Ok, so I can see right away as i'm doing the CC that NA Questions will be the death of me.

I completely understand the theory, but i'm having a hard time applying it to pull out the question answer. When I read the stimulus i'm projecting that, "This must be the NA". Get to the answers and none of them even talk about my NA. Even when I guesstimate the right topic or area, it's still off. I have not run into this problem with any other question. While I struggled through a few, I still was able to successfully apply the theory after a little while and some practice with 90%+ accuracy. I'm genuinely missing these consistently.

Anyone have some serious tips or tricks?

When I watch the video explanation I get why it's the answer but i'm having a hard time making those inferences ahead of the explanation.

I find it so strange that this should be the question type I struggle with in RC. After all, isn't this what RC boils down to? "What did that passage say?". And yet, it's by far my most missed question. I am only getting 69% of these correct, which crushes me because they are the most prevalent question type.

My other weak spot is Recognition - Main Point.

I am quite strong on all other types, but these 2 make up about 40% of my misses and What Is Stated is the lion's share of that. I haven't put much effort into RC yet and I've got 3.5 months until December. Right now I miss anywhere between 3 and 7, but usually 4-5.

If anyone has specific strategies for addressing these QTs, that would be really helpful. But I suppose I just need to develop a consistent approach to RC, which I haven't done yet. I don't like notating very much, so I guess I need to improve my internal organization for the passage. That should help me to quickly confirm on "what is stated" questions.

I realized that the biggest problem holding me back is rushing to answer choices without fully and precisely understanding the stimulus in LR.

But since I've used all prep tests (used multiple times) I remember almost all questions and thus am really not sure how to effectively address this weakness. I tried to practice not moving on to answers until I fully understand the relationship between the conclusion and support and find out what is wrong with the argument. But since I've seen every question before, I remember the flaw and I am not sure if I can truly improve via such method.

My weaknesses I'd like to work on are:

For the past week, I drilled untimed focusing on honing in to the core but I have no problem identifying the structural role of each part of the stimulus during untimed practice. As you know, time pressure changes everything...once the timer is set on, I suddenly begin to rush and fail to efficiently prioritize the information in the stimulus. So I am not sure if untimed drilling would help at this point.

Does anyone have suggestions? Thank you so much! :)

Good morning. This is a recurring thought that I've had and trying to find a framework/rule of thumb that I can use, although it may not work for every question, I'd like to have a go-to base to start from.

One of my toughest things, on the LSAT, has been trying to come up with how JY have what the potential answer may look like. An Answer Choice Framework (this is what I call it), as you think about which answer choice maybe correct before you get to them. I think I've found what JY may use as a basis, other than just gut intuition, as an Answer Choice Framework (as I summon my inner JY), please tell me if I'm wrong: A caused B; B caused A; C caused both A&B; or total Unrelated/or off topic?

I'm thinking, if I label the parts of the argument as 'A' or 'B', etc., then simply look for reversals or alternatives, etc.

What I'm thinking is, that should be my ground rules or rule of thumb, to formulate what a potential answer may look like. Please tell me if I'm totally off base?

PS

On the logical indicators, "Is/Are", they introduce subsets, JY didn't say this but it seems to me that the Subsets these words introduce should be the Sufficient Condition. Am I wrong in thinking this way when speaking of them as Logical Indicators?

First of all, sorry I post so much, we are very slow at work during this time of the year. I spend all my time studying, on this form and on Reddit.

Secondly I would like to know, for you personally, do you find arguments easier to strengthen and build up/support or easier to weaken/destroy/rip-apart.

Then depending on your preference, which kind of question type do you prefer?

Hi all,

I'm new to the 7sage community, so its my first time posting! I made a big mistake and missed the deadline for the September exam. (It's like a nightmare come true) I'm currently on a 2 month study leave (aug 1 - sept 30) from work. Now I'm taking the December exam. That means I'll be studying full time for 2 months, and then working full time 2 months before my exam.

The thing is, the work I do requires alot of reading and by the end of the day, my brain feels exhausted and I have a hard time studying because my intellectual energy is spent by the end of the day. Does anyone have recommendations on how I can maximize my study time? Currently, I'm doing 2-3 exams per week. My major focus and goal during my FT study period is to meticulously analyze the exams I take to see my weak points.

But once I start working, I might only be able to do one exam per week (on the weekends). Is that enough to keep me going for the 2 month buffer period before the Dec 2 exam?

Any help is appreciated!! Thanks!

