Does anyone else find these questions insanely hard?

Granted I only started working with them in the newer Prep Tests since they didn't show up prior to the 60s, so I don't have as much practice with them. But I have tried watching J.Y's explanation on these and it still isn't helping me get them. I feel like when I do get them it is more luck than anything

I'm wondering if I should devote a day to just trying to figure out how to do these questions, or whether it is worth the time and effort. Anyone have any strategies they use?

The correct answer on this question doesn't make sense to me. The main conclusion of the argument is very narrow, and the answer goes outside the scope of the argument in order to weaken it. Can someone please explain this to me? Maybe in a private message? I'm trying not to break any rules by revealing too much here.

I know there are no contrapositive for some, and that contrapositive is just another way of stating the statement, so must be equivalent to the original statement.

.

Then I started to think that then "some" does have a contrapositive, since we can change the place of variables.

For example, if we have a statement that "Some A are B: A(-s-)B"

Then the contrapositive (the equivalent statement) would be "Some B are A: B(-s)A"

.

.

Do we say there is just another way to stating the original statement, but no contrapositive because there is no sign involved when creating an equivalent statement?

Then does that mean contrapositive requires statement to involve change of sign in terms of negativity or positivity?

.

.

I hope I am making sense! Thanks all (3(/p)

So after I'm done drilling I go through every question and I write down what went wrong. My list includes: did not see the definition presented in argument clearly, did not focus clearly, did not read the stimulus thoroughly". The question types are not my problem, it feels like I'm just not understanding what the question is saying under timed conditions. It's like the questions become alphabet soup. Untimed, I can correctly identify the right answer and I understand what the question stem is asking me.

Can anyone help give me tips on how I can hone in on the stimulus more and stop making these stupid mistakes?

Do any of the 7sage'ers know a tutor in the Buffalo area? (asking for a a friend). Just kidding asking for myself and I am in dire need of a tutor. Retake in September.

Appreciate any help!!

I was wondering if anyone may know why this may be the case but I noticed that for many of the "easy" logic games (based of the 7Sage Recommended time) I struggle to meet the 5-6 mins for easy games ( I take around 7 mins usually and sometimes 8) but for the harder games I am usually below 7 Sage's time by 2-3 mins. It seems like for me I am consistent on games in terms of time 'regardless' of the difficulty where it takes me roughly the same amount of time to complete a game. That said there are anomalies where I have spent 12-15 mins on a game and still can't figure it out or like 5 mins on a single question

Is there any other way to get it down to be faster on easier games aside from repeatedly doing it? Over the last week I have drilled only easy games and I think I have shaved off 30-60sec on average on re-doing the game a 3-4 days later but when I review I really find it hard as to where else I can save more time.

Also, does anyone else double check your work on games? I find that sometimes I make a careless errors like forgetting a rule existed for a specific question. I have also made fatal errors before like omitting an entire rule ( which I guess can't be helped aside from checking the rules one last time before making inferences). In all they probably cost me between 1-2 points on LG section and then another 1-2 LG question is wrong due either to time or just something more fundamental like those rule substitution questions

I'm really struggling with concepts of validity.... I've done the drills, but it's not making sense to me.

Looking for suggestions on how to best understand and apply validity to LR. Any suggestions on learning tips&tricks would be so helpful :)

Hi everyone,

I am new to this forum. Can anyone please explain why D is wrong and E is correct?

TIA

What is the first prep test with a comparative reading comp passge?

My plan is to go through at least one section per day using the BR method while completing the course curriculum, and I am starting with PT 1 to make sure that I save all newer tests for after I've completed J.Y.'s program. I just finished a BR of Section 3 (LR) of PT 1; however, in the 'LSAT Analytics' category, there are no explanations for any of the questions. Additionally, it looks like LR explanations aren't present until PT 17 and beyond.

Here are my questions:

Are there any plans to put video explanations for the LR sections from PTs 1-16 in the near future? (EDIT: I saw Dillon's comment, and it looks like there are no plans for explanations for these sections)

If not, does anyone know of resources/places to go where I could find video explanations to these questions?

Many thanks.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-3-question-10/

I got this one right almost instinctively (I didn't map this out), but I have a question about the phrase "can best be explained if" in the second sentence of the stimulus.

.

.

[Phenomenon] The rate is 450 times/second.

[Theory] The rate of 450 times/second can be best explained if the ring has a radius of 49km.

Assuming that the theory is correct, we can conclude that the ring has a radius of 49km.

.

To diagram [Theory] using Group 1 Translation:

・The ring of gas has a radius of 49km —> The rate of 450 times/second can best be explained

.

But is this correct way to diagram?

.

.

When I read this stimulus, I actually understood it as

・the rate of 450 times/second ---> the ring has a radius of 49km.

・The can ring maintain an orbit so close (49km) to a black hole —> the black hole was spinning

C: the black hole was spinning (Answer Choice (C))

.

.

Is my understanding correct? If so, how should we understand the phrase "can best be explained if"?

Let me know what you guys think :) Any help is appreciated!

I just started watching (learning) intro to lg. JY seems to imply erasing some parts of the diagram. Why's that? And is that necessary for success?

