Hi I was just hoping someone could help me sort out the conditional logic in this stimulus. I feel like there's a gap in my understanding of the first sentence of the stimulus.

The first statement is about archaic spellings being preserved if they are infrequent and do not interfere with reading comprehension. I think the negation of preserved is modernized.

F: frequent

I: interfere

M: modernize

I originally diagrammed this statement as:

/F & /I -> /M

M -> F or I

The correct diagram is:

/M->/F & /I

F or I -> M

What is the difference I'm missing here?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-3-question-19/

This is what I would like to call my Achilles heel of reading comp. These questions destroy me about 50% of the time. I am here for guidance! What can I do to attack these questions better. How do I get inside the head of the author, and more importantly, what clues me into this in the RC passage? What are guide posts that I can look for to help me here?

I'm in the middle of going through the CC and I'm on weakening questions at this point. I'm working on my problem sets, but the last five sets I've done, I've been getting three or more of the questions wrong- the last two I just did, I got all the questions wrong. I understand for weakening questions, I'm looking for AC that reduces the support between the premise and conclusion, and I'm able to identify the premise, conclusion, referential phases, etc. in each argument. But when it comes down to select my AC, this is where I trip up. I'm going through JY's explanations for each question, and I see where his argument came from in selecting the AC, but the next set I do, I miss the point again and get too many questions wrong. Help! Any tips of how to conquer the tough weakening questions? Should I review the whole lesson plan again? Should I look at another way of attacking these questions via other study guides? I'm getting frustrated and discouraged because I've been handling all other topics fine, but I'm at a road block with these questions. Thanks in advance!

Howdy! I'm kinda iffy about what constitutes prescriptive. Could we say that "can be" is prescriptive? Or, is it just specifically what "should" be or what "ought" to be?

Ex. PT32-1-19

There is no genuinely altruistic behavior (descriptive). Behavior that appears to be altruistic can be understood as being motivated by the desire to reinforce that belief (prescriptive).

Can "can be" equal "ought" in this scenario? The more I think about it I say no. There was a scope shift. The conclusion states what "is" and the support states what "could" be interpreted, but not necessarily "ought". Do I have this correct?

Can someone break down valid argument form two for me? I'm confused about the contrapositive. /B therefore /A, but isn't shouldn't "does not treat patients" be a contrapositive"?

Valid form 2 of 9

Denying the Necessary

[English] All doctors treat patients. Hercules does not treat patients. Therefore, Hercules is not a doctor.

[Lawgic]

A –> B

/B

/A

So people seemed to have an easy time with this one , but i am having a rough time with it. I am improving drastically with the games. But does this mean i am weak in conditionality? With seeing contrapositives? I didnt think i had these weaknesses.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-1-game-2/

I've been studying for nearly exactly a month at this point. My diagnostic, with quite a few very lucky guesses, was 162. I'm currently hovering around 164-165, and I'm a little frustrated with my progress.

Do you think it is realistic, at this point, to still shoot for a 172+ on test day? Essentially, I have 3 months to go, and I'm still testing almost ~8 points below my goal, but I CAN do them…just not in the time…anyone have any personal tips for speeding up?

Hi guys! I know this has probably been asked many times before but I just want to know how you exactly go about BR for LR? I just took a practice section after not taking one in a long time and I got 6 wrong and skipped 2 which is making me feel a little down. LR has been pretty good for me and I have never really done BR but I think the time has come now to implement it so I can really be confident about LR. Thanks for all your advice in advance!

Hi y'all!

I hope y'all can give me some advice. I have done several practice timed sections, untimed sections, and PT's and I have noticed a pattern when I look back at my scantrons. I have been consistently missing the early 20's questions in any LR section!! For example, I will nearly always miss questions from 19-25, and unfortunately, sometimes I just miss all of those.. The rest of LR has been going pretty good. occasionally, I'll miss maybe one question before #19 but I catch it during BR and it's actually a silly mistake.. After that, it's just awful. It's not a timing issue either, as I have been doing this timing strategy: 15 mins for questions 1-15 so I have approx one minute per question, then I can take up to two mins per question on question 16 and after. Generally, i don't use that much time, but it's nice to have that cushion and the timing strategy really works for me! Is there something I am missing about these questions? Are they the hardest of the section? During BR, I can usually get them right my second go, but some of them have left me stumped. so I watch JY's videos, and then I get it. I have also checked Q types and i can deff say it's not a specific Q type (besides MSS and SA... those are my weaknesses annoyingly). I also do skip Q's and they are almost always 1-2 of this range of questions. At this point, I have been missing 5 or 6 on both my LR sections in JUST THESE QUESTIONS which is driving me up the walls!

