Hi guys,

This is something I've sort of noticed with BR'ing a lot of logical reasoning - it seems that depending on the question type, an answer choice that is a conditional statement can SOMETIMES be a more unlikely contender. It seems to depend on question type.

For instance, sufficient assumption answer choices are usually phrased as conditional statements because, well, you're literally filling in a missing premise. However, that doesn't really seem to apply with necessary assumption, because you're looking for the critical assumption that would make the argument fall apart - and that usually isn't a conditional statement. I've also noticed people being wary of conditional statement answer choices when it's a weakening question: If we don't know that the sufficient triggers, how do we know it affects the argument?

So I guess my question is - I know to always be vigilant of exceptions, but are there indeed LR question types where seeing an answer choice that is phrased as a conditional statement makes you think "mmm unlikely"? And if so which ones? I don't see this as a "silver bullet" way of crossing things off, but I thought it would be useful to be wary. (Kind of like when I now come across a weakening question and read an AC that begins with "Some people..". Since some = a few = could be just one person, it's unlikely that "some" is strong enough to weaken the argument.)

Just trying to build my wariness/understanding! Thank you!

Hi guys,

What is your opinion on the optimal daily study schedule from now until the September LSAT? How many LR, RC, and LG sections per day and how many prep tests per week? Of course, review of the sections should be added into the daily schedule as well.

Hey everyone,

So, I feel I'm at the stage right now at which so many top scorers find themselves at some point in their prep. In fact, maybe 2.5 months out is the typical time. You put off RC for the most part until now. You think "Ah, I got it. I can read. Besides, if I can become a stud at LG and LR, how hard can RC be"....and then RC punches you in the face.

I'm currently at -5/-6 untimed and my last two timed sections were -9 and -11. Very, very sad.

I've learned about the low resolution summary and high resolution summary, along with connecting back after each paragraph after paragraph one. It's a foolproof strategy. I love it. I want to master it. But I still have to sort out a few things until I find my RC comfort zone.

How much do you tend to write down in the margins? Right now I'm writing the low resolution summary and the purpose. I can't write the high resolution because frankly there isn't enough room. Should I write more, less? Thoughts?

How long does it take to learn to read like this? Let's face it, this isn't everyday reading and you are tested on things that aren't exactly central to whether or not you've comprehended the words on the page.

Do you actually remember every detail of the high resolution summary? After I finish reading the passage, I go down the margins and read the low resolution summary, I then ask myself "Why?" or "What?" and then expand...this reinforces all the finer points of the passage.

Any other tidbits you can share with me? I am desperate to get to a consistent -4 or less under timed conditions.

Thank you all so much for your input.

Hi guys! I wanted to get some clarification on the logic that makes this answer E rather than D.

The stem is that the argument relies on the assumption, but my current understanding is that neither answer accomplishes this, though E has more issues than D.

The correct answer, E, is saying that the argument /relies/ on the assumption that many of the farmers wouldn't grow green manure unless they abandon chemicals. I believe the argument is still in tact if this is false.

Even if this was untrue, meaning that few or none of the farmers will only grow green manure if they abandon chemicals, the argument could hold for a variety of other reasons. E's reasoning could justify the argument if true, but it also has the potential to not justify the conclusion if true. Just because the farmers won't grow manure without ditching chemicals, doesn't mean they will grow manure if they were to stop using chemicals. I think the test makers designated E as the correct answer with the thought process that "in order to significantly improve the soil structure," the soil must be "rejuvenated," and they /must/ be "rejuvenated" by growing manure, which relies on and will happen if chemical fertilizers are abandoned.

None of the steps in that logic sequence are supported by premises in the passage. "Significantly improving the soil structure" does not to rely on "rejuvenation." "Rejuvenation" does not rely on the growing of green manure. Abandoning chemical fertilizers doesn't guarantee that the green manure will be grown, not to mention that the diction of E states that the principle applies to "many" farmers while the passage refers to simply "farmers" which implies all farmers, or possibly a mere plurality of farmers (neither of which necessarily matches reliance on the actions of "many" farmers.)

