Hi All,

Does anyone have suggestions for external sources for logic puzzles? I've been noticing on the newer tests that the unfamiliar games are seriously tripping me up.

I usually am paralyzed by them during the test; however, immediately after I finish the test, I will take a fresh look at it and be able to solve it with little, if any, issue. I know a lot of this is psychological, so I want to get as familiar as possible with new logic games and become comfortable with thinking on the spot. Every logic book I looked at does not even sort of reflect the type of scenarios I see on the LSAT. The puzzles don't have to simulate the LSAT questions exactly, but I would like become familiar with unusual puzzles that are at least somewhat relevant to the newer games. My research has led me to the conclusion that there are not many resources out there for this.

Has anyone come across anything that might be helpful OR does anyone have any other suggestions for fixing my logic game paralysis problem?

Thanks!

This may just be me, so take it for what it is worth, but I think changing the LG foolproof bundle to include all LG games from 60s and 70s would be perhaps more useful that games from 20s and 30s. I mean they are ALL good practice, but I think the 60s and 70s (and 80s) games are more reflective of current games and are the best ones to foolproof. The "minus or add a rule" that was common on earlier games doesn't ever show up in the 60s and after. The substitution question (which has been a bitch for me to get the hang of) shows up on nearly every test from the 60s on and will likely show up on the next test. I wish I'd spent my foolproofing time on the substitution questions rather than the minus or add rule, the latter which will probably be irrelevant on the next test.

Just saying for me I think foolproofing later games is potentially more valuable (particularly 60s onward). I think there are some great weird games in the early tests worth doing, but also some that seem pretty unrepresentative of current tests. So I think doing early games is a great idea, but I think focusing foolproofing on later games is smarter.

Any thoughts?

Hi all.

So I took PT 70 today and got -15 on the RC. I am normally pretty bad at RC but recently I've done better once I realized exactly how I should be reading the passage and approaching questions (thank you infinitely @"Alex Divine" ).

Nonetheless, pretty bummed on today's RC. I knew it was hard but thought I had tackled it appropriately. However, I used PT 56 RC as my experimental section and I only got -7 wrong!!!! (ugh!) I'd be happy with chilling around -7 max for RC.

Any suggestions on how to appropriately adjust to the more recent difficulty in RC for the most 70s and what to expect on September?

Hey everyone,

So I'm in the final stretch of studying for my second LSAT in September. I've been doing really well, but want to polish my miscellaneous games skills over the next 3.5/4 weeks. I know I can get access to all these games by buying the Ultimate package, but I'm way too late in my preparation to invest in that, especially considering I've completed and reviewed the core curriculum months ago. What's the next best option for getting access to these games? Because the majority of difficult miscellaneous games are from early tests, the best I can seem to find is to buy the first volume of preptests on amazon, which comes with PTs 7, 9-16, and 18.

Any other suggestions? Also good luck to those in the final stretch, we're almost there!

Thanks!

When Foolproofing LG after the Core Curriculum, do you start at PT1 and work your way up -- or would it be better to Foolproof the Games that JY teaches in the CC (sequencing, then In-Out, then Grouping, etc.), assuming you didn't do that while going through the CC?

I've tried a whole range of RC strats, from intense annotating to virtually none at all. RC score just hasn't seen any consistent improvement. Score fluctuates between -3 to -9. I also notice that I spend way too much time on the first passages, not because they're more difficult, but because I try to maximize the # of questions I get on easier passages. I'm also poop soup at inference questions. For testers PTing with PT70+, what RC strats have been most effective for you?

Rest of breakdown is:

1-3 per LR,

0-1 LG,

3-9 RC

I need some clarification on this because I'm applying demorgan's law and it's not making sense to me how this works.

So, the final rule in the game states: "If it is not the case that the park contains both laurels and oaks, then it contains firs and spruces"

I translated this as: /(L and O) --> F and S

The contrapositive I got was, /F or /S --> L or O

But, apparently the correct understanding of the contrapositive is /F or /S --> L AND O. Can someone explain where I'm making an error, because I thought flipping and negating "and" means it becomes an OR, not remain in its "and" form.

So I'm finding that during the middle of an LR section 15-20ish my mind goes numb. I miss blocks of questions 4 in a row. It doesn't help that this is typically the "harder" portion of the section.

So what are the thoughts about going right to the middle of the section first, with a less tired brain, and then working my way out from there? What are the harms? I can see bubbling being an issue, but are there any other major harms that can befall me?

I've really tried other skipping strategies, but I'm just not comfertable with them. I'm wondering if this might be a possible answer for me.

