Hi guys! I wanted some insight into why A qualifies as a right answer for this question.

The argument is saying that the manager should be blamed/is responsible for the project's delay because he was aware that the contractor often runs late and should have planned for this possibility.

The designated correct answer, "a principle that underlies the argument," is that a manager should take foreseeable problems into account when deciding things.

While I recognize the logic that makes this answer correct, I take issue with its specific language. Saying that a manager "should take foreseeable obstacles into account" does not necessitate that /a manager should in fact be blamed if they do not take such obstacles into account,/ which is the logic piece that would plug the hole. Specifically, the word "should" cannot be reasonably assumed to mean "must, otherwise blame/responsibility is accrued," and it fails to accomplish that on multiple fronts.

Should is an opinion word and does not guarantee certainty of execution, or lack of execution. Furthermore, even if one was to equate "should" with some form of "must," "must" alone would exclude the possibility of an event not happening, making it impossible to address the implications of it not happening.

Is there a LSAT-specific reading of "should" that alters the meaning of the question?

If not, why would it be incorrect to read "should" as "ought to"/"would benefit from," thus making "ought to take foreseeable problems into account" insufficient as a principle that justifies the manager being /blamed/ for not taking them into account?

Thanks for the read :) I really appreciate any thoughts you all may have!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-1-question-19/

Hey, y'all! I'm having a tough time negating some AC for NA. For AC A and B they don't seem to be negated the same.

A. None of the mercury introduced into the body can be eliminated.

Negated: some of the mercury introduced into the body can be eliminated.

B. Some people in Beethoven's time did not ingest mercury.

Negated: all people in Beethoven's time ingested mercury.

Why was there no "not" included in A but "not" was removed from B when negated? I know you can add the phrase, "it is not the case" before the AC instead of trying to negate certain words but that doesn't work for me. For some reason it doesn't make sense to me.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-3-question-16/

Just found this gem:

https://classic.7sage.com/the-7-stages-of-waiting-for-your-lsat-score/

Hello! I live in Portland OR and am looking for motivated study buddies who would be interested to study for the LSAT during the weekends. Please feel free to comment or inbox me if you're interested. Best of luck!

Hey all. I'm just wondering how most people deal with statements with both Group 3 and Group 4 indicators. I realize that one can use either rule and be fine, but in practice do most people just stick with one rule? I find it makes more intuitive sense to use the Group 3 rule, and was wondering if there were any downsides to just sticking with using the Group 3 rule at all times when I encounter a statement with both indicators.

For example, in the following statement:

"There will not be a good show unless there are sophisticated listeners in the audience."

With the Group 3 rule, one would diagram as:

GS --> SL

because one is negating the sufficient (/GS), which turns it into GS. The fact that "not a good show" is /GS makes intuitive sense to me because not should mean /.

However with the Group 4 rule:

not a good show becomes GS

unless there are sophisticated listeners becomes /SL

and therefore

GS --> SL

because one is negating the necessary (/SL) and making the other idea (GS) the sufficient condition. However, this is where I always get tripped up, because I don't think it makes intuitive sense for unless to be a negation. Also, my mind makes me constantly think that "not a good show" has to mean /GS, so leaving it as GS is really difficult for me to intuitively grasp.

What do others think? Is it fine if I just stick with the Group 3 rule for every statement that has both indicators? Are there any cases where using the Group 4 rule would be better?

This resolve the paradox... just not understanding it in the least. Any help will be much appreciated.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-52-section-1-question-14/

Hey everyone!

So I have just started the LG section in the CC. JY mentioned something along the lines that we should be memorizing all the inferences of a game, and doing the game over and over to the point that we've memorized all the inferences. Could someone clarify what exactly I'm supposed to memorize? Kind of confused as to why I should memorize inferences if each game is going to have somewhat different game pieces and outcomes. Thanks so much!!!

Hey all. Just wanted to write and foster a discussion about weakening questions. I don't really fully understand them. Sometimes I will get them right and then other times I will completely mess them up. I am really quite sad about this, as I obviously want to conquer them. Any insight into approach would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!