D has inconsistencies as well, though fewer than E does, in my opinion.

In order to conclude that chemicals must be removed to increase soil quality, we must be certain that "farmers" not removing chemicals absolutely inhibits "significant improvement in soil structure." D purports that chemical fertilizers "will have destructive effect on soil structure of farm fields." It does not say that there's a chance it will or that it will contribute to destructive effects, but that it will cause destructive effects. If the /end/ effect of something is destructive, it has not shown significant improvement.

That said, if we are supposed to assume (an unfair assumption in my opinion) that the destructive effects are merely a contribution to the net structure of the soil, then the assumption that chemical fertilizers are disruptive is not necessary to conclude that farmers should ditch chemicals to significantly improve soil structure.

Now, I know the culmination of my thought processes lends to the idea that I may be merely overthinking/overanalyzing the text; I don't disagree. I follow the logic that leads one to select E, even though I think it's flawed logic.

I guess the real implication of my question is to find out where and how the line is drawn between relevant logical inconsistencies and their irrelevant counterparts. Unless the LSAC lays out exactly which factors can be considered for assessing logic, there will be an inherent gray area of subjectivity. I won't claim that this question falls in that gray area, but it must exist somewhere.

Any thoughts and opinions are welcome! Thanks for reading :)

This is what I would like to call my Achilles heel of reading comp. These questions destroy me about 50% of the time. I am here for guidance! What can I do to attack these questions better. How do I get inside the head of the author, and more importantly, what clues me into this in the RC passage? What are guide posts that I can look for to help me here?

The first few nights after sitting for the LSAT, I dreamed of having absolutely bombed the exam. But my dreams more recently have been even worse. These days I dream that I got a super high score (last night a 179) and then as I start telling my family, I say to myself..."or did I dream that score last night?" Then I realize I didn't actually get my score back yet and I wake up in a panic. Has this happened to anyone else?

Hey all,

So I've narrowed down my main LR weakness to MSS questions. I was thinking of using the Question Bank to filter all the MSS questions from PTs 1-35, and then print them all out to create a drill packet (since the Cambridge packets are now going for $$$$). Has anyone ever done this? I notice that there's no option to print these out when using the Question Bank, as we're given videos of the questions.

I'm wondering what the best way to go about this is. I was thinking of just screenshotting the videos and then put all of the screenshots in a Word file and then print. Anybody have a better/more efficient idea?

Admin edit: You can now print questions in PDF from the Question Bank:

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/18378/new-feature-print-pdfs-of-custom-drills-from-the-question-bank

Howdy! I'm kinda iffy about what constitutes prescriptive. Could we say that "can be" is prescriptive? Or, is it just specifically what "should" be or what "ought" to be?

Ex. PT32-1-19

There is no genuinely altruistic behavior (descriptive). Behavior that appears to be altruistic can be understood as being motivated by the desire to reinforce that belief (prescriptive).

Can "can be" equal "ought" in this scenario? The more I think about it I say no. There was a scope shift. The conclusion states what "is" and the support states what "could" be interpreted, but not necessarily "ought". Do I have this correct?

I was just drilling SA questions and noticed that a lot of difficult SA Qs have red herrings (distractions) in the stimulus. How do you identify them quickly? Are there (or do you have) any effective strategies? Litmus tests?

For ex) pt 33.3.21, pt 35.1.20 have red herrings.

