I saw that someone posted about this a while back. Any tips for the “infer” questions in RC? I am consistently getting these wrong. Anyone here have a good strategy for answering these questions?

A lot of people who were part of the 170+ were able to reliably get -0 on the logic games section which gave them more room to make mistakes in the other sections. Someone could get -4 RC, -4 LR, and -0 LG and still get a 170. But now, with the section that people could reliably get -0 on removed, how will amount of questions needed to be correct to get to 170 change? Will the curve be more forgiving now that LG, the typical -0 section is gone, and the other sections that are less predictable and have more opportunities to make mistakes (especially RC) are still here?

I have done this passage 3 times and have gotten 4 wrong every time. I was just wondering if anyone else has done this passage and has found the questions to just be too hard. I normally go -3 to -5 but dang I don't even know what happened here...

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-3-passage-2-passage/

Need someone to keep me accountable for the next two months. Want a study partner to just study in silence with. We don't necessarily need to be studying the same things, but it would help to have similar goals/workloads to keep each other motivated. I have taken the LSAT twice in 2022 and scored a 167 in November. I have stopped studying for a couple months now and hope to pick things up to get a mid 170. I am currently in school but is generally free all days except Tuesday and Thursdays, and I aim to devote ~50 hours a week to study. Add me on discord xtt#8183 if interested!

Tips to increase speed on RC passages without missing questions and the right answers?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-32-section-4-question-17/

I still don't understand why D is wrong and E is the right answer.

I don't see why E is related to widespread use part. The reason why I chose D is "taking larger-than-prescribed doses" and "be fatal" part.

Can "taking larger-than-prescribed doses" be "widespread use" and "be fatal" be "could be dangerous" which the stimulus says?

Can anyone enlighten me why D is wrong and E is right?

Thanks!

What LGs, preferably in/out games, are good for practicing embedded conditional statements and dealing with them when they pop up?

i got this answer choice correct but im not sure why successful is negated ; i think its because initially successful is necessary and to make it sufficient yoiu have to negate; i know why prime purchasers is negated

I just took a diagnostic after 6 months of having taken one (no studying in between). I am now ready to start studying with a consistent schedule and take the September Test. The problem is that my diagnostic score 6 months ago which included the LG section was significantly higher than my score from today, which I did without LG. Should I register for the June LSAT and try to study these next 5 weeks (mastering LG) and take it with the LG section, or should I just forget about LG and take it in Sept as the updated test version and take my time partaking on the other sections?

Hello I am taking the January LSAT next week and I have two questions. I am struggling with flaw questions when its not one of the common flaws listed. I have tried using the piecewise analysis when looking at answer choices, or trying to see if its descriptively accurate and weakens but I am still struggling to get them right. I think I also have issues because I am trying to not negate the premises and conclusions, but some of the correct answer choices does negate them? I think its hard for me to recognize a flaw because I get overwhelmed that there is so many ways to destroy an argument.

I feel like i am missing easy points if anyone has any tips

This isn't a question so much as an admission of idiocy that to date I haven't been able to break. I read question stem and rules too fast and often assume something incorrectly. My panic over time constraint is a total psychological mind f***. Notwithstanding knowing that this is my issue, I continue to fall prey to this anxiety. Maybe posting this publicly will be like a "first step" in my rehabilitation ;)

Hello everyone! I’ve been improving on my reading ability on the RC section and have been absorbing and understanding the information much better in my drills. I find that my problem are the harder questions. Like I understand the passage well but the complex questions throw me off. Idk if that makes sense but does anyone have any tips on how to counter this?

My problem on this Q is that I can exclude the other four wrong answer choices, but I can't find the right answer choice right either.

Here is my thought:

The premise: no free market economy -> the maximum total utility is not assured;

The conclusion: a country is not trying to bring about a free market economy -> the country is not acting in the way most likely to bring about the maximum total utility.

The right answer choice: the argument wrongly presumes that trying to bring about a condition that will assure the achievement of an end -> the way most likely to achieve that end.

However, if I put this presumption back to the argument, what is negated in the argument is the sufficient condition here ( to assure the achievement of an end is not satisfied ). This negation doesn't get to the argument's conclusion, which is the negation of the necessary condition in the answer choice ( not the way most likely to achieve that end). So I feel the right answer choice should be like "wrongly presumes that the way most likely to achieve max utility -> trying to bring about a condition that will ensure its achievement."

Could anyone give some light?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-39-section-4-question-23/

I understand the difference between either or and either or but not both

I am confused about the diagramming aspect and not sure if my way is correct

Either or (implies possibly both)

So, I think of this in negative terms (absence of a sufficient condition)

not A -> B

not B -> A

A -> may or may not have B (so AB is also possible)

versus

Either or but not both

So, I think of this in positive terms (presence of sufficient condition)

A -> not B

B -> not A

In this case, there no other possibility (both AB can never be possible)

Is there a way to show this using double sided arrows or double not arrows? I am confused about that.

I know that double sided arrows ((--)) are used for biconditionals like "if and only if" and "if but only if"

and double not arrows ((-I-)) are used for neither nor

Is my reasoning correct?

