Discussions

LSAT

New post

210 posts in the last 30 days

Now I finished majority class for LG(except some sequencing game and miscellaneous game) while cracking the LR by type.

I basically drilled the PT1-38 LG twice and finish under estimated time. I feel more confident for coming Feb test at least LG.

While I drill LR, I need some advice on LR and RC drill(if needed).

Thanks!!

0

I'm scheduled to write the Feb exam and I've noticed that my RC is my worst section by far! I'm averaging - (3-5) per LR section, and -(0-2) per LG section... but getting around 15-17 (out of 27) on RC... I find that I focus too much on the content rather than structure. I most always correctly answer MP questions but find myself lost on questions that reference specific lines and ask for such things as the tone. Recently I've tried to focus less on content, but then I am complete loss when it comes to questions that ask for analogous situations/opinions/beliefs (because I either don't know the authors motives or I spend too much time trying to re-read). I've done loads of passages to know that my skills deteriorate with complexity (obviously like everyone else) but rather than by theme (science, econ, law, etc)... with the exception of history passages, which I would rather just guess :p

Any tips or recommendations for specific skills to help keep on track of what's happening in the passage, without trying to retain information overload?

THANK YOU!!

2

It seems JY recommends copying the game board for questions that give you new premises

Like: if a question says "if M is in lane 4, what might be true?" then you would make a mini game board and put M in 4, then add whatever deductions you can from M being in 4.

To me it seems much faster and less cluttered to write the permanent rules, board, and deduction in highlighter, and the temporary ones in pencil. Then after each question, you can just scrub the entire board area with your eraser, instantly deleting all the work that is local to one question.

Of course, the con is that you don't save information about previous questions, chiefly examples of hypotheticals that "could be true". My gut feeling though is that this is only useful on about 10% of games, and the speed/clarity gains from not having to recopy the board over and over outweigh the loss of that benefit.

Anyone else have a perspective on this, or a preference one way or the other?

1
User Avatar
•

Saturday, Jan 7, 2017

bswise2931

RC Dilemma

Hey All,

So I know I am probably about the 9,000th LSATer to say this but....RC is by far my worst section. I have come to a point in my studies where I am super frustrated because I consistently miss a ton of questions for two reasons in particular:

1) I go too slow and I don't get to finish the section;

or

2) I go too fast and miss a ton of important details.

Both of these unfortunate results yield anywhere from -8 to -11...I've tried apps to allow me to read quicker (which work to an extent...but then I have the whole missing details issue), I've tried notating, I've tried not notating, I've skipped questions, etc. I feel like I've tried everything with little improvement.

I also will admit that I enjoy nothing about RC. I will review LR and LG questions all day, but RC really brings my mood down.

I also will admit that I think a huge factor in this is anxiety. I know how poorly I do on RC, so I begin the section already nervous and as the section goes on, as I come across the inevitable "hiccups," I panic.

So tips for RC and tips for dealing with anxiety during the section are much appreciated!

0

Hi everyone! For this question, I understand how answer choice B wrecks the argument, making it a solid necessary assumption. It was my original answer choice, but I thought I was being tricked at the back end of the test because it seemed like a sufficient assumption. Is it both? Can it be both? If it's not a SA, what am I missing? I hate NA vs SA.

Answer choice B provides the following as a necessary assumption ...

CW-->PBSEKW

The contrapositive of the above conditional plus the author's conclusion make this ...

not(PBSEKW)-->not(CW)

not(PBSEKW)

------------------------------------------------

not(CW)

Seriously, how is this not a SA? It is enough to make the conclusion valid. Please help!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-3-question-23/

0

Hi Guys,

I think I have spent a lot of effort in coming this up and I want to share with you my hypothesis to see what you guys think about this as of how do you correctly tackle every SA, PSA, Strengthen and Weakening. (I suppose that I can add the NA question type into it as well, but...I am not there yet)

If you like it, please comment. if you hate it, please comment. If you want to add on or correct me, please please comment.

So here is my hypothesis:

1) Every SA, PSA, Strengthen, and weaken is an argument. Therefore, there is/are assumption[s].

2) First job is to read the stimulus and find the task. The task requested will then require us to go to various stages. For instance, If it is SA and PSA then we need to find the assumptions. But if it is strengthen or weakening then we need to bring one step further to find the best way to address it.

3) Read the question steam. When reading, it is important to find the stimulus and conclusion. When identifying, we have to be able to find the relationship between the stimulus and conclusion. For example, does the stimulus jump right into conclusion or does it just go from stimulus then major stimulus then minor conclusion then major conclusion, etc.

4) Find the word that is linked. One word or term is always in the premise and another is always in the conclusion. And if you link them, there comes your assumption, which is where you stop for your SA and PSA questions. SA and PSA questions can be made hard in 2 ways. The first way is that they give you 2 premises, which means that you have 2 assumptions (P1-C1), (P2-C2). But the method used is the same. The second way is to introduce something similar but not exact as of your anticipation.

