questions already drilled beneficial. If not, any suggestions? I have the power score question type workbook that I use as well as 7Sage drill questions.

So I got this one wrong and picked C when A is the correct AC. It's just not clicking for me how this is correct. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Hey, guys. Has anyone noticed any funky games such as this one in recent PT? JY said don't worry but there seems to be a trend of the older style games coming back. How would I ever know to draw a freaking star?!! I'm sure it could be solved other ways. I just did a single layer sequencing game board but of course, JY's way was much easier to see. This game def took me more than 11 mins!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-2-game-4/

Hello- Hoping for some insight on question 18.

When I first began my LSAT studying journey, I found flaw questions to be very straight forward. They have unfortunately turned into a question where I often find myself second guessing on my AC.

I'd say flaw questions that ask what the author fails to consider are more challenging for me than one that says "what's the flaw".

Anyway- I am having a hard time seeing where AC B is right in this question. I'm formulating my error in choosing A was the fact that the stimulus accounts for longer than 3 years with the words "can eventually make a conformable living".

Help would be greatly appreciated :)

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-18/

Couldn't we make the inference that only R and Z can be in slot 1? I was going to split the board on those but realized I didn't have enough info. I quickly eliminated A on question 1 without second thought because I scanned to eliminate any AC that didn't start with R or Z. JY didn't mention it and no one mentioned it in the comments. Am I missing something?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-2-game-1/

Hi!

I noticed that if I miss a Q in RC, then the Q missed is an Infer Perspective type Q - Inferring either Author's opinion/attitude or that of others. This is kinda odd, because I do well with LR MSS type questions.

I must be doing something wrong with these RC inferring questions. Does anyone have a good strategy/methodology in approaching inferring perspectives type Qs?

Much appreciated!

This is a really unusual question and took a long time to come up with this reasoning. Any feedback on my reasoning would be appreciated.

Context: There is a new law which will take effect soon and gives the patients legal rights to see their medical records. Doctor’s opines as the following:

Doctor’s Conclusion: patients should not have a legal right to see their medical records.

Reason 1: it will significantly reduce the amount of time that staff can spend on more important duties thus it is time wasting.

Reason 2: No patients will ask for it anyway, based on his experience so far.

Now, reason 1 is not even necessary to mention because reason 2 cancels out; if no patient will ask for it, whether it takes time to retrieve and return files doesn’t matter. They will not be time spent on that task anyway. Now the task is to find one answer choice that will make reason 2 not cancel out the reason 1. In other words, find a scenario in which even if no one asks for the files, it will still be a waste of time as a result of the new law.

(A) Correct. If the new law will require the doctors to be ready to produce records immediately each time they see patients, then reason 1 matters, even if no one asks for it. So with this new law, the reason 2 does not cancel out reason 1.

(B) Wrong. Even if the task of retrieving and returning files fall to the lowest-paid member of the office, if no one will be asking for it, it doesn’t matter how much time it takes to handle the files. Reason 1 is cancelled out by reason 2.

(C) Wrong. Even if this is true that patients will require more time for explanation of their records, reason 1 is still not a good reason if no one will ask for the records. Thus reason 1 is cancelled out by reason 2.

(D) Wrong. If they can get extra payment for the staff to handle the records, it will not be a waste of time so in this scenario, reason 1 is cancelled out even more so.

(E) Wrong. This is no different from what stimulus suggests. If no one asks for the records, reason 1 doesn’t matter. Reason 1 is cancelled out by reason 2.

I've heard a lot of people recommend the Manhattan RC book to supplement your RC curriculum. Has anyone gone through the Blueprint RC book? I already have a copy of that laying around so it would be easy to go through it, but I am curious if it would be more beneficial to skip it and go straight to Manhattan's book instead.

Any feedback is welcome. FWIW, I definitely struggle the most on RC. I just want to make sure I spend my time learning it in the most efficient manor, and not having to test 3/4 different methods before finding one that sticks.

I also plan on using @TheoryandPractice 's RC summary s/he posted a few days back; I just would like to get a better baseline before jumping into the application of their methodology.

X (-) ~Y

X -> ~Y

Could someone please clear up for me? Thanks!

I have been trying to master my lawgic to English translations and need some help here.

