Hello 7sagers!

This might be a dumb question but I can't find the notorious "LG Bundle". I looked on Cambridge and it wasn't there, and apparently 7sage had it at one point? I'm not sure. The latest PT's I can find are 19-28 on amazon. If that's the case, should I just start foolproofing from there?

I have 29-81, and I've been foolproofing the 29-38 so far. But since I'm in post-core curriculum now, I've started to do my PT's, and I havn't been able to properly PT the LG section because I've been using them for foolproofing instead of for a score, which I know the PT's aren't for a score but for practice. For example, I do timed sections of LR and RC but when it comes to LG, I havn't been timing them because I'm not confident enough yet, so I just end up foolproofing the games on a separate day. Still, I'm wondering how others are doing their practice PT's and how they are doing or did the LG's when they got to that section.

Thanks, again for all your help guys :)

Are there any June'18 test takers that are on their 2nd week of the Course, or am I the only one??

Hi everyone, question on how to approach this question. The question gives two arguments, Jane's and Maurice's. The question stem states, "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens Jane's argument?" So after reading this question stem we know it's about Jane's argument, and her argument is the first one. So my question, is it even necessary to read Maurice's argument?

Time is my biggest issue so being able to cut out that information and time spent on reading it could help.

What's everyone's thoughts? Thanks.

Admin note: edited title for formatting

Hi everyone. Like everyone I'm sure, I miss a lot more questions when I'm trying to focus on speed. Often when I slow down, or during the blind review, I can get a lot more questions correct that I previously didn't know or answered incorrectly. So I'm looking for advice on how everyone else is improving their speed while retaining accuracy.

One thing I've thought about is when I find the correct answer moving on immediately without reading the remaining. I haven't started doing it though because it seems counter-intuitive to everything I've ever learned about test taking.

Thanks!

So I have always had really good memory - which has not helped me on the LSAT but I digress - and I haven't been fool proofing for very long but I do notice that when I fool proof a game I have a tendency to remember what the answers were for certain games even when I am doing a game a week later. I know for fool proofing you're really supposed to focus on memorizing the inferences but my brain can't help it, even after waiting and entire week my brain will still remind me of the correct answer choice and it's making it really difficult to focus on memorizing inferences. Any suggestions?

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/invest-in-the-stock-market-mbt-question/?ss_completed_lesson=1089

most people invest without doing any research of their own

Intuitively I would want to lawgic it out like people who invest -m--> /do research, but then I was like wait no the sufficient condition should be negated since it's group 3.

How do you know when to ignore certain indicators? Do you just treat the two ideas like they are separate when there is a "most" statement? "most" will always refer to the sufficient condition and the other idea has to be the necessary? Since without refers to the 2nd idea you just negate that one.

I didn't even bother lawgicing it out because the AC was really obvious and it was an easy Q but I don't want to deal w this confusion on a harder q where I actually have to lawgic it out.

Hey guys,

I'm having a bit of a hard time understanding how "yet" functions in this MP question.

I guess my question is in the context of this question how does yet function differently than although?

Any help is much appreciated.

Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-4-question-25/

Ouch! According to Dave K.

Seeing that scores are probably gonna be released this week, I have to mentally prepare to see my score ( which might be terrible because I got like no sleep the night before from my lovely anxiety / insomnia). Anyway, I don't know about you but I'm gonna need many glasses of wine before reviewing my score. I really need to be in a state of relaxation before getting that Lsac notification. That being said, you guys have any good wine suggestions from Trader Joe's? I Don't want to spend too much, and I'm open to any type of wine.

As you can probably tell from my tone, i’m extremely frustrated with the logic games section. I’ve been practing for 7 months now and have seen very little improvement. I’m taking around 13:30-14:30 minutes to finsih an AVERAGE level game. I’ve read through the LG Bible once, and i’ve gone back and reread several of the chapters at least twice now. I’ve been doing the foolproof method for 3 months, and my timing has barely decreased on new games. My study schedule is as follows: Monday (basic linear), Tuesday (advanced linear), and Wedneaday (grouping). Each one of these days I do one new game 6 times and then do it once more the next day. After doing it several times, I see things like inferences I didn’t the first time and end up completely understanding the game (and therefore my time decreases each tome I do it). I’ve learned that a lot of games can basically be solved up front by realizing how key, limited infernces can limit the number of possible boards, etc; this helps my timing a lot when i’m able to do it. However, i’m still not seeing the progress I need. I need a solid 162 for my top school. I’m almost where I need to be on LR and RC, but i’m just not improving on LG. I would absolutely hate for this section to keep me from my goal.

I understand that (c) is a better answer choice than (b), but I couldn't rule (b) out either. Isn't the direction of public policy out of scope with regards to the stimulus? Is there something in the passage that I am missing here? Many thanks in advance!

Admin note: edited title

We all know that for "without" "unless" "except" and "until", we're supposed to negate one of the ideas and make that the sufficient.

