I finally took a full PT. I chose PT76 under time limit with 144. I finished most of the LG class and ready for LR course on. My goal is to enter 170s.

I got internship 4 of 5 days. I use the lsat blog schedule and use the 7sage course with reading LSAT trainer。

.How much I should do for drills before full section？ My LSAT is in December.Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks!!

If someone can help me understand this question, I would be most appreciative. I have been staring at it for the last 15 minutes, I looked at the Manhattan explanation (on their forums) and was not satisfied, it really does not make sense to me.

If someone could help me, I would be most appreciative! Please, please help me! :(

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-2-question-02/

Does the stimulus in this question illustrate a causal relationship between the Sumerian's inability to support agriculture and its collapse? I'm wondering if the second to last sentence of the stimulus can indicate a mere correlation, that there were other factors that caused the collapse unrelated to agriculture. I'm just having trouble understanding if the causation was something indicated through indicator words or if it was implied based on the information of the stimulus.

I first read Passage A, and because I'm a nervous impulsive person, I go straight to the questions that refer only to passage A and do those, and then skim through the questions that refer to both A and B (i.e. "Which of these would both the authors from A and B agree with?") and eliminate a good 2-3 answer choices for each of the questions like that. I do this because I fear that I'll forget what I read in A after I finish with B (or worse, misinterpret A wrong and see it through a different lens after because of what I've read in B.)

This strategy doesn't seem terrible, since I still do ~okay~ on the passages, but it also probably takes up more time because I'm re-reading questions? I wanna know if anyone else has tips / good strategy for Comparative Passages. I'm still trying out my strategy, but if it's deemed inefficient or unnecessary, I'm still in the early stages so I'll be ready to change/modify to a different strategy.

Thanks, community!

Hi there.

I have been preparing for LSAT for 2 weeks and my progress right now is that I finished the Powerscore Bible of LR and also the relevant part of 7sage and I have also done around 8 PTs. So as I practice the LR with the PT, I try to finish the section in 35 mins but if I do that, then I am always around -8. However, if I do take my time and finish it around 45mins then I am around -4. So my question is that, what should be the main concern for me right now, to get more right answers or to try to finish the section in time? Or is there any other right things to do that I am missing right now? Thanks!

So regardless if I take a timed or untimed test, I only get half of the logical reasoning questions right. The first 10-12 I get right and then it goes downhill. Does this mean that my foundation and understanding for logical reasoning is not good enough? Problem is I feel confident about a lot of my answers :/. Please help me in how I can improve my poor logical reasoning scores!

When the question asks: "which exhibits a pattern of reasoning most closely similar?" indicating a Parallel question, is it implicitly given to us that the stimulus contains a valid argument? Or can we not assume that? Just wanted to make sure because I think that would help me eliminate answer choices (that contain invalid arguments) quicker.

This is in contrast to Parallel Flaw, which explicitly states "which exhibits a pattern of *flawed* reasoning...?"

Hi, I'm consistently having problems with the Social Science and Law sections in the reading comprehension sections. I score almost perfect on my Humanities and Natural Science sections, but I can't seem to get more than 2 or 3 right within the two other areas. I was hoping there was some kind of strategy or method of thinking that I could try and incorporate that would help me within Social Science and Law.

If anyone has any good tips that would be awesome.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-4-question-13/

I understand why "A" is correct but still cannot arrive at why "E" is incorrect. My thought was that "E" allowed for the possibility that instead of not believing the testimony, some just did not find the testimony (which may have been one that implicated the defendant) significant enough to render a guilty verdict. In other words, all members of the jury could have believed the testimony, yet some may not have viewed it as significant enough to decide on a guilty verdict.

Does "E" just not draw upon the flaw in the reasoning behind the conclusion from the premises?

I was close to understanding this in last night's BR call, though I think I still need more input to clear my mind up on this.

Thanks in advance!

I did this question twice in a span of about 3-4 weeks. I got it wrong both times.

So what I did was diagram the stimulus:

TT-->OM-->OD

S-m->OM

OM=Older than Maples

OD=Older than Dogwoods

A) I eliminated because there is no relationship between dogwoods and tulip trees

B) We don't know anything about the youngest sycamores only about the sycamores that are older than dogwoods

C) I picked this when I did it last night. I actually thought it was correct because we know that most sycamores are older than dogwoods, so there must be some that are either younger or the same age as dogwoods. I guess this is wrong because of "oldest dogwoods" am I correct?

D) Similar to A there is no relationship that can be said between tulip trees and sycamores

E) same as D

Can someone help me. Clearly my reasoning is incorrect somewhere because I got this question wrong not once, but twice. I am incredibly grateful to whoever can help me understand this problem!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-75-section-4-game-4/

I'm so confused with the rule "Any feature occupying more than one slot must occupy consecutively numbered slots."

Could anyone list all (or some if all is impossible) possibilities of this rule?

I thought it just means,

it there are multiple Xs, it would be XX.

But it seems there are other possibilities other than this...the part "consecutively" bothers me.