And now comes to the answer choices. When answering the question, be mindful of how difficult the question is. If it is an easy question then your assumption, which you had anticipated should show up there in plain side. Some cosmetic on wording can occur, but there should be little difficulty in identifying them. You circle and move on.

But now for harder questions, while you do exactly the same thing above, you deploy the process of elimination method and find your final 2 candidates. When found, read carefully as of how they are worded. One wording can make a whole difference.

5) From step 5,we move into strengthening and weakening questions. The strengthening and weakening is just either block an objection (strengthen) or call out an assumption (weakening), but the twist here is that you have to assess how to best address it. But once again, your pre-forumulated assumptions stays.

The easy strengthening and weakening question just do this. But for the harder ones, they do something else.

They have a general tendency to call out an still connected but indirect the answer choice that deviates from you initial anticipation.

But before we go there, let's take a look at a question, where I disagree with JY's analysis. https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/new-appliance-models-weaken-question/

In this question, there are embedded in it 2 argument parties making 2 arguments. On one side, there is the consumer, who claims because there are different modifications, product name should be different to differentiate them. On the other side, it says, because every modification is beneficial to the consumer, consumer should just ignore it)

So if you analyse the argument this way, the assumption pops out to you right away by connecting the words.

Assumption 1 from the consumers: The appearance of the product is not enough for the consumer to identify the modified version.

Assumption 2 from the merchant: every modification will benefit consumers.

And answer choice D, directly calls out the first assumption.

In the end, I always believe there is a model to solve these questions. A fool proof model.

7

Hi Everyone!

I just wanted to thank the 7Sage community for helping me through was has been the hardest undertaking in my academic career!

After countless hours of studying, BR calls, PTs, scoring (and sometimes tears and disappointment), I am happy to say that my LSAT journey is over!

I wish everyone here the best of luck on future LSATs and the admissions process.

I will be applying this cycle and I'm excited to see where my fellow 7Sagers will end up.

Who knows - maybe some of us might cross paths in law school!

Thanks for all the good times, ya'll!

Cheers,

Hazel

10

Is it possible to chain up bi-conditionals, and if so, what inferences can be drawn? For instance, imagine a a grouping game with three groups and the following rules:

A and B are not in the same group.

B and C are not in the same group.

The rules are:

A (---) B

B (---) C

If we take the contrapositive of the second rule (C (---) B), I believe we can link them up. A (---) B (---) C.

Can we conclude A (---) C? But if the game includes three groups, then does this inference even matter?

0

I am having a difficult time trying to organize when and where the terms "some," "many," or "sometimes" can be used correctly or not, and this question came across my mind. Would my line of reasoning be correct if answer choices B, C, and E be wrong (not strengthen the argument) even if the wording of the answer choices be changed to corroborate the argument in the stimulus while leaving the words "some" and "many" intact? Would the answer choices be wrong simply because of "many" and "some"?

For instance, if we were to change C to read: Some automobile passengers whose inner ears indicate that they are *not* moving and who have a clear view of the objects they are passing get motion sickness

would this answer choice still not strengthen the argument? In other words, if the argument in the stimulus stated "We hypothesize that A -> B," and an answer choice stated "some A-> B," would the answer choice strengthen the argument?

Usually whenever I see "some" or "many" I become very cautious... now I'm having real difficulty in finding how "some" or "many" can be used correctly to become the correct answer choice... Any help would be great!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-1-question-18/

0

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-4-question-15/

Hi guys,

Is there an error in this question? There is a historical LSAT question that I am...disagreeing with: PT30-S4-Q15. PSA.

The question, rewrote, consists of:

P1: Too large or too small of class size is bad.

P2: Very light or very heavy faculty work load is also bad

C: Crowded classes and overworked faculties are bad.

In general, I feel the argument's conclusion is valid. "Large class size", reference to "crowded classes" ,and "heavy faculty workload", reference to "overworked faculties", are both bad.

What is wrong with just taking 50％ from each premise and concluding something from it?

However, above this, I see another gating point, which is the answer.

The correct answer is "very small class sizes or very light workload" are also bad. While, I feel that, in order to arrive at this premise as a needed one, we need to have something like "if the school's both class room and faculty workload is at medium level, then it is good". Right?

Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks,

Panda

0

Am a big fan of knowing that on RC questions there is always specific, identifiable evidence for why an answer choice is right/wrong. However, I am struggling on this question.

Question: ""The passage suggests that Dworkin would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements?"

I chose B:

"Judges should not use their moral intuition when it conflicts with the intentions of those legislators who authored the law being interpreted."

