I'm having a lot of difficulty understanding why B is the correct answer here. After watching the explanation I see why the other answers are incorrect, but I really want to understand why B is wholly correct...hopefully that makes sense. I see that Dana would disagree with B. She thinks that the learning a child is accustomed to should ALWAYS dictate teaching methods. Thus, a child should not learn (or at least all children should not learn) to adapt.

I fail to see why Pat would necessarily agree with B, given the text itself. Pat only say that it is not ALWAYS the case that accustomed styles of learning should dictate what method is used (maybe sometimes that is the case though...). He would agree that it is NOT wrong (it is correct) to think that that the same educational methods should be used with all children. Why does this necessarily mean he would agree that ALL children should learn to adapt to various educational methods? Couldnt there be some children that can't learn under certain methods, such as group learning. He doesnt have any universal statements in his disagreement...he just disagrees with Dana's universal statement.

Also, if anyone has tips on point of issue questions such as this it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks so much in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-32-section-4-question-20/

When it comes to LG there is the foolproof method.

When it comes to LR there is a plan of attack and method for each question, and the ability to drill each question type until its fluent.

When it comes to RC.... argh. I sit everyday and do a timed section. After, i write down every part of every passage and how they relate to each other in my own words. And i may understand it after all this. I may even get them all right after this. But to no avail, when it comes to tomorrows section. I will suck just as badly as today

I finally feel like I have the Memory Method for Reading Comp down and I have seen an improvement in my RC scores, but I continue to have trouble with any author inference questions or anything RC inference related. Any tips for how to overcome this?

I am starting to realize that it is not necessary to understand the whole stimulis. Often, just understanding the premise and conclusion is enough to get the right answer.

HI everyone,

I have been struggling to correctly answer sample logical reasoning/weakening the argument type questions. Unfortunately, I am repeatedly selecting the most attractive wrong answer choices for each of the questions. My LSAT preparation material is advising me to use conditional reasoning techniques to identify the correct answer choices. So I am wondering if anyone can tell me whether using necessary condition and sufficient condition strategies works with finding the correct answer to logical reasoning/weakening the argument type questions.

Just a heads up guys - I'm going to reorganize the RC part of the Core Curriculum soon. There might even be a few new lessons. Don't be alarmed if you see classes get moved around in the syllabus!

LR is absolutely smacking me. I have done aprox. 30 PT with the most recent one being Being PT46. On the early PT i was scoring 165-172. But as the pretests started to become more recent, I noted the games seemed to get easier, the reading comp stayed the same but LR got significantly harder. I went from -3 or -4 per LR section to -5 to -9 despite my RC being -3 to -4 and games being no more than -3. Like I find myself struggling to read and understand the arguments on LR fast enough. My blind reviews are consistently above 176. The problem for me is that I can not seem to read the LR stem and understand it fast enough (the hard ones that is), and if If i take the extra time i need to get the right answer, I will usually not be able to finish. Is this a matter of me just reading too slowly? I still finish Reading comp just fine, and with about a minute to spare, or is this a matter of needing more practice with LR? By drilling old LR sections will this potentially increase my speed? Anyone else have ideas how to shore up LR? I mean I still have like 34 more prep tests to go through and blind review, but for the past 4 pretest this issues seems to be the most significant. I take two pretests a week and during the rest of the week blind review and drill old games and reading comp. I have never really went back and drilled LR. Does anyone else have advice?

Why wouldnt A be considered an attack on the premise that says that land becomes too poor to support agriculture?

Are there jy video explanations for prep tests A-C? Thanks

Hi 7sage!

After spending the last 3 months or so focusing intensely on LR and RC and making great improvements... I feel like I lost some of the momentum I had going with the logic games. Between January and April I fool-proofed PTs 1-25 and now am having similar difficulties as to when I started doing timed logic games (i.e. misreading rules, making careless errors, being generally slow in identifying inferences)... I am going back to basics and redoing the entire LG portion of the CC and am going back to foolproofing and will tackle games that gave me difficulty from 1-25 and will foolproof 25-35 in the coming weeks. Any other recommendations? I'm feeling nervous that maybe I wasn't progressing as quickly as I thought I was with the foolproof method and maybe I was just redoing games that I was already familiar with and that was where my success came from... Any advice would be much appreciated. Love this forum, love the LSAT!