TL;DR: is there something special about the 19-25 questions in an LR section? How do I fix this strange problem of mine? Should i switch up my timing method? Am I overthinking these last few questions and thus costing myself points?

Hey, yall! Would you say that AC B equals ambiguity? Sometimes I get equivocation and ambiguity mixed up but I eliminated equivocation here because "tax" isn't used differently throughout the passages. B basically says the author extended the meaning of tax to help or justify her claim (US residents pay for health care out of their pockets, whereas the service is paid by tax revenues in the other Western countries so US residents do indeed pay high taxes because they're the same). Does this quite qualify as ambiguous? I understand the ambiguity fallacy to mean that a word or phrase used in the argument is unclear. Is the term unclear or did the author just tweak it to mean what he/she wanted it to mean? I'm trying to get familiar with the different ways the LSAC can construct this type of fallacy as an AC. I didn't eliminate this AC but I also didn't choose it because I wasn't quite sure what it was actually saying.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-4-question-06/

I know the conclusion is computerized "expert systems" cannot be~ and all of the other sentences are premises.

And I chose A as an answer, but the correct answer is B.

I really don't understand why A is wrong and B is the right answer.

Can anyone explain me please?

I was just drilling SA questions and noticed that a lot of difficult SA Qs have red herrings (distractions) in the stimulus. How do you identify them quickly? Are there (or do you have) any effective strategies? Litmus tests?

For ex) pt 33.3.21, pt 35.1.20 have red herrings.

Am I understanding MBT true right?

Conditional Statements and their Contrapositives are the only things that can be proven as Must Be True. These are in the notes that I made...and I just want to confirm that I understood the lesson properly.

So, when I'm looking at the answer choices...I'm only looking for conditional logic answers?

This question is strange -- the correct answer is not properly inferrable.

Many child psychologists believe that the childrearing practice leads to lower self-esteem in children, which leads to those children having less confidence as adults. But, "no one disagrees that adults raised under the traditional practice, were, on average, as confident as adults not so raised."

The answer the LSAT calls "properly inferred" from the above is that at least one part of the causal chain asserted by the psychologists is incorrect. But this depends on 2 critical assumptions that are entirely unjustified and could easily have been described as flaws. First, just because "no one disagrees" about a statistic DOES NOT MEAN THAT STATISTIC IS TRUE. Second, EVEN IF THAT STATISTIC WERE TRUE -- that adults raised under the practice are on average as confident as adults not raised under the practice -- the correct answer IGNORES CONFOUNDING VARIABLES! Maybe the kind of child who is subject to the childrearing practice starts off with a higher self esteem than the children not so raised, so even though the practice does decrease self esteem, it doesn't make it lower than the other children on average. THIS IS THE EXACT POTENTIAL VARIABLE THAT FLAW QUESTIONS AND STRENGTHEN/WEAKEN USE ALL THE TIME. It also comes up on "explain the paradox" questions, too. If you've studied for the LSAT, you know what I'm talking about. We'd need to know that the two compared groups -- those raised under the practice and those not so raised -- started off equal in the relevant areas -- self esteem and confidence level when they become adults.

Can someone please explain to me why (E) is considered to be 100% logical, to be "properly inferred" from the above?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-40-section-3-question-11/

Does anyone know how in/out game is categorized?

In the drilling packet, I see the instructor has categorized into (1)Basic In/Out, (2)Advanced In/Out, (3)Sequencing In/Out, and (4)Sub-categories In/Out. I get how (3) and (4) are sorted, but what about (1) and (2)? Are they divided up according to their difficulties?

Thanks!

