can anyone suggest the more relevant game to go over I'm taking the June 2016 test and really want to focus on what it might be on the test versus all of the games

Thanks

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-1-question-21/

I was watching the PSA webinar and I had a question about answer choice C. I initially eliminated C because of "every". I was looking for something closer to what was mentioned in the stimulus. I was thinking "the opponent's argument" instead of "every". I eliminated because it seemed too general or broad. I didn't see how "every" was specifically referring to the opponent's argument but then I thought about "soft" sufficient assumptions that Jimmy mentions in the webinar. Does "every" make this a PSA, thus the right answer? Whereas "the opponent's argument" would've been more of a SA? Am I thinking this out correctly?

Hey guys, I added the other LR section to my PT this week, and I came across this question. It was a complete confidence error, and I felt pretty strong about the answer I picked. In other words, I don't see how A isn't correct nor how B is correct.

Breakdown of stimulus: Since our calendar system is stupid, certain important holidays don't fall on the same day of the week each year. If the last day of the year and the extra day added at the end of the year every 4 years didn't belong to a week, some of these scheduling problems could be fixed.

What I am looking for: We need an answer choice that shows that a scheduling problem would still exist.

Answer A: What's wrong with this? If you anniversary falls on the day that doesn't have a week or on the last day of the year (12/31), doesn't that create a problem during the years with an extra day? Would the extra day be 12/32 or still considered 12/31?

Answer B: I don't see how this would be a problem. Just don't work every 7th day. How does the new schedule create a problem here?

Answer C: So what? They just have to attend a certain number of days of school.

Answer D: So what? This is completely fixed, I think since holidays will be on the same day every year.

Answer E: Why can't you plan ahead with the new schedule?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-2-question-10/

I have a quick question regarding #10 from PT72, S2 (the Parliamentary Procedure question), specifically answer D. I bounced back and forth between C and D, and even though I knew D is wrong, I couldn't eliminate it.

Question is reproduced below (it's a Weaken question):

"The traditional code of parliamentary procedure contains a large number of obscure, unnecessary rules, which cause us to quibble interminably over procedural details and so to appear unworthy of public confidence. Admittedly, the code is entrenched and widely accepted. But success in our endeavors depends on the public's having confidence in our effectiveness. Therefore, it is imperative that we adopt the alternative code, which has been in successful use elsewhere for several years."

D: It is not always reasonable to adopt a different code in order to maintain the public's confidence.

The argument is: given X (traditional code, quibble, unworthy of public confidence), thus Y (adopt alternative code). D sounds as though it's slightly weakening the argument by pointing out that it's not always reasonable to do Y given X (to adopt alternative code given the goal of public confidence). What am I missing here?

Obviously, I realized that I am assuming "if X is not always reasonable, then don't do it." Is that the rub? Thanks!

I'm preparing to take the June LSAT, and have noticed a change in the scoring of my LR sections. I used to get relatively the same score on both, but on the past couple of tests, I've scored really well on one (usually the first) and very poorly on the other. This has not necessarily impacted my overall score (I've been close to 160 on the past few tests), but I'd like to know if you have any tips for maintaining stamina for both sections, since obviously it would be ideal to score well on both and not have to rely on a good LG or RC score to make up for a poor second LR section. Any thoughts or tips?

Hi 7Sagers. Relatively new to this community, but I've been thankful for your help these past few months. :) Now that we're a couple weeks away from the June LSAT, do you have any tips for what to do? I've seen a lot of general "rest, relax, review but nothing too serious" advice but I was hoping for more of a specific day-to-day breakdown based on your past experience.

Thanks for your help! Happy studying, and best of luck to all of you. You'll kill it!

I obviously don't want to risk being late to my test center, but I don't want to be so early that I'm left pacing around with nothing but my thoughts and a gallon-sized Ziploc bag as that could lead to jitters. Past test-takers, how early do you think I should get to the test center?

