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

I chose B based on line 3~5 because I think it's the only part about "a book" mentioned in Q27, but the answer is E.

I read the passage twice again, but I still have no idea why B is wrong and E is the right answer.

Can anyone explain me? :(

Thanks!

Hello all,

Whenever you start applying rules to arrive at inferences, do you go methodically through your list of rules with each piece of info you have? For example, if you know that V is in, do you go through each of your [however many] rules AND THEN take another piece of info you get from what you found with V being in and go methodically through your rules with THAT piece of info?

Or, rather, do you see what happens when V is in and "let the inferences fly from your pencil", so to speak? I have noticed that I do it this way naturally, and while it is quite an amazing feeling when all those inferences come together and it's just like bam-bam-bam, I feel like I may get a piece of information from an inference and then forget to apply a rule to it.

For example, if, from an inference I made, I discover that Z must be in, and Z being in kicks two rules, I feel like if I do not go through the rules methodically with my new piece of information, I might miss one of the rules that Z being in kicks.

But the problem with going methodically through the rules is that it seems unintuitive. I feel that it is much more intuitive to just let the inferences fly off my pencil than to take each piece of info I get and methodically go through the rules, even though the "let the inferences fly" way seems more error-prone.

So do you think it is dangerous to just let the inferences fly off you pencil, instead of taking each piece of info you have and applying it to each rule in your rule list?

how to indicate this logic "A and B cannot be selected together",

is it "A->/B" correct? or sth. else?

then it will be the same as "not both" rule?

really confused...

I was stuck between D and E and I finally chose D because it looks like more reasonable than E.

But I still don't get why D is right and E is wrong and see what's the difference which makes them a right/wrong answer between them.

Can anyone explain me why D is the answer and E isn't?

Thanks!

Has anyone tired the RC tutoring from "Graeme Blake- "a tutor form 7sage ( you can find him under the resources tab and sub-tab tutoring ). It suggest people do at least one hour with him specifically in regards to RC. Im just wondering if anyone tried this. If so what they thought? I need get my RC score up! lol. I have gotten my LR and LG scores to consistently to reach the bare minimum of what i want them to be. But my RC section is lacking in this consistency and i n general accuracy. I'll do anything to improve my RC correctness by like 35% lol!

Thanks to future respondents

Jake.

Hi fellow 7sagers,

As a review tonight I decided to write down steps I take for weakening questions. I’d appreciate any response to this question I have... PLEASE! It’s been bothering me for the past 2 hours. I realize that this might require going to the videos that I refer to below – so I thank you in advance for your time spent!

For Weaken Qs, we are taught to attack the premise-conclusion relationship; that is, the support for our conclusion. So I tried to come up with an example:

If the Premise/Conclusion is: TV sales increase, because Survey A indicates so.

A trap answer choice would be ‘Survey B indicates otherwise’ (right?) because sure, Survey B is a contradiction, but our premise about Survey A still holds true and we can’t doubt its validity since it was given to us.

This is corroborated by a video explanation I watched, PT 60 Section 1 Question 13 (in short – there’s an answer choice (B) saying Survey X says some dangerously out of scope stuff – but our premise is about Survey Y saying whatever to support the conclusion.)

BUT I was watching the “Serious Medical Condition – Weaken Question” video lesson and in that question, Answer Choice (A) serves as a perfectly acceptable weaken-er! But it is another one of those ‘in another study....this was shown...” !!

So does that type of answer choice weaken the argument? Help appreciated!! Thank you :)

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-17/

I feel like i am almost there with S.A. questions.

Thank you J.Y.!

But I had some major problems diagraming the conclusion of this question.

Can someone please help?

Premise: For W/O health, happiness is not obtainable. Lawgic translation: negate sufficient

OH-->HE

Conclusion: One should never sacrifice ones health in order to acquire money …. ?!?!?!

thats as far as i got with this question.

Please help!

Thank you in advance!

Can someone give me some feed back on this? The reasoning denies a conclusion in order to show a premise is false. Is that an acceptable method of argumentation? I know that conditionally, if A->B, then negation B = negation A, but does that hold true in this argument? Namely, the argument intends to show that the premise in sentence 1 is false by showing that the conclusion it supports in sentence 2 is false. Is that a valid form of argumentation? Would really appreciate some help on this point; i will clarify if my description is not descriptive enough.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-3-section-3-passage-1-questions/

I chose D, but the answer is C.