Just wondering how other people go about drilling specific question types.

I have narrowed down my problem question types and now wondering what the best way to drill those weaknesses .

Should i time them in groups? Or individually?

Just trying to set out a feeler for what worked for other people.

P.S. of course, no matter, what there will be an intensive BR and Review of every question

Hello,

This is an NA question that I have been trying to grasp. It's REALLY hard.

I will explain how I can justify the to myself and I would be so grateful if anyone wants to chime in and add any additional analysis.

The stimulus -

CTX: There is frozen nitrogen, methane, and carbon monoxide on the surface of Pluto, which vaporize to make Pluto's atmosphere.

P: The proportion of each gas in Pluto's atmosphere results how readily the gas vaporizes.

C: Pluto's atmosphere is made of nitrogen, methane, and carbon monoxide gas, listed from greatest to lowest proportion.

The correct answer states that there is no frozen substance (let's call it X) on Pluto that vaporizes more readily than methane but less readily than carbon monoxide. In other words there is no gas X in the atmosphere of which there is more than methane and less than carbon monoxide. The negation would read like this: C > X > M , there is a fourth gas in the atmosphere and there is more carbon monoxide than methane (if I understand correctly).

I think my issue at first was that I did not read the conclusion to say there were only three gases in the atmosphere and no others; I suppose stating "the components are..." does imply that. So, if there was a fourth gas in the atmosphere, there are not three, as the conclusions claim. Moreover, with the CA negated, there would be more carbon monoxide than methane, which wrecks the argument. This seems to be an example of a really bare minimum NA, that makes you go "doi."

I chose (D), which states that nitrogen is only found in the atmosphere if it is also found as ice on the planet's surface. It's useless to the argument. Natm --> Nps ; /Nps --> /Natm. Neither of these statements reveal anything new or relevant about the situation.

Thanks in advance for any input!

In the Fool Proof Method for LG in the CC, step 6 tells us to write down all inferences from memory. What exactly does this mean in practice? For every game I'm not perfect at -- I take another clean copy, and go through the game and simply write down what I remember? Am I not reading the questions; just jotting down what I recall?

One of the biggest issues I have is not reading the sentences in the stimuli carefully...

Do you have any suggestions to prevent such mistakes besides underlining?

Also, I found paraphrasing/re-wording what I just read in my own words before moving on to the next sentence is incredibly helpful to comprehend the RC passages. For those who have mastered LR, how do you read the stimuli? do you think paraphrasing would be helpful in LR as well or do you think such step is unnecessary in LR?

Thanks everyone! :)

Math and I have never been close. Now with Lsat, I often come across questions that J.Y. marks as "high-school algebra" or "mathematical question in disguise" and almost always, I get them wrong.

It seems that I have to overcome my life-long battle with math. But, I think repetitively practicing these math questions aren't going to cut it. So, I want to ask those who has struggled and defeated these type of questions, what was your approach/strategy? Also, do you know any books/outside material that could supplement and improve my lack of mathematical reasoning skills?

Any advice will be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance :)

Heres the problem so Im getting all of the easy questions correct and some of the hard ones too but I really want to drill the really difficult questions so I know that I am actually improving, do you guys know where to find the harder LR questions to drill? Thank you so much!!!!!!!!

So i have taken my second PT since foolproofing and i have seen major improvement. But i still seem to be struggling with parrallel flaw, some flaw qs, and NA. I have rewatched the cc on them and read the LSAT trainer on them. Was wondering what the general concensus is on taking the older tests, say 7-20, and locating all the specific question types above and just doing one after another with an extensive BR/ review of each?

