I know the task for the strengthening questions is to find a question that represents the flaw in the reasoning but then Ive noticed that some of the correct answers to the questions aren't the flaws for example, one questions states, " During the 1980s, Japanese collectors were very active in the market for european art and then it says the striking pattern surely reflects a specific preference on the part of many Japanese collectors" I paraphrased it because Im not sure if Im allowed to post the whole question here. So I thought the flaw was that there could be another explanation as to why they chose the art, maybe the art was cheaper than most art. and I chose the correct answer (C) which states, " several 19th cent. impressionists painters adopted certain techniques and visual effects found in Japanese prints that are highly esteemed in Japan" but the answer choice (D) says one of the flaws " during the 1960s and 1970s, the prices of 19th cent. impressionist paintings often exceeded the prices of paintings by older european masters", So my question is that for the strengthening questions are there different tasks for each questions? Thank you in advance!

Can someone explain why B is correct for this question? I find this question confusing, mostly because the way the prompt asks for a principle that if established will prove both sides of the argument correct.

To me B justifies the rehab side of the argument quite plainly, but doesn't touch the demolish portion. We know that the demolishing plan precludes the possibility of the rehabilitating the houses, so B tells us to take the rehab path instead. Does it also justify demolishing because it makes reference to "trying the other approach if the first proves unsatisfactory"--basically, it's saying that both can happen if the first plan doesn't work?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-4-question-16/

I agree A is a better choice given the premises and conclusion, but am I crazy for thinking that an economic incentive implies that the benefit is at least equal to, possibly greater than, the cost? In the examples given by JY he states we have a "growing economic incentive" when earth housing costs go from $200 million to $400 million while moon colony costs are st $1 billion. I understand that the gap between such costs has narrowed, but can it really be said that an economic incentive even exists at this point? Until I can at least break even, why would I consider anything less an "economic incentive." Since, in this view, JY's example does not actually present an economic incentive, can it really be said to be growing?

The only way I can see out of this issue is that the stimulus tells us point blank that the increasing scarcity of housing on earth results in a growing economic incentive, so perhaps my understanding is in conflict with the stimulus.

Relative v. absolute

A is faster than B, therefore A is fast. Well, not necessarily. A is faster than B in relative terms. It doesn’t imply that A is fast in absolute terms. For example, we know that the conclusion in this statement is not true: “Hippopotamuses are smaller than an elephants. Therefore, hippopotamuses are small.” Or take this statement: “Turtles are faster than ants. Therefore, turtles are fast.”

Can someone please explain this?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-3-question-11/

When I was timing myself, this question took me almost 2 minutes because I couldn't choose the right answer choice. I think I was not understanding the first sentence correctly.

Special kinds of cotton (green or brown) only recently became commercially feasible when a long-fiber that could be spun by machine was bred

Following the translation mechanisms, I identified "when" as Group 1 (Sufficient) and wrote:

Machine --> Commercially feasible [/Commercially feasible --> /Machine]

(It seems like some commentators on this video explanation page did the same translation.)

But I think (B) (correct answer choice) says:

Hands --> /Commercially viable [Commercially viable --> /Hands]

So I was like, "uh...I don't think this MUST be true."

However, when I read carefully, I think this sentence is saying:

(My understanding) Until recently when a long-fiber that could be spun by machine was bred, special kinds of cotton (green or brown) were not commercially feasible

/Machine --> /Commercially feasible

So it's actually:

(My understanding) Special kinds of cotton (green or brown) became commercially feasible only when a long-fiber that could be spun by machine was bred

Commercially feasible --> Machine

And I think (B) (Hands (/Machine) --> /Commercially feasible) matches this.

Is my understanding correct?

Also, I'm figuring out how to shave off time, and I noticed that @"J.Y. Ping" didn't really draw a diagram in the video.

Is it better if I don't use conditional logic for a question like this in order not to get confused since it's "giving us information about something that happened in the past and its absolute" ( quoting @Sami 's words from this thread https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/11018/the-only-translation-and-or :) )? I would appreciate if someone could tell me the best way to solve this question.