Because of lines 7-11:

"their own moral convictions, even if this means ignoring the letter of the law and the legal precedents for its interpretation. Dworkin regards this as an impermissible form of judicial activism that arrogates to judges powers properly reserved for legislators."

The passage clearly states Dworkin thinks judges should not override legislators by applying their own moral intuition. Why is this not captured in choice B?

I understand that E is something Dworkin would agree with given that legal positivists don't accept moral guides whereas Dworkin suggests they play a role in law.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-2-passage-4-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-2-passage-4-questions/

0

To my fellow 7sagers and LSAT warriors,

I would like to share my story prior to scores being released with the hopes of encouraging anyone who scores below their target.

First, if you happen to get a low score don’t worry about it, it’s not the end of the world. Do not spend the day beating yourself up over it. This is an incredibly hard test. The LSAT is probably the hardest thing I’ve ever undertaken in my life.

I decided I wanted to become an attorney way back in 2011. I had zero academic skills or knowledge when I began my journey. I mean ZERO. I don’t even have a high school diploma. I’ve failed countless times since then however every time I failed I paused, figured out what I did wrong, fixed it and kept going. I now have a BA in PSCI.

If a stranger would have come up to me and tell me that in 17 years I would be a combat veteran with a degree and hopes for law school I would have laughed in their face and called them insane.

The point I am trying to make is that if you are unhappy with your score don’t get upset and don’t worry, it is not the end of the world.

If you decide that you must put off applying, do not let, that upset you too much. Any thing good in life takes time, hard work, and dedication. I am 33 yrs old, and am 90% sure that I’m going to have to retake. I doubt I will start l1 until I am 34.

I would like to share some advice given to my by my former plt. Commander who now owns his own firm and argued in front of the 9th circuit as a law student. He told me that I will face many obstacles and setbacks. However, when that happens I need to step back, do an AAR, figure out what I did wrong, learn from it, don’t dwell on it and move on.

I just thought I would do my best to encourage everyone here that no matter how hard or bad it gets, DON’T QUIT!! NEVER GIVE UP!

I sincerely hope all of you receive great news today or tomorrow. I have enjoyed reading all the posts here at 7sage. Thank you for reading my jumbled incoherent attempt at encouragement!

-Paul Pederson

(JY, Dillon, and the rest of 7sage staff, you all are amazing. I can not thank you enough for what you have done and continue to do with 7sage and LSAT prep. From the bottom of my heart, thank you.)

14

Hello,

Could someone please check my work and let me know if what I have below is correct? I felt like this is a conditional heavy question. It took me 45 minutes to work out this question. Is there any quick way to go about questions like these (or is the answer more practice?)

This is how I translated each sentence in the question-

S1- Teachers effective → Teachers have the power to make decision in classroom

S2- /Teachers have the power to make decision in classroom → /enable students to make decision

= enable students to make decision → Teachers have the power to make decision in classroom

S3- Independent learners → making their own decision

S4- Teachers effective → Teachers have the power to make decision in class room

Putting it all together:

[S1] Teachers effective [S2] Enable students to make decision → Teachers have the power to make decision in class room

[S3] Independent learners → Capable of making their own decision

A) Could be true. Mistaken reversal of S3

B) Could be true. S[1] and [S2] are not chained together to reach a valid/invalid conclusion

C) Could be true. Same as answer choice B.

D) True statement

E) Correct answer because it is false according to S2

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-23/

0

I've been studying for the LSAT for almost a year, will be taking the Feb. Test. My biggest struggle by far is LG, strictly due to time. I finish with a good score, but always with one game left. I've been looking into the full proof method, and I have just a few general questions, if you could help me out that would be very appreciated!

1) The method states that you should make inferences by memory with speed and control on 10 clean copies of a game that gives you trouble. Does this mean I just have to make the inferences, and move on? Or does it mean I have to do the entire game 10 times, with speed and control? The main issue here is that I memorized the answers for each question, so doing the actual questions is unfair. So is it just to memorize the inferences up front so you can reproduce them quickly on a different game?

2) Does this method work for weird games? I know generally it does not, seeing as how the inferences are supposed to be reproduced. Just wondering if I should apply it to "weird" games also.

Thank you! Good luck on the LSAT, whenever you find yourself taking it.

1

Hi,

I haven't been able to sleep well ever since I took the LSAT. Is there anyone else who is as anxious? Do you have any tips to handle the anxiety? I know these are stupid questions to ask, but this group has provided me with support through my prep so I figured why not? It will help to know I am not alone.

0

Is there a list anywhere of challenging logic games (of all types) that are important to know inside and out, as part of LG prep?

Or is there a way to sort 7Sage's LG explanations by the difficulty column? Apologies if I'm missing it.

