Discussions

LSAT

New post

311 posts in the last 30 days

In the Question Bank and in the LR Drill Sets (https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/lr-drills-preptest-01-to-09/ ), PT8.S4.Q21. is categorized as a Sufficient Assumption question.

But the question stem says "For the claim that.... to be properly drawn on the basis of the evidence cited, which one of the following must be assumed?" so I think this is a Necessary Assumption question. Also, the correct answer (A) is an assumption that is necessary (not sufficient). If this were a SA question, (E) would be correct since it shows a sufficient assumption.

Can everyone confirm that this is mislabeled as a Sufficient Assumption?

0

Hi all,

I have been diagramming with all practice q but soon will begin PT. On my first LSAT I didn't diagram a single question(yes I bombed) but mostly due to nerves and space.

My current diagram takes a pg per q and I'm trying to get better but does anyone have any advice or techniques?

0

Hi All,

So I made flashcards for Logical Indicators and Argument Part Indicators and used the Leitner system; but the argument forms aren't all named so I'm not sure how to make them into flashcards or generally memorize them other than stare at them a bunch. Has anyone had any success with memorizing these?

0

Hey, y'all! I'm having a tough time negating some AC for NA. For AC A and B they don't seem to be negated the same.

A. None of the mercury introduced into the body can be eliminated.

Negated: some of the mercury introduced into the body can be eliminated.

B. Some people in Beethoven's time did not ingest mercury.

Negated: all people in Beethoven's time ingested mercury.

Why was there no "not" included in A but "not" was removed from B when negated? I know you can add the phrase, "it is not the case" before the AC instead of trying to negate certain words but that doesn't work for me. For some reason it doesn't make sense to me.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-3-question-16/

0

Sharing this because while eliminating AC E, I was forced to question the difference between causation and sufficiency as well as the danger of using Lawgic as shorthand when you're not actually dealing with conditional statements.

Most Strongly Supported

Argument Summary:

Premise 1: Media rarely cover local politics thoroughly.

Premise 2: Local politics is usually conducted secretly.

Major premise: Local politicians tend to be isolated from their electorates as a result of each of these factors.

Conclusion: Chance of a particular act of resident participation receiving official response is lower, discouraging resident participation.

Prephrase:

Not really sure where they are going with this. MSS questions are difficult to prephrase for anyway.

Answer Choices:

A- Nah. Invalid reversal. We don’t know what is sufficient to bring about a likelihood of official response. Eliminate.

B- A -> B therefore /A ->/B. Invalid. Eliminate.

C- Most important??? Eliminate.

D- The current state of media coverage contributes to the isolation. Improving this coverage would reduce that contributor but would not necessarily cause any change. Correct!

E- Isolated -> Reduced chance of official response -> discourages participation. /C -> Less A. Hm. I think the issue here is with the word “causation”. “Imply” and “Cause” are not synonymous and if you contrapose a conditional statement, I don’t believe we can just switch the direction of causation. “If I am disrespectful to my parents, that discourages them to let me go out on friday nights. But if they were encouraged to let me go out on friday nights, does that cause me to be less disrespectful of them?” We are dealing with terms like "influence" and "discourage". I use Lawgic as a shorthand to deal with these ideas, but that doesn't make them conditional statements and so we definitely can't assume causation. Eliminate.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-2-question-22/

3

Hi guys! I wanted some insight into why A qualifies as a right answer for this question.

The argument is saying that the manager should be blamed/is responsible for the project's delay because he was aware that the contractor often runs late and should have planned for this possibility.

The designated correct answer, "a principle that underlies the argument," is that a manager should take foreseeable problems into account when deciding things.

While I recognize the logic that makes this answer correct, I take issue with its specific language. Saying that a manager "should take foreseeable obstacles into account" does not necessitate that /a manager should in fact be blamed if they do not take such obstacles into account,/ which is the logic piece that would plug the hole. Specifically, the word "should" cannot be reasonably assumed to mean "must, otherwise blame/responsibility is accrued," and it fails to accomplish that on multiple fronts.

Should is an opinion word and does not guarantee certainty of execution, or lack of execution. Furthermore, even if one was to equate "should" with some form of "must," "must" alone would exclude the possibility of an event not happening, making it impossible to address the implications of it not happening.

Is there a LSAT-specific reading of "should" that alters the meaning of the question?

