Hi,

I haven't been able to sleep well ever since I took the LSAT. Is there anyone else who is as anxious? Do you have any tips to handle the anxiety? I know these are stupid questions to ask, but this group has provided me with support through my prep so I figured why not? It will help to know I am not alone.

Is there a list anywhere of challenging logic games (of all types) that are important to know inside and out, as part of LG prep?

Or is there a way to sort 7Sage's LG explanations by the difficulty column? Apologies if I'm missing it.

I find abstract FL AC's to be quite a hassle on the LSAT. Usually I POE it down to one answer, which feels right, but I don't work through the FL if I feel it'd be a super time sink. So I BR and work it out then (now). I'm talking about AC B here, "No migraine sufferers with heart disease will take the new medication except under careful medical supervision." The no makes it a not both relationship: IF MIG sufferer w/ HD -> NOT take medication. The "except" gets translated to an IF NOT, which now becomes a joint sufficient condition: IF NOT under supervision.

SO, in total:

IF MIG sufferer w/ HD

+ -> NOT take medication

IF NOT under supervision

How is my methodology?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-2-question-03/

The argument breakdown is as follows:

P1: Surgical procedures differ in one important aspect from medicinal drugs.

P2: This one important aspect is that a correctly prescribed drug depends for its effectiveness only on the drug's composition, while the effectiveness of even the most appropriate surgical procedure is transparently related to the skills of the surgeon who uses it.

C: The proposal to extend clinical trials to new surgical procedures should not be implemented.

So we are looking for the flawed reasoning. I was able to eliminate B, C, and E, but my worry is that I also eliminated A (the correct answer) and chose D, not because I liked D, but by POE.

Would someone be willing to explain to me why A is the correct answer? The argument is saying that the extension should not happen, and it seems that A would only add a premise, rather than constitute a flaw. Is the flaw because the stimulus only mentions one important point at which they differ, and A is pointing out a second important point?

(Also, on a side note, has anyone ever come across a flawed reasoning question where the answer was "the argument is flawed because they didn't cite any scientific evidence"? I am usually quick to eliminate these because, logically speaking, an argument works with the evidence it is given and draws conclusions from that. Sometimes they are terrible conclusions, but regardless, one does not need scientific evidence to validate a terrible argument. If we are speaking scientifically, empirical evidence is clearly important. But, for our purposes, I just don't see how a lack of scientific evidence can ever be the logical flaw in an argument. I chose D for this answer, already suspecting it was wrong, but I did so by POE. Any thoughts on this?)

Thanks!

Can someone elaborate on Why E is incorrect?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-3-question-17/

Hi everyone,

I'm new to the LSAT and was wondering if someone could confirm which sections on the 7Sage Syllabus are for Logic Games. To my untrained eyes it looks like the syllabus introduces Logic Games, and then goes back to Logical Reasoning.

Specially, are there any games sections without the word "games" in the title?

Namely, anything other than:

- Introduction to Logic Games & Sequencing Games

- Sequencing Games with a Twist

- Introduction to Grouping Games: The In-Out Games

- Grouping Games

- Grouping Games with a Chart

- Grouping and Sequencing Games

Hoping to study *just* games over the next 2 weeks and wanted to know which sections/videos to try cover.

Thanks so much, everyone!

Happy holidays.

I start to use POE on timed section on RC. I get most choices wrong(haven't done RC for a long time).I really speed up when I use POE. Is that normal at early stage? I previously use POE on some LRs. I only finish 20% of the CC(LOL). I take Manhattan online course , which is intensive. Some of their RC methods are useful. I know it's hard to apply top 20 law school with a 170+ LSAT with my extremely low GPA. Areas and reputation is important for an international job seeker like me. I consider to practice in HK and US. I would retake in June(in U.S. or Hong Kong) since my OPT(internship for international student) is approaching. I want to know what stage I was in even though Feb LSAT is unsupported by many folks.

My basic strategy is to drill LGs while identify weak type of LRs. I time each RC passage for 8 minutes. I hope that I can be ready for PT in mid-January(at least 5). Any suggestion would be appreciated.

I enjoy doing LSAT while it brings mental challenge/pains. I'm lucky to have parent's support and they came to Seattle for Christmas and new year. I like 7sage community.

Anyway, happy Holiday!!

Hi,

I am beyond confused on one of the logic games

Each of exactly six doctors- Juarez, Kudrow, Longtree, Nance, Onawa, and Palermo is at exactly one of two clinics: Souderton or Randsborough. The following conditions must be satisfied:

Kudrow is at Randsborough if Juarez is at Souderton

Onawa is at Souderton if Juarez is at Randsborough

If Longtree is at Souderton then both Nance and Palerno are at Randsborough

If Nance is at Randsborough, then so is Onawa

If Palerno is at Randsborough, then both Kudrow and Onawa are at Souderton

So @"J.Y. Ping" solved it one way

L-> /N --> /O --> J --> /K --> P

--> /P

In order to get rid of the contradiction with the P's he negated /L and got

/N-->/O --> J--> /K--> P

However, I decided to find the contrapositive of the first statement and got

/P--> K--> /J --> O --> N --> /L

P ---> /L

But I have no idea how to remove the contradicting P's because L is already negated. I'm so confused regarding what to do next?

