I like to spend time up front by solving for all the boards. This makes me more confident for selecting the correct answer and I can get through the questions faster.

However, some games have so many possibilities that it takes a significant amount of time to solve for all the boards. So, to save time, I do not solve for all possibilities. I finish the games a lot faster, but I may miss 1 or 2 questions.

My questions are: when should one simply brute force their way through the answers to save time?

Is it better to compromise accuracy to save time?

What is a happy medium?

I like to spend time up front by solving for all the boards. This makes me more confident for selecting the correct answer and I can get through the questions faster.

However, some games have so many possibilities that it takes a significant amount of time to solve for all the boards. So, to save time, I do not solve for all possibilities. I finish the games a lot faster, but I may miss 1 or 2 questions.

My questions are: when should one simply brute force their way through the answers to save time?

Is it better to compromise accuracy to save time?

What is a happy medium?

I know (A) is correct since it points out there may be no relation between jury decision and testimony. Yet, I'm still confused about (B). Is it descriptively wrong since the stimulus only says one fact instead of two facts?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-4-question-13/

Thanks in advance!!

Hello fellow 7sagers,

There is no right or wrong answer to the question at hand. I know 7Sage's method is to read the question stem first. However, I am curious to hear from individuals who have tried "both" approaches. Which made your task of comprehending the stimulus and answering the question easier?

Thank you in advance.

Hey All,

So this is a PSA question. I selected answer E when timed and I didn't even circle this question to BR because I was so confident in my answer. It wasn't until I was reviewing with some others during a BR call that this error was brought to my attention. I got some great feedback from those on the call, but upon further solo reflection, I'm still not 100% confident with this.

This is how I interpret the stimulus. There are two categories of people mentioned: adults and children. There is this technique to address chronic nightmares that works on adults. Children who are nightmare prone are likely to suffer from nightmares as adults. Therefore, we need to identify these children and treat them.

The conclusion specifies efforts towards identifying nightmare-prone children. I'm thinking to myself- well, why not utilize this technique with ALL children? Why are we putting the effort into identifying then treating these children. I chose E because it addresses this issue. I interpreted E as justifying the conclusions claim for focused effort.

The correct answer is C, which says psychologists should do everything to minimize the number of adults troubled by chronic nightmares. My issue with C is, by accepting that we must do EVERYTHING (bold statement to begin with, but we are looking for an PSA, which allows for that I guess), then shouldn't we also teach ALL children this technique? The stimulus doesn't set up the necessary condition that, if you suffer from chronic nightmares as an adult, then you did as a kid. The stimulus says it is more likely for nightmare prone children to suffer as an adult. So since this isn't a determined, 100% relationship, in order to do EVERYTHING (like C says), we should be addressing this margin of potentiality for non-nightmare prone children to develop chronic nightmares as an adult.

In short, my issue is C seems to inherently contradict the conclusion.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-59-section-2-question-13/

I have an issue with the negation of this answer choice, if someone can help me--I would be most appreciative:

Most of the trade goods that came into western Mexico centuries ago were transported by boat.

Lsathacks says the negation is this:

Merely half of all trade that came into Western Mexico came by boat.

But, I think the negation should be this:

Between 0-50% of the trade goods that came into western Mexico centuries ago were not transported by boat.

Am I wrong in this thinking? Please help out!!

Hi

I've been studying for logic games for about 2 weeks or so, trying out the fool proof method.

As I was covering the games from Pt18~28, I was averaging about -3 or -1 in the earlier ones.

But I got completely destroy by Pt 27 then scored perfect on Pt 28 on time. (BTW I did both on thr same day)

I'm not sure how confident I should feel with the game section.

To think that the score can fluctuate so much between 2 Pts was a bit shocking.

Does unorthodox games also become more predictable after continuous practice?

