Guys, am I understanding this correctly? Basically, the letters in lg have a relationship only if they are mentioned in the rules, ie, “this comes before that..”. But have no relationship if they are not mentioned?

So one of my biggest areas of weakness is hard science passages in RC.

I've been trying to read Scientific America a bit more, and I realize some of it is just repetition of these kinds of passages, but I wonder if there are any other tips/tricks anyone would suggest in tackling these passages?

Reading comp is a strong area for me otherwise, but I can sometimes tank 5 or 6 questions if I get a really difficult science passage (I usually do fine on easier science passages, but some are really f-ing hard). I try to just focus on the structure of the argument, but I still feel it isn't enough and I always miss connections between details. I can't help but feel if I had the science background I wouldn't be so tripped up on these passages.

Usually able to locate the correct answer, however on weaken, strengthen, and both kind of assumptions questions, I am not finding the answer by prephrasing. I usually go into the answer choices knowing what the right answer should do. Does that make any sense?

Here's the link to JY's explanation in the Core Curriculum: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/budget-for-counseling-programs-flaw-question/

^^Could someone confirm whether or not my line of thinking is correct?

P: 90% of people nationwide believe that an appropriate percentage (i.e. 10%) of the school’s budget is being spent on counseling programs.

C: Thus, any significant increase in the school’s budget should NOT be spent on counseling programs.

Analysis: The premise talks about how people feel good about the 10% counseling programs receive. But, the conclusion says that any actual increase of $$$ in the budget should not be spent on counseling programs. But this conclusion doesn’t follow: for if the overall pie/quantity increases, then counseling program funding will also have to increase in order to maintain that 10% slice of the pie (the conclusion seems to imply that the “appropriate amount” should not be exceeded). So, counseling programs actually MUST receive more funding if their appropriate percentage is maintained.

So in other words, the conclusion essentially mistakes the poll results to mean that 90% of people believed that an appropriate amount of their school’s budget was being spent on counseling programs.

(A last note: I was anticipating that the flaw in the argument was that the conclusion is drawn from a belief but is treated as fact. But upon reviewing this question, I see that the the bigger issue is that a conclusion about quantity is being drawn about premises that only described percentages.)

Hello! I've read a lot of different discussions about this, but I can't find anything that specifically answers my questions.

I have taken 11 PTs and have averaged 163, but recently scored a 170, then 165. My scores are all over the place and I'm aiming to score 170 in September. Because I was originally planning to take the June exam, I already completed PT 62-71 so now I am back to using older ones. I've already purchased 42-61 and was planning to take those 20 (plus PT 71 which I saved) but now I'm reading that taking the 40s doesn't actually help because they're easier...? Should I use the 40s for drills and purchase the 70s individually? I don't want to spend more money than I have to, but I also don't want to mess myself up by using the 40s if they're not going to help.

Any advice would be appreciated!!

7Sage shows that LR from 60s is on average easier than from the 40s - 50s. The 40s to 50s seem to be have 5 star difficulty sections, but I know that the 60s have trickier questions despite their lower difficulty. I am trying to get as close to -0 as possible.

I am missing around -5/-4 per section, and I will only be doing sections I have already taken before. So there is no worry about wasting fresh PTs.

Which should I use for drills?

Hey Everyone,

So I'm currently drilling NA question types through the Cambridge packet things. I'm looking at question 20 in section 1 of PT 36, and it says its an NA question type.

I got the right answer quite quickly, but for the life of me I can't seem to figure out how this isn't also a sufficient answer choice - something which has never happened to me before. What I mean by that is, answer choice E being true seems to be sufficient to make the argument true.