I feel like I'm missing a basic logic concept but I tried going back to the material and I still dont get it.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-4-game-4/

It's about to negate the sufficient condition, right? any example will be appreciated.

I had this one down to C and D and ultimately went with C. I saw C an an alternate explanation but would C have been eliminated because the increase was not specifically mentioned a well as the FM? Do both A and B both have to be specifically mentioned and not implied or assumed? Also, I get that C is incorrect because C-> A&B (Other M -> FM & Increase isn't possible due to no assumption in the stimulus that FM caused the increase but is instead the conclusion, so FM->Increase (A->B) was never a possibility. I ultimately eliminated D because I interpreted the AC as saying there was no increase in the algae population because there was no increase in the amount of shells left behind. I took that as meaning constant but didn't go further and see that it meant that we should see more shells if there was an increase, thus weakening the argument. Hopefully this all makes sense for you guys.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-2-question-04/

I've run into this problem a few times on NA questions, where I can't decide whether to negate by adding a not or negating the quantity. Here's an example of an answer choice from an NA question:

There are some illnesses that experienced physicians can diagnose accurately from physical examination alone.

In this instance, would you negate some to none or place a not after can to negate? Or both?

I found I particularly underperform in law reading regardless of difficulty. Any suggestion on improvement?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-1-question-02/

I chose A for this and literally had to check the answer key three times because I thought I was seeing things. I cannot figure out why A is wrong and B is right.

This is a weaken question.

The stimulus says that there have been certain international efforts to protect the natural habitats of endangered species of animals. In spite of these efforts, apparently the extinction rate is still rising. The argument concludes that these efforts are wasted.

After reading the premises, I'm thinking "Oh, great! This is perfect-- What an assumption for this argument to make! I am definitely anticipating that the answer choice is going to have something to do with pointing out that, just because these efforts are aimed at protecting natural habitats, does not necessarily entail that these efforts are also aimed at preventing the extinction rate from rising!" Then I read the conclusion that claims that the efforts were wasted. At this point, I'm 100% anticipating answer choice A.

The international efforts are aimed at protecting the natural habitats of endangered species. This does not necessarily mean these efforts are also trying to prevent the extinction rate from increasing. I mean, in the real world, it is most likely the case that this is also the goal, but in LSAT world, I just don't see how we can make that assumption. What if these efforts were to satisfy the hippie/vegan population so that they think the government is prioritizing the protection of these natural habitats? Or what if their efforts were because there is some new law that requires the protection of these habitats? There could be a number of (yes, crazy yet) logically sufficient reasons for why they are protecting the natural habitats of these species that have nothing to do with the extinction rate. If the two concepts (protecting natural habitats and preventing extinction from increasing) were to be related in terms of our argument, wouldn't the first statement have to say "Despite increasing international efforts to protect the natural habitats of endangered species in order to maintain or decrease the extinction rate, the rate at which these species are becoming extinct continues to rise"?

A- Points out the assumption. Scientists are better able to preserve the habitats of endangered species. That was what their efforts were doing according to the stimulus. This answer choice points out how irrelevant the statement about the extinction rate increasing is to their efforts.

B- Animal refugees are not natural habitats. They are man-made sanctuaries that artificially mimic natural habitats. I rendered this answer choice as irrelevant because it is not even talking about the same subject matter.

I am very confused. I considered this to be an easy question that took me all of 20 seconds and even after reviewing it over and over again, I cannot for the life of me understand it.

Personally, I would go

RC: 1*

LR: 2*

LR: 2*

LG1: 2*

LG2: 2*

LG3: 4*

LG4: LOLNope*s

Hey, guys! I'm just drilling a few weaken questions on my lunch break and I have a question about AC C. I eliminated it but I haven't found my reasoning in the forums that matched mine, so I want to make sure I eliminated it for the right reasons. The AC only states that the coin was neither minted nor circulated after 1468. I eliminated it because the coin could've been minted or circulated prior to 1431. It also didn't see how it weakened any support between the premise and conclusion. Am I wrong here? There were other explanations that just seemed unnecessary to me. Thoughts?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-3-question-09/

On the LR question boxed below, JY did not give an explanation as to why answer E was wrong. Please take a look at it real quick and then read my take below after.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-4-question-22/

My take: Answer D (the correct answer) is the exact same as answer E (if you switch positioning of the "if/then"), except that answer E says if NONE of the dairies meets federal standards whereas answer D says MOST dont meet them. How is E wrong? If most of the dairies dont meet federal standards and that results in pollution of the water, then of course we can say that if NONE of them meet federal standards then the water will get polluted. If anything, we can be more sure from none of them meeting standards that the water will be polluted rather than most.

An analogy of my reasoning: If in a city, most of the power plants dont work, than the whole city will not have power. Answer D is saying most of the power plants dont work, so there will not be power. Answer E is saying NONE of the power plants work, so we can definitely be sure there will be no power!

What am I missing?

