Hi guys ,

I have been trying hard to improve upon my LSAT strategies for all sections and must say that have been able to do fair enough for LR and RC sections. But I am so tense as I can't happen to get most of my logic games correct. Honestly the only game I have improved is linear games, but rest all I tend to mess up in my head always, and even if I were to get it right I would take so much time that I would just be able to get through one of all 4. Please help I need serious advice on how to get hold of different types and master them. Your input is seriously appreciated. Thanks

I'm still getting like 10 wrong in LR and its disheartening because I've been taking timed sections out of PTs (don't have time to do full length except on weekend) and I just seem to do so badly on LR than any other section.

I'm getting -0 to -2 on RC and LG combined but LR has been a nightmare.

I need a score as high as I can get so I can beat the declining medians and get into a good school. However, this is proving hard because I'm getting 10 wrong on LR...

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-3-question-19/

You can look at the stimulus in this link.

I believe Jon's explanation for B is wrong because an editor may modernize spelling without providing an explanation, for instance, if similar modernizing has been done in more than one quotation, then you can modernize them just inserting a general statement in the preface.

I know why D is right, but still don't know why B is wrong.

Can anyone help me clarify it?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-37-section-2-question-12/

This is a MBT question.

I translated the stimulus into:

Prepare good meal-->good food-->good soil-->good farming--->good cultural values

A.The creation of...

E. When food is bad...

I am having trouble with Answer choice E. I translated E into the contrapositive of bad farming--->bad soil--->bad food..It seems pretty correct to me unless food is bad is not the conclusion.

I diagrammed it and got K-->LS,O----> H Then for conclusion K--->H when doing all this how do I get to D? I ended up picking E because I knew it couldnt be D (terrible logic i know)

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-46-section-2-question-23/

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-4-question-07/

This question asks us to identify a flaw.

Attorney: I ask you to find Mr.Smith guilty of assaulting Mr.Jackson. Regrettably, there were no eyewitness to the crime but Mr.Smith has a violent character: Ms.Lopez testified earlier that Mr.Smith, shouting loudly, had threaten her. Smith never refuted this testimony.

Ms.Lopez testy smith threatening her+Smith not refuting--->Smith has violent character----> he assaults jackson.

Three obvious flaws:

1. smith didn't refute doesn't mean he indeed threat ms.lopez. 2. even if smith did, threatening ms.lopez doesn't necessarily make smith a violent character- it could be a one-time thing. 3. even if smith is violent character, it doesn't mean smith is violent all the times and thus assault mr.jackson.

Answer choices:

A. Aggressive behavior is not a sure indicator of a violent character

C. Since smith never disproved the claim that he threatened ms.lopez, he did in fact threaten her

E.Having a violent character is not necessarily associated with commission of violent crimes

All three seem reasonable to me. Which one to choose?

Please first take a look at two really tough question PT53 sec1 Q16 and PT55-S1-Q21

For PT55-S1-Q21, it seems to be most supported question, but actually it turns out to be sufficient assumption question, which the correct answer build up the gap between "many people took certain action" and "everyone ought to take action".

For PT53 sec1 Q16, I think if LSAC change the question type to necessary assumption this one will become way easier. But instead of asking assumption, they just throw Must Be True question in front of you. That makes this question much harder.

For most of inference and most supported question, there is no argument. So we can just draw the conclusion or reference based on the stimulus. But for some special inference and most supported question, there did exist an argument, sometimes with terrible flaw or gap, and then the question require you to draw the inference, then the right answer choice about this type of inference about should be the choice that build up the gap.

This type of question is really tough cause it is counter-intuition and against our judgement about the question type. They turn inference question to be assumption question.

Any thoughts? comments?

Hello all,

I've just started taking full length timed tests, starting with preptest 42 and plan on completing 43-69 up to the October test. I am currently scoring around the low 160's. My big issue is timing with the Reading Comp. I'm consistently scoring -2 or less on games, and around -4 or -5 on LR. Can I improve my score enough to get around a 170? I feel if I can just improve on my RC timing within the next 25 or so preptests I take, I should be all set for October. Thanks for your help!

Chris

Hello anybody,

I just recently started studying for R.C. In LR, I found "identifying" question stems extremely helpful. It helped me tunnel mind for what I was looking for thus allowing me to eliminate incorrect answer choices more quickly. I am wondering if doing this is possible for R.C.? Are there groups of words that are sufficient for identifying all the different types of questions in the R.C. section? Thanks in advance for any future input.

Jake

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-3-question-25/

This question asks us to parallel argument.

J presents a either or situation in which both outcomes are undesirable. T in turn shows J that if customers are environmental responsible, that no business' market share will decrease thus making first option more desirable.

I can see why A is the correct answer: J again presents either or situation both with terrible outcomes and T provides an condition that makes one of them better. What I would like to clarify is why B is incorrect. Is it because T provides solutions that incorporates both options?

Admin note: Please do not post full questions.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-32-section-1-question-20/

This question asks which of following answer choice will strength the conclusion EXCEPT.

The conclusion is that the current map used to show where different types of garden plants will flourish is more useful than the older map.

b is irrelevant because modern station can be over 60 years old as long as the data gathered from them are not 60-year-old!

However I cannot see how does D supports the conclusion? It is assuming the more and better weather data you have, the more likely you can get accurate weather pattern to predict the growth patterns?

Passage: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-36-section-2-passage-3-passage/

Question: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-36-section-2-passage-3-questions/

The selection is the one about hormones and influences on behavior. The intro/background says that "discussions" about hormones and behavior have only talked about sex hormones.

