Hello all, I am taking the June LSAT and I was looking for any advice on reading comp? It's the only section that I can't get consistently good at. Usually I do well on LR and LG but RC keeps me out of the 170s. Thanks in advance for the help!

Listen to this as background music for this post:

Hey guys,

I want to share a method that I use in RC and that I have been teaching several of my students recently. RC is at least in certain instances designed to test your short term memory. To that end, there's a question type that seems to be designed to do exactly that. I've collected a few examples and have a method to recommend for approaching these questions.

Here's what I do with these questions.

Most of the time, only one AC rings a bell. And that's the right answer (barring hallucinations/clear over-inferences/reasons to eliminate an AC. I don't think I've ever had an AC that truly rang a bell that ended up being wrong).

Try this out for this QT and see where you end up. By focusing on what LSAC is testing on these QT's, you avoid the pitfalls of wasting time and misdirecting energy.

Hey guys, I'm doing some older questions as a 5th section on my PTs, and I decided to take PT 7's first LR section. I'm BRing it right now, and I can't for the life of me figure this one out; I skipped it twice during the exam, and I'm still just as clueless on it during BR.

It's a resolve/reconcile question.

In 1990, major engine repairs were done on 10% of NMC cars made in the 1970s while only 5% of those made from the 1960s had major engine repairs done.

What I am looking for: We need to explain the difference. What if cars from the 1960s had sturdier engines or something? What if NMC cranked up production in the 1970s, and cranked out a ton of cars with bad engines?

Answer A: So what? The cars have ALREADY been registered; who cares about the requirements beforehand?

Answer B: I think this sort of makes it stranger. If newer cars (1970s) are driven more carefully than older cars (1960s), then why do cars from the 1970s have a higher proportion of engine repair?

Answer C: This is the credited answer, but huh? What does scrapping the car have to do with anything? This is saying that the 1960s cars are more likely to be scrapped/not repaired than 1970s cars. I just don't see how this resolves anything or is relevant to the issue.

Answer D: OK, but does simplified mean easier to break? This does nothing.

Answer E: This is what I ended up picking, but I really didn't like it (I felt good enough about my POE; plus, I had to choose something since I had skipped this twice). I think this is sort of similar to the idea in answer choice A. Some of the repairs from the 1960s cars could have been avoided if the owners weren't lazy with repairs. But, so what? We are talking about cars that WERE repaired, so this fact doesn't explain anything about the figures given. Why is it still the case that the 1960s cars were repaired at a lower proportion?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-2-question-12/

Hey 7Sagers, I just did this question and did almost everything right, but ultimately chose (E). I understood there to be 2 gaps,the first between: ~being able to tell ulterior motive——>~possible to tell whether an action is moral/ and the second gap being: ~being able to tell an action is moral——> should evaluate the consequences > morality. I took the last link in this chain (should evaluate the consequences) as the major conclusion. So I pre-phrased my answer to anticipate some iteration on the second link (or it’s contrapositive), thinking that what I wanted to build towards with the selection of a principle is something that would allow the major conclusion to properly stand.

Like several other 7Sagers, I usually write down why I am eliminating answer choices. I recognized (A) as the contrapositive of the first gap and didn’t eliminate it at first. B-D introduced new ideas or something we didn’t need. I eliminated (E) with my notes reading “Not what I need.” I recognized (E) as wrong, but (A) as simply something restated, So opted (with reservations) for (E). I now know a glimpse of what it must feel like to score 40 points but lose the game hahaha. I did almost everything correct and understood what was going on, but didn’t get the correct answer. :(

My questions about this question are the following: If we are asked to find something to “justify the reasoning,” wouldn’t any choice that leaves one of the 2 gaps unfilled not really “justify” much? I mean, I get that it says “most,” but aren’t we at least looking for something that justifies the Major Conclusion rather than some subsidiary minor premise/major premise link? Are there any sufficient assumption/pseudo sufficient assumption questions (that you are aware of) in which we will be forced to choose between bridging the gap between a minor premise/major premise at the behest of bridging the gap between a major premise/major conclusion? Are there questions in which adding a sufficient assumption or principle to the wrong gap nets the wrong answer?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-1-question-24/

I ran into some issues with a LR question on PT 70 S1 and would love some inputs from other students here. I chose E, which is the wrong answer, but I'm not at all sure why I am wrong.

For #24 (the Macro/Micronutrients question), the last sentence reads:

"To remain healthy in the long run, soils for lawns require the presence of these macronutrients and also trace amounts of micronutrients...which are depleted when grass clippings are raked up..."

Isn't this a conditional claim?