Hey guys,

I am taking the June LSAT in a couple of weeks and I am very close to perfecting my LR scores (around -3 or -2 each time, usually because I skip the last couple of parallel/parallel flaw questions to be able to pocket the faster points) and I have noticed that disagree questions have constantly been giving me trouble. 7sage has helped me improve pretty much every aspect of my LSAT studies but for some reason I just don't find the disagree lessons that helpful :/ can anyone give me any additional tips so that I can nip this in the bud before I take the real thing? Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-1-question-09/

If this question were a Must Be True type and an answer choice said “Most people think the government policy is not one of appeasement,” would that be something that must be true?

My understanding of the stimulus is that there is some room for the people to disagree with the “assessment” but not necessarily disagree with the conclusion of the political commentators. Furthermore, the author’s conclusion that “this view” is mistaken, seems to suggest that the view of the political commentators is not proper. Assessment and view seem to encompass the idea of reasoning as well as just simply truth value, i.e. a conclusion. All of this is to say that the disagreement might well be over reasoning to reach the conclusion by the political commentators, rather than their conclusion itself.

Reading the stimulus in this way doesn’t prevent the flaw from being described as it is in this flaw question, because it is wrong to use what most people think as a premise in this circumstance.

Just wondering if reading the “this view,” “mistaken,” and “assessment” as leaving room for the issue to be one of reasoning rather than outcome is correct.

I know it might sound obvious but I want to know your take on the fact that when a question states "If J in two..." we can take J2 at the very least as a CBT; I write them down in corner of my paper so they might come handy in answering rest of question and sometimes they helped eliminating answer choices in other questions in games from bundle (PT 1-35).

Do you think writing them down is a wise use of time? Have you seen such instances in recent games or this just happens in old games?

Hi, there! I'm what some universities call a "mature student". I have a full time job, I have two small kids, a house to take care of. So my "free" time, even before deciding to take the LSAT, is close to nothing. Main point is: I need to make sure the time I actually have to study is used very effectively.

I've been watching all the lessons, but, at this point, I'm questioning if all the logic lessons are worthy it. I like them (in what now feels like a previous time, I briefly went to "Math School", so I really like numbers, logic and all that), I understand them and I even see how I can apply them to solve LR questions IF I don't have the time limitation imposed by the LSAT. Maybe if I were able to take and retake the tests a hundred times I would start to see all that "structure" coming naturally, but I don't. I barely have one hour a day to study, including the weekends.

Adding to my doubts, I took a LR session this week in a more relaxed, go with my guts way. Results were not great (they never are for me at this point), but they were much better than when I try to highlight the conclusion, identify the premises, do some logic "board" and so on.

Conclusion: I'm not sure if I should keep investing my time in watching the logic lessons or if I should skip to another part of the curriculum, or maybe just take test after test.

I would love to "hear" your opinion. I guess my other, more direct question is: if you had just one hour a day until your test (I'm taking the September one), how would you use your time?

Thank you in advance! :-)

Hello all, I am taking the June LSAT and I was looking for any advice on reading comp? It's the only section that I can't get consistently good at. Usually I do well on LR and LG but RC keeps me out of the 170s. Thanks in advance for the help!

Listen to this as background music for this post:

Hey guys,

I want to share a method that I use in RC and that I have been teaching several of my students recently. RC is at least in certain instances designed to test your short term memory. To that end, there's a question type that seems to be designed to do exactly that. I've collected a few examples and have a method to recommend for approaching these questions.

Here's what I do with these questions.

Most of the time, only one AC rings a bell. And that's the right answer (barring hallucinations/clear over-inferences/reasons to eliminate an AC. I don't think I've ever had an AC that truly rang a bell that ended up being wrong).

Try this out for this QT and see where you end up. By focusing on what LSAC is testing on these QT's, you avoid the pitfalls of wasting time and misdirecting energy.

