LR is absolutely smacking me. I have done aprox. 30 PT with the most recent one being Being PT46. On the early PT i was scoring 165-172. But as the pretests started to become more recent, I noted the games seemed to get easier, the reading comp stayed the same but LR got significantly harder. I went from -3 or -4 per LR section to -5 to -9 despite my RC being -3 to -4 and games being no more than -3. Like I find myself struggling to read and understand the arguments on LR fast enough. My blind reviews are consistently above 176. The problem for me is that I can not seem to read the LR stem and understand it fast enough (the hard ones that is), and if If i take the extra time i need to get the right answer, I will usually not be able to finish. Is this a matter of me just reading too slowly? I still finish Reading comp just fine, and with about a minute to spare, or is this a matter of needing more practice with LR? By drilling old LR sections will this potentially increase my speed? Anyone else have ideas how to shore up LR? I mean I still have like 34 more prep tests to go through and blind review, but for the past 4 pretest this issues seems to be the most significant. I take two pretests a week and during the rest of the week blind review and drill old games and reading comp. I have never really went back and drilled LR. Does anyone else have advice?

Hi 7sage!

After spending the last 3 months or so focusing intensely on LR and RC and making great improvements... I feel like I lost some of the momentum I had going with the logic games. Between January and April I fool-proofed PTs 1-25 and now am having similar difficulties as to when I started doing timed logic games (i.e. misreading rules, making careless errors, being generally slow in identifying inferences)... I am going back to basics and redoing the entire LG portion of the CC and am going back to foolproofing and will tackle games that gave me difficulty from 1-25 and will foolproof 25-35 in the coming weeks. Any other recommendations? I'm feeling nervous that maybe I wasn't progressing as quickly as I thought I was with the foolproof method and maybe I was just redoing games that I was already familiar with and that was where my success came from... Any advice would be much appreciated. Love this forum, love the LSAT!

Hello,

This is an NA question that I have been trying to grasp. It's REALLY hard.

I will explain how I can justify the to myself and I would be so grateful if anyone wants to chime in and add any additional analysis.

The stimulus -

CTX: There is frozen nitrogen, methane, and carbon monoxide on the surface of Pluto, which vaporize to make Pluto's atmosphere.

P: The proportion of each gas in Pluto's atmosphere results how readily the gas vaporizes.

C: Pluto's atmosphere is made of nitrogen, methane, and carbon monoxide gas, listed from greatest to lowest proportion.

The correct answer states that there is no frozen substance (let's call it X) on Pluto that vaporizes more readily than methane but less readily than carbon monoxide. In other words there is no gas X in the atmosphere of which there is more than methane and less than carbon monoxide. The negation would read like this: C > X > M , there is a fourth gas in the atmosphere and there is more carbon monoxide than methane (if I understand correctly).

I think my issue at first was that I did not read the conclusion to say there were only three gases in the atmosphere and no others; I suppose stating "the components are..." does imply that. So, if there was a fourth gas in the atmosphere, there are not three, as the conclusions claim. Moreover, with the CA negated, there would be more carbon monoxide than methane, which wrecks the argument. This seems to be an example of a really bare minimum NA, that makes you go "doi."

I chose (D), which states that nitrogen is only found in the atmosphere if it is also found as ice on the planet's surface. It's useless to the argument. Natm --> Nps ; /Nps --> /Natm. Neither of these statements reveal anything new or relevant about the situation.

Thanks in advance for any input!

Can someone please explain question 5?

How I interpreted the question was the minimum number of salaries would be 8 not 7. The reason for this was that K would always be first, thus leading the other 8 workers being placed in the remaining spots.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-4-section-3-game-1/

Admin edit: Edited title and added link, OP listed wrong game.

Are there jy video explanations for prep tests A-C? Thanks

In the Fool Proof Method for LG in the CC, step 6 tells us to write down all inferences from memory. What exactly does this mean in practice? For every game I'm not perfect at -- I take another clean copy, and go through the game and simply write down what I remember? Am I not reading the questions; just jotting down what I recall?

Just wondering how other people go about drilling specific question types.

I have narrowed down my problem question types and now wondering what the best way to drill those weaknesses .

Should i time them in groups? Or individually?

Just trying to set out a feeler for what worked for other people.

P.S. of course, no matter, what there will be an intensive BR and Review of every question

Hi,

I am planning to write the LSAT this September. I had taken my first diagnostic in early May and had scored 143. After preparing with the LSAT Trainer and PT 52-61 and reviewing, I have taken my second timed PT (PT 74, using the 7sage proctor) today and have scored a 157 (-14 on RC, -4 and -5 on the LRs, and -9 on the LG).

I still have PTs 62-73, 75-80, and 81 (yet to purchase) left for further PTing, and I do plan to go serially through them. I intend to score in the real LSAT in the 160-164 range. Given that I only have 8 weeks left now, in what ways can I make that jump by at least 5 points?

Thanks for any advice!

I understand that a key to master the LR section is to focus only on the core of the stimulus as a stimulus usually consists of unimportant details and fluffs (especially stimuli in the recent tests are denser than those in the old ones). But do you guys ever skim when the stimulus is very long and dense? Or do you just decide to focus on certain parts of the stimulus (the core) AFTER reading/understanding everything said in the stimulus?

Thanks!!! :)

Math and I have never been close. Now with Lsat, I often come across questions that J.Y. marks as "high-school algebra" or "mathematical question in disguise" and almost always, I get them wrong.

It seems that I have to overcome my life-long battle with math. But, I think repetitively practicing these math questions aren't going to cut it. So, I want to ask those who has struggled and defeated these type of questions, what was your approach/strategy? Also, do you know any books/outside material that could supplement and improve my lack of mathematical reasoning skills?