Hi. My first post and was just wondering if JY has done anything like a concise summary (cheat sheet .pdf) that distills the initial "plan of attack" for each of the various LR question types. What I mean is, after reading the q-stem and determining q-type, a "go-to" guide for just the first few steps to take on that specific q-type, just so we can get rolling as fast as possible once we know q-type. This would be so helpful for developing and perfecting solid approaches for all of the various q-types, and it could be referred back to while working to improve strategy, reduce time per question, etc. With so many different LR q-types out there, something like this would be... awesome! If such an "LR q-type attack plan" cheat sheet already exists in 7Sage's materials (or elsewhere), please let us know; if one doesn't yet exist, please (JY, if you can hear me) do one for us ASAP. Thanks!

I'm finding myself getting -1 or -2 wrong for some of the (LR)... Even though for the majority of the ones I am getting incorrect, I understand the reasoning for the answer choice and why the right one is the correct choice and why the wrong answer choices are incorrect, but I still end up going with the incorrect answer choice... It's almost a letdown because it makes me question my abilities and doing really well on the LSAT. Is it because I may not have as much confidence in myself?

(P.S., I know this is a long and dense post, but there's an opportunity at the bottom for anyone reading this to get paid, so hopefully that's an incentive to read this :P)

Hi guys! I wanted to get some feedback from you smart people on the LR question about brown dwarf stars.

We're asked for an assumption on which the argument depends, so this is a NA and the right answer should strongly undermine if not completely discredit the argument when negated.

The claim is that any star found with no lithium is not a coolest brown dwarf (CBD.)

The support is that all stars except for CBD are hot enough to "destroy lithium completely."

The right answer, A, is that "None of the CBDs have ever been hot enough to destroy lithium."

Formal logic wise, I get CBD ---> Not(Hot enough to destroy lithium)

Negating it, you get that not none (so, some) CBDs have ever been hot enough to destroy lithium.

I don't understand how this even undermines the conclusion, let alone discredits it as we would hope for in a NA. In fact, this sounds perfectly congruent with the argument. The support says that CBDs cannot destroy lithium /completely/, completely being a deliberate word choice that does not appear in the answer. If "completely" had no bearing on the meaning of the text, it wouldn't be included.

Therefore, our negated answer, suggesting that some CBDs have ever been able to destroy lithium in some capacity, does nothing to undermine the claim that a star found without lithium cannot be a CBD.

Maybe in being able to destroy lithium in some capacity, said stars are still not hot enough to destroy lithium content in full. Even if you need to make a small assumption jump for this question, I think the most reasonable assumption is that CBDs being able to destroy lithium by some means does not really even scathe the claim that it can't finish the job. This would be a stretch for a weaken question in my opinion, let alone a necessary assumption.

My other question on the matter regards the rules for dangling modifiers in LSAT texts. In this question, a sentence reads "All stars but the CBDs are hot enough to destroy lithium completely by converting it into helium.

I'm a bit confused about how a dangling modifier would apply here in the absence of context. Does the clause following "destroy lithium" imply that the dwarfs cannot destroy lithium in full, (the process by which happens to be by converting to helium,) or that they cannot accomplish the task exclusively by converting the lithium to helium (implying that in order to complete the task in full, CBDs must destroy it in some other way than converting to helium.)

As a native English speaker, I probably wouldn't even have second thoughts and assume it was the former option, if reading or hearing that sentence. However, as an LSAT student who is actively analyzing precision of language, I find myself confused. I feel like I've seen other situations on the LSAT where failure to consider the precision of language, instead using traditional colloquial interpretations, in fact leads you to the wrong answer. Why is it different in this case? (Assuming there isn't some grammar rule I'm not aware of, which I'd love to discover!)

I realize that there is a degree of "picking the best answer" with LSAT questions, and NAs in particular. With that in mind, I still felt that B was a better, albeit still lacking answer.

Negating B leaves us with the statement that it's not the case that most stars too cool to burn hydrogen (TCBH), (which concretely includes CBDs,) are too cool to destroy lithium completely. This still leaves open a wide range of possibilities for some (but less than 51%) TCHB stars to indeed be able to destroy lithium completely. If we know that this class of star may very well have members capable of destroying lithium completely, and that CBDs are a member of that class, we at least have a hint that maybe some CBDs can destroy lithium completely, undermining his support and damaging the argument consequently.

Do I like answer choice B? Definitely not. However, it matches the specific, important diction of the prompt ("destroys completely") whereas A does not, and it gives concrete reason, when negated, to suggest something that directly contradicts and soils the argument. A, when negated, simply refrains from counting out a possibility that would damage the argument, rather than in any way suggesting that the argument is in fact damaged. Knowing that some CBDs have ever been hot enough to destroy lithium at all leaves the possibility that they can destroy it all the way, which we would want to be the case for this answer to be right since that breaks the argument. But, it just as neutrally, it allows for the possibility that they still can't go all the way, which would leave the argument in tact and reaffirm the support from which the conclusion is derived.