16 has given me a lot of trouble. The right answer is C, but I have a problem with that because the passage does not say anything about "earlier research" at all. It only says "discussions," and therefore I eliminated that answer choice because it seemed to be adding claims that aren't present in the passage.

I'd really appreciate it if someone can explain to me why this shift in term is acceptable here, since generally answers can be eliminated for being out of scope if they use different types of terminology.

I'm especially worried because this seems to be a serious confidence error--I was sure that C was incorrect, since it seemed to be using more specific language (in my opinion, language indicating something that is uniquely different), than what the passage says.

Thanks!

Help! I don't know where to begin. I narrowed it down to A and C.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-26-section-3-question-15/

I am having trouble figuring out the hard LR questions. I want to be able to eliminate all the answers that I know are wrong, so I can leave the correct answer. Any tips?!? I hope I have made sense.

Can someone explain what role "even if" plays in (D)?

I was able to eliminate all of them except (D) so I picked it. Turns out, I got lucky.

I tried to make even if a sufficient condition so "even if" it fails, the necessary could still happen. However, is this correct way of thinking about it? Or is even if similar to only if?

On a side note I only got one wrong on PT 51 S1 :D

Not sure if this LR section was easier or if I got better :P

Edit: can we also go over Q16? I had trouble doing the diagram for it but managed to get it right.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-1-question-21/

This is a pseudo-sufficient assumption question.

P:All leaders in major parities oppose the bill

C:The bill will most likely fail to pass.

Target answer to connect no support with fail to pass.

Answer Choice Analysis:

A. Most bills that have not been supported by even one leader of a major party have not been passed into law

E. Most bills that have been passed into law are supported by at least one leader of a major party.

Isn't E the contrapositive of A?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-2-question-21/

Stimulus:

New Age philosopher: nature evolves organically and nonlinearly...

Flaw question.

I am down to B and E

B: overlooks the possibility that the overall structure of a phenomenon is not always identical to the overall structure of the reasoning that people do about that phenomenon.

I don't know why B is wrong. It seems to me that in the stimulus philosopher claim that the overall structure of a phenomenon (Nature) is organic, holistic, nonlinear. And also philosopher recommend we use the identical overall structure of the reasoning(organic, holistic, nonlinear) to understand that phenomenon, which is exactly what B says.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-49-section-2-question-18/

Breathe in breathe out!!!! Are my new fav words when I am trying to read and people keep talking to me though they see me reading ugh

So i'm going through the LR practice questions and I get about every Strength question right. But, I do awful in the weaking questions. And I know both are so similarly so I cannot understand why. I am also very strong in MSS section so maybe I am just taking the same approach. Would like some ideas or help to improve.

Is anyone else having the same problem?

Chris

An artwork cannot express an emotion that the artwork's creator is incapable of experiencing.

How to translate this sentence into logical condition?

If artwork's creator incapable of experiencing, then artwork cannot express an emotion.

Am I right?

Which word is the logical indicator in this sentence?

I thought cannot is the indicator means group 2. Am I right?

Many thanks!

Hi,

I've currently only taken 2 PT's (50, June 2007). I purchased some LSAT question bundles from cambridge lsat and drilled a bunch of LG and RC from tests 1-38. After each topic JY taught, I would spend about 2-3 hours doing drills from those packets.

I'm thinking of taking every other 50s test and then doing each 60-68 test.

Is this a good plan?

On PT 50 I screwed up hard on LR but after calming down my nerves and "retaking" the LR section I improved substantially. I have heaps to go though before I can say I am confident in my abilities to score 0 wrong (or as few wrong as possible). I did okay on the other sections but as mentioned in another post I ran out of time on the RC but got one wrong while missing two on LG because I didn't read my own inference chart properly...

After going through all the courses in 7sage, I found myself still confused about causation and conditional logical, especially how to know the relationship in stimulus is causation, condition, or premise and conclusion. Anyone can help me clarify it?

I don't know if anyone has this problem and I know the obvious answer to this question would be to just slow down and take more time but I was wondering if anyone finds themselves repeatedly mis-recording rules - messing up something very simple - such as replacing one variable letter with another. I am finding I don't miss infrences as much as I make a dumb mistake such as mis-recording a rule under timed conditions. It is problem, i believe, directly related to trying to get down the rules as fast as possible in order to give myself the most amount of time on the game. However, one slip in the smallest detail while recording the rules can destroy your timing if you have to go back once its been noticed (which is almost always the case, lol). If anyone has had this problem and had any specfic drill, exercies, w/e, that they used to over come it, I would be more than willing to hear them out about it.

Thanks

Jake.

We all know what AP and MP questions are, but I have ran into many harder AP and MP questions where the stimuli does not actually explicitly state the conclusion, making it difficult to label the different roles each sentences play. The conclusion in these questions are instead implied by the structure of the argument. Since I have ran into several questions like this, I have reasons to believe that this is a recurring theme on harder AP questions that we should be familiar with. However, this is only a hypothesis based on my experience, so I am here to ask all of you to pay attention to this type of questions and post it on this thread to confirm or reject this hypothesis.

Here are two questions that I have so far.

Preptest 28 Sec 3 # 14

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-3-question-14/

The conclusion here is that citizens in a democratic country should not neglect to vote.

Preptest 50 Sec 2 # 19

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-2-question-19/

The conclusion here seems to be that one should not go too far in limiting one's fat intake.

In either case the conclusion is not mentioned in the stimuli.

What are your opinions' on this?

I noticed that some games are very easy to diagram. However, I am always unsure on how many sketches I should make. In order to save time, is there a general method for knowing when to draw multiple diagrams vs. using only one?