It seems XXYYX is correct as well, but I thought this is wrong bc the last X is there by itself. (It should be XXXYY isn't it?)

I already watched the video but still it bothers me :(

How do you diagram unless, except, only if, and if but only if?

Especially unless, I'm super confused. I have been told to negate the left statement but then others say that's wrong. Also what are you supposed to do with statements like: Unless I get an A, I will not go out tonight....? HELP I HATE CONDITIONAL LOGIC

I am totally lost on this question. What I did was diagram :

--L ---> --C

C --> L

I picked E because it had the word many in it, and I thought from the first sentence it was being consistent. Initially, I was thinking D because of "some" but then I thought well the first sentence has "many" so I should be congruent.

I'm really lost and cannot figure this out. If someone could help me out, I would be most appreciative!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-2-question-06/

I hate that I'm getting stumped by a question this early in the section, but I've gotten this wrong both timed and also during blind review. I keep choosing C, although the answer is B:

(paraphrased stimulus)

Legislator: Your agency is responsible for regulating an industry shaken by scandals. We gave you funds for 500 investigators but you only hired 400. I conclude that you intentionally limited hiring in order to prevent the full extent of the scandals from being revealed.

Regulator: No, we tried hiring the 500 investigators, but the starting salaries were frozen so low by the legislature that it was impossible to attract enough qualified applicants.

Q: The regulator responds to the legislator's criticism by...

B. providing info that challenges the legislator's conclusion

C. claiming that complying with the legislature's mandate would have been an insufficient response

I chose C. because the regulator was saying that complying with the legislature's mandate (the one to hire 500 investigators with low frozen salaries) would have been an insufficient response (in combating the scandals)

I see why B would be the right answer since the regulator introduces new information that suggests an alternative explanation, which challenges the legislator's conclusion. I'm just not sure why C is wrong.

Any help would be much appreciated! I have tried to find this explanation or discussion of this question online elsewhere and haven't been able to.

Hi folks,

I'm struggling with this question in BR. So I figured I'd post my reasoning and see what you all think of it.

Debater:

Premise 1:Because lecturers are superior to students in mastery, lecturing requires hierarchy.

Premise 2: People learn best from peer interaction.

Conclusion: Hierarchy in lecturing is a weakness.

Respondent:

Premise 1: Because teaching/learning requires simple to complex instruction, teaching/learning requires hierarchy.

Illustration of premise: In math, you must learn arithmetic before calculus.

Conclusion: Hierarchy in lecturing is a strength.

What the respondents' reply most vulnerable to criticism for?

There is more than one flaw, so I listed the ones I could see.

Flaw 1: Response does not address what is sufficient for a strength or defend against a weakness, it simply states that it is required.

Flaw 2: Requirement/necessity does not equal strength.

I'm sure there are more, but those were most obvious to me.

A: Initially I thought this was correct because I thought the argument ignored some assumptions of the debater. But it doesn't. When the debater assumes that peer interaction implies not hierarchy, the respondent responds all teaching/learning is hierarchical.

B: We must accept the premises as true so the argument did not assume that methods in math are as effective in other disciplines. It's an illustration of the premise. Eliminated.

C: Irrelevant to Respondent's argument. We are only talking about whether hierarchy is a strength or a weakness.

D: This is correct. They are talking about two different kinds of hierarchy. The first is lecturer to student hierarchy, the second is simple to complex material hierarchy!

E: Again, must accept premises as true.

Found the correct flaw! They're talking about TWO different kinds of hierarchy! Woo.

Wow. In the 30 minute process of typing this post, I figured it out. If this isn't a good advertisement for a damn good blind review process, I don't know what is. I started out defending A was correct, realized it was wrong, and figured out D was correct. Woo!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-1-question-16/

Define, undefined, or partially defined

Can someone help me out with this one? Apparently the correct answer is E, but I'm not particularly able to pin down the argument structure or understand what it is trying to say and why it is flawed in the respect indicated by the correct answer choice.

Thanks!!

I have commented in the past about what I call the "some people say" principle. I have just finished checking every "main conclusion" question in Preptests 62-71, and have found that the "some people say" formula appears in 14 out of 27 MC questions. In every single one of these instances, the "main conclusion" can be easily and accurately determined by taking the "some people say" text and negating it. (In many cases, the stimulus does this for you--the next sentence after a "some people say" formula is often something like, "But these critics are wrong," or "This suggestion is unreliable, because..."

Just curious because at first glance these are a little bit more difficult than regular linear games and grouping games

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-3-question-17/

Any food that is not sterilized and sealed can contain bacteria

JY’s translation: /Sterilized or /Sealed -> can contain bacteria

Jy mentions DeMorgan’s law to reach the translation.

Could somebody explain how the translation works this way?

