Hi everyone,

I'm on the LR part of the curriculum, specifically just finishing up strengthening questions.

I'm super confident with the first 4 or 5 drills, and without BR, I'm getting 4/5 or 5/5 on the questions. Unfortunately, as soon as I get to the 6th drill and above, where the difficulty gets worse, I continuously bomb each drill.

It's really frustrating to study causation theory & strategy for 6 hours and then barely see any results when doing weakening & strengthening. I guess I'm having difficulty because when J.Y. does the questions in his videos, he doesn't really use a 'strategy' to do strengthening questions. He simply figures out the assumption the argument is making and exploits it. I, however, cannot seem to pinpoint the assumption very easily. Is there a strategy for this or is it just something you get good at with practice? Does anyone have any advice on how they mastered strengthening/weakening questions?

Appreciate any advice or simply relating :)

Please let me know if you'd like to join and have not yet received info in your inbox. :)

Hi everyone,

I logged into the LSAC's website to change my test center and came across the notice that the December 2017 LSAT scores will not be available until February 2018. I was planning to complete my applications by the end of November/beginning of December but I am worried that I might be at a disadvantage to get into some law schools. Is anyone planning on taking the December LSAT as well? Should I just take the test this year and apply in September of 2018 instead?

Hi everyone,I was wondering if anybody had any strategies on how to study misc or really weird/one of a kind type games?

As an example consider G4 from Prep-Test 72. I bombed that game during my practice test, and I'm not sure what else to do besides watch the video. Its not like bombing an in-out game where you can refer to back to many other examples of in-out games and practice those. This game seems like a one of a kind sort of thing.

I'm writing the test in Dec. and I'm just worried because if something along the lines of the above example game comes up, I don't think I'll do very well on that game. The silver-lining in the clouds here is that I'm comfortable with all the more formulaic or generic types of games (e.g. in/out, sequencing etc.). But if I run into a G4 from PT 72 in dec. that could be a big score difference, and affect my admissions chances for specific schools :/

The title says it all

Any suggestions would be much appreciated

I'd like to sharpen my technique on questions with lots of difficult conditional reasoning (arcane content, lots of confusing negations, embedded conditionals, etc.) Unfortunately, there is no "conditional reasoning" tag in the LR section of the 7Sage Question Bank (hint, hint @"Dillon A. Wright")

Does anyone have an efficient strategy for culling together and drilling questions?

So I have been trying to fool-proof the in/out and grouping games in the CC... But I never do good on a game on the first attempt. I either find myself interpreting rules wrong or not making enough inferences or anything else basically LOL.

Of course, after looking at the video explanation I can do it... not sure if this is my anxiety kicking in or I just suck at these types of games.

Is this normal? Because I feel like I am never going to get through this :(

Hey everyone!

I've realized that I'm consistently failing the Necessary Assumption, MSS and Flaw/Weakening Questions (Among the most frequent questions in the test). I know that I need to have intensives on each type of questions, but during my practice tests, would you recommend that I skip every single one of those types of questions and leave them for the end?

Also, Parallel reasoning and flaw questions, since they are always so long, I also leave them to the end, because I consider them a time sink. Would you recommend that?

Any help is appreciated!

Hi again,

As with yesterday, I made another parallel (flawed) argument for an LR stimulus I had troubles with. I would appreciate it if you could help out by answering :)

:cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie:

Letter to the editor: Your newspaper seems to heavily biased against renewable energy. The study presented in the article "Can We Survive on Renewable Energy?" distorts evidence and shows flawed reasoning. The article states that countries with lower rates of renewable energy had lower average cost of electricity than other countries. However, that will not be the case for long, since the average cost of electricity is increasing in the countries with lower rates of renewable energy. Thus, the evidence actually supports the view that the use of renewable energy should be increased.

The reasoning in the letter writer's argument is flawed in that it

(A)　concludes based on evidence from the article it criticizes

(B)　fails to take in to account the possibility that using renewable energy is often costly

(C)　fails to take in to account the possibility that not everyone wants to use renewable energy

(D)　fails to take in to account the possibility that the average cost of electricity in other countries is also increasing

(E)　does not show any evidence against the viewpoint in the article

https://media.giphy.com/media/Lt3VrZ2WqL3W0/giphy.gif

Is there a clean way to diagram 'nothing' in LR using LAWGIC?

Hi everyone,

As @Sami did recently, I made an analogous argument for an LR stimulus I had troubles with. But I am not sure if I did correctly, so I would like to hear what you guys think. Let me know which answer choice you think is correct :blush:

The playwright’s newest play received a negative review from the city’s most influential newspaper. Therefore, the review will not as positively affect the box office performance in the opening week as would the unpublished review by the other critic, who has been favorable to his previous plays; people who have a negative impression of the play are unlikely to pay the standard ticket price.

The argument relies on which one of the following assumptions?

(A) Most theatergoers who see the play on the will do so because of the review appeared in the city’s most influential newspaper.

(B) The unpublished review by the other critic would not have been negative.

(C) Most people who go to see the play and pay the standard ticket price will not have gone to the play as a result of the review appeared in the city’s most influential newspaper.

(D) If the unpublished review written by the other critic were used instead of the review appeared in the city’s most influential newspaper, almost all of who went to see the play would pay the standard ticket price.

(E) Most people who pay the standard ticket price do not miss a performance of the play in the opening week.

Hey sagers,

So I am currently working on fool-proofing logic games, however I do not always meet the suggested target time. I sometimes score 2-3 mins over the suggested target time. I was wondering if that is okay or normal? Is it a big deal if I don't hit the target time for each game. I find myself doing better on sequencing games, and even score below the target time. Grouping games on the other hand.. not so much.