So people seemed to have an easy time with this one , but i am having a rough time with it. I am improving drastically with the games. But does this mean i am weak in conditionality? With seeing contrapositives? I didnt think i had these weaknesses.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-1-game-2/

Hey, yall! Would you say that AC B equals ambiguity? Sometimes I get equivocation and ambiguity mixed up but I eliminated equivocation here because "tax" isn't used differently throughout the passages. B basically says the author extended the meaning of tax to help or justify her claim (US residents pay for health care out of their pockets, whereas the service is paid by tax revenues in the other Western countries so US residents do indeed pay high taxes because they're the same). Does this quite qualify as ambiguous? I understand the ambiguity fallacy to mean that a word or phrase used in the argument is unclear. Is the term unclear or did the author just tweak it to mean what he/she wanted it to mean? I'm trying to get familiar with the different ways the LSAC can construct this type of fallacy as an AC. I didn't eliminate this AC but I also didn't choose it because I wasn't quite sure what it was actually saying.

Hi guys! I know this has probably been asked many times before but I just want to know how you exactly go about BR for LR? I just took a practice section after not taking one in a long time and I got 6 wrong and skipped 2 which is making me feel a little down. LR has been pretty good for me and I have never really done BR but I think the time has come now to implement it so I can really be confident about LR. Thanks for all your advice in advance!

Can someone break down valid argument form two for me? I'm confused about the contrapositive. /B therefore /A, but isn't shouldn't "does not treat patients" be a contrapositive"?

Valid form 2 of 9

Denying the Necessary

[English] All doctors treat patients. Hercules does not treat patients. Therefore, Hercules is not a doctor.

[Lawgic]

A –> B

/B

/A

Does anyone know how in/out game is categorized?

In the drilling packet, I see the instructor has categorized into (1)Basic In/Out, (2)Advanced In/Out, (3)Sequencing In/Out, and (4)Sub-categories In/Out. I get how (3) and (4) are sorted, but what about (1) and (2)? Are they divided up according to their difficulties?

Thanks!

Whyyyy is this so hard for me?? I am on RC on the Ultimate + (I upgraded yay!) and I'm finding that the hardest questions in the set for me are the first ones -- 'What is the main point'. In my mind there is just so much information, I can't seem to figure out which concept is the main point unless it's a super easy passage. Anyone have any tips? Is there anything that gives a general 'clue' about what sentence/thought is the Main point?

Am I understanding MBT true right?

Conditional Statements and their Contrapositives are the only things that can be proven as Must Be True. These are in the notes that I made...and I just want to confirm that I understood the lesson properly.

So, when I'm looking at the answer choices...I'm only looking for conditional logic answers?

Hi y'all!

I hope y'all can give me some advice. I have done several practice timed sections, untimed sections, and PT's and I have noticed a pattern when I look back at my scantrons. I have been consistently missing the early 20's questions in any LR section!! For example, I will nearly always miss questions from 19-25, and unfortunately, sometimes I just miss all of those.. The rest of LR has been going pretty good. occasionally, I'll miss maybe one question before #19 but I catch it during BR and it's actually a silly mistake.. After that, it's just awful. It's not a timing issue either, as I have been doing this timing strategy: 15 mins for questions 1-15 so I have approx one minute per question, then I can take up to two mins per question on question 16 and after. Generally, i don't use that much time, but it's nice to have that cushion and the timing strategy really works for me! Is there something I am missing about these questions? Are they the hardest of the section? During BR, I can usually get them right my second go, but some of them have left me stumped. so I watch JY's videos, and then I get it. I have also checked Q types and i can deff say it's not a specific Q type (besides MSS and SA... those are my weaknesses annoyingly). I also do skip Q's and they are almost always 1-2 of this range of questions. At this point, I have been missing 5 or 6 on both my LR sections in JUST THESE QUESTIONS which is driving me up the walls!

TL;DR: is there something special about the 19-25 questions in an LR section? How do I fix this strange problem of mine? Should i switch up my timing method? Am I overthinking these last few questions and thus costing myself points?