Hey guys, I'm doing some older questions as a 5th section on my PTs, and I decided to take PT 7's first LR section. I'm BRing it right now, and I can't for the life of me figure this one out; I skipped it twice during the exam, and I'm still just as clueless on it during BR.

It's a resolve/reconcile question.

In 1990, major engine repairs were done on 10% of NMC cars made in the 1970s while only 5% of those made from the 1960s had major engine repairs done.

What I am looking for: We need to explain the difference. What if cars from the 1960s had sturdier engines or something? What if NMC cranked up production in the 1970s, and cranked out a ton of cars with bad engines?

Answer A: So what? The cars have ALREADY been registered; who cares about the requirements beforehand?

Answer B: I think this sort of makes it stranger. If newer cars (1970s) are driven more carefully than older cars (1960s), then why do cars from the 1970s have a higher proportion of engine repair?

Answer C: This is the credited answer, but huh? What does scrapping the car have to do with anything? This is saying that the 1960s cars are more likely to be scrapped/not repaired than 1970s cars. I just don't see how this resolves anything or is relevant to the issue.

Answer D: OK, but does simplified mean easier to break? This does nothing.

Answer E: This is what I ended up picking, but I really didn't like it (I felt good enough about my POE; plus, I had to choose something since I had skipped this twice). I think this is sort of similar to the idea in answer choice A. Some of the repairs from the 1960s cars could have been avoided if the owners weren't lazy with repairs. But, so what? We are talking about cars that WERE repaired, so this fact doesn't explain anything about the figures given. Why is it still the case that the 1960s cars were repaired at a lower proportion?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-2-question-12/

Hey 7Sagers, I just did this question and did almost everything right, but ultimately chose (E). I understood there to be 2 gaps,the first between: ~being able to tell ulterior motive——>~possible to tell whether an action is moral/ and the second gap being: ~being able to tell an action is moral——> should evaluate the consequences > morality. I took the last link in this chain (should evaluate the consequences) as the major conclusion. So I pre-phrased my answer to anticipate some iteration on the second link (or it’s contrapositive), thinking that what I wanted to build towards with the selection of a principle is something that would allow the major conclusion to properly stand.

Like several other 7Sagers, I usually write down why I am eliminating answer choices. I recognized (A) as the contrapositive of the first gap and didn’t eliminate it at first. B-D introduced new ideas or something we didn’t need. I eliminated (E) with my notes reading “Not what I need.” I recognized (E) as wrong, but (A) as simply something restated, So opted (with reservations) for (E). I now know a glimpse of what it must feel like to score 40 points but lose the game hahaha. I did almost everything correct and understood what was going on, but didn’t get the correct answer. :(

My questions about this question are the following: If we are asked to find something to “justify the reasoning,” wouldn’t any choice that leaves one of the 2 gaps unfilled not really “justify” much? I mean, I get that it says “most,” but aren’t we at least looking for something that justifies the Major Conclusion rather than some subsidiary minor premise/major premise link? Are there any sufficient assumption/pseudo sufficient assumption questions (that you are aware of) in which we will be forced to choose between bridging the gap between a minor premise/major premise at the behest of bridging the gap between a major premise/major conclusion? Are there questions in which adding a sufficient assumption or principle to the wrong gap nets the wrong answer?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-1-question-24/

I ran into some issues with a LR question on PT 70 S1 and would love some inputs from other students here. I chose E, which is the wrong answer, but I'm not at all sure why I am wrong.

For #24 (the Macro/Micronutrients question), the last sentence reads:

"To remain healthy in the long run, soils for lawns require the presence of these macronutrients and also trace amounts of micronutrients...which are depleted when grass clippings are raked up..."

Isn't this a conditional claim?

