I know Lawgic is incorporated in the CC in order to gain a full understanding of the the LSATs components. However, I find that trying to use conditional logic to try and solve LR problems actually confuses me and slows me down. I actually understand the problem better when I just read the LR stimulus very carefully, focusing on the indicator words and parsing out conclusions and premises. Is it ok to not worry about conditional logic for LR or am I going to need it when I get to later question types? Thanks!

Can someone let me know which other games are similar to this one?

This is the first time that I have encountered this kind of set up.

Thanks to this community I've improved my RC and logic game scores tremendously, yet for some reason my AR score has gone down. That was the section that I was strongest in. I'm supposed to sit for the Feb test Saturday but I think I'm going to parlay that into writing for the June one instead. I was still planning to take June anyway, but was going to take Feb since I was already registered. My husband said he thinks taking the test Saturday is still a good idea, for practice reasons, but I don't want to chance it. I was devestated after receiving my Dec score and I read here that the day of score could be lower than PTs when you account for day of jitters etc. it's just that I'm older than most of you tenderonis and cannot afford another year of waiting. sigh I have to remind myself it'll be worth the wait.

Hey All,

So we have this health study that found that people who gained approximately 1 pound per year after the age of 35 tended, on the whole, to live longer than those who maintained the weight they had at 35. However, there have been other studies that indicated that weight gain tends to lower life expectancy.

Pretty standard resolve the paradox stimulus. I'm thinking: "Okay...well 'weight gain' is a pretty vague concept. 1 pound a year versus 10 pounds a year will certainly yield different results. Maybe the answer choice has something to do with that? Or maybe we find out that one of the tested groups were not representative-- meaning maybe they were poor eaters or the weight gain was a result of muscle gain because they were regular gym goers."

Well, none of the answer choices did any of those things (not completely anyway).

I eliminated the correct answer (C) because it says that smokers tend to be leaner than nonsmokers. It says nothing about weight gain.

If (C) read: Smokers, who tend to be less likely to gain weight than non smokers, tend to have shorter life spans than nonsmokers, then I could see what the test writers were getting at. (C) would be providing us with an example of a situation in which another factor (namely, smoking) can effect the outcome of the study. (C) would give us a potential reason that these two studies yielded different results because the group was not a representative group. I think (C) would still provide a very weak resolution because it is not specifically linking the scenario in (C) with our stimulus and we are just given a vague possibility that may or may not be relevant. However, I'm not a fan of the other ACs either, so I guess (C) is what we're left with. The "may" part of "may or may not be relevant" is apparently enough.

HOWEVER, my contention with C is what I mentioned earlier. During my timed section (and even BR...) I eliminated C because it said nothing about weight gain. So smokers are usually leaner? Okay...? Maybe there is some sort of propensity in leaner people to smoke? Maybe people who eat less are more inclined to pick up smoking habits? The point is we don't know...so how on earth can we assume that weight gain is playing a factor at all in the scenario in (C)?

Thanks in advance.

I finally decided to withdraw Feb LSAT. I felt underprepared and have advantage on this application cycle. I didn't take enough PTs and RC practice. It's a really hard decision since I prepared for more than three months.My target score is 170.Currently in around mid 150s.

I may apply for another master degree while preparing for June/Oct LSAT.

Hope my skills will get improved.Life goes on.

In the third rule, it says that if y is not in the park if either L or O is in the park, but then on the explanation, the sub game boards, he says that Y can be in or can be out if either L or O are out..., what am I missing? I thought if either one of them was out, then y had to be out too.

Please help!

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

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-1-question-05/

Here is the LSAT question from the problem set I am currently on in the course.

I have really got down the strengthening questions and I actually think they are quite fun. But the weakening questions are ironically my weakness at the moment.

The question:

I chose C in the initial timed test and stuck with it after the blind review. I totally see now how C completely supports the hypothesis, and is therefore wrong. But I was really analyzing D.

In the blind review, I wrote down that the reason I did not chose D was because it makes an assumption that Caplin fish are in a low supply. They both eat the same fish, so what? What if there are millions of these fish in great supply, than this would not matter at all. It also makes an assumption that Harp seals are better at catching and eating Caplin than Cods are. This assumption is still too large for me to understand why it would be the right answer choice.

I guess, by default, it would be right answer choice, since all the others are very wrong. But I would really appreciate someone explaining when I should have a critical eye for assumptions and when I shouldn’t, because it has obviously has swayed me in the wrong direction.

