I got this question correct but really don't know why. I look at the answers and they just look like gibberish. I try to break the words down and make the answer sound similar, but I still have no clue what most those answers are saying. I went through the lessons on weakening questions but it didn't seem to help for this type of super wordy question at all. Anyone else struggle with the real wordy weaken questions? Any tips or advice?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-4-question-21/

Does anyone know how the alternative scantron accommodation is carried out? If an alternative bubble sheet is provided, how does it differ from the ones that non-accommodated test takers use and is there one available for download?

In PT 67 S3 G1 Q4, JY determines that "(A)" is correct for a "which one must be false?" question, and then says, "and you can check the rest; you should check the rest [my emphasis]." Now as we fans of JY know, he very often does not check the rest in order to save -- shall I say not to waste? -- time. What criterion should I use in deciding whether to check the rest?

(For newbies: this refers to Lesson 18 of Introduction to Logic Games & Sequencing Games)

Does "in time" refer to JY's estimate of the time required as shown with, and stated in, his explanation of the game? I can't think of any other time criterion to use, so:

Is there any reason I shouldn't use that estimate as a hard-and-fast rule, meaning that if I exceed it at all then I should re-do the game? I guess another and totally nerdy way of asking this is: are these estimates the mean of JY's subjective distribution of the time a -0 LG section scorer would take, or are they generous such they are comfortably to the right of that mean? If the former I could chalk up a minor exceedance to variance and move on; if the former I'd have to re-do.

I know this seems a nitpicking question, but I think it might make some difference to me as I'm just starting a rigorous 20-day push featuring 84 games of LG practice.

I downloaded it from website. But it requires a password. any idea?

Suppose that you're choosing a hypothetical board where A, B, and C MUST be in the group. But D floats, and need not be in the group. Since we're asking for what COULD be a complete and accurate list, would answer choice {A, B, C} suffice? Or need we include floater D, who does not out of necessity need to be in the set ?

What are the types of logic games called in the 7sage syllabus...Sequence, Grouping, and what else?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-1-question-06/

I had gone over this question during Saturday's BR call and I got some great feedback, but this isn't quite clicking with me yet. I just need help eliminating answer choice E.

So the argument is as follows:

CTX: Teaching students calc before they attend university may significantly benefit them.

P1: If students are taught calc before they are ready for the level of abstraction involved, they may abandon the study of math altogether.

C: If we are going to teach pre-university student calc, we must make sure they can handle the level of abstraction involved.

I chose A, but during my personal BR I changed it to E.

A says: "Only those who, without losing motivation, can meet the cognitive challenges that new intellectual work involves should be introduced to it."

At first, I second guessed this answer choice because I did not interpret the stimulus to say that the students need to "meet the cognitive challenges," only that they need to be able to handle calculus to a point where they don't lose motivation in mathematics. I thought it was possible for a student to take calculus, not do so well (and not meet the cognitive challenges), but still be able to "handle the level of abstraction" in the sense that they did not lose interest in math as a result of the level of abstraction. I interpreted "handle level of abstraction" to mean "not being psychologically deterred from math." I didn't take it to mean that they had to achieve a certain level of performance.

E says: "The level of abstraction involved in a topic should not be considered in determining whether that topic is appropriate for pre-university students."

I am really struggling with this answer choice. The premise says "before they are ready for the level of abstraction" and the conclusion says that we must "make sure they can handle the level of abstraction." In this entire argument, the actual level of abstraction is unchallenged. The only thing we are challenging is the student's capability of handling it. The conclusion is claiming that, if we are going to teach pre-university students calculus, we need to evaluate THEM and make sure THEY can handle it. I chose E because I don't see why the level of abstraction couldn't be what is considered before teaching them. Maybe the level of abstraction should be reduced for some students or maybe it should be reduced in general for all pre-university students. It could just be that the level of abstraction is just generally too high. Why couldn't the conclusion instead be "If we are going to teach pre-university students calculus, we must reduce the level of abstraction to meet their "handling capacity." E eliminates this alternate conclusion.

I was told that I am approaching this question like a sufficient assumption question and not a pseudo-sufficient assumption (which is why I lost faith in answer A-- I was focusing too closely on the logical structure of the argument to my detriment). That's most likely the case, but I still don't feel confident in eliminating option E. Any insight is greatly appreciated.

It is officially about 3 months away from the February LSAT and I am extremely stoked but still a little nervous. People have suggested three months as the best amount of time one should spend in studying. But I find that despite this effort, one might still fall short of one's intended goal due to a number of different factors. One factor which I believe is crucial for progress is the ability to study efficiently.

When it comes to standardized testing, I suck at studying efficiently. I sometimes find myself spending enormous amount of time studying but never breaking the "plateau". With that being said, I would like to get some insights on how you all study. Outside of the 7sage curriculum, how do you all fine tune the skills needed (e.g. speed etc). For example, as a philosophy major I try to spend time really understanding the subtleties embedded in arguments in the readings that I'm assigned as a helping tool. What else do you all recommend?