Healthy --> Macro + Micro, and

Grass Clips Raked --> Micro Depleted

Assuming that IF micronutrients are there, THEN it's NOT depleted (which is very reasonable to me), then taking the contrapositive, we can connect the two:

Healthy --> Macro + (Micro --> /MicroDepleted --> /GrassClipsRaked)

(Sorry for the visual representation. Couldn't get the format to look right. But Healthy is connected to Macro AND Micro, and Micro is itself connected to the rest of the chain).

So if you deny the last necessary condition, then you should be able to work your way back. So if Grass Clips are raked, then Micro Depleted, then /Micro (micronutrients are gone), then /Healthy.

I thought E communicated exactly this: "Homeowners who rake up their grass clippings are unable to maintain the long-term health of the soils in their lawns and gardens," which in lawgic is

Grass Clips Raked --> /Healthy

which to me is exactly as above. Where am I wrong?

Looking to confirm my thinking on the below. Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/or-but-not-both/

From this lesson:

Alan or Chris go to the park. (/A-->C)

And

Alan and Chris cannot both go to the park. (A-->/C)

I'm interested in diagramming these statements in relation to the third idea in the sentence, in this case "go to the park," as (P).

With "A or C go to the park" I would diagram as follows:

A-->P

C-->P

With "A and C cannot both go to the park" I would diagram as follows:

P --> /A or /C which can be diagrammed as P-->(A-->/C)

Now to link up the two statements:

A-->P-->(A-->/C)

I'm getting "If Alan goes to the park, then Chris does not go to the park."

Alternatively:

C-->P-->(C-->/A)

I'm getting "If Chris goes to the park, then Alan does not go to to the park."

I'm curious if anyone has a good way to handle group 3 indicators "unless" or "until." In English these are often used to heavily imply an EXCLUSIVE or relationship, but in logic they only give us an inclusive or.

Example: I will go golfing (G) unless it rains (R).

Applying our group 3 translation rules strictly, we arrive at: "/R --> G" and the contrapositive "/G-->R"

Translating the above statements back into English,

"If it is not raining, I will go golfing," and "If I am not golfing then it is raining."

That is fine. The trouble comes when you try to reason from the fact that it is raining. In our common understanding of the above original statement if we knew it was raining, then we would be inclined to say the person is not golfing. However, that is not correct based on our translations.

More frustrating is the idea that this person could be golfing in the rain as nothing prevents R AND G from being together. That is the essence of inclusive or and is the possibility that is implicitly ruled out in our natural reading of the statement. Obviously, we can't apply a conversational implicature on the LSAT and we have to obey a strict logical understanding. I can easily imagine a question giving us the original statement and then supplying an answer choice that says "It is raining, therefore you are not golfing."

I would be grateful if anyone has a way to explain the possibility of the inclusive or outcome in the original statement by giving an example in which this person could be golfing in the rain and such outcome is acceptable.

Logically I understand the possibility, but making it more intuitive by having an example in mind would greatly help.

--

It's interesting to note that the implicature of exclusive or seems to be most strong in statements of "until" involving time and "unless" involving things such as the weather. The possibility of an inclusive outcome is easier to understand on a different example.

I will be angry (A) with you unless you clean your room (CR).

/A --> CR "If I am not angry with you, then you cleaned your room"

/CR-->A "If you did not clean your room, then I am angry"

I believe we all still see the possibility that I could be angry with you and you cleaned your room. Maybe you didn't do your homework, etc. That makes it fairly obvious that we can't conclude the condition of your room from my anger. I'm wondering what that "other 'cause'" might be for the golfing example.

Thanks!

Hi guys.

This is my first post and I was hoping I could get some feedback as the June 2016 exam is approaching.

My background: I've take the LSAT officially three times. Yes, I know. The first two times were December 2013 and February 2014, both soon after I graduated college in May of 2013 and I was desperate to start law school right away. I took a course and just wasn't prepared. I held off and took the June 2015 exam and didn't do any better even after so much studying so I decided to put it off again for the following year.

Now, I've been studying for this upcoming exam for about six months and finally got my score into the mid 150s; my goal is 160. One day it just clicked and I became super motivated to simply practice and perfect the last few areas I could to attain my desired score. I was even able to figure out how to get a higher score than 160. However, I took an exam a few days ago and scored 147. Granted I was tired from a long day of work and days of studying but this has completely killed my motivation.

I've put this exam off way too many times I simply want to get it over. Putting this exam off for October will delay starting school for another full year.

So my question is, should I take this exam in June as planned being as though I am so near by desired score and if so, how do I regain my confidence?

Thanks to everyone who took the time to read and to those who take the time to reply. Best of luck!

I am having some difficulty on strengthening questions that do not use causal reasoning. I am getting nearly all the weakening questions right because I am in the mindset of contradicting the assumptions made in the argument. However, for strengthening questions, should I look for an answer choice that strengthens the underlying assumption? Alternatively, will an answer choice that only states the assumption strengthen the argument?