I just noticed after months (lol years) of prep that in argument part questions, you'll get a question stem that says something to the effect of: "blah blah blah plays which one of the following roles in the argument"

Occasionally, you'll see an answer choice that says something like "it is information that the argument takes for granted"

"takes for granted" is just another way of saying "assumption." If this is the case, then surely these answer choices must always be wrong because assumptions are, by definition, unstated premises.

Has anyone else found this/contradiction of this?

Thanks.

It's always the one star question that throws me for a loop...

This was a question I circled for BR and even after thoroughly reviewing it, I chose incorrectly (D).

The question gives us and a problem and principle.

Problem: Some of the rebate coupons that were distributed had an expiration date that was incorrect--it was too early. So some customers would unfairly believe that the rebate offer had already expired when it did not.

Principle: Anyone who creates an unfair situation has an obligation to rectify any unfair result of that situation.

So I definitely was attracted to C and D here. I can kind of see why C is a correct choice, but I am having an issue eliminating D.

D says that, since the corporation cannot identify all of the customers who were adversely affected by the incorrect expiration date, the corporation should deny the rebate to everyone who applied for it.

In real life, this seems harsh and kind of a ridiculous solution. But logically, would it not rectify any unfair result? There would be no unfairness because everyone gets treated the same way. No imbalance, no advantages, etc. The reason I liked D over C was because C presents a situation in which the corporation attempts to rectify the situation, but the principle does not say that the obligation is to attempt to rectify it. The principle says that the obligation IS to rectify it. Point blank. No excuses. Which is why D, although harsh, I feel is better justified. D presents a definitively equal situation while C presents an attempt at offering a fair result to whoever they are able to identify.

Any help would be much appreciated.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-1-question-06/

Hi,

I was wondering if someone could help clarify something for me. When you see this particular question stem, "reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it presumes," do you think of trying to find an assumption or just to identify the flaw. Any suggestions for eliminating answer choices for these flaw questions that are more subtle?

Thank you!

I really enjoyed these sessions. Essentially, we answered questions live and rotated BRing them 1-on-1 with JY. We learned a whole lot about ways to approach question analysis and to gauge how well we really understand a question -- whether or not we answered it correctly.

My notes from these sessions are shared below. I see now that most of what I wrote for any given QT is actually applicable across the section, so I've gone ahead and reorganized my notes to reflect that. So if you are wondering why there are only few a lines under each QT but a whole lot under Best Practices, that's why : )

Best Practices

AC Strategy

-Narrowed down to 2 AC: circle key words and ID the main points to differentiate the two. Weigh them against one another again and skip/answer.

-Skipping is powerful because we usually interpret better on the second read. Don't even feel obligated to read the AC. Collect your coconuts.

-Don't latch onto AC. We may find ourselves spending 30+ seconds with a single AC just trying to make sense of it but that is stupid because it may not even make any sense to begin with. If you don't have a strong pre-phrase in your head, skim the AC ruthlessly. One of them may jump out as correct. Some may jump out as incorrect.

-Sometimes test writers place the correct answer for highly difficult questions as A or B hoping that when we read these AC, we are still processing the stimulus.

BR Strategy

-Get used to thinking in terms of Domains of Discourse. That will help you generally understand, ID flaws, and de-clutter your diagrams

-Match up corresponding ideas within analogies between the stimulus and AC. Think up additional analogies.

-Cookie Cutters are your friends. Study them so that you can identify them in whatever form they take. Test writers can dress them up in all sorts of creative ways. But if I gifted you a hockey stick, would it matter what color wrapping paper I used?

-There are also Cookie Cutter stimuli. Study these too.

-Sometimes the stimuli and the scenarios they describe or totally unrelatable. When this happens, think of your own real world substitute that matches and is easier to deal with.

Misc

-Once you start seeing the "Matrix" in LR, you won't know where you are until you attempt being 100% aggressive. Do confidence drills starting at 100% aggression (no diagramming, select what you think is right without looking at other AC, etc) and scale back accordingly. Calibrate you confidence level to your ability.