Hey all,

So I'm finding myself a bit confused on the LG fool proofing method. Not the actual method, but which games I'm using. I have seen lots of people say the games from 1-35, but I'm not sure where this "packet" of games is on 7sage. What I did was take all the games from the LG section in the CC that J.Y went over, as they seem like a good large sample of the different kinds of games you need to master, and I'm fool proofing those. But those games don't seem to be all games from tests 1-35. Honestly, when I looked online, I couldn't even find the LSAT tests from below 7. I did purchase the 7-12 tests and I'm doing some of those games to mix it up as their style is quite different from the newer games.

So I'm just a bit confused about the 1-35 packet thing. I feel like if I master the games in the CC that that is probably good enough, as well as throwing in some of the games from earlier prep tests to test my ability to handle weird games. I also plan to spend a lot of time with miscellaneous games.

Am I approaching this wrong?

Thanks!

Hey everyone,

Its been little more than a week of fool proofing after completing the logic games lessons in the CC and I have completed all of the the logic games in the first 10 PTs. So far, I am averaging about 11-13 mins/per game (not section) and usually get 1-2 questions wrong/per game. However, after watching the LG explanation videos, I pick up on the inferences and do the same games in half the time and rarely get any questions wrong.

I know its only been a week of fool proofing, yet I kind of feel discouraged as my time has not seen any significant change after the first 40 games (i.e., I am still taking about 45 mins per LG section). Is this progression relatively normal? I want to continue fool proofing, yet at the same time, I don't know if I should review the lessons before moving forward with the next 100 games. Any advice would be much appreciated. Thank you!

So I've taken about 6 full PT and a few more timed LR sections, and I seem to not being getting too much better at LR. Currently I'm getting about -10 per section and really would like to be getting -2 or -3. When I BR I get nearly all of the questions right. I have a skipping method, but I was curious if there were any other fixes, or if it was just something that comes with time, patience and practice?

There are different techniques used for each section of the LSAT. On the RC section, you need to read the passage. You need to read it like a Reasoning Question. This takes me 3.5 minutes on average. I am an excellent reader, and I have read these sections in two minutes, which would work if I were reading a Tom Clancy novel, but this stuff is dry -and uninteresting. You have to be in the mindset to suck this info in. I don't mark up the page with lots of symbols, I mark the different viewpoints. I look for the key point in each paragraph. I underline that part. I put a V by each viewpoint. Timeline, you should be able to remember chronology without going back to look, and you should be able to remember where to find the answers to the questions, by memory, you don't want to have to reread a paragraph. I hope this helps.

Whyyyy is this so hard for me?? I am on RC on the Ultimate + (I upgraded yay!) and I'm finding that the hardest questions in the set for me are the first ones -- 'What is the main point'. In my mind there is just so much information, I can't seem to figure out which concept is the main point unless it's a super easy passage. Anyone have any tips? Is there anything that gives a general 'clue' about what sentence/thought is the Main point?

Hi guys,

What is your opinion on the optimal daily study schedule from now until the September LSAT? How many LR, RC, and LG sections per day and how many prep tests per week? Of course, review of the sections should be added into the daily schedule as well.

Good morning 7sagers! (or afternoon, or whatever!)

I have a quick question for everyone. As of right now I go roughly -4 to -5 on any given LR section. I took a full timed PT this weekend, and am now reviewing it.

THREE of the LR questions I missed because I am a special kind of special.

1.) I read the stem and saw principal and my head assumed I needed to find something consistent with it. The actual stimulus said Inconsistent.

2.) The last question in the section I got really excited for because I read the stem to fast and saw "Main conclusion!" yeah that would have been awesome, except the rest of the stem said "The main conclusion can be properly inferred" .....so yeah this was a SA not a MC.

3.) In the answer choice it said "never happens". I for whatever reason, didn't see "never".

HELP these little mistakes are brutal to my score. Simple issues that when I see are simple Homer Simpson "Doh!" types of mistakes.

