I did a drill set and under the "explanation" Drop down it just said discuss. Any suggestions on how to view explanations for drill questions?

How do y'all review for RC like untimed/timed sections for wrong and flagged questions?

How do I know if I should switch from V1 to V2? More specifically, how different is V2 and how do you know if it would be a better fit for your learning style?

Thanks :)

Hi, I noticed in my analytics I was struggling with Math questions. It seems to be a new subject on 7Sage as I noticed the option was added in drills recently. I have tried drilling these, but I haven't noticed any similarities between the questions that could constitute this concept. I was hoping someone could give me insight on what Math questions are.

Hello!

I am currently progressing through the LR section and I am finding that I am understanding each section OK but I am very confused as to how to more overall identify when I am dealing with an argument versus when I am not. The causality arguments in the WSE section are also confusing me, as JY talks about how there are different kinds of them and I am also finding it hard to differentiate between an Alternative Cause Argument and the Basic One-Off Causal Argument among others. Can someone help summarize these in a way thats easy to understand?? Thanks so much!

Hello! Was working on this obsolete exam RC as practice and unfortunately only got 2/6 correct. Was wondering if anyone could please explain questions 16, 17, 18, and 20. Thank you!

I am confused about how to classify the different question types into formal logic vs. those that use informal logic. For example, would you classify MBT as formal logic because it uses conditionals, but WSE as informal because it uses primarily the spectrum of support? Would other types fall in the middle, like SA, which some answers/questions involve conditionals and the spectrum of support?

Hi! I've recently started taking my lsat studying seriously (I started studying end of may and have consistently been working for about 5 hours per day which I will continue for the next few months). I'm wondering what LSAT exam I should be taking. My diagnostic score was a 157 untimed (I'm an anxious person in general so I'm sure if I took it timed right now my score would decrease). I am hoping to increase overall to a 165ish, and I am wondering how long that generally takes to achieve that score increase. I know this stuff isn't linear, but I'm looking for a general idea. I haven't really had anyone to guide me through this process at all (applications, LSAT prep, or otherwise), and I thought that taking the LSAT in October would be perfectly normal, but I'm now realizing that maybe it's not if I would like to apply to schools by December of this year. I don't know if I'm on the right track at all, so any guidance would be greatly appreciated! #helpme #inquiry

A is completely irrelevant and argument doesnt make that assumption

I chose B but its wrong since argument says that fertilizer use will be reduced, it doesnt say we dont have to use fertlizers anymore. If it had said that we dont need fertilizer then it would have been correct.

C is also attractive but it doesnt set the conncection between why the need for fertilizer will be reduced

D isnt relevant

E is correct because if E wasnt true then there would be no argument.

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

Hey everyone, looking for someone to do daily study sessions of a minimum 1 hour (up to 4 hours), mostly consisting of LR. Please only message if you can commit to this/are dedicated to their studying please :) Thanks!

I started studying for the LSAT a week ago. I am taking my LSAT in September. What version would you guys recommend V1 or V2?

Parallel questions have been a huge flaw of mine in PT and drilling, does any1 have any tips that will help me not be utterly confused?

Hey friends! Until now I've been using charts for grouping games anytime the game pieces can be used more than once, but I just came across a game with those conditions where JY used a standard grouping setup. I was able to complete the game without errors with a chart when I wrote the PT, but after watching JY's explanation I think it would have been faster to use the standard grouping setup instead.

So my question is, should I be using a different criteria for deciding when to use a chart? Thanks in advance!

Confused as to why we did not chain the second rule, O---> P/ (PT36 S4 G1). Previously in PT 33 S4 game 2 there was a similar condition and we did put it in our chain. Did anyone else notice this? I know that any condition with an "and" gives us one option with both games pieces . Any condition with an "or" will give us at least one of the two game pieces. "or" and Both can give us three different outcomes. I just don't understand what are the rules for chaining "or" and "both" conditional statements. Additionally we had PT 23 S1 G2 where we had an in/out game. One of the conditional rules here was Mh +Li--->Oh. Im assuming we could not chain this condition because it was two dimensional ???? Someone please help #help #admin

Hey all, I've heard various things about RC becoming increasingly difficult over recent tests and wondered if anyone who has recently taken an official test can attest to this? Do the 156+ (previously 90s) tests or the 148-155 (previously the 80s) mirror the current test?

