So I am still working on figuring out SA questions. I came across this question the other day in drills and have no idea how the correct answer connects with the passage above.

I can see where the connection may be but it still doesn't make sense. These are the type of questions I'm struggling with because there is very little, if any, lawgic used here and I seem to be thrown off by these all the time.

Thoughts?

Hey 7sagers! I am wondering if anyone can provide me with some advice on where to go from here in LR...

LR might be my worst section and I am having so much difficulty improving. It's not that a particular type of question gets me (in fact I tend to actually be better at the more technical lawgic based types like flawed parallel method of reasoning), it just seems that I am getting the majority of the answers wrong from questions 15-22 across every section. Often times I will misunderstand the stimulus or I will understand what the stimulus is implying and what to pick in the answer choice but will get confused about the wording in the answer choices and end up picking the wrong one. Note: English is my first language, I read extensively and have an MA degree and wrote a thesis paper. Is there any way to improve, or is it simply a matter of doing a ton of LR questions?

I have gone through the CC once and paid close attention to every different type of LR question while taking extensive notes, but it was a couple of months ago. Would a refresher be useful? I also have every LSAT from PT 1-75 and the accompanying Kaplan Explanations, so I began doing sections from early PTs untimed while taking notes on my computer to map out my reasoning, but am not seeing results, although it is still early (I have only done about three sections).

Any recommendations on where to go from here? Everyone provided me with amazing LG advice and I have been doing very well in that section so thank you to anyone who is reading this who helped me in that area, it feels great and I can confirm that the fool proof method is sound.

I will also be joining in the online study group for PT 70 this Saturday!

Thanks!

Just started Group 3 Logical Indicators, and I'm confused. I'm not confused about the process (or at least I don't think I am). With Group 3 Indicators, you pick an idea, negate it and make it the sufficient indicator. I'm going through the flashcards, and when I'm applying the rule, it's not making any logical sense. I'm getting the correct answer, but translating it back into English, makes no sense to me. Here's my logic for some of them:

Add pennies until I tell you to stop.

/P > S

Do not add pennies until I tell you to stop

Logically doesn't match or make sense with original statement.

There is no point unless we win

P > W

There is point unless we win

Logically doesn't match or make sense with original statement

Sing until the cows return

/S > CR

Don't sing until the cows return.

Logically doesn't match or make sense with original statement.

I know I"m doing something wrong. I don't know if I"m properly picking the binary opposite, or what I'm doing wrong. Please someone walk me through it.

Thank you

Hello all,

I am a little bit confused with how to study LG.

In the foolproof lesson in our CC, J.Y. recommended watching video explanations right after you solve games, if you did not kill the games. Then, what about BR? Do we skip BR in case of LG? Because watching video explanations right after doing games means you do not do blind review or resolve the games on your own.

Any thoughts?

Thank you

Is it always the case that if an argument for a sufficient assumption question has descriptive premises with a normative conclusion (saying one should do something or ought to do it) then the answer choice must have normative language to close that gap?

Looking at PT 22, Section 4, Q13 and PT 62, Section 2, Q17, I can see many reasons to eliminate the other incorrect answer choices besides them lacking the normative language. However, I'm still hesitant to skip straight to the answer choices that say "should" because I'm still not sure if you need the word "should" or similar language to close the logical gap between the conclusion and premises. Is normative language in the answer choice always necessary to prove a normative conclusion when the premises don't have it?

Thanks!

I'm currently studying for the LSAT in June, but I'm wondering if I should take it in September. I'm working full time, and I think it would just give my more time to do some PTs. I was wondering if I'll have my score back in time to apply early enough in the application cycle to get some scholarship? Just curious. Thank you guys for being so helpful!

I am afraid I will use up all my LR questions while drilling in the span of 7 months. Is drilling questions already drilled beneficial. If not, any suggestions? I have the power score question type workbook that I use as well as 7Sage drill questions.