Working on: /F --> /E

I want to say: No friendly person is not exciting.

But when I read this, it does not sound correct. If I try using a group 4 translation to bring it back to logic, it doesn't seem like it would work out. Any idea if I'm on the right track here? Thanks in advance!!!

I have been thinking about drilling from old PTs. I know it will help, but I was wondering how difficult are the LR questions in the new PTs vs. the old PTs? Should I drill from the new ones instead (60+)? Or should I stick with the old ones (18-)? I want to save the new PTs for full timed tests.

Ok, I might be exaggerating when I say "punish prephrases," but I noticed that the prephrases, especially for the flaw/ assumption type questions, don't work as well in the recent PTs ( 70s up) compared to the older ones (the ones we used for CC). Also, prephrases make me to be a bit inflexible in considering answer choices (I am too quick to eliminate those that do not fit my prephrase), which hurts me as a result.

Most of the prephrases I used for older PT flaw Qs/ assumption Qs were right on, so I just picked the right answer quickly and moved on. With the newer PTs, I see that my prephrases attract me to trap answers. It seems better to leave the AC that matches my prephrase well as a contender (as opposed to choosing it and moving on) and REALLY carefully consider every other answer choice. I found that I do better in the recent PTs when I don't prephrase at all. Rather, I focus on EXACTLY what the conclusion is and stay open minded. Then, I see if the answer choice weakens/ negates the conclusion (in case if the Q type is flaw/ weaken for example).

Maybe prephrasing isn't to fault at all; maybe the recent PTs just punish those who are inflexible and expect the answer choice to have a certain form. Or maybe I don't have a solid prephrasing skill, but wasn't punished at all in older PTs, but am in newer ones.

Either way, does anyone else perceive a similar trend? What do you think about the utility of prephrasing in general?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-2-question-14/

I answered this question correctly under timed conditions but switched my answer during BR. Then I noticed lots of others experienced the same difficulty. Neither AC, B nor C, seems better than the other. JY describes B by saying that it independently explains each phenomena in the stimulus but doesn't resolve the tension between the two. I agree that B doesn't resolve the tension without the help of assumptions, but I don't think the assumptions required for B to be correct are any more egregious than that of C.

Here are my BR notes. There are two sets, one for B as the correct AC and one for C.

C correct

"B: I can see why this AC may be tempting to some people. It's by no mistake that it is placed just before (what I believe in BR) is the correct answer. This is tempting because it says demand increased. That part is pretty relevant to the stimulus, but it doesn't resolve the paradox because it doesn't address how the industry could meet this higher demand with 15% less workforce. Eliminate.

C: I breezed passed this the first time, but it does seem to do the best job of explaining this paradox. The stimulus says that Ravonia laid off jobs in logging and WOOD PROCESSING. So why is the amount of wood being taken at Ravonia increasing? Because their not playing around with processing -- just cut it and ship it raw. This isn't a great AC because we need to assume that the increase in exports is enough to drive the 10% increase in wood harvesting mentioned in the stimulus. We also need to assume that there are enough loggers to supply this 10% increase. Least bad AC. Correct POE."

B correct

"B: Oh man. This is definitely right but I totally missed it and nearly missed it under BR. The acres are lower, so they need fewer workers. The demand is up, so they're cutting more trees. Correct.

C: I was pretty sure this AC was correct until I started analyzing it in BR. "A growing number" could mean anything. Maybe the amount of unprocessed wood only increased by 1 tree per year. In fact, this says "proportion" which could mean that the total number has remained constant. I latched onto it because I didn't catch the "proportion" error I was making and felt that the reduction in wood processors explained why raw wood exports were increasing. Eliminate."

I'm working on translations to help with my SA understanding and am using the "find the missing link" exercises by taking the logic and translating them into English before I solve.

One of them uses:

/G most W

W some U

My question pertains to the premise. My initial thought was to translate it as: "Most things that are not green are wet." Would this be correct? I tried using "unless" but I'm not confident on that one either. I know that "not" is a group 3 negate sufficient but when I use it, it doesn't seem right. Any thoughts?

Thanks!

This question is strange -- the correct answer is not properly inferrable.

Many child psychologists believe that the childrearing practice leads to lower self-esteem in children, which leads to those children having less confidence as adults. But, "no one disagrees that adults raised under the traditional practice, were, on average, as confident as adults not so raised."

