I can't print any of the prep tests or problem sets. Always prepares, then gives me a "print failed: print job cancelled" error.

Anyone know how to fix this?

I'm using a Chromebook, would it be better to use my parent's (crappy) Windows laptop to print?

Some LR questions have answer choices that say that an argument "assumes without providing justification that (xyz)", and some say that an argument "takes (xyz) for granted". Do these phrases mean the same thing? If not, please explain the difference(s). Thanks! :)

My question here stems from the situation presented in PT36.S3.Q26 (https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-36-section-3-question-26/)

It seems that the explanation for the right answer is that by falsifying a factor that would harm an argument if otherwise true, you are therefor strengthening it. This seems odd to me, as establishing a lack of past dissent doesn't equal some degree of current support in my opinion. It's neutral if anything.

But anyway, if we accept the aforementioned logic as fact for LSAT purposes, here are my

Does this mean that scratching off a potential weakening factor always counts, and will always be the answer for a "Most Strengthen" question?

And if so, does it happen in the reverse? Does scratching off a potential strengthener always qualify as the answer which most weakens?

Would we ever have to choose between an answer that merely hurts a weakening factor (which I see as being closer to neutral) vs. deliberately supports a strengthening factor?

Thanks ^_^

Hey, yall. For weaken type questions do you think it's safe to double check your AC by determining if it precludes the conclusion from being properly drawn from the evidence? If not, it's not the correct AC. We have a way to double check NA AC why not for all?? Ugh! It's been a minute since I've gone through the curriculum so this may have been mentioned. My bad if so. I get the task for weaken questions: weaken the support between the premise and conclusion. I'm just trying to help it become more intuitive for me. Thoughts? Anyone think I could get turned around or confused in higher degree of difficulty questions?

Hey guys,

Looking for pointers on how you guys use the LR drill packets. What have you found helpful?

Since we only have a finite number of 'fresh' questions from PT 1-35 I don't want to squander my packets needlessly. I'm at the stage where I really only need to reinforce some fundamental strategies (like looking for weak claims among NA answer choices etc.) and solidify my trust in my intuitions.

So say I want to work on RRE questions having bombed an easy one during a PT. To reinforce my approach I revisit the CC, work through the example RRE questions again with JY (the ones before the problem sets). What do you guys do after this point? Problem sets? Drill packets?

At the moment we've got 3 and a half LR packets covering PT 1-35. In the first group (1-9) there is something like 20+ RRE questions. As a drill "session" would you burn through all 20+ of these RRE questions? Would you do fewer of them and do them in more detail? Do them timed or untimed? Do only do the harder ones (I don't even know if they're arranged by difficulty in the drill packets)?

Sorry this is dense and I hope it makes sense :)

Hi All,

Let's say we have the conditional statement "If I go to the market and go to the mall, then I will reward myself with ice cream."

Then I have the statement "Even if I go to the mall, I will not reward myself with ice cream."

What implications does this have? "Even if" is not a conditional indicator, so I believe all this statement is really saying is that "I will not reward myself with ice cream." From this we can infer that "I will not go to the market." We know that even if I do go the mall, it still not sufficient to trigger the conditional, so therefore we must know that I am not going to the market.

Thoughts on this? For a point of reference, PT71.S3.Q11 is what prompted this consideration-- answer choice B specifically.

Does anyone else find these questions insanely hard?

Granted I only started working with them in the newer Prep Tests since they didn't show up prior to the 60s, so I don't have as much practice with them. But I have tried watching J.Y's explanation on these and it still isn't helping me get them. I feel like when I do get them it is more luck than anything

I'm wondering if I should devote a day to just trying to figure out how to do these questions, or whether it is worth the time and effort. Anyone have any strategies they use?

Having a rough time w this one. Can anyone help out?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-1-question-08/

The correct answer on this question doesn't make sense to me. The main conclusion of the argument is very narrow, and the answer goes outside the scope of the argument in order to weaken it. Can someone please explain this to me? Maybe in a private message? I'm trying not to break any rules by revealing too much here.

I understand that a key to master the LR section is to focus only on the core of the stimulus as a stimulus usually consists of unimportant details and fluffs (especially stimuli in the recent tests are denser than those in the old ones). But do you guys ever skim when the stimulus is very long and dense? Or do you just decide to focus on certain parts of the stimulus (the core) AFTER reading/understanding everything said in the stimulus?

Thanks!!! :)

So after I'm done drilling I go through every question and I write down what went wrong. My list includes: did not see the definition presented in argument clearly, did not focus clearly, did not read the stimulus thoroughly". The question types are not my problem, it feels like I'm just not understanding what the question is saying under timed conditions. It's like the questions become alphabet soup. Untimed, I can correctly identify the right answer and I understand what the question stem is asking me.

Can anyone help give me tips on how I can hone in on the stimulus more and stop making these stupid mistakes?