If not, why would it be incorrect to read "should" as "ought to"/"would benefit from," thus making "ought to take foreseeable problems into account" insufficient as a principle that justifies the manager being /blamed/ for not taking them into account?

Thanks for the read :) I really appreciate any thoughts you all may have!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-1-question-19/

0

Hey all. I'm just wondering how most people deal with statements with both Group 3 and Group 4 indicators. I realize that one can use either rule and be fine, but in practice do most people just stick with one rule? I find it makes more intuitive sense to use the Group 3 rule, and was wondering if there were any downsides to just sticking with using the Group 3 rule at all times when I encounter a statement with both indicators.

For example, in the following statement:

"There will not be a good show unless there are sophisticated listeners in the audience."

With the Group 3 rule, one would diagram as:

GS --> SL

because one is negating the sufficient (/GS), which turns it into GS. The fact that "not a good show" is /GS makes intuitive sense to me because not should mean /.

However with the Group 4 rule:

not a good show becomes GS

unless there are sophisticated listeners becomes /SL

and therefore

GS --> SL

because one is negating the necessary (/SL) and making the other idea (GS) the sufficient condition. However, this is where I always get tripped up, because I don't think it makes intuitive sense for unless to be a negation. Also, my mind makes me constantly think that "not a good show" has to mean /GS, so leaving it as GS is really difficult for me to intuitively grasp.

What do others think? Is it fine if I just stick with the Group 3 rule for every statement that has both indicators? Are there any cases where using the Group 4 rule would be better?

0

Winter is coming. And so are LSAT scores.

LSAC often gets them back before their expected release date, and given that the day before is a holiday, I wouldn't be surprised if we got those infamous emails from LSAC sometime this week. My bet is Friday. The night is dark and full of terrors! What is dead may never die. Unbowed, unbent, unbroken.

1

Hey all,

So I'm finding myself a bit confused on the LG fool proofing method. Not the actual method, but which games I'm using. I have seen lots of people say the games from 1-35, but I'm not sure where this "packet" of games is on 7sage. What I did was take all the games from the LG section in the CC that J.Y went over, as they seem like a good large sample of the different kinds of games you need to master, and I'm fool proofing those. But those games don't seem to be all games from tests 1-35. Honestly, when I looked online, I couldn't even find the LSAT tests from below 7. I did purchase the 7-12 tests and I'm doing some of those games to mix it up as their style is quite different from the newer games.

So I'm just a bit confused about the 1-35 packet thing. I feel like if I master the games in the CC that that is probably good enough, as well as throwing in some of the games from earlier prep tests to test my ability to handle weird games. I also plan to spend a lot of time with miscellaneous games.

Am I approaching this wrong?

Thanks!

0

Does anyone remember how many questions were on the exam?

I had 3 LR, 1 RC, 1LG and 100 total question...

Very anxious that I made a bubbling error and might need to cancel...

1

My goal score is 170 which means -1/-2 in games is pretty important. I can't say I have "mastered" games through and I am nearly done with fresh games from 1-35.

The progress I've made is shocking. I used to go -12+. Now I finish every easy game FAST. Tougher games still trip me up a bit though and focus errors remain leaving me at -4 to -6 on average per section. I am aiming to sit for the test in December so I have time to remain on LG, but I am wondering what the next step is.

I could remain in fool proof mode to repeat games until I reach the next step level in improvement. Or I suppose I could begin adding in timed sections of RC/LR as well to start addressing that before PT phase. Or I could begin PTing non-fresh tests. I used up a bunch of PTs last year (without BRing so they'll probably feel fresh) in my prep and I could use those for PTing.

4

**Point at Issue

Argument Summary:**

S: An owner of a work of art have the ethical right to destroy that artwork if (1) they find it morally/visually distasteful or (2) caring for it becomes inconvenient. This right to destroy is given by virtue of ownership alone.

J: Owners of unique works of art do not have the moral right to destroy. Additionally, unique works that are of aesthetic or historical value belong to posterity and must be preserved.

Prephrase:

The overlap between these two deals with only unique artwork. Dogs Playing Poker is out of scope because J says nothing about /Unique pieces.

Answer Choices:

A) I quickly eliminated this under timed conditions and did not mark for BR but it is definitely correct. The key piece of this AC is “for that reason alone”. If, for example, your father was a prominent historical figure of whom portraits are rare, then you may not have the right to destroy based on J’s comments. Although S would argue for your right to destroy. Correct.

