Hi I got the correct answer A, but only through the process of elimination. I am slightly bothered by the AC's somewhat extreme tone, "best."

Can I say that it is justified because the supporting textual evidence (line 10-11) says "preferred?"

I am just wondering in general: when is the extreme tone in the RC inference AC justified, and when is it not?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-4-passage-2-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-4-passage-2-questions/

So I fell for a sufficient assumption trap, I chose the answer that was basically a restated premise, so for the assumption questions, the answer that is basically a premise, is that always wrong? TYA!

Is there any sort of historical data somewhere that displays the likelihood of certain logic games appearing by type?

Hey all,

I've noticed that every now and then I will see an argument that doesn't seem to have any glaring flaws, if any at all. Sure enough, it's a principle question in the range of 17-23...so I know I better be hyper-alert because this is going to be tricky. I proceed to read through the answer choices and immediately throw away 2 of them because they are completely irrelevant. Now, to the nitty gritty :

Example: "...therefore, that ought not be done for it is both immoral and would cause more harm than good."

The correct answer would be something like "Anything that goes against common moral belief and does not help society but instead damages society ought not be done." Obviously, this happens to be an assumption as well.

BUT, among the answer choices one will find something along the lines of "anything immoral ought not be done" and "Actions that cause more harm than good are immoral." Both are attractive for their own reasons since the first seems to be reasonably supported by the conclusion, but not SO much as the conclusion mentions two criteria and the second combines the two elements of the conclusion but in reality is not supported by the conclusion.

All of this said, I think that I've identified a pattern here with principle questions and I'm looking for some validation. When answering a principle question, one must look for (and find) and exact match to the information discussed in the stimulus. There will be answer choices that maybe fall "inside the realm" of the stimulus but they are not an exact match that would validate the conclusion.

Thanks in advance!

Hey guys,

I plan on taking the LSAT in September and I want to focus on just logic games for about 3-4 weeks (as long as it takes to get to a near perfect score really). I took it back in December and the only thing that brought my score down was LG - so before I get back to PTing and targeting certain questions, I want to do LG

Right now I'm doing every LG section from PT 1-20 - two sections a day. Really trying to master it. My question is is my time better spent doing LG sections from PTs 40-60 instead?. Everyone knows that we should prioritize the modern PTs, and I want to get the most bang for my buck. So should I hop straight to those?

Thanks

I chose C because it is weakening the argument which is saying that people are more concerned about their finances than politics and C says that they are JUST AS concerned about their finances and politics thus weakening the argument and I thought E was incorrect because 1) it is bringing outside information that wasn't mentioned in the stimulus and 2) it says that they are concerned with politics and their finances but it doesn't say to what degree. I mean the conclusion is saying that they are concerned about their politics but the degree of concern is different.

Can someone explain this to me? Thank you!!!!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-1-question-15/

Hey everyone,

I want to get feedback and see if there is an interest out their in studying LR but with a focus on strategies that increase your understanding beyond just that PT and question.

Instead of the traditional method where we are just just blind reviewing and trying to understand the question in front of us, we will be focusing on identifying patterns behind each argument so we can carry what we learned over to other LR stimulus in future PT's.

A lot of speed in LR comes from our ability to quickly spot these patterns that are constantly repeating. These patterns are not about learning question types - the core curriculum does a phenomenal job of that - but more about argument types.

So yeah, let me know what you guys think and if you are interested. : )

Update:

I am going to let all of you decide what PT series you would like to use to study these patterns.

PT 30-39:

Pros: These are basically drill materials PT's and are considered ideal for burning in order to study. Even the very beginners can join this.

Con: These are older PT's and hence a little less relevant than 40 series. We have also seen a lot of these questions as part of our core curriculum.

PT 40-49

Pros: They are a bit more relevant though I think there is not that much difference as the logic has not changed much from PT 1. I think it's fine to burn these for drills as well since we still have 46 plus fresh PT's left after these.

Cons: Some people still like to use them as fresh PT's.

PT 50-59:

I had a private request for this but since I cannot edit the poll if this series is your preference you can just write this down as a comment below and I would count it in the poll.

Hi,

I have seen a couple threads regarding how people get ready before a test but I was hoping to get some more opinions. The June 2017 test is a noon test so does anyone prepare differently or have suggestions on how to prep/warm up for a noon test? Also, what do people normally do a week before their test?

hi, can someone explain why answer choice e isnt a match? I'm still not 100% sure after BRing and watching the explination vid.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-2-question-21/

I have completed fool proofing PTs 1-35. I'm now 11 preptests into my PT phase. Getting -0/-1 on tests, though admittedly some of the mid/early 40s are supposed to be easier than average.

Anyway, what are y'alls thoughts on fool proofing LG on PTs36+? Obviously I BRed them when I took, but should I go ahead and just start repeatedly doing these PTs' LG sections after I take them? I'm up in the high 40's now, so I was thinking I'd do 10 PT chunks of fool proofing the LG games, by the time I'm done with that, I'd be another 10 PTs ahead in testing. Repeat.

