Hello!

Simple question + looking for confirmation.

If a rule says: If Sarah is cool, she will go to the party with her sister; otherwise, she will not.

Sarah cool ---> Party with sister

~ Sarah Cool ---> ~ Party with sister

Yes? I read somewhere that this is like an 'if and only if' rule... can someone comment?

Their contrapositives:

~Party with sister ---> ~Sarah cool

Party with sister --> Sarah cool

Has anyone created their own LG pkg sort of like the Cambridge pkgs that you wouldn't mind sharing? I know I'm asking a lot. LOL I've started and stopped trying to complete my own pkg a few times. I'm looking for maybe a list of each question type for each LG question type for all LSATs available. I have LR pkg just didn't want to pay for the LG pkg just yet. Anything would be greatly appreciated!! Also, those who have purchased the LG pkgs, is it worth it?

Hey everyone, if someone could give me a quick explanation on failing either the sufficient or necessary I would greatly appreciate it.

In LSAT Prep Test 15 (June 1995) - Section 4 - Logic Game 3 JY does exactly that during question 19. Here is a link: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-15-section-4-game-3/

There I asked, "Can I get clarification on how rule 5 becomes irrelevant during question 19? I usually understand satisfying the necessary but this mixed me up. If F is on 4 and 6, then J has to be on 3; that I understand. Because of this, G does not have to be on 1, correct? However, it still can be. When the necessary condition is satisfied through the question stem (as that is what happens in 19) then sufficient condition (G) becomes a floater?"

Furthermore, JY also shows a similar scenario when explaining rule 3 here: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-11-section-1-game-2/

Thanks!

I feel so unprepared and am finding a hard time to find a balance between being an author, mom, wife and LSAT. Any tips?

I'm having what I think is a weird issue. I'm not doing well with the MP/MC questions but I seem to be doing ok with the other questions. Doesn't that seem odd? If I'm having trouble with the MP/MC questions how am I able to do the other question types? Isn't this question type the most important as far as LR questions? If you can't identify the argument how can you be successful with the other question types? I think my problem is that I can determine the main conclusion if the indicator words are there but not so much if they're not. So, I'm not getting many of the harder questions correct. I'm not doing so well with determining the premises, sub-conclusions, etc. I'm using Manhattan along with 7 Sage. Obviously I have more reviewing and studying to do, but what am I missing? I'm just not getting this question type. I'm taking September test so I still have time. It's just kind of frustrating. I've been studying off and on for the past year due to some major health issues. I'm just now getting back into really studying so I know I may just be rusty but I wasn't getting these questions right when I was studying hardcore. Any questions or thoughts?

Hi, I'm currently in the process of solidifying different categories of logic games problems i.e. basic linear, advanced linear, etc. and I'm doing problems culled from the Appendix of the Powerscore. However, I realized 7Sage also has logic games sorted from PT 35-50 https://uploads.7sage.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/logic-games-sorted-by-type.pdf and the terms used for categories differ from those of Powerscore. For example, Powerscore distinguishes games by calling them basic linear, advanced linear, grouping, combination, etc. whereas 7Sage has In/Out, Sequencing with Twist, etc.

In this case did you guys go through all the different categories in both Powerscore and 7Sage?

So,

"H will go before J if and only if it is after M." is a biconditional statement...

and is broken down into two different conditions, right --

M- H - J

or

J- H - M

If I wrote just " H will go before J if it is after M"

I would have " M - H - J " with H being before J because it is after M

But if I wrote

"H will go before J only if it is after M"

How does that give me J - H - M?

I'm somehow drawing a complete zero and a blank!

What am I thinking wrong?

I just feel like H is not before J in that translation at all...I'm lost and I don't know how or where to get out.

Thank you

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-69-section-4-question-16/

Hey test-takers! If you have PT69, care to discuss this question with me?

Upon review, the flaw is glaring and answer choice (B) makes sense.

During the timed test, I chose (C) and now I still can't see why the author did not make that error. H/she went from "salespeople" (whole) to "salespeople in major health stores" (part). This was the reasoning used to the reach the conclusion, so why is it not right to attack it?