I have heard it all the time with regards to logic games. You're constantly getting 1-2 wrong per section, and then, after a certain number of sections, you start getting perfect scores. (This happened to me) Everything just clicked. I was wondering if anyone has experienced that with logical reasoning? Im curious because I have managed to limit my lr sections to just 1-2 wrong answers per section, and it'd be nice to know if I can perfect these sections by continuing to do pts or if Im going to need to change my study schedule to somehow fix this. Thanks in advance!

Hi when will the logic game explanations be available for June 2017 lsat PT81?

Thanks

Hi all,

I have been diagramming with all practice q but soon will begin PT. On my first LSAT I didn't diagram a single question(yes I bombed) but mostly due to nerves and space.

My current diagram takes a pg per q and I'm trying to get better but does anyone have any advice or techniques?

Guys, am I understanding this correctly? Basically, the letters in lg have a relationship only if they are mentioned in the rules, ie, “this comes before that..”. But have no relationship if they are not mentioned?

Does anyone remember how many questions were on the exam?

I had 3 LR, 1 RC, 1LG and 100 total question...

Very anxious that I made a bubbling error and might need to cancel...

The last couple days I have been extremely busy, so I decided to do un-timed LR sections. These un-timed LR sections have been my WORST scores to date.

My normal timed LR is anywhere from -3 to -5.

My un-timed LR sections are like -7 or -8.

What does this say about my understanding of the test? Lately I sort of feel like I tackle this test with brute force and with much less technical knowledge. What I see happening with these un-timed sections is that I second guess my first answer many times, which ultimately makes me get it wrong. The last section I did 4 of the 7 I missed are ones that the right answer almost jumped off the page at the beginning and then after I read it some more fell out of love with it and changed my choice.

What does this mean!

7Sage shows that LR from 60s is on average easier than from the 40s - 50s. The 40s to 50s seem to be have 5 star difficulty sections, but I know that the 60s have trickier questions despite their lower difficulty. I am trying to get as close to -0 as possible.

I am missing around -5/-4 per section, and I will only be doing sections I have already taken before. So there is no worry about wasting fresh PTs.

Which should I use for drills?

Hello! I've read a lot of different discussions about this, but I can't find anything that specifically answers my questions.

I have taken 11 PTs and have averaged 163, but recently scored a 170, then 165. My scores are all over the place and I'm aiming to score 170 in September. Because I was originally planning to take the June exam, I already completed PT 62-71 so now I am back to using older ones. I've already purchased 42-61 and was planning to take those 20 (plus PT 71 which I saved) but now I'm reading that taking the 40s doesn't actually help because they're easier...? Should I use the 40s for drills and purchase the 70s individually? I don't want to spend more money than I have to, but I also don't want to mess myself up by using the 40s if they're not going to help.

Any advice would be appreciated!!

Here's the link to JY's explanation in the Core Curriculum: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/budget-for-counseling-programs-flaw-question/

^^Could someone confirm whether or not my line of thinking is correct?

P: 90% of people nationwide believe that an appropriate percentage (i.e. 10%) of the school’s budget is being spent on counseling programs.

C: Thus, any significant increase in the school’s budget should NOT be spent on counseling programs.

Analysis: The premise talks about how people feel good about the 10% counseling programs receive. But, the conclusion says that any actual increase of $$$ in the budget should not be spent on counseling programs. But this conclusion doesn’t follow: for if the overall pie/quantity increases, then counseling program funding will also have to increase in order to maintain that 10% slice of the pie (the conclusion seems to imply that the “appropriate amount” should not be exceeded). So, counseling programs actually MUST receive more funding if their appropriate percentage is maintained.

So in other words, the conclusion essentially mistakes the poll results to mean that 90% of people believed that an appropriate amount of their school’s budget was being spent on counseling programs.

(A last note: I was anticipating that the flaw in the argument was that the conclusion is drawn from a belief but is treated as fact. But upon reviewing this question, I see that the the bigger issue is that a conclusion about quantity is being drawn about premises that only described percentages.)

Usually able to locate the correct answer, however on weaken, strengthen, and both kind of assumptions questions, I am not finding the answer by prephrasing. I usually go into the answer choices knowing what the right answer should do. Does that make any sense?

Hey everyone,

I have just started to add RC into my prep. So far I have drilled about 4 RC sections without keeping a strict time clock (i.e., I give myself about 8-11 mins on each passage) and I typically get -1 to 0 on each full section.

My question is, should I keep drilling RC sections as my only way to learn RC? Or is it safer to use additional prep material (e.g., the LSAT trainer) before drilling sections further?

Any advice would be appreciated, thank you!

So one of my biggest areas of weakness is hard science passages in RC.

I've been trying to read Scientific America a bit more, and I realize some of it is just repetition of these kinds of passages, but I wonder if there are any other tips/tricks anyone would suggest in tackling these passages?

Reading comp is a strong area for me otherwise, but I can sometimes tank 5 or 6 questions if I get a really difficult science passage (I usually do fine on easier science passages, but some are really f-ing hard). I try to just focus on the structure of the argument, but I still feel it isn't enough and I always miss connections between details. I can't help but feel if I had the science background I wouldn't be so tripped up on these passages.