I initially translated the statement as: /Sterilized and Sealed -> can contain bacteria

Hi all,

Find that I'm having a very difficult time coming to terms with the right answer choice for this question. I find that B makes too large of an assumption (in assuming that the tools didn't come to the possession of prehistoric ancestors who did not stand upright by some other means) to be effective in weakening the argument. I've tried to see the fault in the other answer choices so that I could at least learn to get to the answer by process of elimination and find myself stuck on D. I've watched the video with J.Y.'s explanation, and I don't know if I'm misreading the way that answer choice is framed, but to me "first" doesn't imply they had JUST stood up. I read it as they were the first individuals who managed to do it. Been stuck on this question for a couple days now. I would love to have a discussion about this question with you guys to see it from a different perspective. I can't help but see D as a more effective answer choice than B, and I know there is no point in arguing with the test.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-49-section-2-question-14/

Hello, all!

I have a question about the negation of a particular comparative statement that I encountered in the third quiz on negation in the curriculum. Here is that statement: "Small animals can move more rapidly than large animals can." That statement is, of course, negated as others are: "It's not the case that small animals can move more rapidly than large animals can." But the implications of this negated statement confuse me. The implications of this statement are explained to be that either (1) small and large animals move with equal rapidity or (2) large animals move more rapidly than small animals. But why must the entire group of small animals either move in one of these two ways? Don't these implications only account for the negation of the quality on which the two groups are being compared, yet neglect the quantity? Isn't the original statement quantified?

I have a feeling that I'm not being clear, so let me explain further.

Because the author is talking about these animals as sets - small animals and large animals - can we infer that he or she is talking about all small animals and all large animals? Can we thus read this statement as, "All small animals can move more rapidly than large animals can"? If we can, would not the negation of this statement be, "Some small animals cannot move more rapidly than large animals"? From this statement, we would know that there is at least one small animal (yet possibly all) that cannot move more rapidly than large animals. And because we would know that at least one small animal animal (yet possibly all) cannot move more rapidly than large animals, we would also know that there is at least one small animal (yet possibly all) that moves either equally rapidly or less rapidly than larger animals can. Isn't this all that we need to negate the original statement - merely one small animal that moves equally rapidly or less rapidly as large animals? This would deny the truth of "small animals move more rapidly than large animals," wouldn't it? Wouldn't this account for both the quality on which these groups are being compared and the quantity?

Of course, my entire paragraph above relies on an assumption about which I'm unsure that I can make: I took for granted the we can read the original statement as, "All small animals can move more rapidly than large animals." Perhaps we cannot read that statement as such. If so, why? And if that's the case, are we simply to negate the statement in terms of the quality on which the two groups are being compared, as the answer reflects above? (I.e., the negation of this statement would simply mean that small animals, as a group, can either move equally rapidly or less rapidly than large animals, as a group.)

I hope this is clear. If not, I apologize. I'm confused myself.

Any help on how I am to go about negating this statement would be much appreciated. Thank you all for your time!

(I'll be leaving for work soon, so I'll respond to any posts either later this evening or tomorrow morning!)

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-3-question-11/

I am having a hard time ruling out A. If black water comes into the bay ONLY once every two centuries, how can the conclusion be a comparative statement, saying that it did not reach the same intensity as last years?

I chose D under timed conditions, and because I couldn't really see how A related to the stimulus, but now that I have entertained the above thought, I'm having a hard time crossing off A.

Thanks!

SO I just took Section 1 LR of the Feb 1993 LSAT to help me drill and practice studying. I am going to blind review it this evening and then score it.

First does anyone know where I can watch videos of explanations? I know we are fortunate to have the Game review here... but not LR. The Question stems appeared different & I think I might have misinterpreted some.

Second, I used the proctor app with moderate distractions. I was distracted. SO I am going to continue to use the app with distractions to help me train for that... but please please please give me advice on how you train for that. Every time that guy "yawned" I wanted to hit him. :) I was like dude did you NOT sleep last night we have the LSAT today. ha! So any tips there would be greatly appreciated.

Finally, I know I have read that the tests have changed since 1993, which is why I am using these tests for my lunch time training,just wanted to make sure that was correct. I don't think I did as well as I would have liked in this stage, but I know and felt better than I did on my diagnostic test so that is major improvement.

Thanks guys, I really don't know how I could do this without you :)

I recently took a 2 day break from LR.

I did 2 LR sections today and had much better results. 23/25 and 22/26. I think maybe I needed to just let information and some of the studying I've been doing, sink in. I definitely feel like some of the answers are just "coming" to me now, rather than having to think hard on them. Especially for the first 10 questions.

It's interesting. The questions I circle for blind review are rarely incorrect and sometimes during review I'll second guess myself and actually put the wrong answer down.

Regardless, I'm still finding time to be an issue. The first section I took was 5 minutes over. The second section was 10.

5 I can deal with...10...not so much.

And I know exactly where I'm slowing down as well. It's the harder questions, anywhere from 15 onward. That's also the area I get most of my wrong answers. The first 10 questions I usually complete in 10ish minutes.

I'm wondering if there are any suggestions or time management strategies, specifically for LR, that any of you would recommend?