Alright, so I've been grinding for the last 3 months to prep for the the June LSAT. Done upwards of 30 PTs with Blind Review and I seem to have plateaued at about a 168-172 score under timed conditions. Wondering if anybody has any tips for the next two weeks that might help me eke out a few more points. I would be ecstatic with a 170, I know what an achievement that is, but the difference in scholarship money between a 170 and a 173 is probably tens of thousands... I usually ace the Logic games unless I run out of time, LR is usually -2 or 3 per section, and RC is toughest for me, averaging -5/6.

I am currently hovering round a BR score of 174.

I usually make about 4 to 5 overconfidence errors, spread out over LR and RC.

Sometimes I get a question wrong in my BR as well. How do I fix that?

I usually go through the whole exam.

Also, what are your thoughts on retaking PTs?

So i am just finishing the CC and i have always struggled with LGs. I find that sometimes i can finish a game which is rated at a 5 in difficulty with no problem at all. But then i will completely bomb a game that is apparently really easy and after 7 or 8 minutes i give up and watch JYs explanation. Not sure why this is happening. Any insight would be much appreciated.

Hi,

I have seen a couple threads regarding how people get ready before a test but I was hoping to get some more opinions. The June 2017 test is a noon test so does anyone prepare differently or have suggestions on how to prep/warm up for a noon test? Also, what do people normally do a week before their test?

This one tripped me up quite a bit. I need a better explanation than J.Y. gave in the video. In a flaw question, are we to assume all the premise are true? In this question it says;

"...to play a card game devised to test perception and memory."

When I read this, and this might be my major issue, I automatically assumed that this card game was perfect to test perception and memory. I did not see a reason to question its credibility. Then I read the conclusion which said the idea that perception and memory are reduced by 80 is false.

This lead me to believe that I had to show that perception and memory could not be tested in any real way. So I chose answer C.

C.) Perception and memory are interrelated in ways of which we are not currently aware.

My reasoning here was that if we didn't know how perception and memory interact, then the card game could not have allowed for an accurate reading and therefore the conclusion could not be properly drawn.

the correct answer choice just seemed to easy and to not really do anything to counter the argument. Answer E. says;

E.) Playing the study's card game perfectly requires fairly low levels of perception and memory.

this just seemed so weird to me. How can I just say "oh hey, your card game that you designed to test perception and memory does not actually test perception and memory"? This seems like I'm attacking the premise directly, and I thought in arguments we were not allowed to do that.

help...

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-4-question-08/

Principle or PSA question?

In LR, I try to identify the question type as quickly as possible, but sometimes I cannot identify immediately. I have hard time differentiating PSA and Principle questions under timed conditions.

Typical PSA questions are like:

"Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning above?"

and I can identify it as PSA immediately.

But for example, PT57.S2.Q1. says:

"The reasoning above most closely conforms to which one of the following principles?"

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-57-section-2-question-01/

This is a fairly easy question, but I didn't know that this is a PSA question until after I read the stimulus and ACs.

Do you have any tips in differentiating PSAs from Principles quickly?

=============================================

Is Q39.S2.Q11 a PSA question?

Also, 7Sage labeled Q39.S2.Q11 as PSA, but I feel like this is a Principle question since we're given a conditional statement in the stimulus, and answers give us a premise and a conclusion.

"Which one of the following judgements most closely conforms to the principle above?"

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-39-section-2-question-11/

Is this a PSA question? If so, can someone elaborate on the difference between PSA and Principle questions?

Thank you :)

With these being a bit wordier than your average LR question (especially with the AC's), what is an appropriate time to shoot for?

Hi,

I've been taking PTs with 32 minutes for all sections and felt quite challenging to get those difficult curve-breakers right in 32 minutes, especially for LR. I definitely think those extra 2-3 minutes could be very useful (currently getting 5-6 wrong combined), but for those who score high in LR, do you think 2-3 less minutes should not make a huge difference? How do you guys use the last 5 minutes of the section (in full 35 min section)? Should I rather go back to doing 35 min section PTs?

Hi dear 7sagers, and sages,

First of all, I am having trouble understanding the difference between negation and contrapositive but I think I am slowly getting it.

What troubles me, however, is how to negate a relationship, or in other words deny it, which has an And/Or statement in the conditionals. So, for example, I will use @JY's example from his lesson on DeMorgan's Law:

"If Tom plays, then Jerome and Simmi play too"

Translated into lawgic that would be: T→(J and S) (which could be split)

Now, if we negate the statement altogether, what happens then? "It could be the case that if Tom plays, neither Jerome nor Simmi play" am I right? ....T→NOT(J and S)

Moreover, how do you translate that? T→/J and T→/S ??? Or in other words, T→(/J and /S) (which could also be split)

Hi could someone help me out with the diagramming on this one? I found it absolutely confounding and I'm usually pretty decent at conditional phrasing.