Are the new games discussed at all in the course? It's my understanding that these games, by design, are difficult to directly prepare for. I've seen enough of them to understand why this is the case. The general approach I've heard is to master the approach to all games and bring that mindset to these new ones (and don't get flustered).

I'm having trouble negating and translating the first sentence of this question. How am I supposed to negate a sentence with two group four indicators?

Despite reviewing JY's explanation (https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-4-question-25/), I don't understand why answer choice (C) is incorrect while (D) is correct.

For one thing, how is answer choice (C) different from PT29 - S1 - Q16 (https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-1-question-16/) correct answer choice (B)? There, (B) said "some..." and JY said even though the "some" may or may not address the case addressed in the stimulus, it could still potentially weaken the argument. So then why can't answer choice (C)s "Not all" in this case use the same reasoning?

Moreover, answer choice (D) talks about being able to control an involuntary action which just seems to deny the premise that Marianne's actions are involuntary. This also says nothing about whether or not you should be held responsible. Being held responsible for an action that you can control is a further assumption we would have to make.

Admin edit: Please review the forum rules. Posting full questions from PTs is against our TOS.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the teacher's argument?

(A) A journalist undermines his or her own professional standing by submitting for publication statements that, not being attributed to a named source, are rejected for being implausible, unoriginal, or dull.

Can someone explain why A is the correct answer choice? I feel like I'm not getting the conditional logic of this question.

I diagrammed as AP (accepted for publication) --> HP (highly plausible) or HO (highly original) or HI (high interest among audience). I think the contrapositive should be ~HP and ~HO and ~HI --> ~AP. But I think A is doing ~HP or ~HO or ~HI --> ~AP. Am I missing something?

I am retaking some of the 70's PT's to get ready for Saturday (fingers crossed!). Most of the LR is no problem for me, I just was hoping for a bit of a discussion on a few questions, maybe someone can critique my reasoning? So here it is:

This is an extremely tricky strengthen question for me.The stimulus doesn't ACTUALLY mention that population growth will continue, which is the flaw I suppose. IF the trend doesn't continue, then there is no need to address concerns. Beyond that, the argument DOES indeed note that the planets resources allow for "food to be produced" at several times what it is now, and that there is a maximum to it. Answer choice B (the one I picked way back when) doesn't mention food shortages, so that is a count against it, but I am caught on the terms here "food resources from ... the ocean ... will eventually be fully utilized". To me that could be a counter to the objection, "maybe food has a maximum PRODUCTION amount, but we fish from the oceans, which doesn't count as PRODUCING, its more like procuring." I read produce here to mean "to compose, create, or bring out by intellectual or physical effort" [Merriam-Webster def. 6]. I suppose LSAC here means "to give birth or rise to : yield" [Merriam-Webster def 2]. Anyone find this a bit frustrating? Thoughts on how to avoid confusion when they try to play tricks on language?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-2-question-07/

Is it possible to have 2 answer choice that both weaken the argument but to different degree?

Also, for the weakening question in general, if I have to make an additional assumption to believe one of the AC could possibly weaken, then it would generally be wrong, right? Perhaps subtle ones don't necessarily do this..

Am I in the right mindset for this? I would really appreciate if someone could confirm my thoughts on this.

Is taking two pretests the week of my actual LSAT too much? I don't want to get burnt out but I feel like the more I take the more prepared I feel. Advice anyone?

In the Powerscore logical reasoning bible (under conditional reasoning) there is a statement saying "No robot can think." They say that the diagram is R ---> /T (if an entity is a robot, then it cannot think). Im just confused as to how being a robot is the sufficient condition, and in general how they got this diagram. Im also getting confused on how they describe these relationships.

Thanks!

I went through the RC in the 70's to try to glean some more information and feel more comfortable going into the sections. Nothing super profound, but I was at least able to categorize them by their most common types. Feel free to add any other common structures that you find!

Straight/Regular Passages:

Comparative Passages:

Passage A:

Passage B:

Hello! So I'm fool proofing the LG bundles now, at first I was doing like 6-7 new per day. Now I'm finding that by the 3-4 new LG/day it's a mental drain & I didn't take into consideration the repeats. Does anyone have a good number of LG/daily that's realistic for daily routine while keeping up with RC & LR. I'm trying to finish them within 2 months. Any feedback will be really helpful :-)

I have a question for answer choice A for the second question on "mental contortions." Although I got this question correct, I was really hesitant on marking A the right answer due to the word "beforehand." In the context of the passage, it states that "judges' instructions to juries to ignore information learned outside the courtroom" could not be "relied upon," and such instruction would become "mental contortions" to the jurors.