Any advice on how to focus more intently on the AC/Stimulus/Stem

Additionally since I am starting out, how would experienced LSATers rank from most difficult to least difficult the top 5 on this list, just to so i can start tackling the more difficult ones first

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://magoosh.com/lsat/2016/most-common-logical-reasoning-question-types/

"he table below displays the various types of Logical Reasoning questions, ranked by how frequently they appear on the exam. The number in the “Frequency” column represents how many questions of that type appear in the official LSAT PrepTests. Thus far, the list includes 55 real exams administrated over the past 15 to 20 years.

The numbers show that the vast majority of Logical Reasoning questions on the LSAT are either Assumption, Flaw, or Inference questions. Those three types combined historically represent about 40% of all Logical Reasoning questions. "

Question Type Frequency

Assumption 427

Flaw 410

Inference 402

Weaken 254

Strengthen 196

this was related i found here; in terms of individual LSAT tests

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/465

Hey all,

So I just took PT 53 and scored a 169. Hoooray, right? Not quite. I scored a -1 in LG, -2 between both LR sections and a -9 in RC. Yes, a -9!!!!!!!

I don't know exactly what my problem is with RC. Maybe I just hate it and I know that I hate it so my mindset isn't right or maybe I just don't understand the questions. I understand what it's asking, but I've just read so much dense material in 2 minutes so to then answer a densely worded question with 4 answer choices that are all eerily similar in 40 seconds seems like a lot...

Anyone else gone through something like this? How did you beat RC? I know that you track the viewpoints, arguments, tone, structure etc.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated as I am at my wits end with RC...

Hey everyone,

So, I feel I'm at the stage right now at which so many top scorers find themselves at some point in their prep. In fact, maybe 2.5 months out is the typical time. You put off RC for the most part until now. You think "Ah, I got it. I can read. Besides, if I can become a stud at LG and LR, how hard can RC be"....and then RC punches you in the face.

I'm currently at -5/-6 untimed and my last two timed sections were -9 and -11. Very, very sad.

I've learned about the low resolution summary and high resolution summary, along with connecting back after each paragraph after paragraph one. It's a foolproof strategy. I love it. I want to master it. But I still have to sort out a few things until I find my RC comfort zone.

How much do you tend to write down in the margins? Right now I'm writing the low resolution summary and the purpose. I can't write the high resolution because frankly there isn't enough room. Should I write more, less? Thoughts?

How long does it take to learn to read like this? Let's face it, this isn't everyday reading and you are tested on things that aren't exactly central to whether or not you've comprehended the words on the page.

Do you actually remember every detail of the high resolution summary? After I finish reading the passage, I go down the margins and read the low resolution summary, I then ask myself "Why?" or "What?" and then expand...this reinforces all the finer points of the passage.

Any other tidbits you can share with me? I am desperate to get to a consistent -4 or less under timed conditions.

Thank you all so much for your input.

Can someone point me to LSAT LR q's that are either necessary or sufficient questions types that list BOTH a necessary and sufficient answer choice?

I want to test my ability to distinguish between the two but am having a hard time finding the tricky q's that list both in the same question

Hello, the ultimate course offers LR drill packs at the end of the syllabus. Is there an overlap of questions between these drill packs and the problem sets? Or are they offered as a supplement to the problem sets for additional practice?

Hi guys,

This is something I've sort of noticed with BR'ing a lot of logical reasoning - it seems that depending on the question type, an answer choice that is a conditional statement can SOMETIMES be a more unlikely contender. It seems to depend on question type.

For instance, sufficient assumption answer choices are usually phrased as conditional statements because, well, you're literally filling in a missing premise. However, that doesn't really seem to apply with necessary assumption, because you're looking for the critical assumption that would make the argument fall apart - and that usually isn't a conditional statement. I've also noticed people being wary of conditional statement answer choices when it's a weakening question: If we don't know that the sufficient triggers, how do we know it affects the argument?