So what I took away from this after looking at this thoroughly was that the original logic chain is something to the effect of:

P1: EW (Weak Economy) -> PRC (Prices Remain Constant) and UR (Unemployment Rises)

P2: UR -> ID (Investment Decreases)

P3: /ID

What I got from this was: EW-> PRC

-> UR -> ID

Arrow in the second line after the blank is supposed to symbolize the "and." (And is split after, Or is split before)

From there: /ID ->/UR ->/EW

PRC seems irrelevant now since you've already failed part of the "and". Sufficient (EW) is already failed by /UR, therefore PRC floats. It can do whatever.

How do we get from /ID ->/UR ->/EW

to /EW -> ID must be false

Not sure how this is correct. Obviously, since we know ID is stated in the stimulus, this must be true. Then it says EW, which we know not to be true.

Similarly, with D, we know that the economy is not weak, must be true, but prices remaining constant, I have no idea how this figures in.

Same thing with E. Either unemployment is rising, and we know that it isn't, or the economy is not weak, which also must be true. We know both of these must be true. Still not sure how this translates into an either...or statement.

What am I missing here? Is it something to with the either...or statements?

Im having trouble understanding why answer choice E is correct. I chose answer choice D because the conclusion has to do with the experts being useless because they offered contradictory information. I thought that when were looking at reasoning method questions were supposed to look at the conclusion and see how it is flawed. Here is my reasoning for the other ones to be incorrect:

a) This isn’t the correct answer because its not talking about the argument

b) This is also incorrect because it has nothing to do with the argument

c) Why would we consider other opinions outside of health when were talking about health related issues

d) This is correct because Ive eliminated every other answer and also because they’re assuming that just because the expert opinions are trustworthy in one case that they have to be trustworthy in all cases

e) This is incorrect because the argument doesn’t have anything to with whether or not the coffee is good for you but rather the experts are useless

TYA!!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-1-question-06/

I'm adding my explanation to this question since it doesn't currently exist on 7sage. Feel free to critique my reasoning.

This is a necessary assumption question. We know this because the question stem says the argument above makes which one of the following assumptions? The correct AC must be an assumption we know the argument makes. Therefore, it is a necessary assumption.

P: R bacteria provide nitrogen to bean plants and other legumes. Nitrogen is an essential plant nutrient. Wheat must normally be supplied nitrogen by nitrogen fertilizer.

C: If technology produces wheat strains that will host R bacteria, the need for fertilizers will be reduced.

Flaw: I originally thought but what if nitrogen is not the only essential plant nutrient for plants to grow? Might the need for fertilizer remain? B plays on this erroneous understanding. This isn't the actual flaw.

A. 'should' is irrelevant. This is not about what should happen it's about what is/will happen.

B. This was temping and it the trap answer choice. The conclusion says the need for artificial fertilizers will be reduced if biotech succeeds in producing wheat strains who host R bacteria. What about other reasons growers need to add fertilizer? Can we conclude from no longer needing nitrogen that fertilizer demand in general will be reduced? Even if nitrogen only comprises a small subset of all fertilizer use, if we eliminate the nitrogen need, then yes, the fertilizer demand will be reduced. This is true even if nitrogen is not the only soil nutrient that must be supplied. The key word to not falling for this trap answer choice is "reduced." Perhaps I was temped because I was thinking "eliminated." If the conclusion said the demand would be eliminated then yes nitrogen would have to be the only reason growers use fertilizer.

C. This is not necessary. It talks about other grasses but even if it didn't, even if there are strains of wheat that do have R naturally, we know there are some that aren't. That's what the whole argument is about so this is irrelevant.

D. Similar reasoning to C. We don't need legumes to be the only crops that produce nitrogen. We know some wheats don't and we know there is an existing need for nitrogen based fertilizer. The argument is simply saying the need will go down if wheat is modified to host R bacteria.

E. This is absolutely necessary. If the R bacteria did not produce nitrogen in the wheat roots then it wouldn't reduce the need for artificial fertilizer. This is the true flaw. Just because the plant will host the bacteria doesn't mean that it will necessarily have the desired effect.

Happy Sunday, everyone!

I'm currently working through the Core Curriculum, and for the harder problem sets in the Logical Reasoning modules (mostly Sufficient and Pseudo-Sufficient Assumption questions sets) I'm able to eliminate 3/5 answer choices without any problem. Of the remaining two answer choices (which is always the correct answer choice and one incorrect one) I end up eliminating the correct answer choice and choosing the incorrect one, even after carefully considering both options and writing down explanations for why I eliminated or chose each AC.

Has this ever happened to any of you, and what did you do to correct it?

Thank you for all your help ~ it has been invaluable in my study prep! =)

is it Some are not A and not B?

A --> C

B --> C

/A some /B

I was trying to translate this into english and was having some trouble.

for example,

all jedi use the force. all sith use the force.

if you are not a force user, you are not Jedi and not Sith

so..

some are not Jedi and Not Sith? ( /A some /B) is that correct?