So I got this one wrong and picked C when A is the correct AC. It's just not clicking for me how this is correct. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Hey, guys. Has anyone noticed any funky games such as this one in recent PT? JY said don't worry but there seems to be a trend of the older style games coming back. How would I ever know to draw a freaking star?!! I'm sure it could be solved other ways. I just did a single layer sequencing game board but of course, JY's way was much easier to see. This game def took me more than 11 mins!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-2-game-4/

I just worked through PT 44.4.20 and noticed the flaw traced to the lack of support between the premise and sub-conclusion. This is the first time I've encountered a question where the flaw hasn't been between the sub-conclusion and main conclusion. Is this common in other types of question, or does the LSAT usually focus on Sub-Conclusion to Main Conclusion flaws?

I'm looking to find someone to study regularly with either online or in person for the June LSAT.

Shoot me a message on here!

Couldn't we make the inference that only R and Z can be in slot 1? I was going to split the board on those but realized I didn't have enough info. I quickly eliminated A on question 1 without second thought because I scanned to eliminate any AC that didn't start with R or Z. JY didn't mention it and no one mentioned it in the comments. Am I missing something?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-2-game-1/

I have been thinking about drilling from old PTs. I know it will help, but I was wondering how difficult are the LR questions in the new PTs vs. the old PTs? Should I drill from the new ones instead (60+)? Or should I stick with the old ones (18-)? I want to save the new PTs for full timed tests.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-2-question-14/

I answered this question correctly under timed conditions but switched my answer during BR. Then I noticed lots of others experienced the same difficulty. Neither AC, B nor C, seems better than the other. JY describes B by saying that it independently explains each phenomena in the stimulus but doesn't resolve the tension between the two. I agree that B doesn't resolve the tension without the help of assumptions, but I don't think the assumptions required for B to be correct are any more egregious than that of C.

Here are my BR notes. There are two sets, one for B as the correct AC and one for C.

C correct

"B: I can see why this AC may be tempting to some people. It's by no mistake that it is placed just before (what I believe in BR) is the correct answer. This is tempting because it says demand increased. That part is pretty relevant to the stimulus, but it doesn't resolve the paradox because it doesn't address how the industry could meet this higher demand with 15% less workforce. Eliminate.

C: I breezed passed this the first time, but it does seem to do the best job of explaining this paradox. The stimulus says that Ravonia laid off jobs in logging and WOOD PROCESSING. So why is the amount of wood being taken at Ravonia increasing? Because their not playing around with processing -- just cut it and ship it raw. This isn't a great AC because we need to assume that the increase in exports is enough to drive the 10% increase in wood harvesting mentioned in the stimulus. We also need to assume that there are enough loggers to supply this 10% increase. Least bad AC. Correct POE."

B correct

"B: Oh man. This is definitely right but I totally missed it and nearly missed it under BR. The acres are lower, so they need fewer workers. The demand is up, so they're cutting more trees. Correct.

C: I was pretty sure this AC was correct until I started analyzing it in BR. "A growing number" could mean anything. Maybe the amount of unprocessed wood only increased by 1 tree per year. In fact, this says "proportion" which could mean that the total number has remained constant. I latched onto it because I didn't catch the "proportion" error I was making and felt that the reduction in wood processors explained why raw wood exports were increasing. Eliminate."

X (-) ~Y

X -> ~Y

Could someone please clear up for me? Thanks!

Perhaps I missed something as I do not remember a lesson on biconditionals (double arrows).

My understanding is that each term is both sufficient and necessary for the other.

Here are some indicators that I've noted:

A or B, but not both

A if, but only if B

A if and only if B

A when, only when B

If A, then B, vice versa

If A, then B, otherwise not

Except A, B

I have seen J.Y. mention "except" and "otherwise" in a video, but I am confused in regards to their usage as a biconditional indicator. In the past I've categorized "except" as a group 3 indicator, so that is causing issues in my thought processes.

Would someone elucidate these?

Also, list any other biconditions indicators/ tips that you've encountered.

Thanks,

JD

When taking a timed Logic Game, it's so easy to just write out the rules, look for quick inferences, and dive into the questions with what, at the time, seems like a good understanding of the rules and how they relate to each other. Unfortunately, it often turns out that I forget about a rule or don't catch some key inferences that were deeper than simply chaining rules together (e.g., seeing the deeper J->(F and R) inference in PT23/Section 1/Game 3). Although it's nice to, due to familiarity, remember more rules and see more inferences when re-doing the game in Blind Review, I'd much rather be able to remember and see them the first time.

