Hi I was just hoping someone could help me sort out the conditional logic in this stimulus. I feel like there's a gap in my understanding of the first sentence of the stimulus.

The first statement is about archaic spellings being preserved if they are infrequent and do not interfere with reading comprehension. I think the negation of preserved is modernized.

F: frequent

I: interfere

M: modernize

I originally diagrammed this statement as:

/F & /I -> /M

M -> F or I

The correct diagram is:

/M->/F & /I

F or I -> M

What is the difference I'm missing here?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-3-question-19/

So I'm currently studying for the September LSAT, but wondering if the December one would be too late to take when it comes to the admissions process. Would it be better to take the September LSAT because it is right when the admissions cycle opens up?

I'm in the middle of going through the CC and I'm on weakening questions at this point. I'm working on my problem sets, but the last five sets I've done, I've been getting three or more of the questions wrong- the last two I just did, I got all the questions wrong. I understand for weakening questions, I'm looking for AC that reduces the support between the premise and conclusion, and I'm able to identify the premise, conclusion, referential phases, etc. in each argument. But when it comes down to select my AC, this is where I trip up. I'm going through JY's explanations for each question, and I see where his argument came from in selecting the AC, but the next set I do, I miss the point again and get too many questions wrong. Help! Any tips of how to conquer the tough weakening questions? Should I review the whole lesson plan again? Should I look at another way of attacking these questions via other study guides? I'm getting frustrated and discouraged because I've been handling all other topics fine, but I'm at a road block with these questions. Thanks in advance!

Hey all,

I had scored a -5 on every single LR section for about 15 sections while I reviewed each section the following day.

Then, about a week ago I realized that I know the material, I just need to read with more intensity and put forth maximum effort in order to make the necessary connections between the premises and conclusion(s). Since this decision, I have scored -0, -0, and -1. I have answered all questions quicker and with certainty.

I've heard of people having a few defining moments in their prep where they take the step from 90% percentile to 99th%.

Is this normal?

Hi everyone,

I just started the logic games curriculum and I'm so confused. I under stand the basic principles of diagramming and the rules, but I look at the questions and I just don't know what the first step it, or any step is. Any help would be great!

Thanks!

So for the past month and a half I have been attacking LR and LG extremely hard. I've worked my way down to about -5 in LR and -2 or -3 in LG. I have finally seen a bit of improvement in my score thanks to these two sections. I still have one major mountain to climb however. I am sitting constantly at a -8 or -9 in RC. I would really like to see AT LEAST a 4 point improvement in this section consistently. I just am not quite sure where to start.

According to the analytics here on 7Sage my most missed question types are the Author Inference types. I have never really had tooooo much issue with timing. I'm always in the last passage when they announce the 5min mark. I would like to get some what faster, but I think accuracy is something I'm more concerned with. However with LR and LG I was able to see a clear way to attack my weak spots and make improvements. In RC I'm not as clear about how to go into the questions.

I have 7Sage and the RC Bible as well as the LSAT Trainer. Each has helped a little, but I would like maybe some more specific advice on how to lower my missed question count here.

So for this question, can someone help me out with why it's not "E" "The higher cancer rates of Japanese immigrants to North America are caused by fats in the North American diet."

I understand why "D" works. But I don't get what excludes "E" and since I operate on excluding incorrect answers first before selecting a correct answer, I got this question wrong both in my first pass and after my blind review.

If, "neither P nor K are cute", then can you say P+K→/C or do you have to keep them separate??

Lawgical Translations:

P → /C

AND

K → /C

Therefore, P+K→/C ?

Thank you!!!!

I've been studying for nearly exactly a month at this point. My diagnostic, with quite a few very lucky guesses, was 162. I'm currently hovering around 164-165, and I'm a little frustrated with my progress.

Do you think it is realistic, at this point, to still shoot for a 172+ on test day? Essentially, I have 3 months to go, and I'm still testing almost ~8 points below my goal, but I CAN do them…just not in the time…anyone have any personal tips for speeding up?

.

So I'm aware that the standard on 7sage for LG sections is that you should never erase and that you should always re-write out your game board for each question as needed in a set. I understand the argument for this and it is totally practical for easy sequencing games with minimal time involved in re-drawing game boards. But I highly question this strategy when it comes to more complex game boards, especially when you have say 4 different split game boards for the question. To re-write out 4 game boards fresh for every question in the set seems like a waste of time in these cases, especially when you have really involved game boards with sub-categories and everything.

As a result, I've found myself doing a lot of erasing. I tend to write in very lightly to the original board and then I can erase it easily for the next question. I'm wondering what others do with this?

I realize there is something lost in erasing in that when you write out the game boards fresh each time sometimes you can have inferences saved on different questions that can help you in later ones. But I'm not yet convinced the trade off in time lost is worth it.

/

Are the drill packets grouped by type yet?

.