Also, I know it can be hard to study for the LSAT while one is still in school but this is a reality for many of us. In school, I work best when I follow a routine that I've set for myself, otherwise I'll procrastinate my whole life away. I've been thinking of ways to fuse these two into my schedule but I would also like to hear other thoughts as well.

I got a 164 on my first LSAT after scoring between 169-172 on scored PTs. However, the testing conditions were less than optimal and I filed a complaint. Is it possible for me to get in the 170's with a little over a month of additional studying? If yes, how can I accomplish this goal?

I'm really having trouble with this question. Am I supposed to approach it as a sufficient assumption question though it's a flaw question? Thanks in advance!

For those of you that sent in documentation requesting accommodations did you get a decision in line with the 14 day deadline? Is it normal for LSAC to go over 14 days because I am hearing from others that submitted weeks ago that they haven't gotten any news. I am still waiting to hear back and despite repeated calls and emails to follow-up I have gotten ZERO clarity on a decision or when it will be made.

Fellow 7Sagers,

I have not struggled with an LG section in such a long time. I just retook the LG section from PT 57 (Which I did first time around so long ago), and I struggled with the time allotted. I am used to finishing LG in 25-30 minutes at most. I am wondering whether it was the product of me just feeling tired today, or is the section more difficult than average? I found the section a bit more difficult than the usual.

All input is much appreciated.

Ok so I'm doing my blind review, and when I initially did the test I chose the correct answer even though I wasn't happy with it because it seemed more like a sufficient assumption to me. I don't have the ultimate package so I don't have the explanation for this so if someone could help me out that would be much appreciated.

When I read this question I immediately found the gap between choose more wisely and emotions unchanged

I was hoping for an answer that bridged the gap ever so slightly without being obnoxious and of course E bridged that gap but the only if really annoyed me

I interpreted E as an SA in my BR because I diagrammed the following:

human emotions unchanged --> humans unable to choose more wisely

contrapositive: humans able to choose more wisely --> humans emotions have changed

This is precisely what E does and so I went with D thinking it was a little better (now I see why it fails)

I guess D when put to the negation test says something along the lines of "humans do not always choose on the basis of their emotions" and in the conclusion it says: "humans are GENERALLY unable to choose more wisely" so the not always wouldn't really be good enough because the conclusion isn't always saying that it's the case that people do not choose more wisely today, it just needs to be true in at least one case.

When E was put to the negation test it seems like it would be something similar to: it's not the case that humans would now be able to make wiser choices than in centuries past only if an essential change had taken place in their emotions, so we can choose wisely without a change in emotions

Overall, really annoyed by this question...would appreciate any input/feedback on what I mentioned above

Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-2-question-12/

Hey guys I'm having a hard time with this one

For anyone who is willing to try it out can you show me how you diagrammed it and came to choosing A over the others.

Thanks in advance!!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-3-question-22/

For this question, I was able to see that the flaw was a equivocation between a substantial budget and an adequate one. Answer choice E seemed to reflect that train of thought, but I didn't find the wording to be clear. In particular, the answer choice mentions that the meaning of "adequate" needs to be reevaluated in the new context. Wasn't the word adequate brought up only in the conclusion? Where has the stimulus evaluated the use of adequate prior to the conclusion? Additionally, would the "new context" be the during the dissolving of the Soviet threat of confrontation?

For this particular problem, I wasn't able to clearly articulate why answer choice C was incorrect. I interpreted the conclusion to be a causal one, specifically one that claims that the author's political party is responsible for the decrease in unemployment. I do see how the premises contradict the observation that unemployment decreased, but I'm not sure why answer choice C is incorrect. I saw answer choice C as providing an alternate cause and showed how the perceived changes in employment is not due to the author's party but rather seasonal fluctuations.

Hey All,

Can someone explain this question to me? I got to E by POE, but I am not completely seeing why E is correct.

Conclusion: "There is no genuinely altruistic behavior."

The reason for this (the conclusion) is because behavior that appears to be altruistic is actually self-interested. Shouldn't E read: "takes for granted that any behavior that can be interpreted as altruistic is in fact self-interested"? Where does "interpretation of self-interested behavior come in?"

This implies that we are supposed to treat altruistic behavior and self-interested behavior as synonymous, but isn't that out of the scope? Or at least premature with the information we are given? All this argument establishes in terms of the relationship between altruism and self interest is that altruistic behavior implies self-interested behavior. We're not saying self-interested behavior implies altruistic behavior, correct? I'm confused why E treats them as synonymous terms of the argument.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-32-section-1-question-19/

Hello everyone,

I'm sort of cramming law school apps, since July is when I decided that I wanted to apply. I started using 7Sage in August.

In the beginning, I was about -3 or -4 per LR section, even with flexible timing. With JY's videos, he has helped me to master LR. On my last PT (I think it was # 61) I went -0 and -1 on the two LR sections, with time left over to spare.