The advantage is just more and more practice on LG. The disadvantage is that such PTs would be "ruined" for retakes. Then again, I don't personally plan on doing many retakes because I've got so many untouched PTs in front of me and am already scoring well so I don't think I'll need to retake the real thing more than once.

Thoughts? What have others done to keep LG skills robust after completing the traditional fool proofing method?

Hey Everyone,

This week again we will keep practicing the low-high resolution summary method. The point of practice is to get better at what we already know so we will sharpen our skills a bit more this time. : )

I had a few requests this week about doing an Economics Passage. So this week we will be doing PT 8, Section 3, Passage 2. The PT is available for print on 7sage as an e-doc.

Just like last time all you need for the session is a copy of the passage and the questions in front of you. We will work through the passage together and do the questions under time before we go over them. So I would recommend not doing the passage before joining.

For people who will be joining for the first time, I will review the method we will be using to go over the passage beforehand. So you will quickly catch on. : )

To join the meeting all you have to do is click the link below at the specified date and time.

I'll see you all there! : )

Free RC Tutoring - Sami [Econ Passage]

Sun, May 28, 2017 6:00 PM - 7:30 PM EDT

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/765397405

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States: +1 (646) 749-3112

Access Code: 765-397-405

First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: https://care.citrixonline.com/g2m/getready

Hi all,

I'm new to 7sage and must say that I love it. I have used the LG Bible from PowerScore to learn the foundation of Games in particular however when I discovered JY's videos I realized that 7sage was for me.

Have done PT's 65-66-67 with scores of 166, 167, 169. I'm aiming for lower t14 with big money. On each PT, I have been -3/-4 in Games. I find that these games are significantly less complicated than the ones I find in my book that mainly come from the early 90's to the early 2000's. When I do the PT's, I read the stimulus of the game, the rules once to understand, once to diagram, once more for inferences and then I am ready for the questions.

That said, when I look at some of these grouping games (example) from the early/mid 90's, I freeze. There's sometimes 7-8 rules that are all conditional. I have no problem understanding it but getting all of that done in 8 minutes literally makes me fearful. There are so many moving parts. As a result, I see these games and often shut down or get rattled which obviously takes away from my ability to infer which in turn, adds time and limits accuracy.

Is this a common problem or is this all in my head? How worried should I be?

Frank

I chose D because all the other answers weren't strengthening the argument and the answer is A but the reason why I didn't pick it was because it says " that are proportional to the harm they BELIEVE to result from those crimes". We're not talking about the perceived harm so that is why I didn't choose it, can someone explain to me why this answer is correct. Thank you!

reasons why the other ones are incorrect:

b) Were not talking about legality but harm

c) Were not talking about an increase in penalty were talking about equal sentencing

e) Were not talking about deterrence

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-3-question-09/

Hi!

I have been working in the core curriculum for some time and there is something that I am not quite clear about conditional reasoning and its inferences.

What I do know is that IF A, THEN B contraposes(is that a word?) to IF NOT B THEN NOT A. I know this must be true.

But what about IF NOT B THEN A? Is this a cannot be true or a could be true? Does this statement negate the original statement?

Help!

I understand the flaw in the correct answer choice, but not how it applies to Tom's argument in the stimulus.

D : "Fails to apply a general rule to all relevant circumstances" is the correct AC here.

Conclusion: No it isn't the the best one to rent

Premise/Sub-conclusion: The yard isn't as big as it looks.

Premise: Property lines in Prairieview start 20 feet from the street, so what looks like part of the yard is really city property.

Rolanda points out his flaw: "That's true of all the other properties we've looked at too."

What is true of all the other properties we've looked at? General rule: Property lines start 20 feet from the street, so what looks like part of the yard is really city property. The yards aren't as big as they look. (Is this last sentence included in the general rule?)

Would this still be flawed if Tom said "None of the yards are as big as they look?" I do not understand where exactly this flaw is committed in his argument. If someone could point this out, I would be very grateful. Thanks.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-65-section-4-question-11/

I am having the hardest time with assumption questions required and sufficient alike. I am getting it down to two answers; the right one and the one that everyone picks and I pick the wrong one. Does anyone have any sort of advice on how to handle assumption questions? I reviewed all of my notes and Im still not getting it. Thank you!!!!!!

I just got to this spot in the CC. I have a basic understanding of what is going on, but I am slow and I can tell this is a HUGE weak spot for me. What can I do to drill this into my head? I took the four quizzes in the CC and did poorly, I reviewed and watched the video explanations but I want to do more. How did you guys drill this into your heads?

For example:

Negation 4 w/ Answers, Question 3 (CC)

There is little variation in the ratio of energy output to body weight among animals.

My gut reactions was to say;

There is A LOT of variation in the ratio of energy output to body weight among animals.

The answer was;

There is anywhere from a moderate amount to a great amount of variation in the ratio of energy output to body weight among animals.

Moderate did not even cross my mind....

So where can I go to get a lot more practice on this, how can I drill this all into my head to the point where I spit out correct negations without hesitation?

I am able to get perfects scores on the section without time limits but during PTs I range from -3 to -6.

My biggest issue is feeling rushed during the PT...

