In general, I got 2 wrong for each passage. In total, 8-10 wrong. I need some suggestions on how review the RC passage efficiently.

Hi 7sagers... I've noticed that in my recent PT's I have finished the LR sections with approximately 5 - 7 minutes left at which time I will go back to the questions I circled because I was not completely confident with my answer. When I go back through the section to these questions, I get worried about time and tend to spend no more than 45 seconds on them before usually confirming my first answer and going on to the next circled one. I am missing an average of 5 questions per LR section and mostly on these circled (curve breaker) questions.

How do you approach your second time through a section? Would it be better for me to hone in on 2 or 3 circled questions and absolutely get them right at the expense of not double checking all of the circled questions? Any light you can shed would be greatly appreciated.

Hi all,

I just began the RC section of the curriculum, and I'm finding it sort of pointless to study along with the videos without having the passage in front of me. I've heard legends of a time when pdfs were available, but now that that's not a thing, I was hoping some of you had suggestions on how best to get my hands on study materials. How do you ensure you're not "wasting" material from PTs while just trying to learn/perfect the study methods?

(I'm sure this has been asked before....sorry for the repetition)

THANKS!

Hi everyone!

I am studying full-time (was studying part time, 10 hours a week from last Sept to Feb, and began studying full time last month). I really hope to write in June.

I feel pretty comfortable with LR and RC, but NOT LG...

I've never taken a timed diagnostic, but when I took it untimed last September, I was about 4-5 wrong/ LR section, 4-5 wrong / RC, but l didn't even measure my performance on LG because I was just so lost. Many questions I couldn't do even untimed.

Right now I am going about 0-2 on LR and RC, timed. I just need to have LG under my belt to feel ready...

I did start prepping for LG quite late; I began fool-proofing about 4 weeks ago, for about 4 hours a day.

I did the CC and foolproofed the entire CC and have moved onto the PT stage for LG for the first time today.

I missed 8 on LG for PT62, timed.

I know that I should be foolproofing from now till June. My goal is to solve one PT section a day, foolproof it, and review/foolproof the section I did the previous day. So about 8 games (4 new, 4 old) per day. Is this reasonable? Are there any more tips on this stage of the prep?

I don't mind moving taking the LSAT in September, but because I already feel pretty comfortable with RC and LR, and have 2 months full-time just for LG, I am hoping to at least take a shot at the June one.

Many thanks in advance!!!

I got this wrong because while I did see the author was appealing to authority, I thought it was reasonable to assume that if the author says what an authority figure says, then it can be said that the author would say that too.

Answer Choice E basically says that the Meteorologist did not evaluate the merit of example from the Statistician. I thought by citing experts who are saying that no single thing can cause climate the Meteorologist was evaluating the merit of the example from the Statistician. But then I thought about it some more and it occurred to me that you can't necessarily say the Meteorologist evaluated the merits of the example just because he cited experts who cite a general principle that speaks to the counterexample.

I know this is a rough evaluation of the question and answer choice, but what I wanted to get clarity on is what I concluded above:

If an author cites what someone else says without saying it themselves can that author be said to have said the same thing?

This question makes me think the answer is no, but I was hoping someone could verify that.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-2-question-25/

@"J.Y.Ping" or anyone who really understands this and can explain: PT20 S1 Q6 and PT23 S3 Q6

I have listened to the explanation and on the Q6 from PT 23, I understand that E is incorrect, which I knew that going into the answers, but was frustrated, because it seemed to break all of the rules we are told to go by with avoiding "absolutes". The purse with the gold coins HAD been Brought to the ancient city by a pilgrim on route between M & M". The absolute assertion that it was not just "likely" brought, or even "most likely" bothered me and therefore made me feel it couldn't be correct. On the flip side, I knew all of the others were also wrong. E looked like it could have been very close if not for the use of the word "interacted". I could hear JY in my head saying, how do we know if they actually interacted, does that mean speaking, eating together?...So I ruled it out also, but all others looked so wrong as well. Why can the absolute assertion be ok sometimes, but we should stay away from it (in MSS) in almost all other scenarios?

