Looking to see if there are any other lgbt+ folks in EST who would be interested in a study buddy?

Last take for me was 164, and I’m shooting for 170. It’d be great to also meet folx with similar score goals, but not required.

PS: happy late pride!

I answered this question correct the first time around, and then when completing the blind review I changed my answer and got it incorrect. This question is very tricky when reading it for the first time. I changed my answer because I could not logically conclude why the average length of stay remaining unchanged would support the authors hypothesis. I now realize that if length of stay has no correlation, then a valid reason to there being higher restaurant revenues would be that visitors are sharing passes.

A) Other tourist attraction opening- would weaken argument bc would explain the rise in restaurant revenues and not attraction

B) Making more frequent trips than in previous years- would weaken argument bc this would mean they are not sharing passes

C) Hotel and meal prices have risen- would weaken argument bc directly correlates with increased revenues not based on sharing passes

D) Average length of stay remained unchanged- would support argument bc people most likely sharing passes

E) Each pass contains a photograph- would weaken argument bc this would causes less people to share a pass

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

Hello, I usually drill 2 reading passages a day using the 7sage virtual tutor to pick. I am now done with all my clean passages but when I go to "particular tags" I still have 128 clean passages left. Does that mean I need to start picking from that only if I'm to read passages I haven't read? Why can't 7sage just give me any of those passages to take?

Thanks!

I have an average of a -6 RC and a -1 LR, plus -0 LG. What did you all do to get your RC so good? I haven't gotten a LG question wrong in a while RC on the other hand is a no go for me.

Biologist's argument: DF (deforestation continues at its present pace) -> KAE (the koala will approach extinction)

Politician's argument: /DF (stop deforestation) -> /KAE (save the koala)

So the politician's argument is a mistaken negation of the biologist's argument.

(A) is wrong because we do not know whether deforestation continues at its "present pace" so we do not know whether this is consistent with the biologist's claim.

(B) is right because even though deforestation is stopped, the koala could go extinct because deforestation could have stopped as a result of complete destruction of forests.

(C) is wrong because no one talks about reforestation.

(D) is wrong because it is consistent with the politician's argument rather than the biologist's

(E) is wrong because the biologist's argument says that the koala does not approach extinction only if deforestation does not continue at its present pace

Is my explanation correct for this question? Could anyone add explanation for this question? Thanks

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of PTx.Sx.Qx. Existing threads on PT2.S2.Q11: (1); (2)

Hi All! I will be taking the writing portion this week, is there any recs on how to tackle this part of the exam?

What is the difference between observation and phenomenon on LSAT?

Really struggling to improve my RC section. I've been stuck at getting around 10 questions wrong each time. Any suggestions to break through this?

Has anyone used the LR Loophole as a study resource in addition to 7Sage? So far I am finding it helpful but I was curious how other 7Sage users have used this in combination with 7Sage.

I took PT159 over the weekend and sadly it destroyed me.

Since the official explanations from JY/Kevin are not available yet, with the mindset of "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger", I wrote out my explanations of some LR questions under "Discussion". I intend to continue to write more tomorrow.

Please let me know if you have any feedback / if my explanations are clear.

Thank you for your time in advance!

I took the April test and scored 164, but was PT-ing in the high 160s. My goal is to score in the 168-174 range, but rushed to take the June test under unideal circumstances (I'm studying abroad and was not in an ideal testing environment) because the logic games is my best section. I scored 162 which I'm not happy with, and plan to retake in the fall -- any opinions on whether it would look worse to keep this lower score or cancel it? If I keep it, is it worth writing an addendum at all?

Hi guys, I'm starting to lock in for real for the November LSAT, so I made an accountability server where we can check in on each other daily and keep each other focused up. You can also ask for help with questions as needed, and I'll be sharing important info and any good resources I find. Join at https://discord.gg/XKpENyfeWQ!

This question doesn't have an explanation, so here's my thought process.

Question Stem- Principle Question

Stimulus- Machines and tech alter our choices. (example). Clock altered our choices by allowing synch +. HOWEVER, clock also closed some doors. Living without clock is kinda impossible now.

So Machines and tech that alter our choices can have some downsides as well.