I'm hoping that someone might be willing to check my thinking/analysis before I go to the explanation. It has been suggested that if we write out an explanation for our thought process that it helps to solidify our learning. This is my attempt to follow that suggestion. Also, could someone tell me if it's advisable or not to attempt to do what I've done prior to viewing the video explanation, or am I complicating things too much? Should I just skip all this work and go right to the video explanation first?

PT 38.1.19

Answer selected during test: (E)

Answer selected during BR: (A)

Correct answer: (C)

Notes:

Since it has been a few days since I took the test and performed my BR, my original thinking is somewhat fuzzy. However, I think the reason I selected E on the test was because I thought that if people only deserve happiness according to the happiness the provide others, then a truly bad person couldn’t deserve happiness because they don’t bring happiness to others.

I think I selected answer choice A on the BR because I was thinking there was a disconnect between the idea that we only value the happiness that is deserved and that we only deserve happiness according to the happiness we provide to others.

Now, how did I miss answer choice C? I think the reason that I missed the correct answer and selected wrong answers twice is because I wasn’t appropriately identifying with the argument. In the first place, I wasn’t looking for a conclusion. I was just looking for a statement that “fit”. I see now that the word “therefore” indicated that I was to be looking for a logical conclusion that appropriately rested on the premises. Also, the question stem indicates that I need to complete the “argument”. Since an argument is a premise + conclusion, and since there is no conclusion in the stimulus, I needed to identify the proper conclusion. I think I wasn’t appropriately identifying the premises in the argument; all of the extraneous statements boggled me a bit. So without the proper understanding of the premises, it’s understandable that I wouldn’t be able to identify the conclusion. I’m still struggling to clearly identify the premise (in fact, I think there is only one), but here’s what I think it is:

P: The happiness people deserve is determined by the amount of happiness they bring to others.

Which would then couple with the proper conclusion:

C: The judgment that a person deserves to be happy is itself to be understood in terms of happiness.

So, if I understand this problem now, the reason I selected the two wrong answers is the same reason I missed the right answer: I didn’t properly identify the premise in the argument.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-1-question-19/

Hi everyone,

I'm taking the LSAT on Feb 19 and I'm start to panic a bit. For each practise LSAT I've taken my Logical Reasoning scores hover around 65%. Comparatively my Logic Games are around 95% and my Reading Comprehension is around 85%. I'm completing all the sections comfortable timewise. I really need to improve the LR sections but I've got no clue how to.

I've gone about halfway through the powerscore bible. Do I keep going through that even though it seems I haven't grasped basic concepts? Do I buy another book? Do I just practise a lot?

Help!

I'm confused why the arrow splits for PT 22 GAME 4 RULE 4 and the arrow doesn't split for PT 31 GAME 2 RULE 4 even though they both contain the words NEITHER NOR.

I thought the arrow can't be split for NEITHER NOR statements.

Hello!

I'm going to take the February LSAT in a few weeks and obviously I'm freaking out. I have 6 Fresh PTs left (the most recent ones) but I just don't know how to space them out.

Problem is I was hitting an average of 171~3 on my timed PTs but devastatingly, today my score dropped to 167 (I bombed one LR section - 7 wrong, I usually get -2, -3 and Reading was little more difficult than usual). That's almost close to my starting score (165) and I now fear that I haven't been studying the right way. My target score is around a 175, which so far I've only managed to get with BRs.

Should I space out my 6 remaining tests so that I do about 2 tests per week till February, or save most of them till the last week before the test and hope for a jump in my score?? ANY ADVICE WOULD BE INCREDIBLY HELPFUL! Thanks!!

With regards to the second rule, does anyone know why we can't simply place both F&G in out group? JY's explanation suggests placing G (Out) in one world and F (In) in the second world.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-1-game-3/

I know answer choice B is not supported but I can't explain to myself WHY it's wrong.