Through the BR process, I've noticed that I can attribute 1-2 missed questions per LR section to "misreading" the stimulus. It seems that I am prone to skip an important adjective that clarifies the correct AC. Most of the time, I approach the AC's with a good understanding of the argument/facts, but for the few questions that hinge on these small clarifiers, I often get burned.

When I read the stimulus, I typically follow the end of each line with my pencil. I've noticed in JY's live commentary videos, he tracks literally every word with his pencil. Does anyone have a method of reading (specifically in terms of pencil usage) that they feel allows them to capture even small details? Do you think I would benefit from switching to this more methodical approach? Thanks in advance!

Hi all,

I just did a full-simulated LR section and scored -5. I missed #2 so I feel like I missed a big opportunity there. I haven't finished going through the curriculum. I take the September LSAT.

What's it going to take to get that number down to -3 or better on every.single.section? Could this be a pattern recognition issue or just more practice?

I feel -3 or less is a good goal because LR and RC are nearly impossible to score perfect consistently because of the varying nature.

Hi 7sagers!

What kinds of patterns have you seen emerge in MBT/MSS questions? For example, I personally have seen that for conditional - heavy stimuli, LSAC loves to use mistaken reversals & mistaken negations as wrong answer choices.

Are there any other patterns that you have noticed -- perhaps other patterns in the answer choices, in the stimulus structure, or in the way the answer choices relate to the stimulus?

My goal is a 168+ to get into my target law schools.

My PT score range is 164-166. I have burned PTs from 55 - 70.

Today I had the worst score (PT70) since I started studying earlier this year.

I am contemplating withdrawing or taking the June test and immediately canceling. If I withdraw, I will lose money. If I take and cancel, I will also lose money BUT I will at least have had the experience of sitting and taking an offical LSAT.

The only other consideration is that I can not take the September LSAT due to work scheduling and I will instead be taking the December LSAT. I would like to apply this upcoming fall and I am a bit worried that December is late for the LSAT...

Thoughts?

Thank you.

Hi I got the correct answer A, but only through the process of elimination. I am slightly bothered by the AC's somewhat extreme tone, "best."

Can I say that it is justified because the supporting textual evidence (line 10-11) says "preferred?"

I am just wondering in general: when is the extreme tone in the RC inference AC justified, and when is it not?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-4-passage-2-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-4-passage-2-questions/

So I fell for a sufficient assumption trap, I chose the answer that was basically a restated premise, so for the assumption questions, the answer that is basically a premise, is that always wrong? TYA!

hi, can someone explain why answer choice e isnt a match? I'm still not 100% sure after BRing and watching the explination vid.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-2-question-21/

Is there any sort of historical data somewhere that displays the likelihood of certain logic games appearing by type?

Hey guys,

I plan on taking the LSAT in September and I want to focus on just logic games for about 3-4 weeks (as long as it takes to get to a near perfect score really). I took it back in December and the only thing that brought my score down was LG - so before I get back to PTing and targeting certain questions, I want to do LG

Right now I'm doing every LG section from PT 1-20 - two sections a day. Really trying to master it. My question is is my time better spent doing LG sections from PTs 40-60 instead?. Everyone knows that we should prioritize the modern PTs, and I want to get the most bang for my buck. So should I hop straight to those?

Thanks

Hey all,

I've noticed that every now and then I will see an argument that doesn't seem to have any glaring flaws, if any at all. Sure enough, it's a principle question in the range of 17-23...so I know I better be hyper-alert because this is going to be tricky. I proceed to read through the answer choices and immediately throw away 2 of them because they are completely irrelevant. Now, to the nitty gritty :

Example: "...therefore, that ought not be done for it is both immoral and would cause more harm than good."

The correct answer would be something like "Anything that goes against common moral belief and does not help society but instead damages society ought not be done." Obviously, this happens to be an assumption as well.

BUT, among the answer choices one will find something along the lines of "anything immoral ought not be done" and "Actions that cause more harm than good are immoral." Both are attractive for their own reasons since the first seems to be reasonably supported by the conclusion, but not SO much as the conclusion mentions two criteria and the second combines the two elements of the conclusion but in reality is not supported by the conclusion.

All of this said, I think that I've identified a pattern here with principle questions and I'm looking for some validation. When answering a principle question, one must look for (and find) and exact match to the information discussed in the stimulus. There will be answer choices that maybe fall "inside the realm" of the stimulus but they are not an exact match that would validate the conclusion.

Thanks in advance!

So I chose C, the conclusion is that the scientist said that kids need learn how to draw curves first then they can move on to angles. So my reasoning: I chose C because it explains a reason as to why they cant just jump into angles

a) were not talking about straight lines

b) theyre not answering the question as to why they need to learn first how to copy curves before they can draw angles. I

c) this is correct because its saying that they need to be able to discern what an angle is before they can move to angles so it gives us a reason why

d) this weakens the argument

e) this I don’t think will support the hypothesis because yes they have the ability to but CAN they do it, I have the ability to sing but can I actually sing, NO lol

So can someone walk me through why Im wrong? Thank you!