I seem to have trouble with MOR questions in RC sections.

For example:

PT 73 s1 Q22

Which one of the following most accurately describes the main purpose for which passage A was written and the main purpose for which B was written?

A Passage A: to propose a solution to a moral problem

passage B: to criticise a proposed solution to a moral problem

B Passage A: to sketch a general outline of a branch of moral theory

Passage B: to give a particular moral analysis of a real case

C passage A: to spell out the details of tow fundamental principle

Passage B: to examine a case that exemplifies a moral ideal

Q27

Which one of the following most accurately describes the difference in approach taken by passage A as compared to passage B?

and so on.

Well, you get the idea. I have noticed from PT 70s, it can get very confusing due to tiny details especially in comparative reading questions. If you have any insights as to how to approach such questions I would be grateful :)

So I am having two issues. A brief background: I was briefly in medical school but decided to switch to law. I have been prepping for the June LSAT for a few months, starting from a 148 baseline score and up to a 155 currently. I KNOW I could get it to a 160+ if I could figure out these LOGIC GAMES!!! No problems on any other section, but I can't for the life of me figure these out. I've gone through the powerscore books, but my mind just can't seem to think that way. Anyone have any ideas?!

Second thing, I get migraines with auras; these lead to visual disturbances that actually physically prevent me from seeing clearly. They last about 30 minutes. A couple of times this has happened during practice tests where I end up not being able to clearly see the questions I'm doing. Does anyone have any experience with this?

PT31.2.10 "Nothing that one should not have desired in the first place fails to be a pleasure"

If I shouldn't have desired it in the first place ----> it is a pleasure?

If I desire it in the first place-----> fails to be a pleasure?

Dear lord this is frustrating haha

Did anyone pick A because they saw "laquered bricks" (line 32) when describing Gray's later works? Confused as to why A cannot be correct - I would've chosen B had I not narrowed in on line 32. Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-79-section-2-passage-2-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-79-section-2-passage-2-questions/

Stay the HELL away from PT 41, and game 4 in particular. I'm pouring one out for all the brave souls who sacrificed themselves in October 2003.

I chose C because it is weakening the argument which is saying that people are more concerned about their finances than politics and C says that they are JUST AS concerned about their finances and politics thus weakening the argument and I thought E was incorrect because 1) it is bringing outside information that wasn't mentioned in the stimulus and 2) it says that they are concerned with politics and their finances but it doesn't say to what degree. I mean the conclusion is saying that they are concerned about their politics but the degree of concern is different.

Can someone explain this to me? Thank you!!!!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-1-question-15/

Hi can someone help me with this game i am missing some of the big inferences and i have watched the explanation 4 times .

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

I'm 50% done with the CC. I've been seeing a lot about fool proofing and can definitely see the benefits. Should I completely fool proof before starting all of the PTs, or during? I'm planning to take in Dec and rn am poised to be done with the CC by mid-July

For this question (it's helpful to watch the video), JY does the logic and it comes out to this:

Capable and (PI or 500) --> Report

~Report

not (capable) or not (PI or 500)

From this point, JY says that you implement the group 3 rule. meaning that you have to either negate the (capable) or the (PI or 500). But when you look at the problem, why couldn't you negate both? If they are BOTH negated, Ted would still not be required to report?

Basically, I'm not sure why you suddenly would need to implement group three on this problem when it seems you could absolutely negate both and still have the sufficient condition (~Report) stand correct.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-1-question-24/

just about a week out from test day and everything i see is a lsat problem.

if josh works out every other day for a week, then how many days does josh workout?

if justin works out every other day for two weeks, then how many days justin workout?

Good morning all. I am currently stuck in a score range of a 157-161. I have been here for quite some time. I have spent most of the time trying to hammer down LR because it is my weakest section. However on LG I am consistently -2 to -4. These missed points need to be eliminated.

My fear is, I learned LG through a different course. I am scared if I relearn logic games through 7sage methods I will either get confused, or my score will suffer. This may be a completely unfounded fear but it is there.

So, does anyone have any suggestions on how I can go about perfecting these games? Is taking timed 35min sections with review enough to hammer out these last few points? Just looking for some general advice to help me nudge my score ever so slightly forward.