Healthy --> Macro + Micro, and

Grass Clips Raked --> Micro Depleted

Assuming that IF micronutrients are there, THEN it's NOT depleted (which is very reasonable to me), then taking the contrapositive, we can connect the two:

Healthy --> Macro + (Micro --> /MicroDepleted --> /GrassClipsRaked)

(Sorry for the visual representation. Couldn't get the format to look right. But Healthy is connected to Macro AND Micro, and Micro is itself connected to the rest of the chain).

So if you deny the last necessary condition, then you should be able to work your way back. So if Grass Clips are raked, then Micro Depleted, then /Micro (micronutrients are gone), then /Healthy.

I thought E communicated exactly this: "Homeowners who rake up their grass clippings are unable to maintain the long-term health of the soils in their lawns and gardens," which in lawgic is

Grass Clips Raked --> /Healthy

which to me is exactly as above. Where am I wrong?

Looking to confirm my thinking on the below. Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/or-but-not-both/

From this lesson:

Alan or Chris go to the park. (/A-->C)

And

Alan and Chris cannot both go to the park. (A-->/C)

I'm interested in diagramming these statements in relation to the third idea in the sentence, in this case "go to the park," as (P).

With "A or C go to the park" I would diagram as follows:

A-->P

C-->P

With "A and C cannot both go to the park" I would diagram as follows:

P --> /A or /C which can be diagrammed as P-->(A-->/C)

Now to link up the two statements:

A-->P-->(A-->/C)

I'm getting "If Alan goes to the park, then Chris does not go to the park."

Alternatively:

C-->P-->(C-->/A)

I'm getting "If Chris goes to the park, then Alan does not go to to the park."

I'm curious if anyone has a good way to handle group 3 indicators "unless" or "until." In English these are often used to heavily imply an EXCLUSIVE or relationship, but in logic they only give us an inclusive or.

Example: I will go golfing (G) unless it rains (R).

Applying our group 3 translation rules strictly, we arrive at: "/R --> G" and the contrapositive "/G-->R"

Translating the above statements back into English,

"If it is not raining, I will go golfing," and "If I am not golfing then it is raining."

That is fine. The trouble comes when you try to reason from the fact that it is raining. In our common understanding of the above original statement if we knew it was raining, then we would be inclined to say the person is not golfing. However, that is not correct based on our translations.

More frustrating is the idea that this person could be golfing in the rain as nothing prevents R AND G from being together. That is the essence of inclusive or and is the possibility that is implicitly ruled out in our natural reading of the statement. Obviously, we can't apply a conversational implicature on the LSAT and we have to obey a strict logical understanding. I can easily imagine a question giving us the original statement and then supplying an answer choice that says "It is raining, therefore you are not golfing."

I would be grateful if anyone has a way to explain the possibility of the inclusive or outcome in the original statement by giving an example in which this person could be golfing in the rain and such outcome is acceptable.

Logically I understand the possibility, but making it more intuitive by having an example in mind would greatly help.

--

It's interesting to note that the implicature of exclusive or seems to be most strong in statements of "until" involving time and "unless" involving things such as the weather. The possibility of an inclusive outcome is easier to understand on a different example.

I will be angry (A) with you unless you clean your room (CR).

/A --> CR "If I am not angry with you, then you cleaned your room"

/CR-->A "If you did not clean your room, then I am angry"

I believe we all still see the possibility that I could be angry with you and you cleaned your room. Maybe you didn't do your homework, etc. That makes it fairly obvious that we can't conclude the condition of your room from my anger. I'm wondering what that "other 'cause'" might be for the golfing example.

Thanks!

Hi guys.

This is my first post and I was hoping I could get some feedback as the June 2016 exam is approaching.

My background: I've take the LSAT officially three times. Yes, I know. The first two times were December 2013 and February 2014, both soon after I graduated college in May of 2013 and I was desperate to start law school right away. I took a course and just wasn't prepared. I held off and took the June 2015 exam and didn't do any better even after so much studying so I decided to put it off again for the following year.