**The Q12 from PT 20 is my BIGGEST issue. I hated this question and I am still arguing that the LSAC people are wrong. They are supposed to provide all you need in the stimulus and I do not feel as though they do. I do not own wood ducks or know anything about building their boxes etc. The majority of the Stim discusses how a female will lay an egg in another nest if they see the other female leaving, but that is so rare in nature bc the nests are so well hidden. Then the stem completely shifts its line of thinking, it goes into the "However, when people put up nesting box to help the ducks breed, they actually undercut the ducks' reproductive efforts. The nesting boxes become so CROWDED..."

So when I am looking at the answers, C looks immediately more correct. The boxes do have less "space" for the eggs than natural nesting sites, IF by space it is understood that when something is "overcrowded" there isn't enough space, or there is reduced space. Eg: There are 30 4th graders in my 2 bedroom apartment for my daughter's birthday and it is very crowded" I clearly have less "space" than I do when the 30 kids are not there. The missing 30 kids would be "my" natural environment.

The part I so whole heartedly disagreed with was the correct answer wording. D tells that, "The nesting boxes would be more effective in helping wood ducks breed if they were less visible to other wood ducks than they CURRENTLY ARE". My main problem choosing this answer was the "Currently Are"; how do I know if they are currently being used? Maybe it was something people used to do or tried in a lab or are talking about in theory. The writers never exactly say they are still in use and not to mention, the stim spends more of the time actually leading to the opposite...that the ducks are more productive in natural nesting sites. If I knew that nesting boxes were being used, and that the issue with this being successful wasn't that they were overcrowded because of "space" but that they were being placed in nature too visibly then I would have seen what they wanted me to pick. I get it that its supposed to be hard, but this seems not accurate. This question seemed to leave far too much to inference and it seems like the CC reminds up that we may have to make some inference but not huge stretches. I just felt that I had to assume too much to make D work. I saw that many students struggled with this.

Can someone please help explain why these stim types are either exceptions, or what is the trick/wording I missed that would have given it away? I wanted to ask @"J.Y.Ping" this during one of those sessions but I didn't make the lottery. Maybe since this seemed to be a really debated question, you could do a deeper explanation for everyone.? Or how to avoid traps like this one.

Thanks in advance!

Hi, I am struggling with Inference questions in Reading Comp and was wondering if any of you had any tips or strategies on how you approach them. I have no issues with 'active reading' -- I manage to get all of the main point, detail-oriented, reasoning structure and author's view/tone questions correct during timed sections and PTs. I just have an issue with inference questions so I usually end up with a -5 or -6.

I struggle with making inferences -- either I don't go far enough or I extrapolate too far and pick one that's out of scope. Even when I BR, I can't quite see where the inference is being drawn from in the passage if I can't point to a specific line reference. Other times, I try to approach it like MBT questions in LR -- but then get stuck if I can't definitely prove an answer choice, OR I vacillate between the 'could be true' and 'this sounds like a stronger/better inference' answer choice and pick the wrong one.

If you have any tips on how to push out inferences from reading comp passages, I'd really appreciate it. Thank you in advance!

Hi guys,

Before my first take (February) I drilled Logic Games by type until I had a decent foundation of each type and then began drilling whole LG sections and full PTs.

I am wondering should I do the same approach the second time around? or go straight into writing whole LG sections without wasting time on drilling by type since part of the difficulty is identifying the type of game and drawing your game board immediately?

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks

PT 77, Section 2, #18 Answer Choices C and D. Does "fails to exclude" mean the same thing more or less as "fails to consider"?

I thought "fails to exclude" was incorrect because the author doesn't need to exclude it, he just failed to consider it.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-77-section-2-question-18/

Hey All,

The short question is: are any LG books compatible with the 7Sage LG method and/or categories?