So I chose B because this is true almost all of the books from the past 150 will gradually destroy themselves. it says in the stimulus that it will slow down the process it doesn't say that it will reverse the deterioration and I didn't choose A because I thought "completely" was too strong and in the stimulus it seemed to me that the historically insignificant books could still have a chance of survival because they could be put in a cool, dry environment and then it says that the books of historical significance will have the new techniques but it doesn't say the insignificant books wouldn't be placed in the cool dry environment. Can someone please explain the reasoning of this question? TYA!!!!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-4-question-10/

So I chose A because I thought that answer was the one that was most proven based upon on the stimulus and I thought E was a close second but I didn't choose it because it seems a little far fetched saying that the cleanser will " make relatively greater contributions" and another forum had said " If the chlorofluorocarbons were a contributing factor in meeting the emissions standards and they are phased out of the process, something else must have allowed auto makers to continue to mee the more stringent emissions standards - best expressed in answer choice (E)" but I don't see the stimulus saying that the standards have been met, I saw it as that they (in the future) will have to meet the emission standards. Can someone explain the reasoning to me please??? TYA!

Hey everyone! Having a bit of difficulty with this passage. It's from the first RC problem set in the core curriculum. I was wondering if anyone could add to JY's explanation for #26 and explain how (E) is supported? I chose (A), but I felt uneasy about both because I didn't think the author would agree with either of the options. Thanks so much!

Here's the link to JY's explanation:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-2-passage-4-questions/

So i studied for 3 months and sat for the december LSAT, were i received a score i was unhappy with. During that time i studied in a hap-hazardous way, not tracking my growth and understanding. To make a long story short i wasted tons of PTs. Now that i am back on track, with a proper study schedule, i am looking what i have to work with. I have 1-35 which i am drilling with. I have 40-52 and 71-80 which are fresh. Since i plan on sitting for september i only planned on taking 20 or so timed PTs, so that is fine. I am looking through my spent tests and noticing that i only did random sections out of these and have 2 or 3 sections per tests that are fresh. My question is should i drill these instead of 1-35?

Hey all,

So I just took PT 53 and scored a 169. Hoooray, right? Not quite. I scored a -1 in LG, -2 between both LR sections and a -9 in RC. Yes, a -9!!!!!!!

I don't know exactly what my problem is with RC. Maybe I just hate it and I know that I hate it so my mindset isn't right or maybe I just don't understand the questions. I understand what it's asking, but I've just read so much dense material in 2 minutes so to then answer a densely worded question with 4 answer choices that are all eerily similar in 40 seconds seems like a lot...

Anyone else gone through something like this? How did you beat RC? I know that you track the viewpoints, arguments, tone, structure etc.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated as I am at my wits end with RC...

LR is by far and away the section I struggle with the most. Some question types I have no issue with but there are others (NA, Flaw mainly) that just blow me out of the water sometimes.

My question is, what is your method of studying for LR in general? How do you break things down to better understand question types? I'm starting to see how answering "why" is so important and I want to be more effective with my study time. I typically have used the problem sets and mixed timed and un-timed individual questions and tried to break them down, along with watching J.Y.'s videos. However, I just don't know if this is effective or not.

So what do you all say? What is your weapon (strategy) of choice when it comes to general LR studying?

Hi team!

as the title says, does anyone have an idea where LSAC adopts its RC material? any journal, book, magazine you'd recommend?

I would like to start reading material that is similar to what's on the RC in my spare time.

LG has been by far my worst section, and I've been focusing on it the past few weeks. I've seen some improvement: I used to only be able to do the setup for 2-3 out of the 4 games, and now I can usually get the setup and most questions right, but I usually run out of time on the out-of-ordinary games.

I'm wondering if I'm full-proofing correctly? I was following the method in the CC, but when I go to re-do the games back-to-back, I'm not really sure I'm actually making the inferences. I usually can remember all the inferences, especially the ones I missed the first time around, but I'm not making them. Does that make sense? So I've started to do a timed section, and then full-proof for the next few days so that I can't just remember all the inferences, and I'm actually forcing myself to make them. Does anyone else experience this?

It's seems like from the CC we're supposed to do them over and over again, back to back, until we own the game. But if I do that, is it really benefiting me since most of the time I'm just remembering what I just did instead of actually making the inferences again?

Any advice would help. Thanks!