Now, I've been studying for this upcoming exam for about six months and finally got my score into the mid 150s; my goal is 160. One day it just clicked and I became super motivated to simply practice and perfect the last few areas I could to attain my desired score. I was even able to figure out how to get a higher score than 160. However, I took an exam a few days ago and scored 147. Granted I was tired from a long day of work and days of studying but this has completely killed my motivation.

I've put this exam off way too many times I simply want to get it over. Putting this exam off for October will delay starting school for another full year.

So my question is, should I take this exam in June as planned being as though I am so near by desired score and if so, how do I regain my confidence?

Thanks to everyone who took the time to read and to those who take the time to reply. Best of luck!

I am having some difficulty on strengthening questions that do not use causal reasoning. I am getting nearly all the weakening questions right because I am in the mindset of contradicting the assumptions made in the argument. However, for strengthening questions, should I look for an answer choice that strengthens the underlying assumption? Alternatively, will an answer choice that only states the assumption strengthen the argument?

As I've finished the curriculum, I'm beginning to heavily invest my time in fool-proofing. My big question is: should I drill extensively on categorized games (i.e. grouping, sequencing, in-out) or should I take a broader random game approach?

I worry that I'd lose some of the practice I'd gained in grouping games if I spend a few weeks on sequencing games specifically. It also just seems easier to start with PT 1 and go in order rather than sorting through all my PT PDFs for the right game at the right time.

I plan to first work by way through all LGs from 1-36 and then move onto more recent LG's once I've taken the clean PT.

Thank you for your thoughts on this! :)

"Diagramming on Gameboard: Two ‘not both’ Conditional Statements with Common Necessary Cond."

Hi 7Sagers,

In this game: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-3-game-2/

We have N ---> to both R and S

Why, when J.Y. fills up one of the ‘out group’ slots on the gameboard, does he say that "it doesn’t matter" of you fill the slot with N/R or N/S? I’m not sure I understand how these two conditional statements with a common necessary condition interact with each other. One of N/S AND one of N/R have to be in the out group, yes?

Thanks!

Bonus question: I’m also wondering why it’s best to solve this game by filling in the game board as J.Y. does, as opposed to filling in three slots for the L/M/R variables (two in, one out), or even splitting into three game boards, each with a single of those three variables out.

Soo... lets get hooked on phonics here. Anyone else have an "LSAT" voice in your head that dictates how you read/interpret an answer choice?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-36-section-1-question-13/

Did anybody else read “E” and interpret “this" period as the period of November rather than the entire period of September – November? I picked E because I read it as an outside factor, occuring in November that caused the break up

I dont know if I’m just misreading the referential phrasing or if this could be argued to be a bad question. Thoughts?

This is a sufficient assumption question but one of the forums I read to understand answer choice (A) explained that NEGATING (A) would demonstrate it to be a sufficient assumption. I totally see that negating (A) would weaken the argument, but I thought we use negation test for necessary assumption questions ...or am I not aware of some exceptions? I know that for some flaw questions that contain "takes for granted/assumes that" language, you can negate the answer choices, but I never heard of using negation test for sufficient assumption questions.

Hello again

So, still stuck in the 165-169 window after 6 full PTs with an extra section added into the first 3.

My highest LR priorities given my analytics are

Flaw/Descriptive Weakening (1.2)

I was unfamiliar with the flaws and their manifestations

RRE (1.0)

was not grasping the nature of the issue, thereby not being able to find something that would actually explain it

PSA (0.9)

wasn't treating them enough like SA questions, and often skipped these

MSS (0.8)

forgot to see what was actually supported by the stimulus and making massive assumptions in my ACs

NA (0.7)

forgot to bridge/block

So, after my PT last weekend I stepped back and reviewed the relevant curriculum and webinars in order to give myself a refresher, and I will start drilling LR sections during my lunch breaks and after work on the days I'm not doing a PT/BRing.

Any thoughts about this and/or advice would be greatly appreciated