Doesn't the passage talk about theoretician's perspective about the satellites of asteroids?

I can't see why D can't be an answer.

Can anyone explain me why D is wrong and C is right?

Thanks!

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-57-section-2-question-11/

Can anyone help me with these types of questions? It is consistently one of these types that is the only LR question I get wrong, and I haven't been able to find a system to really figure out what they want. I always have it down to two possible answers - how do I know exactly what they want? Time is not an issue, I just need a method.

Hi to all you smarty pants out there! I'm hoping to get your feedback/tips.

In LG questions where the rules from conditional chains (e.g. preptest 33 December 2000 "Birds in the Forest" game) does anyone copy the conditional chain over for each question in order to cross out failed/irrelevant rules along with drawing up a new game board? It seems much clearer/more accurate to work out failed conditions and their inferences this way, but I am worried about the time restraints on test day. Your thoughts?

I am having a really hard time wrapping my head around Negating "All" I am in the section about "Some and Most Relationships."

If All-->Most-->Some and the negation of Some is None, then why isn't the negation of All then None?

I don't understand how we reach "Some...not..." I tried replaying the video and reading comments but it just doesn't click

I am looking for a very dedicated study buddy. I am taking the June LSAT, and I am going to work very hard to reach a 160+ score. I currently have a 155 in the December LSAT. I will be using a combination of materials, 7sages and LSAT Trainer mostly. If you are not extremely serious about this exam, please do not respond. I will be making the lsat my full time job. If you are interested in meeting once a week to review and share notes and go over wrong questions please respond. Thank you.

I have a question about the strategy of answering questions.

It takes me around three to four minutes to read the whole passage and I can understand most of it and memorize/summerize before solving questions.

However, it usually takes me too much time to answer questions. For example, 3 mins to read a passage, but 6 to 7 mins to answer questions. So of course, I usually run out of time to take RC.

It drives me crazy even if I understand the passage when I read.

So I have no idea why it takes me so much time and what I'm going to reduce the time to work out questions.

Can anyone give me some advice?

No A is B until C are both D and E.

Since there're two conditional expressions ("No~is~" and "~until~") in one sentence, I'm confused how it makes as a diagram (eg. A->B sth like that).

Which one is the sufficient condition and the necessary condition?

Please explain me.

Thanks!

Art passages in RC give me the most trouble, and I want to become more comfortable with these. Can anyone recommend websites that have articles about art that are at the LSAT's level of reading?

I don't understand why E is wrong.

Can anyone explain me why E is wrong?

Thanks!

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-1-question-15/

I cannot understand why Answer E) is wrong! Can someone please look at this question, its rather tricky.

If almost every = (51-99) why can I not conclude that on some W Zack does not offer half priced coffee all day?

While Blind Reviewing the LR section, how exactly does every one shatter their previous line of reasoning and reinforce the new line of reasoning? I just want to make sure i’m approaching it correctly.

Here’s what i do.

For a weakening question, I re-read the stimulus and explain the underlying reasoning to myself. "The conclusion is….. the support is… the underlying assumption is….. answer A weakens it because …….and the other answers are wrong because….. You picked this answer earlier because (Most difficult part for me by the way)….. but its wrong because……”

Is this close to what everyone is doing? i want to make sure i’m getting this particular part of the process right.

Thank you in advance for the help!

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-36-section-3-question-26/

Could anyone be kind enough to explain why is the correct answer choice "B". I fail to grasp this question! Here's is how I understand it-

Premise: Fifth force explains the occurrence of less gravitational force being exerted than has be predicted by established theories.

Conclusion: Fifth universal force of mutual repulsion between matter explain the above phenomena.

We are supposed to strengthen this argument but how does B strengthen it?

Thank you!

This is one of the last LR type im having issues with and need some guidance. I see this stem, read the stimulus and see five answer choices that say overlooks the possibility and this is where the oscillation comes in. Lol. And I see the core, where there is premise&conclusion, and just like the weaken/support questions we attack the support? All help is appreciated.