So I guess my question is - I know to always be vigilant of exceptions, but are there indeed LR question types where seeing an answer choice that is phrased as a conditional statement makes you think "mmm unlikely"? And if so which ones? I don't see this as a "silver bullet" way of crossing things off, but I thought it would be useful to be wary. (Kind of like when I now come across a weakening question and read an AC that begins with "Some people..". Since some = a few = could be just one person, it's unlikely that "some" is strong enough to weaken the argument.)

Just trying to build my wariness/understanding! Thank you!

If anyone is in the Houston area and wants to form a study group or needs a study buddy please let me know :) I usually study at the Barnes n Noble in River oaks but open to anything :)

Hi guys! I wanted to get some clarification on the logic that makes this answer E rather than D.

The stem is that the argument relies on the assumption, but my current understanding is that neither answer accomplishes this, though E has more issues than D.

The correct answer, E, is saying that the argument /relies/ on the assumption that many of the farmers wouldn't grow green manure unless they abandon chemicals. I believe the argument is still in tact if this is false.

Even if this was untrue, meaning that few or none of the farmers will only grow green manure if they abandon chemicals, the argument could hold for a variety of other reasons. E's reasoning could justify the argument if true, but it also has the potential to not justify the conclusion if true. Just because the farmers won't grow manure without ditching chemicals, doesn't mean they will grow manure if they were to stop using chemicals. I think the test makers designated E as the correct answer with the thought process that "in order to significantly improve the soil structure," the soil must be "rejuvenated," and they /must/ be "rejuvenated" by growing manure, which relies on and will happen if chemical fertilizers are abandoned.

None of the steps in that logic sequence are supported by premises in the passage. "Significantly improving the soil structure" does not to rely on "rejuvenation." "Rejuvenation" does not rely on the growing of green manure. Abandoning chemical fertilizers doesn't guarantee that the green manure will be grown, not to mention that the diction of E states that the principle applies to "many" farmers while the passage refers to simply "farmers" which implies all farmers, or possibly a mere plurality of farmers (neither of which necessarily matches reliance on the actions of "many" farmers.)

D has inconsistencies as well, though fewer than E does, in my opinion.

In order to conclude that chemicals must be removed to increase soil quality, we must be certain that "farmers" not removing chemicals absolutely inhibits "significant improvement in soil structure." D purports that chemical fertilizers "will have destructive effect on soil structure of farm fields." It does not say that there's a chance it will or that it will contribute to destructive effects, but that it will cause destructive effects. If the /end/ effect of something is destructive, it has not shown significant improvement.

That said, if we are supposed to assume (an unfair assumption in my opinion) that the destructive effects are merely a contribution to the net structure of the soil, then the assumption that chemical fertilizers are disruptive is not necessary to conclude that farmers should ditch chemicals to significantly improve soil structure.

Now, I know the culmination of my thought processes lends to the idea that I may be merely overthinking/overanalyzing the text; I don't disagree. I follow the logic that leads one to select E, even though I think it's flawed logic.

I guess the real implication of my question is to find out where and how the line is drawn between relevant logical inconsistencies and their irrelevant counterparts. Unless the LSAC lays out exactly which factors can be considered for assessing logic, there will be an inherent gray area of subjectivity. I won't claim that this question falls in that gray area, but it must exist somewhere.

Any thoughts and opinions are welcome! Thanks for reading :)

Hey all,

So I've narrowed down my main LR weakness to MSS questions. I was thinking of using the Question Bank to filter all the MSS questions from PTs 1-35, and then print them all out to create a drill packet (since the Cambridge packets are now going for $$$$). Has anyone ever done this? I notice that there's no option to print these out when using the Question Bank, as we're given videos of the questions.

I'm wondering what the best way to go about this is. I was thinking of just screenshotting the videos and then put all of the screenshots in a Word file and then print. Anybody have a better/more efficient idea?

Admin edit: You can now print questions in PDF from the Question Bank:

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/18378/new-feature-print-pdfs-of-custom-drills-from-the-question-bank

Are there in study groups in Washington DC area for LSAT in September 2017?