Thank you!

I took the LSAT last december (thanks to 7sage!) and scored 167. While my average on tests had been 165, I saw on my test results that I had actually missed a bubble on Section 2, pushing my remaining answers back! Fortunately it was towards the end, but I still missed out on 2 correct answers (argh!!). I could have had a 169.

I'm considering taking again. But I know it's a risk- I could score the same, or lower. It's also incredibly expensive in terms of time and money and I'm now working full time. I'd welcome any thoughts on whether a second try is worthwhile, or advice from anyone who has taken it more than once. Thanks!

Hello,

I've got a common question about linking up a logic chain. I just re-watched the video lesson but it's not precisely the answer to my question. Any help is appreciated!

If you have:

Premise: A ---> B ----> C

-------------------------------------

Conclusion: D ---> C

Is it correct to try to make D ---> A and D ---> B (either one works, along with their contrapositives) OR would it be correct to make A ---> D and B ---> D?

My question is from PT 47 section 3, number 21. According to the video, it is the former method, but I remember doing it the other way sometimes. I got the Q right doing it in my head but it'd be great to confirm it. Thanks again

Ecologist: It is true that the solution of the problem of global warming will require important changes in the way we use fossil fuels over the long term and that the free market must play an important role in making these changes possible. But these facts should not make us forget how crucial near-term limits on the emissions of "greenhouse gases" are to motivate these changes. When the issue was the limitation of ozone-reducing substances, it was short-term emissions limits that quickly brought the needed technologies to the marketplace. These technologies were not available until the international community had adopted specific limits on ozone-depleting substances.

By which one of the following means does the author of this passage make his case?

(A) making a careful distinction between two key terms

(B) questioning the accuracy of the evidence given to support the opposition's case

(C) using an appropriate analogy

(D) using the literal meaning of a word that could be construed as metaphoric

(E) using premises that are contradictory

What is the passage talking about? And why is the answer "C"?

I am having difficulty translating statements with both cannot and without. For example:

A business cannot change its core corporate philosophy without becoming a different corporation. Would I translate this as, [if a company changes its corporate philosophy-> then the company becomes a different corporation]?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-2-question-24/

i'm having difficulty with the following question:

ID THE FLAW: "studies have found that human tears...[redacted]"

CORRECT answer: argument "takes for granted that because certain substances are present...[redacted]"

i can understand why the correct answer is correct by breaking down the argument:

P1: tears have hormones

P2: stress has hormones

conc: so shedding tears must reduce stress.

assumption: hormones CAUSE stress. this is why the author is saying that ~Hormone --> ~Stress

my WRONG answer: argument "overlooks the possibility that if crying has...[redacted]"

but even though i can understand why the correct answer is right i'm having a hard time articulating why my answer (above) is wrong. i thought that the answer was touching upon the idea that there is a correlation, not causation (i.e., if stress is reduced when we cry, this may be because something other than crying causes stress levels to decrease -- so the effect is just a coincidence, not a true causation). could you please help?

thanks, as always! :)

Hi! I am having difficulty with predicting descriptive flaw questions. If anyone has done this question can you please explain to me how the correct answer is D.

So my question is about Step 5 "Watch the explanation video." and Step 6 "Take a clean copy of the game.

Reproduce all inferences from memory with control and speed. "

Should I be repeating the game right after watching the video? Trying to reproduce all inferences from memory?

If so, I feel like a complete fool :) I've been watching the videos right after a game I feel I haven't mastered, then waiting a day before I try the game again...And well that hasn't gotten me to where I want to be, so I rewatched the video and I'm thinking I could have been doing it wrong this whole time...

Has anyone tried this before? I plan on doing it on the PT I take tomorrow and I feel like it could be a legitimate strategy. My RC is consistently my most weakest section, usually 5 min is called as i begin the last passage and the last passage is just about always stacked in regards to the number of questions and the degree of difficulty. This leaves me with precious little time to get through a difficult passage that carries with it a lot of points. At the same time I've noticed that the first passage is consistently the easiest, in terms of structure and content, and is usually accompanied with fewer questions. So my thinking is that I'll be pressed for time right at the end with (hopefully) an easier passage in front of me carrying with it less weight (number of questions).