Basically, I want to know if meeting the target time is crucial or does it vary from person to person? Like I can get an entire game correct but I sometimes just take 2 additional minutes to finish it.

Not sure if I will get better once I do more games?

Any tips on how to improve time for logic games?

Thanks!

While I'm doing the practice sets for different question types, I somehow find myself doing the BR method as I go through it the first time around and for that reason I take a significantly greater time finishing the sets than I should. I go way over 35 min.Does anyone have any tips on how to move faster through questions when doing these sets, and in general?

Thanks!

"A brief analysis of the table reveals that Linear and Grouping games dominate the percentages, and 91% of games on past tests were Grouping, Linear, or Grouping/Linear Combination games (almost 95% if you consider that Pattern games are also Linear in nature). Other game types appeared relatively infrequently. A student with limited preparation time would obviously be well-served to tilt their preparation towards the Linear and Grouping games as these types appear on every LSAT and are by far the most frequently appearing types of games".

I think this question really gets at the subtly of the "support" role we have to play to make the relationship P -> C more relevant.

I oscillated between A and E but eventually went with A, primarily because I thought the phrase "shout not be allowed" matched nicely with the "government should ban". Even during BR, I stuck to my original choice, which tells me I clearly don't understand this question. I do see that (E) has a conditional statement Promote -> Healthy and that the Healthy is denied because of the premises given in the stimulus but I felt that was also similar for (A). (A) has "people doing things that endanger their health".

So my thought for (E) was that, even though it does suggest that "If not healthy, ad should not promote", it doesn't necessarily link the "government should ban" aspect. This is such a curve breaker question (and there is no JY explanation for this) that I was really hoping someone could shed some light on this question.

If possible, could anyone share their reasoning/understanding of this question?

Thanks in advance :)

Hello Everyone. Quick question, JY speaks of the best approach/framework to a Social Science Passage as being Phenom/Hypo; do any of you happen to know what are the best approaches/frameworks to use for Law, Natural Sciences and Humanities? I think Natural Science maybe be Phenom/Hypo also, but just wanted to have a sounding board to see if I'm headed in the right direction? Thanks ALL!

Confused with the answer choices on this one.

Any explanations?

Thanks in advance

I chose (C) assuming that "hope" is a certain effect that can translate into a medical effect. Now, I see that is an unwarranted assumption. But as for (D), I found the term, "the medical treatment the patient is receiving" too vague and I didn't know whether it was referencing to the alternative medicine or orthodox medicine.

Could someone help me with their reasoning as to why (D) is correct?

Thanks a lot in advance!

For strengthening questions, how much does it need to strengthen the stimulus for it to be correct. For example, weakening questions, as long as it casts doubt on the support, I can weaken the argument. Does this also apply for strengthening questions?

I am almost done the CC. How do I fool proof LG? Do I do it with the games I have trouble with on my PT's, or I just fool proof any games I have trouble with, aside from doing the games on the Pt's? Basically, my question is, is fool proofing separate from doing my PT's?

Hi everyone! We are changing this week's call for PT60 to Thursday at 8pm EST. There is an Admission webinar on Tuesday night that some of us would like to attend so we're moving the call. Please show up, even if you are tired and don't feel like it....your brain will thank you for it!

Here's what to do:

Take PT60 then BR on your own.

Submit questions you'd like to go over here: https://goo.gl/forms/pxZVdh6THytU2way2

Note: We will try to limit the calls to under 2 hours. We will review LR questions first and only review RC if we have time. We will not be reviewing LG on the call.

This step is important: Come prepared to speak through how you approached the question you submitted. If more than one of us had trouble on the same question, we can each have an opportunity to speak through our thought process/which choices we were stuck between. The rest of the group then discusses.

Add side braid#1597 so that I can see if you're online when we go live for the call and make sure you get to the right place in the forum.

Any advice would be appreciated.

At what point during your LG studies did you start to improve? I see a major uphill battle for me.

The best advice is to wait until you are "ready" to take the test! The greatest gift is to take the test and achieve your score!

For some of us, that didn’t happen on our first take.

What happens if after taking the test and the experience leaves you stressed thinking you weren’t ready?

Before you get your score, please consider doing a thorough post-take written analysis of your experience. As recommended to me by the Sages in my attempts to match my PT scores to Actual test scores, I have seen significant improvement by following their advice:)

There are 2 aspects post-take that are paramount to gain from the experience…

-How did I procedurally take the test?

o Was my pre-test routine sufficient to provide the best testing experience?

o Was my timing strategy on point - Did I skip difficult LR questions, RC passages & LG games efficiently?

o Did I let a rough patch undermine my confidence in my ability?

What were my weaknesses that caused me to lose confidence?

o What LR questions, RC passages, LG games cost me time or points?

o Did I try a new strategy too close to test date that I hadn’t made instinctual - to think more about the strategy than what the test presented?

o How did I handle questions that are my known weakness and what can I do to drill them to remove that insecurity?

I learned so much from my previous takes! The first take is a blur - I had no clue what I was doing even with all of my prep to take it when I was ready. My 2nd & 3rd takes were exciting because I saw the differences in my understanding not just on certain specific aspects of the test but on a global understanding of how to conquer the test.

Hope you feel the same way I do with no regrets about being "Ready"... If you achieve your score, then LS application focus! If you under-preformed, then you have a game plan.

If a retake is on your horizon, hope this helps :)

All the best on your scores!!