TL;DR, I see A suggesting an ambiguity that reads neutrally: If negated, A only weakens the argument by indicating that the opportunity for the argument to be undermined exists, not that it likely does or does not.

B, when negated suggests an ambiguity that, while still concluding nothing, leans towards something that would hurt the argument. Obviously that's a fine distinction that the question doesn't even mean for you to consider, but I don't think it can be avoided if you read the text precisely, and reasonably interpret "destroy completely" and "destroy" as meaning different things. If they meant the same thing, they would say the same thing.

Lastly, any question I ever get wrong on LR is similar to the conundrum I have with this one. I overanalyze the question, but even when I recognize that I'm overanalyzing and need to read a little more simply, I cannot for the life of me figure out when it's appropriate to make which particular little assumptions. If I redid this question 1000 times, I'd think that the logic leap in choice B is more realistic than the choice B counterpart all 1000 times.

Are there any tutors who would be particularly well suited to help me with this very specific challenge? It's frustrating because I literally have no clue what I need to change in order to get these questions write. I'm a native English speaker, born and raised in the midwest United States, and so I don't know what other factors could be causing me to be so clueless when it comes to figuring out which little logic leap/assumption is the right one. If I'm not overlooking some other caveat to this problem, how can the LSAT justify the correct answer if there isn't a concrete reason why their leap is more valid than mine.

If anyone thinks they would be able to help me remedy this conclusion, I'd be more than happy to pay for your time. I'll take help any way I can get it, so don't hesitate to take my money even if you're not a tutor and are a fellow student! Thanks guys :)

At first, it was quite easy for me to identify and correctly label conditional statements. But, now that I am nearly 60% through with the CC (currently working with flaw questions) and questions are no longer in the "identify" phase, but, rather, have increased into the difficult world of description and analyzation ... I find myself getting tripped up with the direction of my statements (confusing necessity for sufficient, and vice versa). I realize that I need to now slow down my progression with the CC until I am able to really drill this concept in my head. Any suggestions/advice/tips/examples (preferably harder examples) would be greatly appreciated!

(Or point me to that resource that does explain it)

I recently purchased the Starter package, almost exclusively for the LG fool-proof method. I am debating a refund though, bc I am not able to see or understand how the benefits come from this method (NOT at all saying it doesn't work, I realize 2 weeks is not enough time to reap the benefits- but that is why I'm inquiring here!).

Everytime JY says to repeat the game + inferences from memory, my mind goes all mushy, bc I don't see how that will help me (THAT much) on test day? I know the games are all pretty similar in structure, etc. (Have been studying for over a year and a half, probably have done abt 3/4 of the games that exist), but I feel like I would benefit from drilling into my mind how each inference came to be, vs. just writing an rule down bc I literally remembered writing it down the last time I did it? JY explicitly says to do straight from memory and NOT based on remembering how each rule kicked in to create that inference. (Seems similar, for ex., to learning the word "lackadaisical" bc my Ex's band name is Lackadaisical, & he is a really lazy person, instead of learning what the actual word means)

I guess I am getting pretty frustrated with the course too bc JY fails to explain this--the "How"--in his videos (at least as far as I've gotten so far. If it's in a certain lesson, pls let me know!!). Also, he doesn't address how to do the LG Questions, either. Do I choose those answers from memory, too ?? Do I read each word in the question stem?? (Same thing with the game set-up, do I read each word there, too, As if it was test day??)

I've just heard so many great things about his videos, strategy, & explanations, and I guess I just had a very different expectation. I would seriously seriously appreciate it if someone could help me out. Would love to get to ~2/3 wrong on LG as so many people here have mentioned here, but my frustration / confusion with the method is really keeping me from being motivated enough to continue with it.

Thanks for listening / reading !!

Are the MP questions in PT1-35 representative of the MP questions on the newer tests? I know how to find the conclusion and main point, but for some reason I do not seem to get all of them right even though I should when I am drilling. I have done the corresponding problem sets and went over the CC covering MP and how to identify conclusions for the second time.. and I have gotten them all correct so I don't know what's going on.

HELP!

Hello. I have some trouble in nailing this question.

(C) How could this strengthen the conclusion? The conclusion is about a causation between oval orbits and close encounter with other planets. But this answer choice is correlation; that is, it says that where planets are orbiting a distant star more than one planet are found near the star. I have learned that generally a mere correlation does not strengthen a causation.

(B) why is this answer choice wrong?