What best practices do you use to internalize the rules during game board setup to help you remember them?

What best practices do you use for gaining a deeper understanding of the relationships between rules during game board setup?

I am nearing the end of the games portion in the CC [total progress %77] and I was wondering if I should have been fool proofing every single problem set or not. I have been studying 55 hour weeks for the past month now and I am still "35 hours" (according to the syllabus) behind in the CC. I think fool proofing the enormous amount of games would take a few weeks.

I am fully open and willing to take the time and fool proof the hell out of these games, but I was wondering if taking two weeks to get all of them done is worth it if it sets me back two weeks on my study schedule.

I do realize that the ultimate goal here is it do well on the LSAT and that this method will enable me to do so. But I just feel a bit overwhelmed as I am always behind in the CC, no matter how rigorous I set my my own study schedule.

Any thoughts?

I'm working on translations to help with my SA understanding and am using the "find the missing link" exercises by taking the logic and translating them into English before I solve.

One of them uses:

/G most W

W some U

My question pertains to the premise. My initial thought was to translate it as: "Most things that are not green are wet." Would this be correct? I tried using "unless" but I'm not confident on that one either. I know that "not" is a group 3 negate sufficient but when I use it, it doesn't seem right. Any thoughts?

Thanks!

A friend and I were discussing PT68, Section4, Game 3. I was trying to articulate why a chart was needed in that particular game and when to use charts in general. And I discovered that I couldn't explain it clearly. And I think that's a problem. In my mind, it indicates a lack of mastery.

So, if someone asked you when it's necessary to use a chart and when not to, how would you respond?

(for those of you who don't know what I mean by "chart", check out the game I mentioned earlier.)

Can someone please confirm that I have this chain correct? I became confused with the "cannot" in the first premise. Now I'm presuming "cannot" is modifying the sufficient clause since this premise includes "unless." Please correct me if I'm wrong. I was initially under the impression that cannot was modifying the necessary clause since it is a group 4 indicator.

AV (Aesthetic Value)

WM (Whatever Meaning Reader Assigns)

OE (Objectively Evaluated)

Premise:

AV--->~WM

I was very unclear on the wording in the necessary clause. After looking at this for a while, I determined that at least two readers agreeing on the "correct" interpretation appears to be the logical opposite of a poem having whatever meaning a reader assigns. Still a bit shaky on this though.

Conclusion:

EO--->~WM

Answer Choice D

EO--->AV

Chain:

EO--->AV--->~WM

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-3-question-24/

so i played last week they received my package on monday, and it still says theyll respond within 14 days, has anyone ever applied? maybe tell me something encouraging like "they take about 14 week for everyone" or clear things up like " if they answer in 4 days, its a not" the suspense is killing me.. checked the lsac site 5 times today ...

Hey all! I am slowly improving my PT scores and although I have become better at LR sections, I can't get passed completing 18 questions which is negatively affecting my score potential. Any advice on how I can study to improve and make faster times on each question? Any advice would be appreciated! Thanks

So I've been studying for the LSAT for a year and some change now.

Finally decided to sign-up for 7Sage in December.

I was averaging around 165 with BR's in the 168-9. I went through the curriculum and for my last 4 PT's my actual score is still around 165, BR score has been in the low to mid 170's. My major improvements came in LG and LR.

I miss anywhere from 4-7 on LR (mostly PSA and Flaws)

-0/-1 in LG

5-9 in RC.

I'm hopeful that with another two months of studying I can shave off a couple of mistakes from my LR and consistently hit -0 on LG. But my Reading Comprehension is so incredibly inconsistent.

A lot of times I'll do -2/-1 on RC drills but when I sit to take the real thing all hell breaks loose.

I've watched the webinars on Reading Comprehension and make an effort to read actively but this is just driving me nuts.

I remember when I first started studying for the test, RC was by far my best section (-2/-3). After a year of studying I'm missing three times that much.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-4-question-09/

I've spent about 2 hrs dissecting this question and I just DO NOT understand it. At all. I've looked at discussion boards, books, everything. Please, for the love of God, HELP!