I wanted to get some more clarification on a misdirected thought that I had about the words 'if true' in the question stem of certain questions. I had previously thought that this phrase was placed like some of the other words on the LSAT to confuse. This comes from the idea that you are not supposed to bring in outside info to try and bridge the gaps between a right and wrong answer choice. However, I was driving and listening to the MSS webinar by Corey and he stated that the 'if true' is saying even though this is not information found in the stimulus if it were true it could lead to a right answer. So, my question: is it true that when I see the 'if true' that it is a hard fast rule that the LSAT is allowing this (outside) information to be relevant to the task of choosing the correct answer. If you want to listen to where I heard this go to the MSS webinar by Corey and go to minute 23:00.

I am SUPER concerned about getting a weird game on the sep LSAT. I have the "miscellaneous" cambridge packet with all of the weird games but each is so freakishly different I feel like they can throw in whatever. I get so frozen I literally go -7 on a weird game but then when I watch the explanation and re-do it I get it all right.

I'm just worried on test day there will be a weird game I won't be able to make a game board for .. how is everyone approaching this since weird games are becoming more and more common?

here is my list so far in case it helps anyone -

pt 1/2/1

pt 2/3/3

pt 4/3/4

pt 6/4/3

pt 6/4/4

pt 8/2/2

pt 9/3/4

pt 10/2/3

pt 11/1/4

pt 12/2/4

pt 13/1/4

pt 15/4/2

pt 16/1/4

pt 18/1/3

pt 18/1/4

pt 20/3/3

pt 21/1/2

pt 30/1/1

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-65-section-1-question-19/

Help. That's all I can say. I do not see how answer choice C does anything to the argument even slightly.

Birds didn't eat at the feeders, so they got ate less and now their population is larger because of the mild winter?

Best I can do. I hate this question....

How does that do better than answer A.

Increases in bird populations sometimes occur following unusual weather patterns.

Mild winter means the winter is not as harsh as it usually is, this means that weather is unusual, and the bird population increased.

^ seems way better to me.

Hey guys!

So, I've spent the majority of my study time focusing on LR and LG. I know I need to dive into RC but I'm not really sure how to go about it. I've read others notation strategies and have skimmed question types but I want to know if one is prioritized over the other.

Did you focus on getting your timing and notation right before diving into questions or, did you focus on the questions first?

Not sure how to be the most productive with my time when it comes to RC.

Any tips are greatly appreciated!

-M

I am having a very difficult time coming up with low resolution summaries during timed tests, I usually only do them for the first one or two paragraphs and then am pressed for time. I really appreciate the change in core curriculum with JY emphasizing this however it would be very helpful if the summaries were also included in the explanations! I have nothing to compare my summaries to.

Is anybody else struggling with this? For those of you whom have mastered this your input is appreciated!

Thanks,

Stephanie

G'day, 7sagers!

I have a hard time diagramming the logic in these questions but seem to be doing OK without diagramming and just going by the English alone. Will this ever come back and bite me in the arse? Should I work on getting better at mapping out the formal logic? I feel like my main issue is determining what to use as symbols in translating the English to lawgic. I tend to do better on LR than any other section, but still have room to improve. I also have difficulty with LG and feel that this may be an issue in that case. Any suggestions/ideas are appreciated!

-Brett.

It's the problem about sales representatives. I've read several explanations about this one on the Manhattan/PowerScore boards and sort of understand them, but am still really struggling because I just don't get how B is the correct answer. I can see how the other four might be wrong, but I'd at least like to know why this one is RIGHT as opposed to the other four being wrong.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-69-section-1-question-22/

Hi,

So I understand basic argument structures, but when it comes to complex arguments and intense language, I ended up missing the questions. When I look at it with no time pressure, I am able to strip arguments down to their basic structures, but under time, I do not do that. Are there any drills out there for this? Has anyone else run into this problem? Thanks in advance! :)

Im in the middle of BRing and i like AC E bc how does the author know that having so much artwork that can satisfy every taste imaginable will affect someones aesthetic fulfilment.

But AC D... does the author have to assume there is such a scenario? That some people have access to the contemporarys work and not others? Is it the word "many" that disqualifies it? Thoughts?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-2-question-16/

After BR a LR section, how do you decide when it's helpful to watch JY's video explanation?

I think I might be over killing it right now. I'm probably watching videos for about 18 of the 25 LR questions. Perhaps it's a reflection of my confidence level. My reasoning is that I want to make sure that I'm thoroughly reviewing a question and possibly learning takeaways that I may not otherwise have gotten. But, I'm beginning to think there's a downside where I'm not using my time the most wisely and I'm somewhat boring myself.