So this section is by far my worst... I think the timing aspect is really killing me, any ideas on how to improve, or how perhaps you've seen gains within this section?

I've been averaging about 8-12 correct per section (I know, it's pretty bad) but after BR I usually get about 5-7 more answers correct. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thank you!

Admin edit: Ahh! No full-caps in titles, please. I'm a very timid admin and I don't like being yelled at. ):

I checked the LSAC and saw the Credential Assembly Service (CAS), which cost $50. How would it(elvuation) influence the admission? any idea?

Hey everyone

I am trying 7sage after taking the LSAT two times, 143 on my first with little studying and 149 with two months studying on my second.

I will be taking the Feb LSAT fro the third time. I am aiming to improve to the 160's. MY worst section is the Logical reasoning. I feel like i have room to improve on the RC and LG section but i am totally clueless with the LR.

I am also hoping i can find a community here that i can share problems with and keep me accountable.

I will be aiming to post here everyday with my activities and progress.

Please give me any tips on how I can improve on the LR and RC so i can reach my target score.

I will be using the 7sage lsat schedule to study

Thanks Tosin.

Experimental LR: Bumblebees and sleep study, Valley United

Real LR 1: The tiktaalik fish

Can't remember questions from the second LR, my apologies

Edit: LR 2: Pet allergies?

Real Games: which office floor on what day, which train stations are out of service, something with H before R

Real Reading: Chinese dialects, Multiverse and movies, Social Darwinism, Comedians and Chefs

Hi Guys,

As a general rule of thumb to score for a 170, for RC, at the current level, I can get level 1-2 difficulty -0; level 3 -0~-1; Level 4: -1~-2; Level 5: -2~--3.

How can you improve level 5 question answering accuracy. During review, I will spend almost 1 hour on the passage, and looking at it, I just have no idea how to not miss the question when under timed exam.

Should I get a tutor like Nicole to help out? Or how can you shore up those points?

Hey all, First off, thanks to all of you in this great community for being such an awesome resource and support network for this process of getting to law school!

So, I just sat for the December LSAT, and like others who are posting, Logic games 3 and 4 were a bit difficult (disappointing, because games are usually my -0 to -2 section). I ended up having to semi-blind guess on at least five questions in that section. On top of that, I really let anxiety get to me and didn't get much sleep at all. I felt nauseous all up until the experimental games section (3rd section for me) which ironically calmed me down by being so difficult that I was sure I was just gonna cancel.

My PT range for my last five tests were all in the 168-171 range, so I was pretty hopeful about being able to at least have a shot at my goal school of Cornell, but now I'm really not so sure. Honestly RC and LR are a blur for me, I could've knocked them out of the park, I could've failed miserably. SO, I'm considering a February re-take, with an emphasis on mental heath, but, are my chances for Cornell dashed? They have a deadline of Feb. 1st. However, they say that after this point, they will still accept apps, but admissions will be on "available seats only". This sounds like T14 language for, "98% chance sorry too late". My other schools will work for a February LSAT, but I'm still nervous even for them because of all i've heard about February being so late in the cycle.

I really don't think I can wait another cycle, doing so would cause some major family drama and involve making some really tough choices financially. So, thoughts?

Hi everyone,

I took the recent LSAT in London. I had two LG sections on my test, and I'm currently trying to work out which one of two was the experimental section. One was moderately difficult, I finished it without much of a problem. However, the 3rd and 4th games in the other LG were ridiculously difficult (similarly to the US LSAT with two LGs - weird coincidence). I remember the 3rd game involving seven Mechanics and Inventors (not a 100% sure about the name of the second group). I don't remember much else. Please let me know if you would happen to have any information on which of the two LG sections of the London LSAT was the real one, and which one was experimental.

Thanks a lot,

Piotr

Hey guys! Here's the official December LSAT Discussion Thread. Please keep all discussions of the December 2016 LSAT here!

Here's some ground rules, taken from my usual sticky:

We know that everyone will be excited to discuss what was on the December '16 LSAT, but mentioning specifics about the test (e.g., "I got B for question 6" or "the 3rd LG was sequencing") can get both us and you in a lot of trouble with LSAC. Saying that the test was hard/easy without going into detail is okay, but anything more specific is not okay. LSAC monitors this forum.

If you're unsure what may be too specific, feel free to PM me with what you'd like to post.

The only exception is you can say which sections were real or experimental. For example, the LG with "flowers" was experimental. That's okay.

TL;DR: PLEASE don't talk specifics about December's LSAT in detail!

Here's where you can see the current Real/Experimental Sections:

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/9666/december-2016-lsat-real-experimental-sections-keywords

Have fun discussing!

For this particular problem, I see how the author is making the link between stress and the way people approach and think about their problems. The correct answer choice states that refusing to think about something troubling contributes to stress, which captures this idea. However, I'm wondering why the relationship couldn't be reversed, with the refusal to think being a result rather than the cause of stress. Even after BR and reviewing the explanation, I understood that there was being link between those two concepts but didn't fully understand the direction of that causal link because the stimulus was so odd.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-4-question-10/