The longer question is: I'm an imbecile at LG's. Like really, really bad. I have always tested low on any spatial reasoning stuff and I feel like LGs are kicking my butt. I can logic myself to the right answers most of the time, I've gotten straight 100% on some drill sets I've done, but one game can easily take me half an hour so I know I'm not doing it "right." I'm not seeing all the inferences I should be at the outset, or not setting up the diagram efficiently.

I'm probably going to purchase the 7Sage Starter, because I simply can't afford more than that, but since I'm likely (barring a miracle) testing in September I probably will not buy the curriculum just yet. I work as a substitute during the day, so I can read books easily, but can't easily watch videos or read explanations online, so I'm saving buying the curriculum until I leave school in late June and can use it all day everyday : )

What books can I study now that are compatible with the methods I'll eventually learn through 7Sage? I own the PowerScore LGB and am working my way through that, but every time I've watched video explanations for the questions, it seems like they make it a lot more difficult than J.Y. does, and sometimes even categorize their games differently. Are any other LG books out there closer to his methods?

Thanks!

So I am still working on figuring out SA questions. I came across this question the other day in drills and have no idea how the correct answer connects with the passage above.

I can see where the connection may be but it still doesn't make sense. These are the type of questions I'm struggling with because there is very little, if any, lawgic used here and I seem to be thrown off by these all the time.

Thoughts?

Just started Group 3 Logical Indicators, and I'm confused. I'm not confused about the process (or at least I don't think I am). With Group 3 Indicators, you pick an idea, negate it and make it the sufficient indicator. I'm going through the flashcards, and when I'm applying the rule, it's not making any logical sense. I'm getting the correct answer, but translating it back into English, makes no sense to me. Here's my logic for some of them:

Add pennies until I tell you to stop.

/P > S

Do not add pennies until I tell you to stop

Logically doesn't match or make sense with original statement.

There is no point unless we win

P > W

There is point unless we win

Logically doesn't match or make sense with original statement

Sing until the cows return

/S > CR

Don't sing until the cows return.

Logically doesn't match or make sense with original statement.

I know I"m doing something wrong. I don't know if I"m properly picking the binary opposite, or what I'm doing wrong. Please someone walk me through it.

Thank you

Hello all,

I am a little bit confused with how to study LG.

In the foolproof lesson in our CC, J.Y. recommended watching video explanations right after you solve games, if you did not kill the games. Then, what about BR? Do we skip BR in case of LG? Because watching video explanations right after doing games means you do not do blind review or resolve the games on your own.

Any thoughts?

Thank you

Is it always the case that if an argument for a sufficient assumption question has descriptive premises with a normative conclusion (saying one should do something or ought to do it) then the answer choice must have normative language to close that gap?

Looking at PT 22, Section 4, Q13 and PT 62, Section 2, Q17, I can see many reasons to eliminate the other incorrect answer choices besides them lacking the normative language. However, I'm still hesitant to skip straight to the answer choices that say "should" because I'm still not sure if you need the word "should" or similar language to close the logical gap between the conclusion and premises. Is normative language in the answer choice always necessary to prove a normative conclusion when the premises don't have it?

Thanks!

I am afraid I will use up all my LR questions while drilling in the span of 7 months. Is drilling questions already drilled beneficial. If not, any suggestions? I have the power score question type workbook that I use as well as 7Sage drill questions.

So I got this one wrong and picked C when A is the correct AC. It's just not clicking for me how this is correct. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Hey, guys. Has anyone noticed any funky games such as this one in recent PT? JY said don't worry but there seems to be a trend of the older style games coming back. How would I ever know to draw a freaking star?!! I'm sure it could be solved other ways. I just did a single layer sequencing game board but of course, JY's way was much easier to see. This game def took me more than 11 mins!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-2-game-4/

Hello- Hoping for some insight on question 18.

When I first began my LSAT studying journey, I found flaw questions to be very straight forward. They have unfortunately turned into a question where I often find myself second guessing on my AC.