MSS

3 Major Cookie Cutter Types:

-(1) The stimulus is missing a main conclusion which the correct AC provides -- code name: "Extended MP Question"

-(2) The correct AC restates a premise (super premise) or pushes out an inference from 2 premises -- code name: "Mega MSS"

-(3) The correct AC summarizes the stimulus

SA

If you are reading carefully and your intuition is good, the stimulus probably won't flow smoothly. That is because you've detected the gap which we need to plug. Learn to enjoy that discomfort and focus on IDing exactly where that gap is.

Try to get comfortable visualizing aspects of the stimulus and AC in abstract form. If you can see ideas in terms of shapes or "things", that can simplify a purposefully convoluted and wordy stimulus. It can also help us decipher AC by IDing the structure of a given AC: "No [thing]" vs "Any [thing]. Think about what effect those conditional indicators have on their proceeding terms.

PSA

"Pseudo" is not usually that "pseudo" -- don't use the marginal wiggle room allowed on these questions to justify bad and incorrect AC.

PSA vs Principle: Understanding your task

-The QS can be easy to confuse, but the activities they require of us are completely different.

-Principle doesn't show up much, but if we understand PSA/SA, then it shouldn't trip us up because this questions all contain the same puzzle pieces it's just a matter of which one are provided and which we need to ID in the AC.

-To be honest, I still am having trouble differentiating these but I am not missing them either.

PR(F)

-Explicitly line up analogies in BR. Which ideas in the correct AC correspond with ideas from the stimulus? Do this for incorrect AC as well.

-In BR, alter wrong AC so that they would be correct. That will help strengthen your intuition for what was actually wrong. I think this exercise is also good for that thing we do where we read and AC and it sounds good about halfway through but then what we needed (and expected) to be said next wasn't -- and it's wrong because of it.

-Triage. Experiment which prioritizing AC. For example, reading the conclusions first to see if they match.

Flaw

-Learn and lean on the Cookie Cutter flaws. Not every question is Cookie Cutter, but if you know them, then when you face a misc. question, you'll be able quickly eliminate Cookie Cutter AC.

-AC will use tons of abstract language to confuse you and eat up time. Attempt to bring these AC down to the level of the stimulus. Replace the abstract language with corresponding ideas from the stimulus. This process will be much more rigorous in the BR but if you are choosing between 2 AC, deploy this method.

-Correct AC must (1) Be descriptively accurate and (2) Be the flaw

-"Fails to consider..." are almost always accurate because the avg stimulus is only like 4 sentences long. But is it the flaw?

NA

-An NA is an extremely powerful idea, though it looks and sounds weak. That is because without that assumption, the whole argument fall to bits.

Which type of questions in the logical reasoning section require the use of Suf/Nec and their negation? I have a good idea of how this works, I understand when/where it applies in LG, but I have no clue when to use this in LR. Sometimes I'll see an indicator and it doesn't seem to affect the question at all. Other time's I feel I miss them completely. What are the common question types that require us to map these out in the x_ ---> y fashion? What do the question stems look like?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-4-question-16/

Strengthen Question

I was able to get this one correct by eliminating wrong choices, but I have a question regarding the answer choice (C).

(C) says when two methods provide the same type of information, the more intrusive one shouldn't be used.

From Dr. K's argument, we know that electronic fetal monitors (EFM) "do no more" to increase the chances that a baby will be born in good health than ordinary stethoscopes, but does this mean EFM and ordinary stethoscopes provide the same kind of info?

From Dr. A's argument, we know that Dr. K does acknowledge that both methods provide the same information, but can we use our knowledge we get from Dr. A's argument to strengthen Dr. K's argument?

Any ETA on the LG drill packets? I really wanna get started on them. Sorry, meant to say ETA on their organization.

What are some of your strategies to get excited for this section?

I enjoy the process of studying for LR and RC, but not LG.

I think I naturally enjoy anything that has to do with literary comprehension, but LG reminds me too much of algebra and math, which I've hated all throughout my life.. haha

I also think a part of it is my pride: I've excelled in humanities but not really in math, relatively speaking. So I would work extra hard, if need be, to maintain my self identity that I am good at critical reading. With LG, I have no such existential motivation.

any way to change this preconceived notion?