Hey everyone,

My LSAT analytics are showing me that my Parallel Flaw and Parallel Reasoning questions are of the highest priority. I've made some strong improvements in these two question types, but want to continue getting better at them. I'm hoping someone could shed some light on their approach to these questions. I will lay down my basic approach to them, and perhaps someone could tell me whether my approach needs work.

Parallel Flaw

For these question types I want to find the AC with the most similar flaw. Argument structure is not SO much as important (but still a consideration) as the flaw itself. So first, I check to see if I can diagram the argument in pure Lawgic. If I can do that and find a similar glaring flaw in the AC - BOOM - done. If the question doesn't translate well into logic, I try to use 'pseudo-logic' diagramming - much like the questions you encounter in PF section of the CC. If that doesn't work, I then try to to just understand and vocalize the flaw as a whole. Is the argument moving from relative evidence to absolute, is it confusing sufficient with necessary, etc etc?

These 3 approaches is essentially how I attack PF questions. What I find is however, that I'm usually unable to diagram the questions in pure Lawgic, so I either 'psuedo-diagram' or I try to vocalize the flaw. Is this a good tactic?

Parallel Reasoning

For these question types we want to find the AC with the same reasoning structure! First I try to see if the stimulus lends itself neatly into Lawgic. If that doesn't work, I attempt to use 'pseudo-logic' terms to better understand the parts of the argument and how they relate (structure). Finally, if that doesn't work, I try to vocalize the way in which the argument moves from premises to conclusion and find a similar conclusion. I find this question type easier because I can turn to the conclusion and eliminate answer choices which do not have similar conclusions.

SO, do you think my approach is good? Can I make improvements? If so, how?

Thanks, and good luck!

I just came across the circular subway game from PT18 S1 G3. I was wondering if there are any other games similar to this one that I can practice? Anything that makes use of a circle would be very useful.

Hello All,

I just started the 7Sage course cause I'm hoping to obtain a better approach towards logical reasoning and reading comprehension. I started with Powerscore and I've read the Logical Reasoning and Games bibles from cover to cover. I've already taken the June 2007 diagnostic before. Should I take it again with 7 Sage's approach or just put in the answers from when I first took the exam? Also, with two months to go till the September exam, is it ok to just skip over to sections that I need immediate help on or start everything from the beginning?

Do you focus on finding the flaw in the argument and then matching that to an AC? Like any other flaw q, just instead of naming it you find another example of that? Or do you focus on the argument structure?

Thr biggest time sink questions for myself are the parallel questions and if i have to go through the same method for parallel flaw, i dont see how i will have enough time

So I think i'm confused at how these are different. I completely understand the definitions of valid and invalid arguments. I'm just confused at how you would be able to distinguish these two things on the LSAT. Does the question stem typically tell you it wants "invalid" or "valid" or will you just have to make a decision based off the stimulus?

So I have printed all the LG and grouped them by type (basic linear, advanced linear, grouping etc). I am also using the spreadsheet to track my times, questions wrong and date taken. I am trying to figure out when do I repeat the same LG? Should I do the game, watch the video, and immediately redo the game? Or should I wait to redo the game until the next day? How much lag time should I have between the initial time doing the game and redoing the game after watching the video?

Thanks for the help!!

Hi,

I am planning to write the LSAT this September. I had taken my first diagnostic in early May and had scored 143. After preparing with the LSAT Trainer and PT 52-61 and reviewing, I have taken my second timed PT (PT 74, using the 7sage proctor) today and have scored a 157 (-14 on RC, -4 and -5 on the LRs, and -9 on the LG).

I still have PTs 62-73, 75-80, and 81 (yet to purchase) left for further PTing, and I do plan to go serially through them. I intend to score in the real LSAT in the 160-164 range. Given that I only have 8 weeks left now, in what ways can I make that jump by at least 5 points?

Thanks for any advice!

Is it necessary to identify premise, context and conclusions in Most strongly support questions? So far I don't and have done well.