B ) This may be attractive to some who confuse “posterity” with “public viewing”. We could probably say that S agrees with this statement, but can we say J disagrees with it? I don’t think so. He doesn’t speak about public viewing and the bit about “belonging to posterity” doesn’t necessarily imply that either. Eliminate.

C) “Seldom”. Neither says anything about frequency. Eliminate.

D) “Not unique”. Eliminate. S’s statement includes this set of objects but J’s does not.

E) I chose this under timed conditions. “Legally” should have tipped me off that I had made an error. Replace “legally” with “morally” or “ethically” (morals /= ethics but it would be a reasonable shift in terms) and this could be correct. Eliminate.

1

Hey everyone,

Its been little more than a week of fool proofing after completing the logic games lessons in the CC and I have completed all of the the logic games in the first 10 PTs. So far, I am averaging about 11-13 mins/per game (not section) and usually get 1-2 questions wrong/per game. However, after watching the LG explanation videos, I pick up on the inferences and do the same games in half the time and rarely get any questions wrong.

I know its only been a week of fool proofing, yet I kind of feel discouraged as my time has not seen any significant change after the first 40 games (i.e., I am still taking about 45 mins per LG section). Is this progression relatively normal? I want to continue fool proofing, yet at the same time, I don't know if I should review the lessons before moving forward with the next 100 games. Any advice would be much appreciated. Thank you!

0

So I've taken about 6 full PT and a few more timed LR sections, and I seem to not being getting too much better at LR. Currently I'm getting about -10 per section and really would like to be getting -2 or -3. When I BR I get nearly all of the questions right. I have a skipping method, but I was curious if there were any other fixes, or if it was just something that comes with time, patience and practice?

0

There are different techniques used for each section of the LSAT. On the RC section, you need to read the passage. You need to read it like a Reasoning Question. This takes me 3.5 minutes on average. I am an excellent reader, and I have read these sections in two minutes, which would work if I were reading a Tom Clancy novel, but this stuff is dry -and uninteresting. You have to be in the mindset to suck this info in. I don't mark up the page with lots of symbols, I mark the different viewpoints. I look for the key point in each paragraph. I underline that part. I put a V by each viewpoint. Timeline, you should be able to remember chronology without going back to look, and you should be able to remember where to find the answers to the questions, by memory, you don't want to have to reread a paragraph. I hope this helps.

1

Additionally since I am starting out, how would experienced LSATers rank from most difficult to least difficult the top 5 on this list, just to so i can start tackling the more difficult ones first

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://magoosh.com/lsat/2016/most-common-logical-reasoning-question-types/

"he table below displays the various types of Logical Reasoning questions, ranked by how frequently they appear on the exam. The number in the “Frequency” column represents how many questions of that type appear in the official LSAT PrepTests. Thus far, the list includes 55 real exams administrated over the past 15 to 20 years.

The numbers show that the vast majority of Logical Reasoning questions on the LSAT are either Assumption, Flaw, or Inference questions. Those three types combined historically represent about 40% of all Logical Reasoning questions. "

Question Type Frequency

Assumption 427

Flaw 410

Inference 402

Weaken 254

Strengthen 196

this was related i found here; in terms of individual LSAT tests

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/465

0

Good morning 7sagers! (or afternoon, or whatever!)

I have a quick question for everyone. As of right now I go roughly -4 to -5 on any given LR section. I took a full timed PT this weekend, and am now reviewing it.

THREE of the LR questions I missed because I am a special kind of special.

1.) I read the stem and saw principal and my head assumed I needed to find something consistent with it. The actual stimulus said Inconsistent.

2.) The last question in the section I got really excited for because I read the stem to fast and saw "Main conclusion!" yeah that would have been awesome, except the rest of the stem said "The main conclusion can be properly inferred" .....so yeah this was a SA not a MC.

3.) In the answer choice it said "never happens". I for whatever reason, didn't see "never".

HELP these little mistakes are brutal to my score. Simple issues that when I see are simple Homer Simpson "Doh!" types of mistakes.

Any advice on how to focus more intently on the AC/Stimulus/Stem

0

Hey everyone!

So I have just started the LG section in the CC. JY mentioned something along the lines that we should be memorizing all the inferences of a game, and doing the game over and over to the point that we've memorized all the inferences. Could someone clarify what exactly I'm supposed to memorize? Kind of confused as to why I should memorize inferences if each game is going to have somewhat different game pieces and outcomes. Thanks so much!!!

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?