When I open up the page to fool-proof for LG, I think ... "Uh....it's that time again..."

Any tips?

"The only songs A has written are B songs and PR songs"

(PT73.S4.21. https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-4-question-21/)

I translated the sentence as:

A --> B

A --> PR

(A --> B and PR)

But then I realized it has to be "a song A has written has to be B or PR".

A --> B or PR

I was able to pick the correct answer choice for this question, but I don't know which is the right translation.

Any help will be appreciated! :)

This guy JY shifts from a correct CBT answer choice to a MBT answer choice in the question straight after. I understand why some of the elements might be fixed in certain positions for the GLQ arrangement on Team 1 in Q23, but wouldn't you have to test all of them to make sure they must be true?

Sure, for Q24, G & K are positioned in the same way as they are for the correct answer on Q23 (E: L and Q). I get that. How would you know that every other element in that setup must be true? I could understand one noticing one as you're going through the setup on Q23 but this approach doesn't seem like it would hold true in all scenarios.

I understand why the answer is right, but this approach just seems a little sketchy. I don't know how you can say something that could be true also must be true. You would have to test it to make sure unless you knew from the setup.

Many logic games utilize alphabet orders to differentiate a variable set (ex) say, variable set 1 consists of JKLM and 2, NOP...etc) but I often confuse which alphabet belongs to which variable set. For example, when I think of the variable N, I have to look back and forth my main diagram and the variable to see where N belongs. This is an incredible waste of time.

I am trying to memorize the alphabetical order so well to the point that, when I see a variable, I know exactly where in the variable set it belongs. To add to my dismay, I've learned Russian in college, and I sometimes confuse Russian with English alphabet. For example, in Russian, "r" is pronounced similarly to "g." Sometimes, without even being aware of it, I would write down g in the main diagram instead of r...

Anyways, does anyone have tips for quickly categorizing and memorizing which alphabet belongs to which variable set? (other than memorizing the alphabetical order again)

Is there a LG bundle on the site somewhere for the newer tests (say, tests 59+) that we can print like the 1-35 LG bundle?

Hi! for each question ill use a pencil and factor in what each question wants me to into the diagram and then erase and move on to the next problem but I feel as though that is wasting a lot of time but Im having trouble with visually placing the new information in or figuring out the questions alone without diagramming them, does anyone have any advice to get rid of the penciling in factor? Thank you so much in advance!!!!

Hello 7sagers,

I am thinking of doing free reading comprehension tutoring by using passages from older practice tests. Let me know if any one of you is interested in joining me.

I do want to put it out there that I am doing this primarily for my own good because RC happens to be my weakest section. My average for LR is -1.5 but RC is -5 at the moment. So I need to focus on that and one really good way to improve on RC is to go over it with someone.

So if you are struggling with RC and would like to work on this with me, I would be happy to help. But if you are doing well on RC and would still like to just work on it with me let me know as well. I think either way this could be helpful to everyone who just wants to work on improving their reading comprehension skills.

So yes : ) Let's tackle RC!

Update:

Hey everyone,

So I think the best way to proceed would be to just meet and do a passage together. We can rotate volunteers when we go to the next paragraph and then we can all do the questions together under time constraint. So with that said, I have set the tutoring time to be Sunday, May 7th at 5:00 p.m. (eastern time).

We will be using the Reading Comprehension section from PT #3. So please have a clean printed copy of the RC section in front of you and be ready to work on it as we go along. To get the most out of this session, please do not do the passages before the meeting. I think the best way to do this would be to work on this together.

If you would like to join me on Sunday simply click the link provided below at that time and hopefully I will see you all there : ).