Somehow I think that I have gotten myself mixed up with all this conditional logic stuff

Maybe have/do some type of study group? Idk about y'all, but I do and focus a lot better that way.

This is maybe the single stupidest question I have ever seen since I started studying for the LSAT. I spent like 3 minutes on it, but I did get it correct, fortunately. To share some advice, I always like to remember that I heard somewhere that top scorers get two chances to get the question right; the first time by actually identifying the correct answer and the second by understanding why the other four answers are incorrect. I don't think any question better encapsulates this idea than this one. A and B deal with clams, and not a single time in the stimulus are clams mentioned so I eliminated those. We aren't given any information about the clearing of intake pipes, so I also eliminated C. For D, we aren't told anything about the algae besides the fact that the mussels eat them, so I didn't feel it was very supported and so I eliminated it. For E, while I didn't think it was totally, 100% supported by the stimulus, it was the only answer that dealt with something explicitly engaged with in the stimulus, the removal of hazardous waste. While I don't understand how we can make the assumption that the waste remains in the mussels, and they can then be classified as hazardous waste, I thought it related more closely to the stimulus than any other answer choice. Overall, to be a top scorer, unfortunately, it is not enough to simply know the correct answer, you must be able to identify incorrect answers as well. More importantly, it is also very important to understand that LSAT writers are the biggest dickheads on the planet, and we cannot let them win.

Hello! Would anyone be down to take LR drills and review them together over Zoom?

As always mentioned in this discussion forum, the first 10 questions of the LR section are usually the easiest. I get to the last 5-10 and start really struggling. I am not sure if it is fatigue or difficulty of the questions. Any tips on this? I have seen that people say to follow your gut on the first 10 so you have more time with the last questions.

Hi! I am struggling to fully grasp how to do the assumption questions. Any tips or tricks to understand these? Thank you!

what do you do when you run out of drills? I have done so many method of reasoning drills that I have run out of new questions. what should I do?

Here is my analysis of the answer choices. Grateful for commenting on my thoughts, please! Thank you!

(A): Both disagreed. Cynthia - the reason to be funded by Gov is to further theoretical knowledge not unforeseen practical applications. Luis - the "expected" to yield practical applications in the stimulus is more definite that "may have unforeseen.." in AC.

(B): Luis disagrees; Cynthia - not known because we don't know what project does she think the Gov should not fund. In the stimulus, we only know Cynthia would agree that the government should fund researches that further the theoretical knowledge, but that does not mean the Gov should not fund projects that have practical application.

(C): Luis - not known because the only thing we know from stimulus is "Gov fund projects --> research that is expected to yield practical applications" (ie. every gov funded research should have practical application), but that does not mean that every research that has practical application should be funded by Gov. As for Cynthia, I am confused because I am not sure if "research project in theoretical science" in AC is equivalent to "research project seeks to further theoretical knowledge of nature" in the stimulus. But in either way, the AC should be eliminated.

(D) Not known because we don't know if the new technologies will help further theoretical knowledge of nature or yield practical applications

(E) Cynthia agrees and Luis disagrees.

Are my interpretations correct?

Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-2-question-14/

Admin edit: title and link

I have not seen MP questions that begin with a question at the beginning before this one. I got it incorrect since I put B thinking the conclusion came after the word "Certainly" I am not sure how to get to the conclusion in this stimilus.

Not sure if there are many people who have already solved this PT but would really appreciate the opportunity to pick your brains regarding this question.

I initially chose D. My reasoning was that looking at mortality patterns with other animals could perhaps reinforce or weaken the idea that more full grown male horse bones = people rode horses. What if mortality patterns of domesticated goats living with the Botai also shows that they had more full-grown males, thus also going against the typical pattern for domesticated animal usage? What if the Botai people just really love male animals? Basically my reasoning was that looking at mortality patterns of other animals could be a point of comparison.

I guess the weakness to my reasoning is that even if goats or other animals go against the typical hypothesis re: domesticating animals, the hypothesis regarding domestication of horses could still be true? So in essence it may not be a good point of comparison and may not yield any information to evaluate the hypothesis? I'm not sure, just trying to pick holes in my reasoning.

I also tried to reason for A: So I'm thinking this is a way for the author to evaluate whether the presence of more male bones than female bones is good enough evidence for the conclusion. If more bones show signs of being gnawed on or something, it could maybe weaken the claim that the Botai people rode horses.

Am I on the right track with A? What do you think regarding my explanation for D?

Admin note: edited title

Anyone know of a template (with stims and blank lines) to do translation drills?

If we do all the work upfront, then the questions will fly by. If we do all the work upfront, then the questions will fly by.

You guys, this is my new mantra. So simple, but so hard to grasp. I've been watching videos of terrified me ~ staring at answer choices for way too long and hesitating for what looks like an eternity ~ and it hit me! If we do all the work upfront, then the questions will fly by. JY has told us this, but we have to live it and learn it. This mantra may just save my ass on June 3. All together now, "If we do all the work upfront, then the questions will fly by!"