As I've finished the curriculum, I'm beginning to heavily invest my time in fool-proofing. My big question is: should I drill extensively on categorized games (i.e. grouping, sequencing, in-out) or should I take a broader random game approach?

I worry that I'd lose some of the practice I'd gained in grouping games if I spend a few weeks on sequencing games specifically. It also just seems easier to start with PT 1 and go in order rather than sorting through all my PT PDFs for the right game at the right time.

I plan to first work by way through all LGs from 1-36 and then move onto more recent LG's once I've taken the clean PT.

Thank you for your thoughts on this! :)

"Diagramming on Gameboard: Two ‘not both’ Conditional Statements with Common Necessary Cond."

Hi 7Sagers,

In this game: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-3-game-2/

We have N ---> to both R and S

Why, when J.Y. fills up one of the ‘out group’ slots on the gameboard, does he say that "it doesn’t matter" of you fill the slot with N/R or N/S? I’m not sure I understand how these two conditional statements with a common necessary condition interact with each other. One of N/S AND one of N/R have to be in the out group, yes?

Thanks!

Bonus question: I’m also wondering why it’s best to solve this game by filling in the game board as J.Y. does, as opposed to filling in three slots for the L/M/R variables (two in, one out), or even splitting into three game boards, each with a single of those three variables out.

Soo... lets get hooked on phonics here. Anyone else have an "LSAT" voice in your head that dictates how you read/interpret an answer choice?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-36-section-1-question-13/

Did anybody else read “E” and interpret “this" period as the period of November rather than the entire period of September – November? I picked E because I read it as an outside factor, occuring in November that caused the break up

I dont know if I’m just misreading the referential phrasing or if this could be argued to be a bad question. Thoughts?

This is a sufficient assumption question but one of the forums I read to understand answer choice (A) explained that NEGATING (A) would demonstrate it to be a sufficient assumption. I totally see that negating (A) would weaken the argument, but I thought we use negation test for necessary assumption questions ...or am I not aware of some exceptions? I know that for some flaw questions that contain "takes for granted/assumes that" language, you can negate the answer choices, but I never heard of using negation test for sufficient assumption questions.

Hello again

So, still stuck in the 165-169 window after 6 full PTs with an extra section added into the first 3.

My highest LR priorities given my analytics are

Flaw/Descriptive Weakening (1.2)

I was unfamiliar with the flaws and their manifestations

RRE (1.0)

was not grasping the nature of the issue, thereby not being able to find something that would actually explain it

PSA (0.9)

wasn't treating them enough like SA questions, and often skipped these

MSS (0.8)

forgot to see what was actually supported by the stimulus and making massive assumptions in my ACs

NA (0.7)

forgot to bridge/block

So, after my PT last weekend I stepped back and reviewed the relevant curriculum and webinars in order to give myself a refresher, and I will start drilling LR sections during my lunch breaks and after work on the days I'm not doing a PT/BRing.

Any thoughts about this and/or advice would be greatly appreciated

Hey guys,

I had a small hiccup with this redo and it cost me a point. I thought that the antibiotic has the option of one, two or three in, not 2 max since the first rule is conditional. If I put three in antibiotic, one in dietary regimen, I figured I could put one in phys therapy. I'm not sure what exactly I can look for to come to the conclusion that there is 2 max.

Please help.

Nanch

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-4-game-4/

General rule: If a sub category has only one in/out spot, split the game board based on filling that spot, no matter how many worlds comes out of it most probably solve the game or reveal a huge inference.

Context Info: I got serious problem with In/Out game with sub-categories and freeze when I see one so I try to come up with general rules to apply in case I freeze. I would be grateful if you could give me some feedback and tell me what do you think about the rule. If you can think of a game that this rule does not apply to it please mention in comment so I can redo the game.

I am currently working on the weakening questions of this course. I ran into a lot of situation where the ACs have the word "SOME" in them. Sometimes the AC weakens the argument and sometimes it doesn't. I am so confused now. Could someone help me with it? Or is there a summery of this "SOME" word somewhere?

Thanks in advance!

This isn't how I imagined making an impression to the 7Sage community haha.

I decided back in January of this year (2016) that I was going to take the LSAT and use that as a gauge of determining if I should go to law school or not. After taking ten tests over two months (I have since lost the book, so I have no idea which tests they were) I saw my score hovering somewhere between 144 and 146. I decided to enroll into a course, and Test Masters came highly recommended. I dropped a paycheck and a half on it, and thought that I could get my score up in three months for the June LSAT. My goal was to score 160+ using their methods.