Has anyone tried this approach before? If so, what did you think?

.

good morning all ,

hope your Easter was fun!!

NA-they are kicking my butt!

negating the right answer usually will get me only a few correct but for the most part it confuses me.

when approaching necessary assumptions my mind reverts to Sufficient assumption techniques because I don't have a clear understanding of how to attack necessary assumptions.

what approach did you use , or how did you overcome necessary assumption questions?

help me my fellow LSAT warriors !

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-1-question-24/

This is what I don't understand how answer B can be eliminated, "the manufacturer's instructions for assembling a product should be written in such a way that most CONSUMERS would find it much easier to put the product together" answer choice B says that someone OTHER than the consumer will assemble it for them, therefore, the suggestion does not apply because the consumer themselves do not have to assemble the product, so weather the instructions change or not the subject of the argument is not affected and therefore irrelevant, making answer B ideal. Am I over analyzing this too much or what?

help me obi-wan, your my only hope...

Hey everyone,

So today I wrote PT 65, and I was a writing the second LR section, I thought to myself that it seemed considerably harder than usual. I was just wondering if anyone else thought that? The first LR for PT 65 I went -6, but the second section nailed me and I went -11. I felt like a lot of the answers were very difficult to read and understand (more than usual) and that a lot of the answers were very difficult to distinguish between two answer choices. Clearly I need to work on my LR, but looking to see if it was just a fluke and that it was reasonably more difficult or if I really do need to improve THAT much more.

J.Y. has repeatedly told us not to erase in the LG section but to cross out, especially when we are making our game board.

I'm a notorious eraser and wanted to know why its bad to erase?

Does this take up more time for me? I don't want to cross out bc I'm nervous I will look at what I had crossed out under pressure.

The erasing thing has been bugging me all week and wanted to know why we should erase what so ever.

Hi guys,

Just wanted to let you know that registration is now open for the following dates:

- September 2014

- December 2014

- February 2015

For those who are taking the June test and wish to postpone, please note that you only have 7 days to do so since the deadline is May 25 (at least in Europe).

Hi!

So there are 23 days left until the June LSAT.

I have been scoring around 160-165 on PTs.

Do you think this website will help me raise my score 5+ points? I'm not sure if an investment in the online class is worth it if it won't help increase my score significantly.

Thank you!

- Rahul

Hey all,

I'm debating right now on how I should approach the June 2014 LSAT. This will be my first time taking the test and I'm currently in study mode. Most days I study for a minimum of 5 hours a day, 8-9 if I don't have a long day of work. However, I've been debating as to whether or not I should postpone taking the LSAT until September 2014 and I would like a second opinion on whether or not this is worth doing.

My goal score is a minimum of 164 with a high expectation of 170. My scores on my original untimed practice tests (used for making sure I understood the material and how each question worked in detail) would land anywhere between 165-172. My current timed scores are 160-161. My test is June 29th, (I believe this date may be different from others as I'm taking the test in Taiwan) leaving me six more weeks of prep time. I take one new practice test every weekend, followed by a review of the practice test. I also do two reading comprehension articles each day, speed reading drills, one timed LR section, and numerous LG's.

Based on this information, do you think it's possible to reach the desire score in the allotted amount of time? Or should I put on the brakes for the test, postpone until September, and give myself more time to prepare?

Thanks, everyone!

Hi guys... Maybe these are obvious and I'm missing something but I couldn't really find an answer online so I was hoping someone can help me out with some general questions regarding correlation.

If given a statement of positive correlation such as "as A increases, B increases," how much can we validly infer?

Can we infer all of...

-as A dec B dec

-as B dec A dec

-as B inc A inc

Also for negative correlation -"as A increases, B decreases"

Can we infer all of...

-as A dec B inc

-as B inc A dec

-as B dec A inc

Thanks in advance :)