The answer the LSAT calls "properly inferred" from the above is that at least one part of the causal chain asserted by the psychologists is incorrect. But this depends on 2 critical assumptions that are entirely unjustified and could easily have been described as flaws. First, just because "no one disagrees" about a statistic DOES NOT MEAN THAT STATISTIC IS TRUE. Second, EVEN IF THAT STATISTIC WERE TRUE -- that adults raised under the practice are on average as confident as adults not raised under the practice -- the correct answer IGNORES CONFOUNDING VARIABLES! Maybe the kind of child who is subject to the childrearing practice starts off with a higher self esteem than the children not so raised, so even though the practice does decrease self esteem, it doesn't make it lower than the other children on average. THIS IS THE EXACT POTENTIAL VARIABLE THAT FLAW QUESTIONS AND STRENGTHEN/WEAKEN USE ALL THE TIME. It also comes up on "explain the paradox" questions, too. If you've studied for the LSAT, you know what I'm talking about. We'd need to know that the two compared groups -- those raised under the practice and those not so raised -- started off equal in the relevant areas -- self esteem and confidence level when they become adults.

Can someone please explain to me why (E) is considered to be 100% logical, to be "properly inferred" from the above?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-40-section-3-question-11/

A friend and I were discussing PT68, Section4, Game 3. I was trying to articulate why a chart was needed in that particular game and when to use charts in general. And I discovered that I couldn't explain it clearly. And I think that's a problem. In my mind, it indicates a lack of mastery.

So, if someone asked you when it's necessary to use a chart and when not to, how would you respond?

(for those of you who don't know what I mean by "chart", check out the game I mentioned earlier.)

so i played last week they received my package on monday, and it still says theyll respond within 14 days, has anyone ever applied? maybe tell me something encouraging like "they take about 14 week for everyone" or clear things up like " if they answer in 4 days, its a not" the suspense is killing me.. checked the lsac site 5 times today ...

Can someone please confirm that I have this chain correct? I became confused with the "cannot" in the first premise. Now I'm presuming "cannot" is modifying the sufficient clause since this premise includes "unless." Please correct me if I'm wrong. I was initially under the impression that cannot was modifying the necessary clause since it is a group 4 indicator.

AV (Aesthetic Value)

WM (Whatever Meaning Reader Assigns)

OE (Objectively Evaluated)

Premise:

AV--->~WM

I was very unclear on the wording in the necessary clause. After looking at this for a while, I determined that at least two readers agreeing on the "correct" interpretation appears to be the logical opposite of a poem having whatever meaning a reader assigns. Still a bit shaky on this though.

Conclusion:

EO--->~WM

Answer Choice D

EO--->AV

Chain:

EO--->AV--->~WM

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-3-question-24/

I apologize if a few of you fine mentors have already told me when this group will start to gear up, and I know its really early days yet. But, I wanted to get a feel for my Summer full time & Fall part-time study plan with respect to at what point I should be at in my studies in order to join such a group. If I was told, it has totally slipped my mind---I'll write it down this time!

I know I need to be done with CC and starting to PT with BR, and I know one jumps in whenever one reaches that numbered PT within the group's schedule, but I wanted to get a tentative long range game plan in place to find out how I can consistently join this highly recommended group study, whenever it starts.

Plus, I'd like to find out if I'm just too slow and should not consider sitting for Dec '17 as a reasonable goal, or if I'm close to the target. I realize study pace is entirely individual, and I can guess June '17 (and September '17) dates and groups come first at the moment.

But one question that keeps nagging at me, specifically: there are so many PTs, does the Study Group start at 36 or somewhere in the 50s (that's a totally random guess), or some other number, to reach the most recent & published LSAT by 1 week before test date?

And, do the groups cover every single PT or just a sampling in each group of ten: # 40s, 50s, 60, 70s, & 80s.

I thought this might help new 7Sagers get a long range game plan in place too.

Thanks!

Hey all! I am slowly improving my PT scores and although I have become better at LR sections, I can't get passed completing 18 questions which is negatively affecting my score potential. Any advice on how I can study to improve and make faster times on each question? Any advice would be appreciated! Thanks