I'm not saying that the Test Master's method does not work. I will say it does not work for me. I feel as though I'm the worst person in the class (probably not though). Half the class is scoring well into the upper 150s and lower 160s. One individual is scoring into the 170s. Meanwhile... I've taken and scored the following on each of these tests:

PT62 (March 15, 2016) - 145 - No BR.

PT63 (April 16, 2016) - 144 - No BR.

*Introduced to 7Sage, thus BR*

PT56 (April 22, 2016) - 147 - BR 157

PT58 (April 27, 2016) - 149 - BR 159

PT65 (April 30, 2016) - 146 - BR 158

PT59 (May 2, 2016) - 144 - No BR Yet...

Honestly, just the Blind Review has helped me more than any amount Test Masters has. The BR shows me where I could be scoring if my mind was quicker to process the questions.

However, the last two tests have crushed my spirit. I thought it was a fluke, but now it's looking like an actual problem. With the June LSAT five weeks away, now is not a good time to be in a score dive. By now, I was hoping to be scoring into the lower 150s. I've already decided that I'm taking the June LSAT unless they cancel it, but I'm also prepping for the September LSAT as well. I may decide to just wait until next year to go to take the LSAT. I did not realize how difficult this test was to study for, and that I'm not able to get where I want to be within three months.

Unfortunately, nobody that I communicate with (save for my boss who is a lawyer, but he doesn't have time for my rants) on a regular basis understands the pains of the LSAT. They understand it's hard. However, they do not understand just how hard it is, and how much difficulty I have with it. Which is why I'm here - ranting to people who are studying for it just like me.

I know that I do need to do a BR of PT59, but I needed to get away from that test. I'll get the BR done on Wednesday. Tuesday and Thursday are Test Master classes, which are four hours long and take all of the time I should be using for BR.

I appreciate your good thoughts and listening to my rant. Thank you. I feel much better now.

Hey everyone,

I've been focussed on drilling for the past month, and have realized that many stimuli are used multiple times in different tests, with different question stems. Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering...

Does anyone know why the writers of the LSAT reuse stimuli instead of writing completely new stimuli?

And secondly, has anyone noticed stimuli from earlier tests reappearing in more recent tests? The latest PT I've taken is 66 and I'm just curious if I might see older stimuli in the newest tests, but with different question stems.

I know this isn't really important - just curious.

[deleted]

Cannot for the life of me understand this rule:

"K is advertised during one of the first two weeks."

Doesn't this mean that K cannot be in weeks 3 or 4? Wouldn't K being in either 3 or 4 (which it does, as per J.Y.'s explanation) break that rule that K has to be in the first two weeks? Am I taking this rule way too literally or something?

Thanks y'all!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-1-game-4/

I am currently going through the LG bundle and I have a difficult time solving In/Out games with subcategory under time pressure. During BR I noticed in several of these games when one of the subcategories (let's call it category X ) get fulled only by putting one item in, there is reoccurring inference. The inference is, any two item from any categories that have different items of category X as their necessary condition are in a either/or relationship.

This is probably obvious to you but could you please correct me if I am wrong? Do you think having such rules might help on the actual test?

I have this book, "Ace the LSAT Logic Games" and I can't seem to find any online explanations for the games in here because they don't mention which PT they're from and googling key words is not bringing up anything in search results. One I'm having a particular hard time with understanding is a game that has to do with spa sessions involving mud, kiwi, lime, and nutrient treatments. If anyone can explain why K has to be first in this game, I would really appreciate it. It seems to be the source of why I'm not getting certain questions right. Just can't wrap my head around it.

Also, if anyone knows how to figure out which PT's are in this book so that I can search for additional help online, that would be great.

Thank you

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-52-section-1-question-25/

From a common sense stand point, the necessary assumption makes sense.

So because blah blah is injurious to democracy, then legislators should not do something. Why should the legislators not do something? Because it is injurious to democracy.

So if the legislator does do that “something,” then it is blah blah injurious to democracy.

But what is the correct way to diagram using logic?

A -> -B.

B -> -A? (But this can’t be right, because “-A” would mean that blah blah is not injurious to democracy…

Okay, BR-group people, don't get at me for this one (though I won't blame you if you do)... but I missed this question in my personal blind review, which was before the 4/23 BR group and didn't catch it until afterwards. I initially selected "A" but changed my answer to "D" during my blind review.

My issue with "A" was that I didn't see the astronomer concluding "there is evidence against [the hypothesis that life evolved extraterrestrially]" but that the hypothesis could be regarded as false simply because proponents of it only had evidence against another hypothesis and no evidence to support their own hypothesis. Is this in itself the "evidence"? In the final half of "A," what is the word "evidence" in "that there is evidence against that hypothesis" referring to exactly?

Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-1-question-09/