I got a 137 on my first score February 2013, then I spent hundreds of dollars in Kaplan Prep Course and took the LSAT again in October 2013 and my score was a 138. My timing was really off. I was making it through to 15 and averaging 11 out of 15. Now with months of practice I am averaging 71 percent complete in LR section. Idk what else to do. My goal is to get into Law School in August 2014. Please someone help me. I can't afford another $600+ course -Desperate but Ambitious young mom

Idk if there others out there like me that love the practical-mechanical type indicator word exercises 7sage offers. For instance, the conditional indicators offered in the logic section of the course (“always, never, etc.”). These words have helped tremendously with speed and has taken a person who thought he could never get a logic game done in less than 20 minutes to this section being one of his most consistently highest scoring sections. The route application of these words helped, (I guess my intuition in regarding these words was flawed). After repeated application with right instruction, intuition carried me forward.

Anyways, I HATE making stupid mistakes in recording rules in logic games and these little errors an otherwise relatively easy game ugly. Some times I mess up recording sequencing rules. For instance, mis-recording the 5th of 6 rules in game : “P comes before C but after L” as P-C and P –L .” The correct translation is “L-P-C.” I always wished there was a way to record these rules without thinking, kind of like applying the logical indicators in in a quick-fire, low thought kind of way.”

I was thinking of a method of using relative chronological sequencing indicator words in hopes it would give a sort of quick fire application type of thing like conditional indicator words. I came up with a something that has 2 aspects.

Like Jy says “relationships are relational.” Arguments are premise conclusion support relationships; sufficient necessity relationships are just that etc. So too, are Sequencing relationships relating two idea to one another in a chronological relationship.

I believe there are Two types of situations regarding sequencing. One in which a quality in a game is being measured and one in which an inherently chronological order exists from left to right (often temporal chronology). The first scenario is discussed first. And has a little more variance than the 2nd scenario.

1st Scenario

In a mock logic game, say you are recording productive teams from most productive to least productive”

Most Product ___ ____ _____ ____ ____ ___ _ Least productive

By imagining an imaginary line in the middle of the board “ __ __ ___ l ___ ___ __ “ you can give yourself a benchmark. Then you can let the phrase in the rule (discussed just below) serve as introducing a relata/idea in this relationship that you visually hold on to and write down. The other idea/relata you throw toward the side of the bench mark indicated by the word in the introduction phrase.

Ex:

Most Product ___ ____ _____ ____ ____ ___ _ Least productive

“Team L is more productive than Team Q”

In this situation you can let the end of phrase (more productive than) give you the idea/reala to hold on to visually in your head. In this situation you visually hold on to Q, and write it on your paper. In relation to your imaginary benchmarks, look toward the quality dictated in the phrase (here, more productive). Throw the other idea toward the direction of the quality dictated in the phrase.

Ie. Write Q, I look to the left of the benchmark ( to the most productive side) and throw the other idea (L) to the left of Q (toward side in which the phrase talks about)

Written product: ( L – Q).

Z less productive than T.

Hold on to T; write T

Less productive is right of benchmark

Throw other idea (Z) on that side.

Written product: T – Z.

Essentially, if you establish a board up front, let the end term give you idea to hold on to and throw other idea on correct side of this idea in dictated by the bench mark and the board hen recording of the rules could be mechanical and quick maybe..hopefully?? I’m opening to hearing what you guys think

If the game was ranking from least productive to most productive, the method could still hold.

Least Product ___ ____ _____ ____ ____ ___ _ Most productive

“Team L is more productive than Team Q”

Let the end of phrase give you the idea/relata to hold on to visually in your head (Q). Write idea on your paper. In relation to your imaginary benchmark look toward the quality dictated in the phrase (here, more productive).

Look to most productive (the most productive is on the right) and throw the other idea to that side (L)

Written product : Q - L

I seem to be struggling with timing on LR. I did a few untimed LR sections from the older lsats and I always get max 2 wrong. My scores drop significantly when timed. Not only do I rarely finish the section, but I am only getting 14-17 right. I feel this is whats holding me back from a high 150s/low 160s score that I am aiming for. I don't know what to do to improve this. Any help would be significant in my studies. Thanks.

Is there anyone that can help me with Reading Comprehension? I'm reading the passages and I'm having a hard time understanding it and answering the questions. I can't even get the questions right without it timed. Am I the only one experiencing this?