Hello,

During In-Out Games, I am consistently getting confused between the Not Both Rule and the Biconditional (Always Together/Never Together) Rule. I am aware of the fundamentals, but get quite confused when the wording is sometimes difficult to fully grasp the meaning.

For instance, in PT29 S3 Game 1, the second rule states "Bill 1 cannot be paid on the same day as Bill 5."

In PT26 S1 Game 4, the first rule states "Gibson and Vega do not serve on the panel in the same year as each other."

Both look quite identical, and I initially incorrectly interpreted the first statement as a Not Both, and the second statement as a Never Together. So my questions are:

Can anyone explain why the first statement is a Never Together while the second one is a Not Both?

I was wondering if anyone had some advice on how to quickly determine a rule as a [Not Both Rule] or a [Never together/always apart Rule], especially under timed conditions.

Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-3-game-1/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-26-section-1-game-4/

@"J.Y. Ping" or others that have an answer:

How do you know, in LR questions where some Q stems require us to identify the main point of the "Argument" and others ask specifically to identify the main point of the "conclusion"; when, such as in the "Camera Lens" LR question JY explains, to include the (P) in the paraphrased answer or only the (C)? Or are all of these "Main Point Questions" only wanting us to single out the conclusion and paraphrase it?

I bet this has been asked before, but as June gets closer, I'm wondering if I should give myself the summer and put off the LSAT until September 16. My only issue is that I plan on applying to T14 schools this application cycle (this Fall), and I'm worried that the rolling admissions process of most schools won't work in my favor if my score isn't available until October. Any thoughts? I would hope to have the rest of my application completed by the time my score was available. Any advice would be much appreciated!

Hi. I've been studying for the LSAT since July, and since I completed the curriculum about a month ago, I'm having a very hard time setting an effective, dedicated routine.

I am not employed and my schedule is completely open. I usually wake up around 8 or 9, meditate, run, eat breakfast and then read for an hour before starting. Then I'll BR a logic game from the day before, drill a new one, and then watch a webinar or study the curriculum to focus on my weak spots. And then I BR an LR drill from the previous day and do a new one.

I did very well with the LR sections in the PTs offered with the curriculum, but I think they were retakes or some of the questions were used in the curriculum, because my scores on 45-48 have not been nearly as good. Went to from -3 avg. o -6, and I'm drilling LR every day. No days off. I did a PT a couple weeks back after finishing the curriculum and got around a 168 (target is 175), but again it was a PT with some questions I was familiar with. The LR questions I'm currently missing aren't really a specific type, though I'm having trouble with flaw questions regularly and sometimes it's hard to identify conditional statements.

So now I'm planning on doing one PT a week for the next month and then bumping it up to two a week in April. What would be an effective way to use my time during those days between PTs. My blind reviews take up a lot of time, and I don't know how and what to study in the time I'll have left after that.

Attended the post-curriculum seminar already. Please help. I do not want to waste all of this time that I know I could be using more wisely. I'm testing with accommodations, 50% time. I usually dedicate around 6 hours a day to studying, and my scores are not reflecting much improvement, though I'm up a little bit from the 158 I got in December.

Hi. Just having trouble distinguishing answer C from D in this question. I think D is wrong only because it is plural. Can someone please confirm? I think it's saying the same thing as the right answer (C) in a different way. Please explain if I am wrong.

D. Takes for granted that threat (increased encephalitis) that is aggravated by certain factors (rain) could not occur in the absence of those factors (rain.)

Takes for granted that increased encephalitis that is aggravated by rain could not occur without rain. IC can only occur with rain. No other factors.

C. Ignores the possibility that a certain type of outcome (increased encephalitis) is dependent on more than one factor (rain).

Ignores the possibility that other factors (that aren't rain) could contribute to IC. D says increased encephalitis could not occur without rain. No other factors seems to be established in both answer choices.

I don't really see much of a difference in the meaning here. Please tell me if I'm interpreting this incorrectly.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-4-question-17/

Why is the correct answer C? I did watch JY's video, but still not sure why B is wrong. Here's my reasoning:

Yolanda’s conclusion: Joyriding is the MORE dangerous crime (than gaining access to computers without authorization)

Arjun’s reasoning: I disagree (or meaning, Joyriding is NOT MORE dangerous crime (than gaining access to computers without authorization)

Why? Because computer crimes also cause physical harm to people.

Here I think the Arjun’s flaw is that what’s absolute (computer crimes cause harm) cannot prove what's relative (computer crimes cause MORE harm than joyriding.

Yolanda’s making a comparison argument (joyriding is MORE dangerous) but Arjun’s disagreeing with it with only the evidence that computer crime also causes harm. He does not establish that computer crime is MORE dangerous, only that it is dangerous.