So I feel like when I read the passage I have a good idea about what is going on and how it pertains to the structure but I am consistently missing three questions per passage( I spend about 9-11 mins on each passage) and Ive used the memory method and Ive watched the hammer time video so Im at a loss for what else to do other than just practice on more passages, does anyone have any advice? or what they did to improve their score? THANK YOU SO MUCH IN ADVANCE!!!

I was wondering if anyone may know why this may be the case but I noticed that for many of the "easy" logic games (based of the 7Sage Recommended time) I struggle to meet the 5-6 mins for easy games ( I take around 7 mins usually and sometimes 8) but for the harder games I am usually below 7 Sage's time by 2-3 mins. It seems like for me I am consistent on games in terms of time 'regardless' of the difficulty where it takes me roughly the same amount of time to complete a game. That said there are anomalies where I have spent 12-15 mins on a game and still can't figure it out or like 5 mins on a single question

Is there any other way to get it down to be faster on easier games aside from repeatedly doing it? Over the last week I have drilled only easy games and I think I have shaved off 30-60sec on average on re-doing the game a 3-4 days later but when I review I really find it hard as to where else I can save more time.

Also, does anyone else double check your work on games? I find that sometimes I make a careless errors like forgetting a rule existed for a specific question. I have also made fatal errors before like omitting an entire rule ( which I guess can't be helped aside from checking the rules one last time before making inferences). In all they probably cost me between 1-2 points on LG section and then another 1-2 LG question is wrong due either to time or just something more fundamental like those rule substitution questions

Hi everyone,

I am new to this forum. Can anyone please explain why D is wrong and E is correct?

TIA

What is the first prep test with a comparative reading comp passge?

Do any of the 7sage'ers know a tutor in the Buffalo area? (asking for a a friend). Just kidding asking for myself and I am in dire need of a tutor. Retake in September.

Appreciate any help!!

I'm really struggling with concepts of validity.... I've done the drills, but it's not making sense to me.

Looking for suggestions on how to best understand and apply validity to LR. Any suggestions on learning tips&tricks would be so helpful :)

Don't spoil it if you aren't there yet!

If you have questions, I'll try my best to answer.

My plan is to go through at least one section per day using the BR method while completing the course curriculum, and I am starting with PT 1 to make sure that I save all newer tests for after I've completed J.Y.'s program. I just finished a BR of Section 3 (LR) of PT 1; however, in the 'LSAT Analytics' category, there are no explanations for any of the questions. Additionally, it looks like LR explanations aren't present until PT 17 and beyond.

Here are my questions:

Are there any plans to put video explanations for the LR sections from PTs 1-16 in the near future? (EDIT: I saw Dillon's comment, and it looks like there are no plans for explanations for these sections)

If not, does anyone know of resources/places to go where I could find video explanations to these questions?

Many thanks.

Hi! September is coming up quick so my social activities on the weekends will be kept to a minimum. Will anyone else be studying tonight and tomorrow night? If so, I think it'd be a great idea to set up a chat group in case I have any questions and vice versa!

I just started watching (learning) intro to lg. JY seems to imply erasing some parts of the diagram. Why's that? And is that necessary for success?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-3-question-10/

I got this one right almost instinctively (I didn't map this out), but I have a question about the phrase "can best be explained if" in the second sentence of the stimulus.

.

.

[Phenomenon] The rate is 450 times/second.

[Theory] The rate of 450 times/second can be best explained if the ring has a radius of 49km.

Assuming that the theory is correct, we can conclude that the ring has a radius of 49km.

.

To diagram [Theory] using Group 1 Translation:

・The ring of gas has a radius of 49km —> The rate of 450 times/second can best be explained

.

But is this correct way to diagram?

.

.

When I read this stimulus, I actually understood it as

・the rate of 450 times/second ---> the ring has a radius of 49km.

・The can ring maintain an orbit so close (49km) to a black hole —> the black hole was spinning

C: the black hole was spinning (Answer Choice (C))

.

.

Is my understanding correct? If so, how should we understand the phrase "can best be explained if"?

Let me know what you guys think :) Any help is appreciated!

The last couple days I have been extremely busy, so I decided to do un-timed LR sections. These un-timed LR sections have been my WORST scores to date.

My normal timed LR is anywhere from -3 to -5.

My un-timed LR sections are like -7 or -8.

What does this say about my understanding of the test? Lately I sort of feel like I tackle this test with brute force and with much less technical knowledge. What I see happening with these un-timed sections is that I second guess my first answer many times, which ultimately makes me get it wrong. The last section I did 4 of the 7 I missed are ones that the right answer almost jumped off the page at the beginning and then after I read it some more fell out of love with it and changed my choice.

What does this mean!

I have heard it all the time with regards to logic games. You're constantly getting 1-2 wrong per section, and then, after a certain number of sections, you start getting perfect scores. (This happened to me) Everything just clicked. I was wondering if anyone has experienced that with logical reasoning? Im curious because I have managed to limit my lr sections to just 1-2 wrong answers per section, and it'd be nice to know if I can perfect these sections by continuing to do pts or if Im going to need to change my study schedule to somehow fix this. Thanks in advance!