So I chose A because I thought that answer was the one that was most proven based upon on the stimulus and I thought E was a close second but I didn't choose it because it seems a little far fetched saying that the cleanser will " make relatively greater contributions" and another forum had said " If the chlorofluorocarbons were a contributing factor in meeting the emissions standards and they are phased out of the process, something else must have allowed auto makers to continue to mee the more stringent emissions standards - best expressed in answer choice (E)" but I don't see the stimulus saying that the standards have been met, I saw it as that they (in the future) will have to meet the emission standards. Can someone explain the reasoning to me please??? TYA!

LR is by far and away the section I struggle with the most. Some question types I have no issue with but there are others (NA, Flaw mainly) that just blow me out of the water sometimes.

My question is, what is your method of studying for LR in general? How do you break things down to better understand question types? I'm starting to see how answering "why" is so important and I want to be more effective with my study time. I typically have used the problem sets and mixed timed and un-timed individual questions and tried to break them down, along with watching J.Y.'s videos. However, I just don't know if this is effective or not.

So what do you all say? What is your weapon (strategy) of choice when it comes to general LR studying?

So I chose B because this is true almost all of the books from the past 150 will gradually destroy themselves. it says in the stimulus that it will slow down the process it doesn't say that it will reverse the deterioration and I didn't choose A because I thought "completely" was too strong and in the stimulus it seemed to me that the historically insignificant books could still have a chance of survival because they could be put in a cool, dry environment and then it says that the books of historical significance will have the new techniques but it doesn't say the insignificant books wouldn't be placed in the cool dry environment. Can someone please explain the reasoning of this question? TYA!!!!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-4-question-10/

Hey everyone! Having a bit of difficulty with this passage. It's from the first RC problem set in the core curriculum. I was wondering if anyone could add to JY's explanation for #26 and explain how (E) is supported? I chose (A), but I felt uneasy about both because I didn't think the author would agree with either of the options. Thanks so much!

Here's the link to JY's explanation:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-2-passage-4-questions/

So i studied for 3 months and sat for the december LSAT, were i received a score i was unhappy with. During that time i studied in a hap-hazardous way, not tracking my growth and understanding. To make a long story short i wasted tons of PTs. Now that i am back on track, with a proper study schedule, i am looking what i have to work with. I have 1-35 which i am drilling with. I have 40-52 and 71-80 which are fresh. Since i plan on sitting for september i only planned on taking 20 or so timed PTs, so that is fine. I am looking through my spent tests and noticing that i only did random sections out of these and have 2 or 3 sections per tests that are fresh. My question is should i drill these instead of 1-35?

Hey all,

I had scored a -5 on every single LR section for about 15 sections while I reviewed each section the following day.

Then, about a week ago I realized that I know the material, I just need to read with more intensity and put forth maximum effort in order to make the necessary connections between the premises and conclusion(s). Since this decision, I have scored -0, -0, and -1. I have answered all questions quicker and with certainty.

I've heard of people having a few defining moments in their prep where they take the step from 90% percentile to 99th%.

Is this normal?

So for this question, can someone help me out with why it's not "E" "The higher cancer rates of Japanese immigrants to North America are caused by fats in the North American diet."

I understand why "D" works. But I don't get what excludes "E" and since I operate on excluding incorrect answers first before selecting a correct answer, I got this question wrong both in my first pass and after my blind review.

Hi team!

as the title says, does anyone have an idea where LSAC adopts its RC material? any journal, book, magazine you'd recommend?

I would like to start reading material that is similar to what's on the RC in my spare time.

I'm finally breaking into the score range I want and I know that RC is my biggest challenge and the one sections I'm still a bit inconsistent in. When I'm blind reviewing I've been able to get the right answers (mostly), but I'm not at all able to feel confident in my answer choices. I think it's because I can usually eliminate the wrong answers and not find support for the right answers.

does anyone have any tips or advice?? In specific for finding support for inference question, but just for BRing RC in general!!

best of luck everyone, and any help will be appreciated

If, "neither P nor K are cute", then can you say P+K→/C or do you have to keep them separate??

Lawgical Translations:

P → /C

AND

K → /C

Therefore, P+K→/C ?

Thank you!!!!