Thanks

What are some games that you have used for the fool proof method? I'm making a fool proof "binder" of questions and was wondering what games are best for each type. What games did y'all fool proof with?

I am weak at disagree questions. I tend to miss these ones about 50% of the time. I find this weird because when it is agreement I ace it. Does anyone have a strategy for these kinds of questions other than making a Y/N chart to the side? How do you engage with the stimulus, what are you looking for in the AC, how can you tell what specifically they are disagreeing over?

I have an issue with B. The stimulus stated that an equal number of painters, sculptures and photographers entered, how then, can we conclude that the increased price had any impact on which art gets exhibited? since the overall submissions were equal for all three types of artists we cannot say that more painters and sculptors might have submitted works if their fee was lower.

Are we to assume that only rich but bad artists submitted photos and sculptors whilst, good photographers poor or rich can afford the $25 fee? nevertheless, and equal number submitted and they all met the traditional criteria and were all exhibited as result of.

this question confuses me.

I retook the RC from the June exam yesterday, and still missed 5 (on the actual exam I missed 7, wrecking my score). I've got to say, I am very confused about some of these questions, even upon review and under untimed conditions. Fair to say it's one of the hardest RC sections of all time? I had 2 RC sections on test day, and the experimental one was SO MUCH EASIER.

Is anyone who took the June exam willing to go back and forth about some of these questions?

Anyone have LR question stem flashcards?

So I didn't do so well on this game because I played the children multiple times because it didn't say that they had to be played exactly once, so should we assume that they need to be played at least once unless stated otherwise? Thank you!!!

I am curious to gain some insight on how fellow sagers trained themselves into answering 10 questions in 10 mins and how you worked up to 15 in 15 and so on. Was it mainly drills or through timed PTs?

With 5 weeks until the day of the test, I have been consistently scoring in the mid-60s, anywhere between 162 and 165, with my best test at 167.

I find myself getting the same LR question types wrong (NA, SA, weaken, flaw, and sometimes resolve or strengthen). I have tried drilling the various question types and I still seem to be getting about -4/-5 per LR section.

The only book I have used for studying LR has been the PowerScore LR Bible, so I'm wondering if I should buy a different book to try and master these question types? I don't particularly want to spend more money but if it'll really help I'd be willing to do so.

I've read in discussion forums about the LSAT Trainer or Manhattan books. If someone could let me know what they think/their experiences it'd be much appreciated!

I can score anywhere from -1 to -7 (yiiiikes) on RC... sometimes it really just feels like a crapshoot. I usually do really well with reading comp on standardized tests (SAT, subject tests, GRE, APs, etc.) and even tutored for a while. What freaks me out the most about RC is that I often don't catch my mistakes even during BR; I'm making mistakes with confidence haha. Strong and wrong! On my last PT I got 4 questions wrong on a single passage, which would have bumped my overall score from 171 to 174.

I don't usually feel like I'm running out of time, it's more that I can't easily eliminate the wrong answer choices the way I can with LR, for example. So yeah, any tips/advice? :D

I'm in kind of a weird spot. At this point, I'm getting nearly all difficult questions, including ones I initially flag for BR, correct. But I still end up missing 1-3 questions per section- on questions that I breeze through. The obvious answer is to slow down, but in order to get the difficult questions right, I need every second that I'm given. Were I to slow down up front, I wouldn't be able to finish the section. I know to reach for the low-hanging fruit but that doesn't seem to apply here. I'm not missing any specific type of questions and my stupid mistakes vary. (Sometimes I misread the stimulus, sometimes the answers, or I don't give myself enough time to fully understand the argument.) But there is a confidence error every time. I also know that practice increases speed, so theoretically I should be able to get faster on the difficult questions to leave myself more time up front, but I'm pretty sure I've maxed out my pace. Any advice on how to drill out the stupid is most appreciated!

Well folks it's just over a month until the September 2017 test. Of course that feels like the test is tomorrow.

I'm not really sure what to do. I am fairly consistently around a 168-170 right now, even on the more modern tests. My section break down is;

-0/-1 LG

-3/-5 LR (each)

-4 RC

I want to maintain, and maybe see if I can squeeze out one or two more points some how. I'm just not sure how. I am back on schedule to do 1 PT a week with blind review. Right now I am alternating between RC/LR every day of the week but it's all starting to feel more like review and less like learning new habits and skills.

What do you guys think? What are you doing for the next month?

Is it me or is the RC section of this exam extremely difficult. I took a 5 section exam and this was the 5th section of the exam, half way through it I felt like my brain was about to shut down. I pretty much gave up going into the 4th passage of the section. Anyone got some advice or any experiences ?