Core:

P1: Ensuring Justice in the legal system ---> Citizens capable of criticizing anyone involved in determining punishments

P2: Legal system's purpose is to deter ---> System falls into hands of experts whose specialty is to assess how potential lawbreakers are affected by the system's punishments

P3: Most citizens lack knowledge about such matters

C: Justice is therefore not ensured in the legal system

E) Citizens without knowledge about how the legal system's punishments affect potential lawbreakers are incapable of criticizing experts in that area

I JUST THOUGHT OF THIS: Is the reason why E isn't sufficient for the argument is because P1 never states the number of citizens who must be capable of criticizing lawmakers? P3 says MOST citizens, meaning some citizens do possess the knowledge necessary to criticize lawmakers, and therefore justice CAN be ensured in the legal system? The argument requires it to be necessary, if you didn't need to understand the affect of the legal system's punishments, then the conclusion is completely wrong. But with E being true, the conclusion can still be true - we just don't know if it has to be true.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-36-section-1-question-20/

Can someone please breakdown this question for me??

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-2-question-18/

Hey everyone,

I have just started to add RC into my prep. So far I have drilled about 4 RC sections without keeping a strict time clock (i.e., I give myself about 8-11 mins on each passage) and I typically get -1 to 0 on each full section.

My question is, should I keep drilling RC sections as my only way to learn RC? Or is it safer to use additional prep material (e.g., the LSAT trainer) before drilling sections further?

Any advice would be appreciated, thank you!

I know there are no contrapositive for some, and that contrapositive is just another way of stating the statement, so must be equivalent to the original statement.

.

Then I started to think that then "some" does have a contrapositive, since we can change the place of variables.

For example, if we have a statement that "Some A are B: A(-s-)B"

Then the contrapositive (the equivalent statement) would be "Some B are A: B(-s)A"

.

.

Do we say there is just another way to stating the original statement, but no contrapositive because there is no sign involved when creating an equivalent statement?

Then does that mean contrapositive requires statement to involve change of sign in terms of negativity or positivity?

.

.

I hope I am making sense! Thanks all (3(/p)

@"JYP JYP" @twssmith @danielznelson @"Daniel.Sieradzki" @"Cant Get Right" @"Alex Divine"

Are any study group leaders, mentors or sages interested in leading a session on LG in CC and PT's??? Since we'll be having sessions for LR and RC, it seems practical to have one for LG as well. Any thoughts???

Is this right? And what is the meaning of No As are Bs? Are these three sentence the same one? Thx.

So i have foolproofed games 1-35 thoroughly. Probably 5 to 6 times each. And the hard ones closer to 10 times. Now i am in the pt phase and during the time after a pt, after review and drills, i spend time going through those old games and some newer ones. How many games do you foolproof a day.? New and old?

Hey guys, I just posted a

It's a difficult in/out game that can be made easier with a better game board. Have a look!

Given how much weight YouTube places on likes/dislikes, would you guys mind "liking" this video on YouTube if you actually find the new approach helpful?

Related: I also posted a

In a parallel q: does the order of the premises have to match the AC?

In PT11 S4 Q22 i diagrammed,

P->/L

/P->S

/S

/L

And AC 2:

/M->P

P->/C

/M

/C

So i see that they are identical but it came in a different order.?

It's the company sending out project managers LG,

which of the following if substituted for...would have the same effect

I was just looking over this past LSAT, which I took, and it hit me that there might be a bit of a trick to make substitution Qs easier. Part of the issue in substitution Qs, at least some of the time, is that once your diagrams, split game boards, etc. have become filled in to some degree, it's hard to unravel that and see exactly what the effect of a specific rule was. But if you check first, before making your diagram, if there's a substitution question, you can keep that specific rule in mind while diagramming and see clearly the effect of that rule. It happened to work like a charm for me while reviewing the substitution questions on the June 2017 LSAT. I'm wondering if anyone has tried this, and if not, perhaps it's worth a try.

Hey there I'm averaging -11 on RC. (156) I have done the CC method of RC and my score went up a little, but does anyone have any tips to further increase my score?

Particularly tips for speed. If I skip a passage I get -0 on the passage in which I take a little more time.

Any and every bit of info will be appreciated. Thanks :D

Is the use of a word like "should" prescriptive on the LSAT.? What i mean is: if a stimulus says that something will happen or could happen, will that exclude an AC that says something " should " happen?