Hey Y'all,

I am currently registered to take the LSAT next week in Beijing. Curious if anyone has experience taking the test abroad (or even better in China) any tips on how to make the day run smoother?

LSAC provided the address in English and I am trying to get them to provide it in Chinese to mitigate any translation issues that may occur with a cab driver. Any other tips for taking it abroad would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

I couldn't pick any of the answer choices in PT44.S4.Q8. Can someone clarify if my understanding is ok?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-4-question-08/

[Stimulus]

Premises:

Conclusion: Therefore, ________.

(B): Insurgent parties are to stay in power ---> address disagreements

(B) talks about "to stay in power" which is not mentioned in the stimulus. We don't know what the party needs to stay in power.

I don't know how we can infer that since factions within the party are as different from each other as they are from the ruling party, they can't stay in power unless they address disagreements.

I don't know why we must assume [staying in power] requires [not having disagreements within the party].

Even if Faction A in Party X is ideologically closer to Party Y and Faction A disagrees with Faction B in Party X on many issues, maybe these factions (A and B ) need the money Party X provides.

For example, the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, which had a number of factions with different ideologies, had stayed in power for more than five decades (1955-1993). During that period, some factions within the party had closer ideologies with other parties. Disagreements came forward. Factions fought against each other in the same constituency. But even though they had brief interruptions, it is still the ruling party.

I am at a standstill, I understand what I am tasked to do with these types of questions but I am still getting quite a few incorrect and Ive been blind reviewing and reviewing the LSAT trainer and I am still not getting them correct, does anyone have any advice on this? I would REALLLLLLLLYYYYYYY appreciate it!!!!!!!

(Edits for additions)

Hey ya'll, I don't know if this will be helpful to anyone, but I am hoping that sharing this will help to reinforce it in my own head. LG is my worst section by far. I started out going -16+ and without any understanding. I read Kims LSAT Trainer and that helped but I was still feeling hopeless. I am now Foolproofing 1-35 and finally feeling a modicum of proficiency. I understand/recognize 99% of the stuff they throw at me. I am like Yoda during BR. But it's not all there under timed conditions yet. Basically, I have this gap between BR and timed. I possess all the ability and knowledge to go -0, but I need to train all this knowledge and ability to work together consistently and reliably when the clock is ticking.

Drawing Best Practices

-Read "with pencil down". Circle/underline key words. Never get burned by mistaking "exactly one" for "at least one".

-Visualize the gameboard before drawing. Difficult games may appear as one thing but actually be another.

-Write/draw neatly and use the space wisely (remain calm. calm writers write neater)

-Keep it as visual/representative as you can. Don't be mechanical at this stage and feel free to modify pieces in their "pool" if it is helpful.

-As you apply rules to a master gb, eliminate those. Before moving on to the questions, consider rearranging the remaining rules so that everything is together (rewriting)

-When splitting, visualize the outcome and leave room for further splits.

-MBT/F: if you have doubt about the right AC, diagram it. Don't get stuck here. Literally ANY world that abides by the rules will give you the correct AC. If you are stuck, skip it and return.

-Don't draw elaborate sub gbs, make them representative, but skeletal.

-If you find an error on the master gb, return to previous questions.

Inferences

-"Not both. A-->/B". "A/B" MUST MUST MUST be written for one of the "out" spaces.

-"Pinching the board" on sequencing games. If you have a boxed item (AB for example) consider the restriction that places on other items. Must leave room for the boxed item.

-"Conditional Sequencing: forced in rule". If there are 2 "out" slots remaining, and you still have to place A-->B-->C, then C must be in.

-"Dual subcategory forced ordering". 2 subcategories and one of them never runs consecutively, maybe a forced ordering (every other).

-"In/Out Contrapositive". Always consider these. Can unlock an entire game.

Strategies

-Slow-->Smooth-->Fast

-Spend extra time with a confusing rule, get it right!

-Take note of possible distributions

-Finish translating the rules, then STOP. Is this game open or restricted? Should it be split? Where are the restrictions or major triggers?

-Focus on restrictions -- always

-When splitting, try to eliminate complicated rules

-Complete "if" questions first

-Trust your gb. Select an AC and move on. Circle and return if need be.

-With new rules, check the AC after each major inference (especially on MBT/F questions)

-MBF = (4) CBT and CBF = (4) MBT

-Wordy AC? Scan them and check the less wordy first.

-Be aware of corresponding wrong AC "mirrors"

-When drawing sub GBs, mark those that break the rules in some way otherwise you might try to use these for future questions

By the wrath of the old gods and the new, they actually did it. Little did I expect when I woke up yesterday to be most psychologically traumatized not by Reading Comp or Logic Games, but by the blasted writing sample.

Using the writing sample to have us write about whether a brother of the Night's Watch should be allowed to renege on his vows -- a sick, treacherous ploy by those above us to erode our confidence in the protective blanket the Watch provides the realm.