Any advice will be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance :)

I just came across the circular subway game from PT18 S1 G3. I was wondering if there are any other games similar to this one that I can practice? Anything that makes use of a circle would be very useful.

Hello All,

I just started the 7Sage course cause I'm hoping to obtain a better approach towards logical reasoning and reading comprehension. I started with Powerscore and I've read the Logical Reasoning and Games bibles from cover to cover. I've already taken the June 2007 diagnostic before. Should I take it again with 7 Sage's approach or just put in the answers from when I first took the exam? Also, with two months to go till the September exam, is it ok to just skip over to sections that I need immediate help on or start everything from the beginning?

Heres the problem so Im getting all of the easy questions correct and some of the hard ones too but I really want to drill the really difficult questions so I know that I am actually improving, do you guys know where to find the harder LR questions to drill? Thank you so much!!!!!!!!

So i have taken my second PT since foolproofing and i have seen major improvement. But i still seem to be struggling with parrallel flaw, some flaw qs, and NA. I have rewatched the cc on them and read the LSAT trainer on them. Was wondering what the general concensus is on taking the older tests, say 7-20, and locating all the specific question types above and just doing one after another with an extensive BR/ review of each?

So I have printed all the LG and grouped them by type (basic linear, advanced linear, grouping etc). I am also using the spreadsheet to track my times, questions wrong and date taken. I am trying to figure out when do I repeat the same LG? Should I do the game, watch the video, and immediately redo the game? Or should I wait to redo the game until the next day? How much lag time should I have between the initial time doing the game and redoing the game after watching the video?

Thanks for the help!!

Is it necessary to identify premise, context and conclusions in Most strongly support questions? So far I don't and have done well.

Do you focus on finding the flaw in the argument and then matching that to an AC? Like any other flaw q, just instead of naming it you find another example of that? Or do you focus on the argument structure?

Thr biggest time sink questions for myself are the parallel questions and if i have to go through the same method for parallel flaw, i dont see how i will have enough time

I can't print any of the prep tests or problem sets. Always prepares, then gives me a "print failed: print job cancelled" error.

Anyone know how to fix this?

I'm using a Chromebook, would it be better to use my parent's (crappy) Windows laptop to print?

Hey, yall. For weaken type questions do you think it's safe to double check your AC by determining if it precludes the conclusion from being properly drawn from the evidence? If not, it's not the correct AC. We have a way to double check NA AC why not for all?? Ugh! It's been a minute since I've gone through the curriculum so this may have been mentioned. My bad if so. I get the task for weaken questions: weaken the support between the premise and conclusion. I'm just trying to help it become more intuitive for me. Thoughts? Anyone think I could get turned around or confused in higher degree of difficulty questions?

My question here stems from the situation presented in PT36.S3.Q26 (https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-36-section-3-question-26/)

It seems that the explanation for the right answer is that by falsifying a factor that would harm an argument if otherwise true, you are therefor strengthening it. This seems odd to me, as establishing a lack of past dissent doesn't equal some degree of current support in my opinion. It's neutral if anything.

But anyway, if we accept the aforementioned logic as fact for LSAT purposes, here are my

Does this mean that scratching off a potential weakening factor always counts, and will always be the answer for a "Most Strengthen" question?

And if so, does it happen in the reverse? Does scratching off a potential strengthener always qualify as the answer which most weakens?

Would we ever have to choose between an answer that merely hurts a weakening factor (which I see as being closer to neutral) vs. deliberately supports a strengthening factor?

Thanks ^_^

Some LR questions have answer choices that say that an argument "assumes without providing justification that (xyz)", and some say that an argument "takes (xyz) for granted". Do these phrases mean the same thing? If not, please explain the difference(s). Thanks! :)

Having a rough time w this one. Can anyone help out?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-1-question-08/

Hi All,

Let's say we have the conditional statement "If I go to the market and go to the mall, then I will reward myself with ice cream."

Then I have the statement "Even if I go to the mall, I will not reward myself with ice cream."

What implications does this have? "Even if" is not a conditional indicator, so I believe all this statement is really saying is that "I will not reward myself with ice cream." From this we can infer that "I will not go to the market." We know that even if I do go the mall, it still not sufficient to trigger the conditional, so therefore we must know that I am not going to the market.

Thoughts on this? For a point of reference, PT71.S3.Q11 is what prompted this consideration-- answer choice B specifically.

So I feel like when I read the passage I have a good idea about what is going on and how it pertains to the structure but I am consistently missing three questions per passage( I spend about 9-11 mins on each passage) and Ive used the memory method and Ive watched the hammer time video so Im at a loss for what else to do other than just practice on more passages, does anyone have any advice? or what they did to improve their score? THANK YOU SO MUCH IN ADVANCE!!!

Hey guys,

Looking for pointers on how you guys use the LR drill packets. What have you found helpful?

Since we only have a finite number of 'fresh' questions from PT 1-35 I don't want to squander my packets needlessly. I'm at the stage where I really only need to reinforce some fundamental strategies (like looking for weak claims among NA answer choices etc.) and solidify my trust in my intuitions.

So say I want to work on RRE questions having bombed an easy one during a PT. To reinforce my approach I revisit the CC, work through the example RRE questions again with JY (the ones before the problem sets). What do you guys do after this point? Problem sets? Drill packets?

At the moment we've got 3 and a half LR packets covering PT 1-35. In the first group (1-9) there is something like 20+ RRE questions. As a drill "session" would you burn through all 20+ of these RRE questions? Would you do fewer of them and do them in more detail? Do them timed or untimed? Do only do the harder ones (I don't even know if they're arranged by difficulty in the drill packets)?

Sorry this is dense and I hope it makes sense :)