I was browsing youtube in my daily routine to relax before the test when all of a sudden, I got hit with a deja vu moment. For those who remember the RC passage about the ultraviolet catastrophe:

Enjoy~

Hi! I am using the LSAT trainer and studying for between 15 and 20 hours a week while working full time. I am shooting for the April test and trying to improve my score from a 155 to breaking 170. Does anyone have any advice on supplementing The Trainer? I'm doing a lot of practice actual exams (62-81). Considering using the 7Sage monthly subscription for the last few months of test prep to help with reviewing. Anyone do the same thing? I am about 6 weeks into studying. When do most folks see improvement in their scores?

Hi everyone,

When I was taking the LSAT yesterday my eraser left a large purple mark on my scantron. I want to get my test hand-scored but also want to apply as soon as I get the correct score back. I saw on LSAC's website that I won't be able to request for my exam to be hand scored until the scores are released. Does anyone have any experience with the turn around time for handscoring?

Really want to start seeing improvement in my score and curriculum before my October test. Best tutors?

What is the contrapositive of a biconditional like this: A (--) B and C

Would it be: /B or /C (--) /A

Hi everyone. I recently got approved for accommodations on the LSAT but I'm struggling to improve even with 53 minutes. Anyone have any tips? I plan on taking the October LSAT.

I want to know why answer E is wrong. In Manhattan Prep. It says "everyday food" is irrelevent to the question. However, couldnt water be part of everyday food? Is this also making assumptions?

Admin note: edited title

Hi everyone,

Just wanted to hear some tips on folks who are very comfortable with Reading Comp. I absolutely loved JYs breakdown and framework for science passage - phenomenon and hypothesis. I studied literature in college, so those science passages are daunting, but with that framework, pretty much every science passage can be broken down into that structure. It's like a swiss army knife to understand them. Love it.

Wanted to hear if you all had similar frameworks for Law / Human/ Arts passages? Particularly law. Those also seem daunting to me and I get overwhelmed by the specificity that many of the law passages tend to have under time pressure. Any type of larger frameworks in law that I can use as a swiss army knife (human / societal practice ---> law, problem existing --> law with answer ???)

Arts and Humanities are fine - my lit degree really comes in handy haha - but would also appreciate your tips in case I get a passage about Ayn Rand or something that I'm not inherently interested in (I hate Ayn Rand).

I usually do pretty well on RC, average 3/4 qs wrong. But sometimes I blow it and get 6-7 if it's a hard science or law passage. Want to be ready for the worst case scenario.

Thanks!

Evidence -> Not Guilt

but now Evidence --> Guilt

Evidence must have changed.

A = B

now A = not B

A has changed.

(Answer B): Train = not Nantes at 11.

But now Train = Nantes at 11

Train has changed

I'm trying to improve my LR, but I'm really struggling under timed conditions. What advise do you guys have to get -5 or less consistently?

i’m having difficulty with this parallel flaw question. I chose answer be as it has the same logical structure as the stimulus and reasoning. What am I missing?

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

Anyone interested in joining our study group. Let me know.

Hi everyone,

I am having difficulties finding an approach for detail-heavy passages, i.e. that don't have much of an argument to them but instead a lot of facts and details (For example Passage #1 - Burning Forests of LSAT 38/114 Section III). Since I usually focus on finding the argument and author's tone in each passage, I often lose of a lot of time going back to the details to answer the questions for this kind of passage.

Does anyone have any tips or strategy?

Thank you!

Conservative: Socialists study history, and they do so to identify trends that inevitably lead to a socialist future. However, this undertaking is certain to fail, because it is only retroactively that historical trends appear inevitable.

Socialist: Socialists do indeed study history, but the purpose of this is practical rather than theoretical: Instead of trying to identify historical trends that themselves bring about socialism, socialists try to identify trends that inform the kind of work that socialists need to do to bring socialism about. Socialism thus is not the inevitable outcome of historical trends, it instead must be worked towards and deliberately brought about.

Under timed conditions this Point at Issue / Disagreement question had me genuinely confused: The conservative and the socialist agree in maintaining that socialists study historical trends, but they disagree about the purpose that these studies are supposed to serve: According to the conservative, these studies are a purely theoretical undertaking, the socialist deems them practical. This thus would have been the issue to anticipate.

The pertinent answer choices are (A) (“[A] socialist society is the inevitable consequence of historical trends that can be identified by an analysis of history”) and (E) (“Socialists analyze history in order to support the view that socialism is inevitable”).

In the case of (E), we do get at a version of the anticipated answer; (E) gets at the conservative’s portraying socialist analyses of history as purely theoretical undertakings, which the socialist rejects.

(A) is more tricky. If (A) said “Socialists believe that a socialist society is the inevitable consequence of historical trends that can be studied,” this arguably would be a right answer choice: The conservative does ascribe this view to socialists, the socialist does not. However, (A) is a claim in itself, not only a belief that socialists may or may not endorse. In this context, the situation is more straightforward: We have no reason to think that the conservative deems the creation of socialist societies inevitable, and the socialist explicitly denies that they are inevitable. So as it stands, the speakers actually seem to agree that (A) is false. This thus can’t be the point at issue.

Takeaways: It is crucial to distinguish clearly between the two viewpoints here, as well as between facts and beliefs. Do not interpret (A) as a belief that the conservative ascribes to socialists; it is rather a claim that the speakers themselves are supposed to endorse or reject.