I actually enjoy doing LR now. Every question is like a mini word puzzle :)

Thanks 7sage,

Steve

I spend a couple of hours to figure out the structure/what's the author's position but I still do not understand it...

So he is disagreeing with Taruskin right?

What are exactly their arguments? What is the position of the "artists"? Do they intentionally misrepresent elites?

I'm especially confused with the last paragraph. At first I thought the author is agreeing with Taruskin...

Could anyone give me summary of each paragraph or just author's argument and Taruskin's argument are fine too.

Thank you in advance.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-78-section-4-passage-2-passage/

So I was really struggling with RC. It is something that you can be really good at if you are well read, because it really is for people who are excellent reader and you can only be that if you come from a household where reading was really emphasized. I don't so I really had to get to the core of the problem and instead of just PT and burning them, I decided I was going to relearn how to read. I did couple of things which really helped, so if you have some good amount of time in your hand before taking the LSAT, here are some suggestions.

1) How to read a book by Charles Van Doren ( quickly skim through it as it has some really good advice on reading different kinds of material, philosophy, science and literature)

2) I found this amazing free online course by Duke University on Arguments. It really gets into the guts of what arguments are, several exercises and resources to really get good at identifying them. This is extremely helpful for both LR and RC. Here is the link to the course https://www.coursera.org/learn/understanding-arguments

3) If you don't have time for the course, I would get the kindle version of this book: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HDQ435C/ref=oh_aui_d_detailpage_o00_?ie=UTF8&psc=1

4) There is an amazing hour long webinar on RC by Sage Jimmy: https://classic.7sage.com/webinar/jimmy-rc-qt/

Let me know what you guys think, and if you have any other suggestion.

Hey All,

So, I've been looking for some tough reading material to read in my spare time in order to better condition myself for RC sections. I know JY mentioned The Economist and New Yorker in one of the curriculum videos, but both of those publications require (not cheap) subscriptions. Any ideas where I can purchase maybe 4 or 5 old issues of either of these publications? Or does anyone have any other ideas of tough reading materials that do not require subscriptions?

Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-45-section-4-question-18/

I'm pulling my hair out as I am trying to figure out why the correct answer for PT 45 S4 Q18 is A... The question reads,

18. Decentralization enables divisions of a large institution to function autonomously. This always permits more realistic planning and strongly encourages innovation, since the people responsible for decision making are directly involved in implementing the policies they design. Decentralization also permits the central administration to focus on institution-wide issues without being overwhelmed by the details of daily operations.

Answer:

A) In large institutions whose divisions do not function autonomously, planning is not maximally realistic.

Ok, first of all, is the first sentence referring to a conditional relationship or a causal relationship? I assumed it was the former and

created a conditional chain that looks like this: D --> A. If this is the case, the next sentence can be connected with the previous condition by saying divisions working autonomously always permits more realistic planning like this: D -> A -> MRP (the word "always" is a necessary condition indicator word and I assumed this is how I should interpret this sentence).

To me answer choice A sounds like a mistaken negation where we are saying ~A -> ~MRP... and I was really confused by this. How can we assume that a large institution's planning is not maximally realistic just be cause their divisions do not function autonomously? Or am I interpreting this AC incorrectly and it is really saying ~MRP -> ~A ...

I am always confused as to how to correctly identify a conditional or causal relationship... For example, when they start talking about how decentralization "permits" the central administration to focus on ... how would you define this relationship as? Could anyone please shed some light on how you would go about solving this question? Many thanks in advance!

Hey All,

So this question is asking for the answer choice that would most strongly support the Development Commissioner's position. I cannot see how C is the correct answer. In order to chose C, we have to make the assumption that the Development Commissioner wants to prevent damage to the endangered species. Nowhere in his response does he even imply that. All he says is that "We have been conserving. Plus, we don't even know if wetland development will do what you're saying it will. All we know is we need wetlands for growth, so we should allow it. Other countries have been ignoring wildlife--we have a right to as well! These are our resources!"

C says that "Only when a reduction of populations of endangered species by commercial development has been found should regulation be implemented to prevent further damage." What if the Development Commissioner doesn't think they should implement regulations even when they notice a reduction in the species? What if he prioritizes growth, at any cost? That's why I chose E. I reluctantly chose E, because I know technically he didn't mention that the have been depleting natural resources, but he certainly implied that these regulations would be a waste of our resources towards the end of his argument. He said that we have a right to govern our natural resources, just like the other countries, who are doing exactly what the Wildlife Commission is arguing to regulate. I never liked E and I see why it's wrong, but it was a desperate choice when I ruled out 4 (seemingly) worse choices. I figured the inference I would have to make by choosing E beats the flat out assumption I would have to make by choosing C.

So...help!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-32-section-4-question-08/

I often have different diagrams from JY's.

How do I know mine is actually fine? I know his ones are more efficient and trying to have similar ones, but often times I have different game boards.

Thanks