Is it wrong because the terms "apple" and "citrus" should be switched places? Could it be a right answer choice if the answer choice actually read:

[McElligott's citrus juices are less likely to contain infectious bacteria than is McElligott's apple juice]

Because McElligott's citrus juices HAVE NOT BEEN LINKED TO ANY BACTERIAL INFECTIONS, can't I assume that they contain less infectious bacteria than M'S apple juice?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-52-section-1-question-24/

OK, so my battle with RC and been brutal, long, and very emotionally draining. I originally was going like -16, now I'm going -5ish. In RC I have seen the biggest gains. I have done really well and learning to "see the forest" before I examine the trees. As @"J.Y. Ping" put in a RC webinar, you have to be able to understand the passage at the 10x level, the 5x level, and the 1x level, 10 being the forest, 5 being individual paragraphs, and 1 being the individual trees.

Questions related to the 10x and 5x level are starting to become very easy to me, even for some of those level 5 passages. What still to this day trips me up are those 1x level questions where you have to understand certain parts of the passage at the 1x level. Out of the 5ish questions I usually miss, almost all of them are 1x, fine detail level questions. When I BR and grade my PTs I always see the right answer and I'm like, "Ahh! Damnit. It says it right there in that one tiny sentence! How did I miss/forget that part?"

My question to all of the RC gurus out there is how did you learn to remember things in the passage at the 1x level under timed constraints? For me, I almost always have to return to the passage, and I usually just don't have enough time to make it happen, so I circle the question and skip. The questions I miss are generally due to not remembering a specific detail from the passage, and not having quite enough time to return to the passage. When I come back to these questions, I usually just POE because I am at my last 2-3 minutes of the section. It's so frustrating because I am so close to going -0 on some sections, and the questions I miss are really not that hard, it's just remembering the fine detail.

As always, thank you for the feedback!

Hello all,

For the June 2007 Prep Test, for Section 4 (RC) and question #13 ("Which of the following principles underlies the arguments in both passages?") I see why E is correct, but why is D incorrect ("The discovery of the neutrological basis of a human behaviour constitutes the discovery of the essence of that behaviour.") A detailed explanation would be appreciated!

Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-4-passage-2-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-4-passage-2-questions/

Hey Guys,

I am very confused on this question. I thought the answer would be A.

The paragraph says in the first sentence that there are two kinds of horror: mad scientist and monstrous beast. The last sentence then says that both kinds of horror stories describe violations of the laws of nature and are intended to produce dread in the reader. Therefore, why would the answer not be A?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-42-section-2-question-16

I just drilled the LG section from PT 18 and it totally threw me for a loop! Train lines? The random promotions game? What was that? I'd happily take snakes and lizards. For those of you looking for weird games, look no further :).

Off to drill them until I hit time... it was such an odd section I felt it deserved a shout out.

Hi everyone!

This is kind of a weird question, but it's on my mind whenever I take a PT. I am hovering in the mid-160's right now, and have taken a little under 10 PT's. Games is by far my worst section; only finish 3 of the 4 every time like clockwork. When I go to BR them and have all the time in the world, I usually get a perfect score (not a feat that seems to be uncommon with games when you have unlimited time to finish them).

But this always then brings my BR up into the 170s, and well...this seems inflated to me. BR is supposed to measure potential, and it seems strange to say I'm a solid 170's potential scorer right now when I have such a huge crutch in games. It's like taking out my giant Achilles' heel from the equation every time I BR, and I don't want it getting in my head that I'm doing better than I really am. (Lol I've found that ego is a dangerous enemy with the LSAT.)

Has anyone else ever encountered this issue? Or have a way to BR their games with this in mind? Thanks guys :)

Hi guys,

I was wondering if you guys have any good tip in terms of approaching parallel questioning? So far, after doing 15 question, the only thing that I came up with:

1) Attention to structure

2) If difficult to understand, supply with an example to fill the referencing words.

Any good tips for this type of questions?

Thanks,

Panda

Good lord, I find this question frustrating and I cannot for the life of me determine how any single one of these answers could be seen as satisfactory.