"I will not get a scholarship without studying" = No study -> No scholarship

But there are situations where that translation method seems clearly incorrect. For example:

"I sleep without wearing a shirt."

Does this mean If No Shirt -> Sleep? Clearly not, yet that's what happens if we negate "wearing a shirt" and make it the sufficient. I submit that the correct way to diagram the sentence above is:

If Sleep -> Not wearing shirt.

This is the correct meaning of the sentence, and yet it is the reverse of what the ordinary method would produce. Why does the ordinary translation method fail in this example?

Also, consider the following sentence:

"I do not sleep without wearing an eyemask."

The ordinary translation method does work for this one: If not eyemask -> No sleep.

What explains why the ordinary method fails for "I sleep without wearing a shirt" but works for "I do not sleep without wearing an eyemask"?

Also, consider these examples.

"No one will become a great physicist without going to Harvard"

No Harvard -> Not great physicist

That one is pretty straightforward, and the ordinary method works.

"One can become great lawyer without getting a 180 on the LSAT.

This one does not appear to express a conditional relationship between "great lawyer" and "180", and in fact expresses the ABSENCE of a conditional relationship -- getting a 180 is not required to be a great lawyer. But the ordinary method would have us translate this to "Not 180 -> can become great lawyer." The contrapositive of that idea is "If one cannot become a great lawyer, then one got a 180." That seems very wrong.

What explains the different ways we treat the two examples above?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-1-question-02/

As for this question, could someone please break down the argument structure for me? i'm slightly confused with the 2 sentences that both look like possible conclusions.

Hello 7sage club,

I've noticed in my last three PT's a weird pattern. When I do my first LR, I'm stuck getting -8, but then I'll do a LG section or RC in between before I do my second LR section and on that section I'll get -5, which is the lowest I've gotten on LR so far. Especially when I do RC, then do LR, it feels like running with weights(when I do RC), then running without weights (when I get to LR again). It's both encouraging that I've gotten my first -5 but also I'm wondering if this is not just a random pattern, and I should do some RC-style reading before I take a PT. Wondering if there are others that do some sort of mental startup before they do PT's or if I'm slowly going insane trying to make sense of inconsistencies.

Thanks,

L

Now I'm very confused about "attacking a premise"

JY mentioned that LSAT weakening answer choices never provide plausible evidence that is incompatible with the stimulus.

However, negation, denying the relationship, is actually attacking a premise.

Did I miss something?

I can get through all the quizzes and exercises but I'm having a hard time knowing why or the meaning of things I'm doing. When I look at a SA question, instinctively it makes sense and just reading the question I can normally eliminate 2-3 wrong answers and narrow it down to 2 and if I re-read the Conclusion and Premises, I can pick the right answer. However, when I try to diagram it, it turns into a cluster fuck and I feel I just wasted a bunch of time. The last questions sets, thought, I can see why doing the diagram is important.

I need to understand how to know if an Assumption Question is Sufficient or Necessary, but I still don't understand the "why" aspect if that makes sense. I just read what I'm supposed to get out of the statment and try to predict what kind of answer they are

looking for after I read the argument then I just find what fits. I'm getting about 70% correct, but its the 30% that I know I can probably get a few more if I just understood the "why's" not just the "how". I just cant seem to get the logic to click.

I'm not even sure that this question makes sense. I get the whole X------->Y J (some)A stuff, its the application I'm having problem with.

Is anyone else having a conceptual problem?

I don’t get it. AC B looks to be necessary but not sufficient.

A->(B-most->C)

Therefore

B(-some-)D

AC B gives us C(-some-)D

Which allows us to draw: B-most->C(-some-)D

But we can’t conclude that any Bs are Ds from this conditional chain. That is an invalid argument.

I got this question right but only because B came the closest (C/D/E don't even contain the new idea which is found in the conclusion and A was intuitively wrong). Maybe I am misunderstanding the logical relationships? JY didn't mention this issue and neither does the Manhattan forum.

If we were to change the premise to C-most->B, then AC B would allow us to conclude B(-some-)D but I don't think that's the correct translation. The Manhattan forum agrees with me on this.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-4-question-22/

Admin note: edited title

Is it possible that you could do better on an lsat just because you understand certain topics better than others and those were the ones being tested heavily on the day of? For example, If I am good at SA and there were plenty of those tested or if I struggle with science RC passages and they weren't tested?

Is that just pure luck?

@Sami I am following your BR process for Reading Comp passages. I have a question regarding that BR process for RCs. During BRing, do we read the Reading comp passage and then write the high resolution summary (HRS) while referring the passage at the same time. Like reading one para then writing its HRS , then reading the next para and writing down that para's HRS. Or is it reading the passage in one go then write the whole passage's HRS from memory, I find it difficult to retain the entire passage in my mind and then write its HRS ?Should i push myself to retain the entire passage details ?

Hi Guys,

In the P2 , line 25-32 , I am assuming that structure means physical properties[like homogeneous,network like,granular..etc] .