Is there anyone out there who can explain the answer choices to this passage?

Can someone explain why A is correct? Paragraph 2 of the passage seems to indicate that there physicists can distinguish between the emission of thermal radiation and reflection, which is why A is confusing because it says it's hard to distinguish between the two.

Anybody in the Phoenix area down to form a study group?

Hello!

I'm having some trouble with Flaw questions, and am wondering if anyone has any advice/resource recommendations?

I'm pretty well versed with the many different kinds of logical fallacies. However, I'm weary of how the test makers describe the flaw in the reasoning. E.g. If the author commits a "straw man," I'm unsure how LSAC words/describes that mischaracterization in an AC. Of course, I know our language is complex, and that there are hundreds of different ways to say the same thing (so, how something is worded in one AC, can be worded a different way in another question's AC and mean the same thing)! I see AC's that say "the author takes for granted," "the author fails to consider," etc. and am wondering if anyone knows how to decipher what these different AC's even mean. If the "author takes for granted _____," I'm assuming that LSAC means the flaw is in what the author/argument said/did. If, on the other hand, "the author fails to consider _____," I'm assuming the flaw is something the author/argument didn't say/do.

Has anyone compiled a document with LSAC's different answer choices that best describe different flaws in the reasoning? I've found that sometimes with the explanation videos to flaw questions, the wrong AC's and how LSAC writes them, aren't always described generally/examples of what the wrong AC means aren't always given (e.g. LSAC means by this wording that the argument did this _____, but the argument did this ____, so this AC is wrong). Maybe I've overlooked the curriculum for information on this? I often really overthink these questions, and what the AC is trying to say, and need some #Help!!

Hi! I was doing a drill and had this question. I chose C and that was the trap answer choice (rip) but I don't really understand why this is wrong and A is right.

Could anyone please breakdown the right and wrong answers? This would be such a great help thank you!!

Hey all, I'm struggling to understand why AC A in PT 119, Section 1, Question 14, is incorrect. I've reviewed the video explanation, online forums, and comments, but the best explanation I could come up with is below. Help on understanding this would be much appreciated - I've thought through this for several days but am still confused. I've never been this stumped after reviewing a wrong RC answer.

Q14: I understand why AC C is correct but am still struggling to eliminate A, especially since A seemed supported by lines 37-40 "personal and cultural screens of silence and secretiveness that have enshrouded her past". Here are a few things that I believe discredit A as a viable answer choice:

Although this might be a subtle distinction, in this context "history" means a a factual record of historical facts, where Naomi "reconciles" history - in other words uncovers or accepts difficult truths about her personal history and the historical context in which she lived.

Heritage, as JY alludes to, refers to cultural or ancestral legacy, including cultural traditions.

In this case, being discouraged from exploring heritage is not supported(?). I would still argue that if AC A references history (not heritage) it might be supported by lines 37-40. Even with the distinction between history and heritage, I'm not fully convinced that A is not supported. These in-text lines refer to cultural secretiveness. Does this mean that Naomi was discouraged from seeking her heritage? Secretiveness of the past does seem to refer to a form of discouragement.

A is wrong because we cant say many old people as we dont know the definition of old for Rotelle. If she considers 60+ old or 80+ old.

B is wrong because it says people as old as Sims are the only those. There could be more people.

C is wrong as argument is not saying that some young people can effectively do its simply saying who cannot.

D is sounds more correct as Sim is to old to understand issue but anyone anyone younger them isnt too old.

E is wrong because Rotelle is not committed to saying what's required for young people to understand.

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

Are the questions in the inference category the same as MBT and MSS? Which lesson do we learn about the inference questions category? #help

I chose D but the right answer was B. Looking back at it, now it makes sense.

Pseudo-PSA

Political self-determination from external force -> /truly free

Maintaining freedom -> political virtues earned during the struggle for freedom

The bridge here is about linking political self-determination from external force + virtues necessary for freedom

A. Not true, its the opposite

B. Who cares what other virtues they achieve

C. Free -> develop political virtues… maybe

D. Remain truly free -> political self-determination, but this is missing the virtue part.

E. Imposed?

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