I see many parallel questions that will have a word like "should" in one of the answer choices and im starting to suspect that they are wrong bc the stimulus is not suggesting what ought to happen. Am i crazy here??

So this is a weakening question. I was torn between two answers during the test, and switched from the right answer to the wrong answer.

I see why the correct answer is correct but not why the wrong one is wrong.

The conclusion of the argument is that Neanderthals probably preserved their meat by smoking it.

The support is that lichen and grass were found in the fire places. Which doesn't burn hot, but has a lot of smoke.

Answer choice A says: In close proximity to the fireplaces with lichen and grass are other fireplaces that, evidence suggest, burned material that produced more heat than smoke.

Doesn't that take away the support for smoking? We now see they had the ability to cook meat, which means they didn't have to smoke it.

Answer choice B says; (correct answer) In the region containing the Neanderthal fireplaces in which lichen and grass were burnt, no plants that could be burned more effectively to produce heat or light were available 60,000 years ago.

---- I see why this weakens too. They only had one option for heat or light, so it doesn't mean that they were using it to smoke their food.

I just don't see why A is less correct than B. They both seem right to me, what am I missing?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-79-section-4-question-19/

Hi all,

Having trouble with 2 questions in pretest 55, and I'd love to get some further explanation if anyone would be so kind!

In the second passage(s) in RC, for question #9, I chose C. Is this wrong because of the "most"; I see why B is also right, but can't figure out how to distinguish between the two. Is it simply because passage A doesn't explicitly address the issue of whether eradication advocates are genuine (though it is certainly implied, in my view)?

And for the last passage, can someone explain why #23 is D rather than C? Is it because "cheap substitute parts" are not a perfect analogue for tulips (as it suggests inferior quality) whereas book don't lose their quality when simply reproduced?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-2-passage-2-passage

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-2-passage-2-questions/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-2-passage-4-passage

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-2-passage-4-questions/

Hi all,

I just finished the first reading section "introduction on reading comprehension" in CC. I also watched @"nicole.hopkins" video about her RC notation strategy. Both inspire me a lot about how to approach RC.

Right now I finish reading a passage in 3.5-4 min, but I spend way too much time on answering questions. I can spend between 8-12min on questions! Passages about art review are especially hard for me. And the timing is a big issue. With in 35min I can only finish 3 passages, with average -1 per passage.

I realize that I spend time trying to prove a wrong choice is wrong from the passage, while it is never mentioned. I also find myself spend a lot of time on comparing the rest of the answers after eliminating. I look at one choice, feeling that there is a tiny part I don't like, but I can give reasons for why I can stand it, and repeatedly do the same thing to another choice. I am trying to switch my method/mindset, and I would love to know how you approach the questions and choose the answer confidently.

A lot of high scorers suggest that we should read for reasoning structure. It sounds like making a lot of sense to me, but I am not very clear about how to apply it. And I don't feel that simply asking "what's the main idea of the paragraph" can't ensure me catch the structure. Actually, sometimes I feel interrupted by these questions. I mechanically ask myself about MP simply because I am trying to follow JY's method. Also, I find that not all "transaction/switch" of the meaning happen between the paragraphs. There can be more than one level of meaning within a single paragraph. How does the reading process look like when you are reading for structure? I am so curious.

I am also trying Nicole's notation strategy, and I think it can be very helpful in locating details asked in questions. But I also find that I am not very used to the strategy, and by taking notes I am slowing down my reading speed. I keep on asking "should I circle/box this?" And I don't find that making notation helps in reading for structure. I suppose it should, is it? I will keep on practicing, maybe modify some of the notation strategy, and I would love to know if anyone also take note while you read, and any suggestions would be helpful.

Thanks a lot in advance! :)

Can someone clarify the following?

At least B as A: B≥A

At most B as A: B≤A

Or vice versa....?