That’s why I thought that he does not provide a valid evidence to disagree with Yolanda. Am I reading answer choice B wrong? Would any evidence, albeit an invalid one, be fine to eliminate answer choice B?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-14/

Good morning everyone,

I hope everyone has a great day at work/studying! Quick question... In the fool proof method for logic games, are we supposed to be targeting to finish the game in the designated time for that game, or in the standard time to finish a logic game at 8:45?

Thanks in advance for your help!

I've only come across this type of flaw a few times, but I'd like to understand the structure behind it. The explanation and example offered in the curriculum are not very clear. Is this similar to an is vs. ought flaw? Can someone offer an additional example?

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/19-common-argument-flaws/

I understand why A, B, C and E are wrong, but I am not quite convinced that D is the right answer either.

I would think that if a nation that seeks deterrence and has unsurpassed military power as stated in (D), it would not be the interest of that nation to let the potential aggressors become aware of its actual power of retaliatory attack which is not that great (since they have unsurpassed military power). They would rather want to make the aggressors not know of their actual unsurpassed retaliatory power but make the aggressors believe they have higher capacity than their actual military power, so that the aggressors would believe it could not defend itself against that retaliation.

Hi all!

I was wondering why answer choice C in question 27 was incorrect. Here, the word irony describes Tollefson's conclusion, which I thought was spot on.

Tollefson suggests major changes in the programs, yet he understands the complicated bureaucratic nature of the programs that may stifle such changes from happening. So to my understanding, there is a sense of irony in Tollefson's conclusion.

J.Y. explains that it is not ironic because the author agrees with Tollefson's conclusion and just wants better solutions. J.Y. further explains that had the author disagreed with Tollefson, it would be pointing out something ironic. However, why can't the author point out an irony while agreeing with Tollefson's conclusion? I can't quite understand why "a stance of agreeing or disagreeing with the author" affects "a method of pinpointing a drawback of an argument."

Can anyone explain why this answer choice is incorrect? Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-4-passage-4-questions/

Hello guys,

Can someone please map out the logic of this argument and show how we can properly infer answer choice B? I am utterly confused :(

Thanks,

Kristen

Does anyone knows where I can get the list of In/Out games from PT41-80?

Thank you!:)

My biggest issue with logic games right now is timing, which I've had a lot of success in getting down for most game types. The one that I continue to struggle with are in/out games. I almost always get all of the questions correct, but in/out games will usually take me between 12-15 minutes to do.

I have an incredibly hard time making inferences in a timely manner with in/out games. Not so with other types, and I'm not sure why in/out is the biggest struggle for me. Identifying "not both" pairs has been a help, but does anyone have any suggestions or strategies or just advice on how to get things to start clicking with in/out? I've been drilling in/out games and will get it after a while but, that first take is always a difficult one.

I'm still trying to get through the CC currently, and I see the importance of mastering the inferences for the LG's. However, I also want to keep making progress as I'm still up in the air if I will be ready for June. Should I wait till I am done with the CC to start mastering the games, or do it as I go? Thanks!

Title says it all. I'm having trouble finding an answer through Google.

Still trying to tease out the stimulus on this one. I don't understand what the two different DNA tests are or how they are confused or what the assumption is.

Premise: DNA tests can't distinguish among samples from different people. Samples A and B are both different, but test says they are both A.

Conclusion: You can't exonerate someone because their DNA did not match the DNA at the scene of the crime. Sample A did not match Sample X (crime scene), thus, one would expect A and B to be exonerated since they were both identified as A. Or that B would be exonerated anyways because the tests says his DNA is also A. But the author is saying, no, you cannot exonerate sample B because B was misidentified as A, so B could still be the assailant.

I was able to eliminate all the other answers. This is just one where I can't understand why AC B is correct. Let me know if I misunderstood the premises here.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-45-section-1-question-24/

I am at the point where I can get 100 percent correct on LG with unlimited time, but still have trouble finishing all four within 35 minutes and usually end up bubbling in the last game at the end. I always am too nervous not to check wrong answer choices once I've come across an answer that I think is correct (assuming that the answer is not E), but I am worried that this is costing me precious time. I was wondering if people usually tend to move on once they've found a correct answer choice.

Hey All,

I just took Preptest 2, Section 1 twice (once timed, once untimed) and BOTH TIMES got my butt kicked...even going through the correct answers now, I'm like "What?? How on earth is that correct?" Has anyone else taken this section and had a similar experience? Also, is anyone willing to take this section and maybe BR it together (post answers...because I have seen them)?

Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-3-game-3/

The first time I ran through this game, I went -4 and way over time. Really just stumbled through it without understanding. Then I CCBRed. During BR, I "found" an inference and split the boards based on it. That trial went sooo smooth: -0 and 3m UNDER the prescribed time by JY.