Admin edit: Please review our forum rules. Posting licensed LSAC materials is against our TOS.

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

My question is why cant we think that Biochemists were not interested in structure aka physical properties of the protoplasm so they stood apart from the debate(among the biochemists) over whether protoplasm is homogeneous,network-like, granular, or foamlike .

It is another way of saying that is the debate(among biochemists) didnot happen.

Then Next line meant Biochemists' interest was in the chemical nature of the protoplasm . Why cant we say both these statements were said of Biochemists? It can happen that the biochemists had a disinterest in the physical properties[structure] of protoplasm but they wanted to study chemical characteristics of protoplasm.

Please Help me out! I am in a soup.

Admin note: edited title for formatting

I'm curious if everyone else scratches out rules in LG after you have used up the rule creating your master game board. I think it is a good strategy EXCEPT when the occasional question arises that says to "keep all other rules," but eliminate one. At that moment, I look at the master game board and can't tell which game pieces are the result of inferences that may have been made from the rule I'm now required to abandon.

I also can't look at my simplified rule list that I condensed from the stimulus since most are sometimes scratched out. So I'm forced to translate all rules back to a condensed form again. Is the key to not scratch out? To only scratch out rules lightly? Or is there an alternative that I'm missing?

I'll say Mar 2nd.

Hi! I'm hoping I can get some input on how people have fool proofed the logic games in the core curriculum--this is specifically referring to the ones used as examples and the problem sets (not PTs). I have yet to start drilling PTs so the questions I get come from the game examples and problem sets from the core curriculum. How have you guys scheduled in fool proofing these games? I'm really struggling as I seem to have problems with every game (or going over the designated time) trying to get the rules, diagramming, and inferences.

So, I've seen on here quite a few times that it is a good idea to use a sheet protector for logic games. I've been doing the same for logical reasoning and loving it (~save the trees~). When I went through the lr cc at first, I was a "starter" level 7sager. So, I missed out on anything but easy questions. Now, I upgraded and I'm going back as I begin to fool proof sequencing games (I want to have those down 100% before I move into grouping; it is also a good opportunity to delve into the tougher lr problem sets).

I've ended up doing something I haven't seen yet (though I'm sure 50 people have already had this idea and posted it) for lr. I'm not br'ing these very intensely, as my focus is purely on getting it right, not on timing (that can come later in my opinion). When I get a question wrong or am not confident in how I got it right, I watch the video explanation and then (as I've seen in other posts) cut the question out and (lightly so I can't see through the paper) write the answer on the back. Here's the actual point of this post:

Starting on Monday, I put all of the cut outs throughout the week on questions I got wrong into the plastic sleeve (be it 2, 10, or 20). On Sunday evening, I write on the sleeve the dates I am allowed to/must go back and solve all of the cut out questions I had previously gotten wrong - the following Saturday-Sunday.

So, the weekdays become days to go through new problem sets in the morning before work (I work full-time) and on the commute to and from work (for once I love MTA delays as it gives me more time to go through questions). The weeknights become the time to move forward in the cc on new topics and the weekends become time to go back and retry questions and work at them. If I don't answer a question correctly or confidently that was already a cut out, then in it goes into the next week's plastic sleeve.

Just an idea! Hoping this helps me not let any question go unattacked from the cc. I also think this is an easy way to keep up my lr even as I move into the lg portion of the curriculum.

Also would love to hear advice from other folks on this! I'm approaching lg similarly and will begin to balance this out once I wrap up the cc and move into the stage of PT and br.

Hi, could someone help me understand Lsat4.s1.question-18 better? I have several questions.

Admin edit: Please review our forum rules. Posting licensed LSAC materials is against our TOS. Sorry, duly noted

I think my problem comes from the fact that I didn't come up with the right 'antecedent claim'. I had thought the claim would be something along the lines of, 'intelligent life exists...' or 'intelligent life doesn't exist...' so when I got to answer choices I went with (C) because it seemed that the whole passage hinged on the ambiguity of the key phrase 'intelligent life.'

Now, knowing the right answer is (D) I'm struggling. It's clear that LSAC are tricky bastards to put (C) as an answer choice. The nuance to the question lies in understanding how the passage challenges a claim that we are supposed to infer. Right now the only way I see (D) working is if the claim is 'The question whether intelligent life exists elsewhere is precise.' Is this right**?**

Typing this all out makes me realize what seems to be the proper claim is just the negation of the first sentence in the stimulus, but is that what we are supposed to go on**?**

I have the conclusion of the stimulus in lawgic as:

define life more precise -> !(find and recognize life -> leave definitions open)

conversely

(find and recognize life -> leave definitions open) -> define life less precise

With this all in mind, what part of the stimulus should I identify as arguing the claim is 'counter productive'? and am I right now looking back to say that 'cannot be adequately defined' is too strong and not what the passage is saying. When it's really saying that life cannot be precisely defined**?**

Admin note: edited title