I am getting confused so much! plz help!!! :D (3 Thank you 7sagers!(/p)

Hello! I didn't see any prior discussions on this question, and it's confusing me a bit so I wanted to get some outside opinions!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-4-question-17/

We have an underlying principle/SA question which means that our answer needs to fill the logic gap pretty much completely.

Background info says that confidence of a testimony has little correlation with the accuracy of said testimony.

Support says that factors can alter the confidence of a testimony without changing its accuracy.

Conclusion says that police officers shouldn't allow situations where witnesses giving testimony can hear other witnesses giving testimonies.

The designated correct answer for gives us the principle that the confidence in one's testimony is affected by seeing other testimonies. To me, this leaped out as a wrong answer choice because the passage seems to suggest that confidence in one's testimony doesn't really matter, so there would be no incentive to prevent it.

D, on the other hand, seemed to fill the gap using unusual, but plausibly correct logic. If the police, for some reason, cared about confidence more than accuracy, factors that change confidence would want to be controlled. I don't know why Police would want to know about confidence rather than accuracy, but it's not our job as test takers to question the likelihood of a gap-closer to occur in the real world; we want to know if that gap closer, taken as it is, would bridge the support with the conclusion.

D does it in an ugly fashion, but I don't think A does it at all. Knowing that viewing other testimonies can alter confidence doesn't give us any logical reason for police officers wanting to prevent it. We can't bridge the gap between evidence and officers stopping testimony exposure without understanding the criterion based on which an officer would want to prevent testimony exposure. Even if you make the least extreme assumption and consider that police would want to stop something that alters the accuracy of a testimony, (since accuracy of evidence is important to court cases) answer A becomes more flawed in that it gives the support an attribute that the police wouldn't care about, or use in a decision for policy.

Any help is appreciated :) Thanks guys!

Hey everyone,

So question 24 in section 2 of Prep Test 61.

This question I've been trying to grapple with for 3 days (seriously). I understand how conditionals work, but this question just doesn't work for me no matter how many times I do it, or listen to J.Y's explanation. I'm getting caught up on two things:

Here is the question:

Stimulus: It is unlikely that someone would see history as the working out of moral themes unless he or she held clear and unambiguous moral beliefs. However, one's inclination to morally judge human behavior decreases as one's knowledge of history increases. Consequently, the more history a person knows, the less likely that person is to view history as the working out of moral themes.

Stem: The conclusion of the argument is properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?

So the right answer is:

B) The less inclined one is to morally judge human behavior, the less likely it is that one holds clear and unambiguous moral beliefs.

I actually got the right answer, but only through process of eliminating the wrong answers. I couldn't get full connection in this argument to get the answer as the missing sufficient assumption and it is driving me full out mad :)

The first thing that bothers me about this argument is the "unlikely" at the beginning, which I'm not sure exactly what to do with. The second thing is that the second premise [one's inclination to morally judge human behavior decreases as one's knowledge of history increases] does not ring to me as a conditional if/then type of sentence. I see that they are connected, but decreasing/increasing relationships aren't something I see fitting well into a conditional sentence sequence.

Secondly, even if I grant that this is a conditional statement, this is the logic drawing I end up with:

[P1] See history as working out of moral themes (SHWMT) ---> holds clear and unambiguous beliefs (HCUMB)

[P2] Morally judge human behavior decreases (MJHBd) ---> Knowledge of history increases (KHi)

[Conclusion] The more history a person knows (KHi) --> the less likely they are to view history as the working out of moral themes (/SHWMT)

So if I was to write this out in pure logic:

SHWMT --> HCUMB

MJHBd --> KHi

KHi --> /SHWMT

So even if I grant the weird statements around increasing/decreasing I still can't get from this to the missing premise:

The less inclined one is to morally judge human behavior (MJHBd) --> the less likely it is that one holds clear and unambiguous moral beliefs (/HCUMB)

MJHBd --> /HCUMB

I just can't wrap my head around this one as logically connecting in a sequence chain. Am I just having a brain stall?

Any thoughts @Sami ? :)

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-61-section-2-question-24/