My big issue with this question is about why B is the correct answer. It seems to equate "exploiting" with "destroy" and I'm not sure how reasonable of an assumption that is to make. Since this is a logically inferred question, I assumed that the right answer would have a higher degree of validity than an MSS answer choice.

But answer B, the right answer, seems to combine the two groups of environmentalists into one group, and I'm not sure that's implied anywhere in the argument. Noneconomic justification appears in the second sentence with the many group. The defensibility of exploiting features appear in the previous sentence with the some group.

How are we to infer that we have to combine these groups? Does it have to do with the economic costs in the last part of the second sentence?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-3-question-08/

Hi,

Would this be the best plan to perfect the logic games by September 15?

Finish the core material as fast as I can. I am 40 percent of the way through and started last Thursday. I'll obviously slow down a little now that I am through a lot of the logical reasoning stuff.

Foolproof games 1-35.

Resume PTing with blind review. I haven't used any of the newest 20 tests. I have the newest book of tests on its way in the mail and will purchase the next ten whenever they come out after the June test. I have used a lot of the other old tests, but may add one of them in directly before or after each of my new practice tests in order to build endurance.

Thanks for any feedback, especially by people who have improved on and ideally nearly perfected logic games. They are my one hangup on the test and thankfully according to 7sage are a weakness that seems fixable.

Context about me and the test:

I am retaking a 172 from the February test in September. For the February test, I studied for about 3 weeks predominantly by PTing and have been intermittantly since. Logical reasoning is very intuitive to me. I miss an average of one in the two sections on each test. Reading comprehension is similar, though I miss a few more (about 1-3 in the one section). Logic games I can get the right answers with sufficient time, but struggle to finish. I did not complete the last game during my test in February guessing blindly on the last 2 questions and close to blindly on the preceding ones from that game. I really haven't got better or worse by practice testing and reviewing (but not blind reviewing) since February(however I did discover 7sage through the logic games explanations). I average 173 with the vast majority of errors on logic games.

Sentence:

If I don't see food, I am sad.

~SF --> S

would the negation be:

SF and S

I can see food and be sad.

Anybody know why the correct Answer choice B weakens the argument??I just can't seem to see how communal objects being passed down from one generation to the next weakens the argument.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-2-question-19/

Hi All,

I could use some help with this necessary assumption question. I definitely see why C is a necessary assumption, but I'm having a hard time figuring out why E is not also an equally necessary assumption. I have yet to find an explanation online that addresses my thought process.

The argument is as follows:

P1: Nuclear reactors are sometimes built in “geologically quiet” regions.

P2: Geologists call these regions “geologically quiet” because such regions are distant from plate boundaries and contain only minor faults.

P3: No minor fault in a geologically quiet region produces an earthquake more often than once in any given 100,000- year period.

C: Out of all the potential nuclear reactor sites in such a region, the ones that are least likely to be struck by an earthquake are ones located near a fault that has produced an earthquake within living memory.

I had chosen E, but the correct answer is C. I see why C is a necessary assumption, but my current issue is seeing why E is not.

C is correct because we cannot assume the relative location of the nuclear reactors to the minor faults. It could be that some nuclear reactors are on one end of the "geologically quiet" region and that the minor faults are miles away. C addresses the assumption necessary to position all the nuclear reactors on the same playing field (proximity wise), which renders the conclusion's validity possible.

When I chose E, it was based on a similar thought process that I believe C requires...I chose E because the stimulus never said that the faults had to produce earthquakes. The stimulus says that the maximum is one earthquake every 100,000 years, but what if there are some faults (or entire regions...) that produce NO earthquakes? In that case, it is not the faults that have had an earthquake in living memory that are the least likely to be struck by an earthquake-- the least likely would be the faults that are "dormant" or "inactive." E fixes this by establishing that there will be at least 1 every 100,000 years (in conjunction with the stimulus, that means there will be exactly 1 every 100,000 years).

Can someone help me out here? I see two equally necessary assumptions and I know I'm most likely misinterpreting the stimulus? Or E?

Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-2-question-21/

Hi All,

Any chance someone is willing to help me understand why the correct answer choice for this question is C? I cannot seem to figure out how one gets to that answer. Thank you!

for statements like this, when there are two sufficiency indicators,

can they have two possible translations?