In my mind, information learned outside the courtroom (where prejudice can be formed) can be formed not only before the trial, but also in the middle of a trial, and therefore, I thought answer choice A was incorrect as it limits the scope to only before the trial (hence, descriptively inaccurate). However, I eventually chose A because all the other answer choices also limited the scope to "pretrial," which really confused me...

I'm actually a native South Korean student, so I may be unfamiliar with the concept of a "trial." If we are to assume that there is a certain case that lasts several days, and the parties of the case go to court several times to dispute the case, to my understanding, this as a whole would still be one trial. Therefore, I thought that juror prejudices could be formed in the middle of a trial (or, during a trial), as they would go to court, and then go home (get information outside the courtroom), then go to court, then go home, etc.

I would really like some clarification on this and any help would be great!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-3-passage-1-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-3-passage-1-questions/

Logic games used to be like another language to me but it has gotten to be my best section as of now. However, when the clock is ticking, everything i know about LG seems to go out the window. When I BR my test (during untimed conditions of corse), all the inferences that i should have made under timed conditions come to me almost instantly. Its extremely frustrating that I can do them but the pressure of time prevents me from performing to my full capability. I imagine it is because one can reasonably anticipate what the RC and LR will entail but with LG they can really throw anything at you. Does anyone else have this issue? Any tips or advice would be appreciated. I really want to get LG down pat as i'm taking the lsat next week (Feb 4th). Freezing up on LG is dramatically bringing my score down from what it can be even though I feel most prepared for it.

Hi, I am having a hard time differentiating between a cause and effect and a conditional statement. Would anyone have tips or tricks?

Hey everyone, just wanted to get clarification on something. I find myself, when confronted with a MBT or SA question, immediately translating to logic. It is hard for me to find the correct answer choice otherwise. However, it does seem to eat up some time. Is there a better strategy to approach these questions? I would be very comfortable with the questions if it wasn't for the timing element, due to the formulaic nature of their structures.

Hey everyone,

I'm having trouble clearly identifying the assumptions in logical reasoning questions. I understand the difference between necessary vs. sufficient assumptions, overlooked possibilities & mismatched concepts. But, during my timed practices, the assumption is not clicking in my head. Any advice or tips would be greatly appreciated. Maybe even a new way of approaching the stimulus?

Sorry for the ominous title, but I'm really conflicted on what to do, and friends/family aren't objective enough to give me a solid response.

I am Canadian and applied to 7 schools across the country, I wrote the LSAT in December after delaying the September exam after studying for 4 months. I wrote in December because I felt like I had to, since I had already submitted all my applications and was dead set on attending law school in 2017.

I didn't feel great writing in December, and left the exam feeling like I would need to rewrite. I got my score back and scored 10 below my average, 155, and have a personal high of hitting 171 on a few preptests. My struggle section is LR by a long shot - average about 6-8 wrong per section, and -12 on the section on the December test. I'm not sure if my issue is stamina or lacking the fundamental knowledge for the question types. I average between 0 -4 on LG, and between -4 -6 on RC.

I recently decided, due to pressure from family/friends and myself to write the test in February because my main concern would be losing this application cycle and the money used to apply. My scores have improved slightly from taking a month long break, I came back and got 171 on my first PT since my break, and gotten 169, 168 etc since.

My main question for the community then is this, do I grind it out and hopefully save this application cycle, or sit it out and write in June or September and maybe still get accepted this year? I also emailed my schools I applied to and told them I would be writing in February and to put my application on hold, would it not look bad to then go back and tell them to change it back?

The statements provide the most support for holding that Sandra would disagree with Taylor about which one of the following statements?

Answer: D) Some sciences can yield mathematically precise results that are not inherently suspect.

Okay, so I answered this incorrectly on the diagnostic, and watched the video explaining what the correct answer choice was. I'm still a bit confused. This type of question is a disagreement question, which means that the right answer choice has to be a statement that one of the two speakers agrees with and the other disagrees with. In this passage, Taylor and Sandra are arguing about whether or not all mathematically precise claims should be subject to skepticism. Taylor clearly holds that all mathematically precise claims are suspect, while Sandra believes that some scientific disciplines can obtain precise results which are not suspect.

D clearly aligns with Sandra's argument, but I am confused by the wording of this question. It says the statements above provide the most support for holding that Sandra would disagree with Taylor about one of the following statements. Doesn't that mean we are looking for a statement that Taylor believes in and Sandra disagrees with?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-2-question-16/