This is the question where West says that Haynes is the worst inspector. I honestly couldn't figure out how any answer would suffice, and even seeing the correct answer, I cannot begin to fathom why it might be correct. I think this literally may be the only case where I haven't been able to even begin to understand why the right answer is correct for this question.

The correct answer states that Young responds by denying one of West's presuppositions. But I cannot see how Young does this. Young states that Haynes inspected significantly more than half of the appliances inspected last year. I immediately registered this as countering West's argument by pointing out that given the proportion of appliances Haynes inspected, it does not indicate any failing that such a high proportion of rejected appliances would have been inspected by him. Can anyone give me a breakdown of this?

Where is the "presupposition?" How on earth would Young be countering it?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-79-section-4-question-12/

Hey All,

You can never have too much practice with RC, right? Which is why you should definitely go check out this passage and then help a girl out with a question that is causing her to pull her hair out :)

E is saying that phytopathogens typically attack some plant species but find other species to be unsuitable hosts. I eliminated this answer choice because the passage never says that it is the species that causes them to be unsuitable hosts. Rather, it is the fact that the crops are rotated, not giving the soil a chance to become suppressive.

Plant A is sowed in a field, lets say. But the crops aren't rotated so the phytopathogens do their thing and the yields decrease. But then, the farmer notices this decrease in yield, so Plant B is sowed in Plant A's place. But after a while, the soil become suppressive again and the phytopathogens come back into the picture. Then Plant C replaces Plant B, etc.

Furthermore, the passage says: "The problem can be cured by crop rotation, denying the pathogens a suitable host for a period of time." (emphasis added)

The species of plant is irrelevant. The phytopathogens are "triggered" by lack of crop rotation and they can only be stalled for a period of time. I mean, I know we can't infer that every single plant species is in danger of phytophathogen wrath, but I definitely don't see how we can infer that there are some species that are not.

I chose D, which I realized was wrong because of "majority," but E just seems completely unsupported.

I watched the video.Yet I'm still stuck in (B). Any ideas and insight will be appreciated.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-1-question-23/

Hi All,

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-07/

I was between B and C for this question and was hoping folks could weigh in on why C was wrong. I did listen to JY's explanation but still have some hesitations for getting rid of C. Here's the overview:

Context: Scientists are said to assume that something is not the case until there is proof that it is the case

Conclusion: The characterization (above) of scientists is false.

Premise: In evaluating a question of whether an unresearched additive is safe, scientists would say the following based on the characterization:

1. The additive is unsafe because it has not been proven to be safe

2. The additive is safe because it has not been proven to be unsafe.

Premise 2 : No scientist can assume without contradiction that a given substance is both safe and unsafe.

My Pre-phrase: Argument shows that taking a statement to be true results in a contradiction, so the statement cannot be true.

Answer Choice B: A statement is argued to be false by showing that taking it to be true leads to implausible consequences.

My Thoughts: I circled this upon first reading it but wasn't crazy about the word implausible, which I read as unlikely or not probable. If they would have given me something more like illogical, I would never have read on.

Answer Choice C: A statement is shown to be false by showing that it directly contradicts a second statement that is taken to be true.

My Thoughts: I read this as...a statement (ie the context) is shown to be false by showing that it directly contradicts a second statement (Premise 2) that is taken to be true. JY's explanation stated that there was no second statement, which seemed to me to exist. I can throw it out for not being a "direct" contradiction since the contradiction is in the application...

Would love any feedback on C!

After watching video, I understand why A is true. Yet, I still confuse about (D). Is it not a flaw?

The link is here https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-4-question-14/

Hi guys!

Just a quick question regarding typing out your thought process for LR. I recently developed the habit of typing out my thought process and explanations for each answer choice after grading a PT to try to understand where I'm making mistakes. However, should I be doing this only after blind reviewing and grading the PT? Or should I begin the typing process when I blind review?

Many thanks!