A. This makes sense, however, the use of "enslave" and "liberate" sounds really extreme. Keep for now.

B. No. The stimulus no where says what people should and shouldn't do.

C. That MAY be true, however, not what the stimulus is saying.

D. The stimulus does not weigh the pros and cons, so we don't know if it was worth our dependence or not.

E. "Most"??? We only know about one instance that made our life more synchronized and productive. There MAY be more machines. However, that is not within the scope of the premises, and therefore out.

Only answer remaining- A. Correct.

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

Hi all! I have been doing well with the concepts behind how to weaken an argument. Don't attack the premise or conclusion, rather thin out and weaken the support structure. However, I seem to get it on the first round but in my BR I end up falling for the trap answers and just changing my course of reasoning. Helppp!!! Any and all tips are welcome!

PrepTest A - Section 1 - Question 21

I dont understand this question. I thought the flaw was making a generalization about one characteristic and placing the characteristic as a whole. Why isnt that right

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

Hi! I'm taking the LSAT on Monday. My RC has always fluctuated, and I am hoping to practice with a really difficult section to make sure I'm ready for a worst-case scenario. Does anyone know of any particular RC sections that are science- and law-heavy and/or just have a lot of hard-to-spot inference questions? Thanks so much, and if you're taking October too, you got this!! <3

Hey everyone! I am hosting LR Kahoot tonight and LR jeopardy on Sunday night for anyone who wants to come join. We will also be hosting more in the future. Comment your discord and I'll add you to the group.

stimulus :

"There can be a known known only if theres a known unknown, but there can never be an unknown unknown without a known unknown. Thus, every unknown unknown which is known is actually a known unknown which is unknown."

the conclusion above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

the content of this question is inspired by the "Rumsfeld Matrix." What would be a sufficient assumption for this question? Is this a hard question or did you find it on the easier end of SA questions?

Hey everone, I just register for the in-person 7Sage course, anyone taking it?

[I am posting on behalf of a 7Sage user. Please feel free to leave your comments below. Thank you for your help!]

I've been studying with 7Sage for about a year now and I have a question regarding embedded conditionals. I know there's already a lesson on how to translate an embedded conditional; however, I found a weird conditional while studying the LSAT and was wondering how you would go about translating this one as it's the opposite of the embedded conditional.

What is taught in the embedded conditional module on 7Sage is that when you see, "If A, then /B unless C" you just translate it to, "A and B, then C"

I understand this. But while studying LR, I found an unusual type of embedded conditional that goes the other way around. How would you go about translating this? The embedded conditional, I forgot what specific PT/ question, said something along the lines of: "/A unless B, then C." Just confused on how to translate this as this is not the same as the former example provided by J.Y. Would it still be the same translation? I don't think it would, right?

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/mastery-embedded-conditional/

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/mastery-embedded-conditional-proof/?ss_completed_lesson=1107

Hey guys, please help

I have been looking for a LR question that I did (I have impression because I spent 3 mins on it during blind review and it is pretty tough) but I couldn't find it even after I have gone through the entire question bank. I remember starring the explanation, but when I looked again it is just not there. I am getting super super confused right now.

Here are my clues: It is either PMR or parallel flaw, and I think less than 50% people got it right. I don't remember what the stimulus is, but the the correct answer choice is C and it has to do with something like city figure and crime rate.

JY also excliplitly stated that we should skip this question and not waste time on it during real test because it is extremely time-consuming.

Anyone has an idea?

Thanks!

How’d it go for everyone? Personally, I was annoyed by the paper test after all of the digital prep I’ve done. I had two LG sections and I’m praying that the art gallery was experimental.

This is for JY, if we have another answer choice ‘an activity that is conducive to healthy nation ought to be protected and encouraged by nation’ then, A, also this answer choice can be a right answer or just we are try to pick the bridge between main premise to conclusion. Thanks, lee

Admin note: edited title and added link

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-4-question-01/

Hello,

Can somebody link me the section in the syllabus for the strategies when taking a "double" reading comprehension section? I'm pretty good at all RC except for those questions that have to do with two passages

I feel like soon as I can cement this I will be good! I'm challenged to properly identify whether one can pronounce 'X' or 'Y' of a given statement as a certain condition BECAUSE the logical indicator preceded it or not. Are there circumstances with rules for when it does not? I keep getting caught in the confusion between how to label what is before and after the logical indicator. And yes, I have gone through the lessons on this.

J.Y. can you assist with this #help