Then I watched the video explanation and noticed that JY did not make the inference I made. I went back and reviewed and now I'm not sure if the inference I made was valid or not lol. Did I make an invalid inference and benefit from dumb luck??

Here is JY's GBs:

___ |19_| _o

___ |20| ___

Here are my GBs:

19_ |19_| o

___ |20| 20

and

___ |19_ |19o

20_| 20_ |___

Having gotten this far in explaining my question, I believe I did make an invalid inference because my GBs limit the possibilities such as:

___ |19_ |19o

_| 20 |20

However, if anyone has something to add, or I'm still not seeing it correctly, please let me know. I PT around 160 and consistently go -10+ in games. To say LG is my bottleneck is an understatement.

Admin edit: Please review the 7Sage forum rules before posting again:

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/15/forum-rules

I had difficulty choosing between A and C. The correct answer seems to be A. Can anyone give a good explanation for why A is correct over C?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-31-section-3-question-15/

I am having difficulty seeing why the correct answer in this question is D. The argument shows that two methods of investigation yielded different results. The conclusion then states that there is no need to look further for an explanation of the difference in the studies' results. Answer D states that the argument's reasoning is flawed because the argument fails to "recognize that two different methods of investigation can yield identical results". I don't see how this is a flaw of the argument. If they had recognized that two different methods of investigation can yield identical results what affect does that have on a study that didn't have identical results.

Any insights that you can provide would be appreciated.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-2-question-09/

Hello 7 Sagers - I'm in the post-CC stage preparing for the June '17 test, and I'm almost averaging my goal BR score, which is encouraging. I have a question about anticipating the correct AC in the LR section. For which question types should we be doing this? I know strengthen/weaken can bring in outside information to affect the amount of support, but should we try to guess the answer for all other question types before moving to the AC's? Thanks in advance!

Hi everyone!

I just got my score from the February LSAT (my first take) and am disappointed. I got a 163. The average of my last 5 preptests was 166.4 and my highest score was a 171. My BR scores were always between 170 and 175. I feel like I can do better if I take it again and am looking at taking the October test, but I've read mixed opinions about taking it twice.

Is it true that top tier law schools will simply look at an average of your LSAT scores if you take more than once, rather than looking at your highest score? In everyone's opinion, what score would I need to get on my second take in order to justify the second take?

Please let me know your thoughts----i need advice!!!

Hi

So, it seems that these circular reasoning questions are killing me... okay so I have a question on answer choice B. I am not quite sure why this argument is circular reasoning. The structure is:

Okay, so the explanation to this question states that it is circular reasoning with premise 1 (Violent crimes are rare) and the main conclusion (The claim that there is a large number of violent crimes in our society is false. However, the reasoning on why I eliminated this answer choice was:

So if we were to look at this argument structure specifically at the circular reasoning part:

This seems to be good inferencing to me? I recall a lecture in 7sage's logical courses.

Here, to say that it is not the case that all cats cannot bark can mean several things: few cats can bark, many cats can bark, or all cats can bark. Yet, we never question the inference made from this structure...

Even if we were to assume that those two sentences meant the same thing, it is not circular reasoning if you provide additional premises. See https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-2-question-09/ (see from the 2:20 mark). After doing several circular reasoning questions, this advice seems to not stand anymore... Some clarification would be great on this point that the addition of additional premises circumvents the argument from circular reasoning.

Any take on these two points? So in my view, I'm not sure but would like some clarification on this, is that even though we see an answer choice, and from mechanical thinking, identify the answer choice as circular reasoning, there are quite different nuances in each one. For instance, here is another answer choice that can be identified as circular reasoning.

PT17 S2 Q2

E) draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim given in support of that conclusion

If this wording for circular reasoning had been provided, it would definitely miss the mark, as being rare is NOT a restatement of not a large number.

However, if we are to look at the answer choice in question:

PT24 S2 Q8

This wording would be true for this argument. While the conclusion is NOT a restatement of its premise, it still does presuppose the truth of it (If the statement that violent crimes are rare is true, then without a doubt, the conclusion that there are not a large number of violent crimes is true, as "being rare" implies that "it is not a large number").

So my take on this is that:

Any feedback would be great!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-2-question-08/

My problem with MSS seems to be that I usually can't anticipate an answer choice in advance. Only about one out of five or six times does my my "anticipated" answer choice actually appear. And half the time, it turns out to be a trap anyway.

Unlike Main Conclusion, where I can usually predict the answer, I end up going through every single answer choice and crossing out the wrong ones until one seems viable. Needless to say, it is time-consuming and not very helpful.

I was wondering if anyone had a step-by-step process to anticipate the correct answer.

Thanks in advance.