I'm thinking of changing my criteria for which videos to watch based on: confidence errors, any questions I got incorrect during BR, and questions that took me over 90 seconds or that should have just been quicker. One LR section ranges from -4 to -7.

Any thoughts or advice?

I had a lot of trouble with this in drilling and BR. I believe what I was missing is the following:

Likelihood of theft

Average for theft-prone cars (with anti theft): 50%

Average for theft-prone cars (without anti theft): 80%

Average for non-theft-prone cars (with anti theft): 10%

Average for non-theft-prone cars (without anti theft): 8%

So yes, anti-theft devices do generally reduce the chance of theft, but if most anti-theft devices are on the most theft-prone cars, then there will still be a correlative relationship between these two.

Hey 7sage community! Quick question- I don't quite understand how we're supposed to correctly practice the memory method? When do you move from phase 1 to phase 2? Is it basically like full proofing LG? Should we be repeating passages until we've mastered them?

Thanks you guys are awesome!

Hi all,

I'm doing really well with LG/LR and am consistently improving in these areas.

RC, however, is a completely different story.

Quick background: I have been studying on and off since Dec. 2015, while working full-time & part-time simultaneously. Right now, I'm doing about 2 PT's and 2 BR's/week. I wrote Dec. 2016 and Feb 2017. I improved about 5 points on the latest write, putting me just barely at the average score for students (huge disappointment). Because it wasn't enough for admissions in Ontario, I am giving it another shot and writing in December again.

RC is still by far my weakest section. No matter what I do, I cannot seem to improve on timing. I find it so difficult to obtain enough info from the passages AND accurately answer all of the questions in under 7-9 min/passage. Along with the RC curriculum (which I plan to redo this week) I have turned to the Trainer. I consistently see the same advice: focus on the WHY, not the WHAT. Ok, easy, so I read and get a general idea of reasoning structure, relationships between paragraphs, fine. As soon as I do that, I run into EASILY 3-4 questions asking for specific meanings of words in sentences, or details from the passage. I have a general idea of where to find all of these details but I end up referring to the passage to re-read the necessary sentence anyway. Everything about RC is sucking up time for me. Long story short, I am finding RC impossible these days to the point that when I'm writing a test and I see RC, I immediately panic.

My shortcomings in RC have been mentally draining to the point that I have days where I wonder if law school is even for me. This kind of thought process is so far from my usual way of thinking that I am beyond frustrated with both myself and the exam. I do not give up. Anyone who knows me knows that I will make law school happen whether or not it's now or three years from now. I'm not changing my mind for anything or anyone. The LSAT, though, has made me come close.

It has a way of making you feel like such a failure, and I find myself putting in daily effort to change this mindset.

SOS people!!! Please helppp

Can someone please share with me the formal logic? I can't seem to arrive at the correct answer.

Hi guys. I am having trouble with an LR question.

PT 23 S3 Q14

Premises: If tax adopted -> Discontinue story hours -> parents inconvenienced

Conclusion: Tax reduction package not adopted

So in my mind to get to this we would have to know either that parents are not inconvenienced or story hours are not discontinued

so: ~(Parents incon) -> ~(discontinue story) -> ~(tax adopted)

Maybe I am not translating correctly, but I don't see how the correct answer D leads to this.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-3-question-14/

So I've compiled a very thorough list of all of the LR problems that I've missed or struggled mightily with on previous PTs, and have gone over them again by doing them as if they were real LR sections - doing 26-27 problems at a time in 35 minutes. I'm still missing anywhere from 2-5 of them each "section." These are the problems I now see that I truly struggle with. I was wondering what's the best way to tackle these problems going forward?

I currently approach problems first by identifying the structure and conclusion of the argument if there is one, looking for key words and phrases (e.g. "some people"; "minimal risk"), and tricky/subtle changes in subject (e.g. premise discusses mammals but conclusion mentions marine reptiles).

When I compiled the list, I made sure to look for trends in the types of questions I was missing (necessary assumption, weaken, etc.) But how can I hone this strategy to the few problems I missed again? I feel like there are specific and various tricks employed within each question type.

Tips & advice welcome, thanks in advance.

Under question #2 in this section, JY uses the conditional indicator "If" to translate the sentence to the sufficient part instead of "Any" at the beginning of the sentence. Can someone explain why this is? If there are two conditional indicators from the same group listed in the sentence, which one are we supposed to use as sufficient and which one should we use for necessary?