5

I find abstract FL AC's to be quite a hassle on the LSAT. Usually I POE it down to one answer, which feels right, but I don't work through the FL if I feel it'd be a super time sink. So I BR and work it out then (now). I'm talking about AC B here, "No migraine sufferers with heart disease will take the new medication except under careful medical supervision." The no makes it a not both relationship: IF MIG sufferer w/ HD -> NOT take medication. The "except" gets translated to an IF NOT, which now becomes a joint sufficient condition: IF NOT under supervision.

SO, in total:

IF MIG sufferer w/ HD

+ -> NOT take medication

IF NOT under supervision

How is my methodology?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-2-question-03/

1

The argument breakdown is as follows:

P1: Surgical procedures differ in one important aspect from medicinal drugs.

P2: This one important aspect is that a correctly prescribed drug depends for its effectiveness only on the drug's composition, while the effectiveness of even the most appropriate surgical procedure is transparently related to the skills of the surgeon who uses it.

C: The proposal to extend clinical trials to new surgical procedures should not be implemented.

So we are looking for the flawed reasoning. I was able to eliminate B, C, and E, but my worry is that I also eliminated A (the correct answer) and chose D, not because I liked D, but by POE.

Would someone be willing to explain to me why A is the correct answer? The argument is saying that the extension should not happen, and it seems that A would only add a premise, rather than constitute a flaw. Is the flaw because the stimulus only mentions one important point at which they differ, and A is pointing out a second important point?

(Also, on a side note, has anyone ever come across a flawed reasoning question where the answer was "the argument is flawed because they didn't cite any scientific evidence"? I am usually quick to eliminate these because, logically speaking, an argument works with the evidence it is given and draws conclusions from that. Sometimes they are terrible conclusions, but regardless, one does not need scientific evidence to validate a terrible argument. If we are speaking scientifically, empirical evidence is clearly important. But, for our purposes, I just don't see how a lack of scientific evidence can ever be the logical flaw in an argument. I chose D for this answer, already suspecting it was wrong, but I did so by POE. Any thoughts on this?)

Thanks!

1

Hi everyone,

I'm new to the LSAT and was wondering if someone could confirm which sections on the 7Sage Syllabus are for Logic Games. To my untrained eyes it looks like the syllabus introduces Logic Games, and then goes back to Logical Reasoning.

Specially, are there any games sections without the word "games" in the title?

Namely, anything other than:

- Introduction to Logic Games & Sequencing Games

- Sequencing Games with a Twist

- Introduction to Grouping Games: The In-Out Games

- Grouping Games

- Grouping Games with a Chart

- Grouping and Sequencing Games

Hoping to study *just* games over the next 2 weeks and wanted to know which sections/videos to try cover.

Thanks so much, everyone!

Happy holidays.

2

I start to use POE on timed section on RC. I get most choices wrong(haven't done RC for a long time).I really speed up when I use POE. Is that normal at early stage? I previously use POE on some LRs. I only finish 20% of the CC(LOL). I take Manhattan online course , which is intensive. Some of their RC methods are useful. I know it's hard to apply top 20 law school with a 170+ LSAT with my extremely low GPA. Areas and reputation is important for an international job seeker like me. I consider to practice in HK and US. I would retake in June(in U.S. or Hong Kong) since my OPT(internship for international student) is approaching. I want to know what stage I was in even though Feb LSAT is unsupported by many folks.

My basic strategy is to drill LGs while identify weak type of LRs. I time each RC passage for 8 minutes. I hope that I can be ready for PT in mid-January(at least 5). Any suggestion would be appreciated.

I enjoy doing LSAT while it brings mental challenge/pains. I'm lucky to have parent's support and they came to Seattle for Christmas and new year. I like 7sage community.

Anyway, happy Holiday!!

0

Hi,

I am beyond confused on one of the logic games

Each of exactly six doctors- Juarez, Kudrow, Longtree, Nance, Onawa, and Palermo is at exactly one of two clinics: Souderton or Randsborough. The following conditions must be satisfied:

Kudrow is at Randsborough if Juarez is at Souderton

Onawa is at Souderton if Juarez is at Randsborough

If Longtree is at Souderton then both Nance and Palerno are at Randsborough

If Nance is at Randsborough, then so is Onawa

If Palerno is at Randsborough, then both Kudrow and Onawa are at Souderton

So @"J.Y. Ping" solved it one way

L-> /N --> /O --> J --> /K --> P

--> /P

In order to get rid of the contradiction with the P's he negated /L and got

/N-->/O --> J--> /K--> P

However, I decided to find the contrapositive of the first statement and got

/P--> K--> /J --> O --> N --> /L

P ---> /L

But I have no idea how to remove the contradicting P's because L is already negated. I'm so confused regarding what to do next?

I feel like I'm missing a basic logic concept but I tried going back to the material and I still dont get it.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-4-game-4/

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?