Any advice?

When I first started out studying last year, I wasn't notating at all and I was only missing -2, -3 on a section. I was reading a lot of books before then, so I think I was able to intuitively connect paragraphs and recall the most significant pieces of information.

But as I got further into my studying and began notating based off the curriculum and part of Nicole's presentation, I noticed an immediate drop in my scores. This was right after I began notating. I continued with this method until today, when I got a -9 on a timed RC and -3 on BR. Right after that I drilled a new section with no notes at all and got -4 timed.

Notating just slowed down my read, clouded my interpretation and bogged me down in details rather than reading at a consistent pace with no breaks for underlining, circling, and writing down details on the side. This all slowed me down and caused me to break in the middle of sentences, in between sentences and in between paragraphs. Not only did it slow down my read, I wasn't able to fluidly read a passage and ascertain the content or the main purpose or structure.

Breaking at the end of the passage to solidify your understanding is helpful and writing that down might help sometimes, but maybe for some people notating just isn't a good idea. You might have to return to the passage a bit more, but the time saved during the read more than makes up for it.

If any of you have similar problems, don't feel bad about not notating because I guess it just doesn't work for some people.

Onward and upward.

I have an issue with the harder flaw reasoning questions. 99 times out of 100 i can point out the flaw. Hell i can make a stand up comedy routine about how stupid you are for coming up with your conclusion with the flawed reasoning in the stimulus. my issue is pinning down the abstract language that exists in the answer choices. I get them wrong like half the time. I am the Tom cat and the LSAT makers are Jerry mouse in this scenario. Im getting got way too often. 50 percent of the hard flaw questions i get wrong. And when i watch the explanations, my flaws are right, i just can't pin down the abstract language down. (random example. PT 41 section 3 question 20)

Has anyone else struggled with this and how did you really get better at this? I of course do BR and mark down the questions and refer back to them. I just feel like theres an infinite amount of ways for them to be so convoluted and vague and subtle with the right answer. I have a positive attitude when i come up short on other questions but its hard to not get frustrated when i miss those questions specifically. Its like I'm getting beat by the same move and it huuuuurrtttss.

I know i have to keep practicing. Im not taking the LSAT until September and i hover around the low to mid 160's on my PT's. sort of just wanted to vent on the forum, sort of want to see if this is a problem anyone else has and if theres hope and what they did to master this.

I'm in the middle of PTing for the September LSAT. My target goal is 175. I'm currently in the upper 150s-mid 160s in terms of PTing. I also work full-time, so it's harder to get my PTs in on most days. I'm going to explain my strategy now and ask for some tips/feedback:

What happens is that I usually end up exhausted. Ramadan is also coming up, so I'm worried about becoming even more tired with the fasting component. I most likely will not be working out during Ramadan.

What do you guys think? What PTs should I focus on more? What resources should I tap into? Anything wrong with my method? What would you add/improve/take away? etc. I'm looking for any kind of feedback really. Is my target score feasible within that time? I'm aiming for T14 schools.

In the PT 50s I was solid -4/-5 on RC. On LR I was missing more than 6 per section.

I am wrapping up the 60s and I am now solid -2 to -4 on LR.

BUT NOW I AM -7/-8 on RC!!!

LG is stable ranging from -3 to -5.

If I can get my RC back to -4/-5, I will be able to score in the 166-168 range which is my goal.

Right now I've dropped to 163-165 :( Very Very Very down and disappointed...

Any suggestions on how to improve RC in the final stretch before the June LSAT?

Also, 7sage and LSAT Trainer strategies actually made me a worse RC test taker. I do much better when I stop over-thinking/analyzing and just read slowly and carefully while visualizing the passages. This can take 3-4 minutes for the passage but I do much better. Annotating via 7sage and LSAT Trainer suggestions just slows me down and ruins my flow. I am going to try the rest of the tests with my original strategy and ditch what I have learned. Anyone else have experience with this?

Thank you in advance!

For the RC section, would you advise to start timed like J.Y.s version or not timed and then after getting a handle of structure then start timing like J.Y.s? Thank you so much!!!!

I'd like some advice for the inconsistent performance I'm seeing in my timed logic games sections. I can sometimes finish the entire section with a few minutes left over and get almost all the answers right, but other times, I'm very short on time, and can quite a few more wrong. Any insight into this discrepancy and how I can fix this?

PT9.S2.Q17 - Certain instruments

Since there is no video explanation for this question, I would appreciate it if someone could confirm my understanding below.

It took me so much time to figure out what the second sentence is saying :(

Second sentence

energy used to sterilize of a set of nylon instruments: SN

energy used to manufacture of a set of nylon instruments: MN

50 x SN = 3.4 x MN

SN = (3.4/50)MN

SN = 0.068 x MN

energy used to sterilize of a set of stainless steel instruments: SS

energy used to manufacture of a set of stainless steel instruments: MS

50 x SS = 2.1 x MS

SS = (2.1/50)MS

SS = 0.042 x MS

Answer choice

(B) is the correct answer (MBF) because SN has to be less than MN. SN = 0.068MN

(A), (C) - (E) could all be true.