If student, then he or she will be served well in later life by any philo class. ( S --> SWBPC)

if philo class, then will serve any students well later in life. ( PC --> SWLL )

the statement is from PT39, Section 2 Question 2.

it's a flaw question and the statement itself is not imperative to solve the question, but it did make me hesitate during timed PT when I tried to translate them into lawgic.

I had this down to B or D during the timed exam, and I can't figure out what is technically wrong with B. In my mind, it's as close to a sufficient assumption as D is.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-2-question-06/

This is a pseudo-sufficient assumption question.

The characters are too stylized for them to be real people. The film is funny, which is important for comedy. The film is popular. Therefore, the criticism of the film for not being realistic is wrong.

What I am looking for: If a comedy is funny, then it's wrong to criticize it for it being not realistic.

Answer A: This severely hurts the argument, which a PSA shouldn't do.

Answer B: I don't see what's wrong with this. This doesn't bring in the comedy part, but I don't see how this isn't a PSA if D is also. We know the film is popular, so if we assume that "if a film is popular, then it is successful," isn't that equally as good answer choice D? Success isn't the word I'd use, but that's why this is a PSA question and not a true SA question. Answer D (the correct answer) also uses the word success.

I get that the "popularity" part is most likely context, but why can't a sufficient assumption make the context relevant to the argument itself? For example, say that

1.) All Jedi use the Force.

Therefore, David uses the Force.

The obvious missing sufficient assumption is "David is a Jedi." But, couldn't I also say that "Everyone named David uses the Force?" To me, that's equally as good a sufficient assumption since it provides an assumption that allows our conclusion to follow validly.

Answer C: We have no idea what films should/shouldn't do.

Answer D: This is close to what I anticipated, so I picked this and kept it during BR. However, what technically makes this better than B? If a film succeeds within a genre (comedy), then the film is successful. Isn't this structurally the same thing as B? The necessary conditions for both B and D are "films are successful" and both sufficient conditions bring in known facts about the film.

Answer E: Same as answer C. We don't know what films should/shouldn't do.

Hey guys!

Hope everyone had an amazing holiday weekend!

I've decided to go back over some of the very beginning core stuff to make sure I have a solid understanding before moving on in the curriculum. I have the LSAT Trainer and I'm trying to use that as supplemental material to explain the concepts I'm having trouble with. This is going to seem really silly...maybe it's because I'm just starting out, but this threw me for a loop:

"When we are asked to evaluate the reasoning in an argument, it is always in terms of a very specific task: our job is always to evaluate and understand why the reasons given DO NOT justify the point that is made. For every one of these questions, your understanding of why the support doesn't justify the conclusion will be your primary gauge for evaluating right and wrong answers (p.35)."

So every argument is wrong? For some reason I remember hearing JY say don't worry about whether the argument is RIGHT OR WRONG..... What is the logical reasoning section asking me to DO?

If anyone could help clarify this, I'd greatly appreciate it!

Thanks guys!

Hey everyone,

I'm currently registered for the June LSAT, and have been studying since December. I've been aiming for the 166-170 range since my diagnostic. I eventually worked my way up throughout the semester to averaging a 163, and immediately following my final exams, I scored a 169 (maybe because I had a break from looking at the LSAT for 2 weeks?). For about 3 PTs after the 169, I averaged a 166 or so. Since then (so in the last week and a half/two weeks) I've seen a steady decline in my scores, to averaging a 164 again after another 4 PTs and a low 160 this afternoon (sigh). Other than the few tests that I performed really sub-par on, my BR has been sitting consistently around 173-175.

Has anyone else had a similar experience while studying, or have any advice about this? Obviously it's pretty frustrating to see a decrease in your scores when you'd expect some improvement in the final stretch.

Thanks!

Hey everyone, I am confused as to how we are suppose to BR reading comprehension. Can someone give me a brief explanation. Thanks :)

So I chose answer choice A because author Q simply states, " ought to have been effective, but he has not been" the author is just saying that he's been ineffective but doesn't offer up any evidence as to why he is ineffective. Can someone explain to me why my reasoning is wrong? that would be greatly appreciated! thank you!!!!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-2-question-11/

For logic games, if the question is asking for a CBT could a MBT be correct? For example, if R has to go into the 9th spot and R being in the 9th spot is one of the answer choices, could that be correct? TYA!

So how does (E) provide us with a reconciliation?