Hi, I am confused on LSAT 29 – Section 1 – Question 16. I don’t understand why we don’t have to assume PIE falls into the group of languages that lacks words for prominent elements. In comparison to LSAT 20 – Section 4 – Question 25, which has a similar structure to this problem, answer choice C would force us to assume that Marianne’s involuntary humming is something that she is aware of, which would undermine the premise, but that assumption makes the answer choice incorrect. Why in this problem can we make the assumption, but the other problem, we cannot?

Thank you!

PT16.S3.12 – Retina Scanners

This argument deals with retina scanners, machines that scan the blood vessel patterns in people’s eyes and stores these patterns, such that the scanners can recognized previously scanned patterns. The author furthermore posits that no two eyes have identical blood pattern vessels in their retinas, which seems to suggest that any given person has at least two such patterns, one for the left eye and one for the right one. The author then infers the conclusion that “[a] retina scanner can therefore be used successfully to determine for any person whether it has ever scanned a retina of that person before.”

We are supposed to identify a necessary assumption for this argument, i.e. an assumption that must be true for the conclusion to follow from the premises. Under timed conditions, I chose (B), which posits that everyone’s left and right eyes have identical patterns. I took this to be necessary for the conclusion to follow, due to conclusion’s scope (the conclusion is about “for any PERSON who ever had a retina scanned,” not about “for any given RETINA that ever has been scanned”). However, (B) seems to be false, for at least two reasons: (1) (B) goes against the information we get in the stimulus, where we are explicitly told that no two retinas have identical patterns. (2) (B) does not seem necessary for the rest of the claim that the conclusion seeks to establish (“Retina scanners allow you to answer the question, has one of the this person’s retinas ever been scanned?”). To make (B) a necessary condition, the conclusion would have to say something like “Even if you only scanned one of this person’s two retinas beforehand but not the other, retina scanners allow you to determine whether either of this person’s retinas has ever been scanned before.” However, (B) is not necessary for the way the conclusion is actually stated; the conclusion never says that the evidence to consider for any given person is a scan of only one of their retinas, as opposed to two.

The right answer choice (A) avoids this mistake by blocking another possible objection: What if people’s retina patterns change over time? Wouldn’t this make it impossible to recognize past scans later on, contrary to the argument’s conclusion suggests? (A) blocks this possible objection by establishing: Even if people get e.g. eye sicknesses, the patterns in their retinas remain unchanged over time.

Just curious, I've been doing cookie cutter review and was wondering if this was a pattern that anyone noticed in LR stimulus. For instance, the stimulus would talk about the effectiveness of a product, then it will have answer choice about probability or likelihood of something happening but it's a trap answer. Anyone want to share?

I'm a little unclear on a few things. Perhaps you can help me out.

1. Is the idea to do one passage again and again for practice like the LG method? I ask this because it seems like the marginal returns will begin to diminish quite quickly. I suppose I'll be able to answer my question here empirically once I start doing this in earnest myself; but hey, what are these forums for if not to free ride a little bit?

2. If the answer to my first question is no, then why only 6-8 passages? Why not, time permitting, do this with literally every single passage that one doesn't plan take in a PT?

Correct: A

Incorrect: C

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-09/

"C" is incorrect because the male population could've stayed the same and the decline of the female population made it equal to the male population. "A" is correct because "proportional" gives relation to the whole population. It is saying that the decline of the female population is a decline in the total population. This takes it from being 2/3 of just females to 2/3 of the species.

Just want to share my thoughts and notes:

This formula right here: independence -> progress doesn’t warrant that more independence = more progress, so E is incorrect.

Cultures -> needs independence to replace dependence (natives replace outside imposition) -> progress.

A. anticipated answer choice

B. Staff and students are digging too deep, we’re only looking at cultures as a whole

C. Tailor is too details, not needed

D. Must is g2 so Advance -> prevent outsiders, not really align with the lawgic above.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

Hi Everyone!

I just completed the Logic Games lessons and now I'm ready to start drilling. I was wondering, how do you all approach drilling? Personally, I'm planning to do four games per day. Here's my routine: I tackle one drill, take a short break, and then watch the explanation. After that, I move on to the second drill, take another break, and watch the explanation. At the end of the day, I revisit both drills.

By the way, I have set the difficulty level of the drills to medium. Do you think that's the right level, or would you recommend a different difficulty?

Politics aside, this is a fun read to warm up for logical flaw description questions. "A CONSERVATIVE GUIDE TO RHETORIC" http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/shouts/2013/10/conservative-guide-to-rhetoric-republican-quotations.html

Hey all,

I had a question on Logic Games, specifically those questions that don't give any additional clue and require you to at least have to brute force a few of the question choices. (CBT, MBT questions)

When I watch the LG explanation videos, because JY does his explanation on a sketchpad, it's easy for him to draw the game board and erase the game pieces after he's done brute forcing one of the answer choices. I realized we can't do this, since our LG game boards are done on a scratch paper.

When you go through the answer choices, do you redraw the gameboard/game pieces for each of the answer choice, or do you have one game board and erase the game pieces after you've tried out the answer choice? Would love to get advice on how you do these questions!

I had this question right initially but doubted myself and switched the answer during the blind review.

For this question, I chose E in the first round but switched to B in the blind review. I thought B would be a safer choice since the word "criticism"/"criticized" is used by both Murray and Jane. If Murray does not think it is wrong for politicians to accept gifts from lobbyists, why would they assume other politicians should have been criticized? Could someone please explain to me why B is not correct?