I'd say flaw questions that ask what the author fails to consider are more challenging for me than one that says "what's the flaw".

Anyway- I am having a hard time seeing where AC B is right in this question. I'm formulating my error in choosing A was the fact that the stimulus accounts for longer than 3 years with the words "can eventually make a conformable living".

Help would be greatly appreciated :)

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-18/

Couldn't we make the inference that only R and Z can be in slot 1? I was going to split the board on those but realized I didn't have enough info. I quickly eliminated A on question 1 without second thought because I scanned to eliminate any AC that didn't start with R or Z. JY didn't mention it and no one mentioned it in the comments. Am I missing something?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-2-game-1/

Hi!

I noticed that if I miss a Q in RC, then the Q missed is an Infer Perspective type Q - Inferring either Author's opinion/attitude or that of others. This is kinda odd, because I do well with LR MSS type questions.

I must be doing something wrong with these RC inferring questions. Does anyone have a good strategy/methodology in approaching inferring perspectives type Qs?

Much appreciated!

This is a really unusual question and took a long time to come up with this reasoning. Any feedback on my reasoning would be appreciated.

Context: There is a new law which will take effect soon and gives the patients legal rights to see their medical records. Doctor’s opines as the following:

Doctor’s Conclusion: patients should not have a legal right to see their medical records.

Reason 1: it will significantly reduce the amount of time that staff can spend on more important duties thus it is time wasting.

Reason 2: No patients will ask for it anyway, based on his experience so far.

Now, reason 1 is not even necessary to mention because reason 2 cancels out; if no patient will ask for it, whether it takes time to retrieve and return files doesn’t matter. They will not be time spent on that task anyway. Now the task is to find one answer choice that will make reason 2 not cancel out the reason 1. In other words, find a scenario in which even if no one asks for the files, it will still be a waste of time as a result of the new law.

(A) Correct. If the new law will require the doctors to be ready to produce records immediately each time they see patients, then reason 1 matters, even if no one asks for it. So with this new law, the reason 2 does not cancel out reason 1.

(B) Wrong. Even if the task of retrieving and returning files fall to the lowest-paid member of the office, if no one will be asking for it, it doesn’t matter how much time it takes to handle the files. Reason 1 is cancelled out by reason 2.

(C) Wrong. Even if this is true that patients will require more time for explanation of their records, reason 1 is still not a good reason if no one will ask for the records. Thus reason 1 is cancelled out by reason 2.

(D) Wrong. If they can get extra payment for the staff to handle the records, it will not be a waste of time so in this scenario, reason 1 is cancelled out even more so.

(E) Wrong. This is no different from what stimulus suggests. If no one asks for the records, reason 1 doesn’t matter. Reason 1 is cancelled out by reason 2.

I've heard a lot of people recommend the Manhattan RC book to supplement your RC curriculum. Has anyone gone through the Blueprint RC book? I already have a copy of that laying around so it would be easy to go through it, but I am curious if it would be more beneficial to skip it and go straight to Manhattan's book instead.

Any feedback is welcome. FWIW, I definitely struggle the most on RC. I just want to make sure I spend my time learning it in the most efficient manor, and not having to test 3/4 different methods before finding one that sticks.

I also plan on using @TheoryandPractice 's RC summary s/he posted a few days back; I just would like to get a better baseline before jumping into the application of their methodology.

X (-) ~Y

X -> ~Y

Could someone please clear up for me? Thanks!

I have been trying to master my lawgic to English translations and need some help here.

Working on: /F --> /E

I want to say: No friendly person is not exciting.

But when I read this, it does not sound correct. If I try using a group 4 translation to bring it back to logic, it doesn't seem like it would work out. Any idea if I'm on the right track here? Thanks in advance!!!

I have been thinking about drilling from old PTs. I know it will help, but I was wondering how difficult are the LR questions in the new PTs vs. the old PTs? Should I drill from the new ones instead (60+)? Or should I stick with the old ones (18-)? I want to save the new PTs for full timed tests.