P.S. for people who cannot make it at this time. Please let me know what day and time does work for you. I'll do my best to accommodate you guys the next time : )

Decoding Reading Comprehension with Sami

Sun, May 7, 2017 5:00 PM - 6:30 PM EDT

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/863069925

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States: +1 (646) 749-3122

Access Code: 863-069-925

First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: http://help.citrix.com/getready

Hello:

During blind review, I find myself getting the correct answer on many "difficult" questions because I moved on when I found what I figured out to be the right answer. This technique has helped me go past questions that aren't that difficult but do present with well written wrong answers. Any thoughts from the community?

So I have gone through the entire course and I would say it has helped greatly, before when I would do a LR section I would be getting 14-15 right untimed. Now untimed (which generally takes me 45-50 minutes) I am seeing improvements where I usually end up with 20 right (I always do BR, where I choose to keep or change my answers, so sometimes ill hit 20 with changed answers sometimes i'll hit 20 without changing any answers). I have noticed though that I am consistently atleast -5 to -6 wrong on my LR sections untimed. I have also realized that flaw, parallel and Resolve reconcile explain give me the most trouble. What do I need to do to greatly increase my score on untimed sections? I have reviewed the flaw, causation and parallel sections on 7sage. Does this just come with continued practice and extensive review on untimed LR? and once I am seeing these improvements on untimed tests, how will I begin to increase my speed? Should I be doing blind review on every single question after I do a section or just the questions that posed me difficulty?

I wrote the December LSAT and scored a 151, due to bombing the logical reasonings sections. I am writing in September 2017 and will spend however many hours necessary in order to increase my accuracy and speed on logical reasoning.

Hi All,

This question gave me some issues during my timed take and BR. I'm hoping to talk through it and get someone else's perspective.

We are given a set of facts and we are asked which one of the ACs can be properly inferred.

So, if the scientists are correct, we have this chain of events here:

Air pollution caused global warming, which enhanced the strength of El Nino which caused the widespread drought, which made the tropics especially susceptible to fires.

I don't have an issue with eliminating A, B and C.

D gave me a bit of an issue though. Is D incorrect because it specifies "size and intensity" rather than mere occurrence? For example, if D said "At least some scientists believe that air pollution was responsible for the susceptibility of the tropics to fires in 1997," would that be correct? Or is there something else I am missing here?

I also considered the possibility that D could be wrong because D prescribes a believe to a group of people (some scientists) that might not have been something they were even aware about. For example, the stimulus states a belief of many scientists that have to do with El Nino, global warming and air pollution, NOT the fires. The fire in the tropics is a separate occurrence that the scientists may or may not be aware of. So, due to the mere lack of knowledge, the scientists could believe that air pollution was responsible for the strength of El Nino, but because we do not know the extent of the scientists' awareness of the fires, we cannot infer that they would have any beliefs about the fires. Belief presupposes knowledge of the subject of that belief, right? So it could be the case that, if the scientists were aware of the fires that they would infer a causal relationship, but we are not told that they are aware.

I can't tell if this is me taking this question wayyyy too far and overthinking it, but I would love to know what anyone else's grounds are for eliminating D.

Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-69-section-4-question-20/

Hi everyone! I have been studying via the 7sage syllabus for almost three months now and I absolutely love it. However, I find that I am struggling more with the logic games now than I did in my first test. (like I scored 60% correct on my first test and now I am scoring 25-30% correct).

Has this occurred to anyone? Is this common? I am wondering if I am getting too caught up on what is the appropriate method to solve the game rather than before I was just doing my best to solve? Any help would be greatly appreciated. I have been printing copies and practicing the problems on repeat like JY suggested; however once I get to different types of mixed problems I panic and freeze and get in my head.

Any advise is greatly appreciated. I want to avoid getting negative on these - at first I was really hopeful I could master them and now I am beginning to doubt myself.

How do we tell the difference between an inclusive 'or' (group 3 rules) or an exclusive 'or' (can be negated to mean 'and')?

The answer for this question is E. I don't think any of the answers really have a logic structure that parallels to that of the stimulus. For the stimulus I got:

CA--> P

CA some MR

therefore, P some MR

For E I got:

SP some TP

SO some TP

therefore SO --> SP

I won't exactly say they are parallel, though E is the closest answer I guess.

Any thoughts on this?