Mark my words my brothers and sisters, there is a darkness in this world, more cold and tormenting than even the four-hour exam by the name of LSAT. Winter is coming, with or without the Watch. Without the brothers on the Wall, however, along with Winter so too will come an unending shadow, shrouding our hearts in unspeakable darkness.

To those who argued that oath-breakers should be forgiven (or, gods forbid, encouraged), may the Seven protect you from what is yet to come, and may I remind you of the words that each brother of the Watch swears, with both men and gods as his witness:

"Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children, discuss any specifics about the June 2017 LSAT. I shall wear no digital watches and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the #2 non-mechanical pencil in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this exam and all the exams to come."

Did you argue against the Watch? I welcome any traitors to out themselves below.

So i am 13 PTs into foolproofing and i am noticing that i am solid with sequencing but i am having a hard time with grouping games, both in out and multiple groups. So i was considering drilling those extensively and then going back to drilling chronologically. I was wondering if anyone would be so kind as to make a list of specifically fundamental in out and grouping games that they found to help them nail down the methodology and send it my way. Thanks in advance

Hey guys! Here's the official June LSAT Discussion Thread. Please keep all discussions of the June 2017 LSAT here!

Here's some ground rules, taken from my usual sticky:

We know that everyone will be excited to discuss what was on the June '17 LSAT, but mentioning specifics about the test (e.g., "I got B for question 6" or "the 3rd LG was sequencing") can get both us and you in a lot of trouble with LSAC. Saying that the test was hard/easy without going into detail is okay, but anything more specific is not okay. LSAC monitors this forum.

If you're unsure what may be too specific, feel free to PM me with what you'd like to post.

The only exception is you can say which sections were real or experimental. For example, the LG with "flowers" was experimental. That's okay.

TL;DR: PLEASE don't talk specifics about June's LSAT!

Here's where you can see the current Real/Experimental Sections:

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/11428/june-2017-lsat-real-experimental-sections-keywords

Have fun discussing!

Hey guys!

I'm finding that I'm still having trouble really intuitively knowing when my job in Parallel Method of Reasoning q's is to mirror the lawgic/structure of the argument, and when we're being asked to carry that train of thought/conclusion/principle into the answer choices (please don't say it's always about structure; maybe I'm not articulating what I mean correctly, but it's defintily 100% the case (after watching many many of JY's videos) that we're asked to carry the salient claim/reasoning into our selection of answer choice. (Ie. PT17.s2.q24 from Problem Set 3; or PT28.s3.q26 also from set 3).

The second q stem reads "which one of the following arguments is most similar in it's reasoning to the argument above?" Both answer choices seem to emphasize an especially strong match with part of the argument, not just a simple structural match...but the stems don't really do all that much to tell us that.

But after going through the practice sets in the curriculum, I can't seem to accurately/quickly distinguish whether paralleling the pattern of reasoning will refer to finding a parallel conclusion, or more broadly, overall parallel structure.

So sorry if this post sounds beyond confusing--I realize my attempt to articulate my struggle isn't great--but I'm just a little surprised that (if this issue really does exist, and I'm not just creating problems....happens) that it's not distinguished/discussed in the curriculum "as a thing".

N.

I've been working through the Cambridge LR Flaw pkg and I've noticed that a good amount of the correct AC are E. Now before anyone jumps, I wouldn't go as far as to say choose E when in doubt on the question type. There are 284 questions in the pkg and E has been the correct AC enough for me to notice. Pretty useless info here but if I remember I'll give an exact number when I'm done. I believe the questions are from PT 1-38. I wonder if they say something like, "we'll go with E for flaws, C for MSS, A for MBT..." when determining which letter to select for the AC?? Again, this is pretty useless info and why did I hone in on it anyway?? Leave it up to me to be extra! LOL :)

Hi,

For me, the toughest part of the test has always been not letting my brain get tired from analyzing minutia and subtleties over and over... and over and over. I scored best on PTs when an LG section broke up LR and RC. I kind of think of LG as a "break" or a mental energy boost. Yesterday the LSAT hit some of us with LR, RC, LR right out of the gate. I was fine with the first LR (experimental :/) and the RC, but mentally gassed by LR #2. So, my question: Does the LSAC take section order into account when standardizing? Like, if the average score for takers who had the above order is 4 questions less than those with a different experimental section, is that considered? In a test where mental stamina is potentially the most important factor, not doing so would strike me as a little unfair.

Thanks!

Taylor

I had a question about phase 2 of the memory method.

The following was stated, "The second phase of the memory method is exactly the same as the first, with one exception: you only spend 30 seconds on step two (Check Your Memory). Do this 6-8 times".

Is phase 2 done with the same passage or different ones? Also, i'm assuming phase 2 happens when we become comfortable with phase 1? Can someone provide more insight on this?

Thank you :)