I was confused between answer choices A and E for this one.

Is A incorrect because it leaves out the part about researchers being puzzled by how kinglets are able to survive cold winter nights? I was trying to figure out if answer choice A had any descriptive/factual errors, but I couldn't find any, so I'm guessing the problem is that it doesn't address the fact that scientists are trying to figure out the mechanisms behind the birds' survival.

That seems to be the only difference between A and E.

I'm pretty bad at excel, and tired of doing this by hand. If anyone could forward me a blank setup of what they have it would be greatly appreciated. I've tried to do it but I give up, it's bad lol.

An idea just occurred to me about how to approach MP questions in RC. My accuracy in these Qs is about 80%, but obviously I'd like this higher, and it can still be a tricky question type for me (i.e, time sink). A strategy I started using in LR MP questions is if it's a tough one where two answers are nearly identical, I say to myself, "Which one could potentially support the other?" The one that could give support is not the answer. This usually works. I'm wondering if I could apply that same logic to RC questions. Are RC MP questions asking what is the conclusion? Is there a difference in this context between "Main Point" and "conclusion" (Which would mean that the main point, i.e, conclusion, would require the support of premises)? Anybody ever have the same approach? I'm going to start implementing it, but I figure I'd get some feedback. Happy studying!

Hi, I'm new to studying so I'm having trouble with making an inference. The stimulus states that "none of the responses among terminal cancer patients to various therapeutic measures has been more positive than the response among those who consumed shark cartilage". The powerscore bible states that we can infer "(consuming) shark cartilage has received a more positive response than any other therapy". First, how would we diagram this or is it even diagrammable? Second, what fundamental is this testing? Is it logical opposites? Thanks in advance and happy new year!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-1-question-11/

I started to enjoy the RC section when I started to enjoy learning from it. And outside knowledge definitely helps when it comes to RC.

I used to think I know about art, but by reading the art LSAT passages, I learned that I have absolutely no idea about art history! My go-to YouTube channel for science is CrashCourse, but I haven't been able to find a good channel for art history (Khan Academy's lessons seemed too detailed....)

Recently I found Art History - Overview Videos from Phil Hansen (21 videos).

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXVuKomahjzdNOrden8thb8HWbvJZK71w

I've been watching these videos whenever I get bored with studying in the order of Art History Timeline (yes, it's Art History For Dummies website. lol), so I thought I'd share these with you!

Let me know if there are any YouTube videos or websites that help us with art history! :)

So I finally got my nerve up to do blind review on the September LSAT, aka PT 82.

I got a 179, after a pretty lax review.

I made at least 5 mind-numbingly obvious mistakes, including one that I definitely just mis-bubbled.

I want to punch a wall. I could have reached Everest!!!! Aaaaaaaah!

Trying to spin this into, "in december, I won't make dumb mistakes, and I'll crush it!" But it's gonna take a minute.

Sorry for ranting, hope maybe anybody else in the same/similar situation can take comfort in knowing you're not alone! Next time friends!!!

Is there a pdf sheet with answers to games from 1-35 (foolproofing) Instead of looking at each explanation, is there a way I can look at a sheet to see if I got the correct answer?

I am not 100% on my understanding for why the answer is C. I selected B and the others were obvious to me. Could someone help explain or break it down for me? Thank you!

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-4-passage-3-passage

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-4-passage-3-questions

Hi!

This is killing me! Why can JNOP be a correct answer just because we happened to pick J first? Okay, if J is the necessary then O and N can go in too and also because they are OR groups and so both can be in S okay. But then why can't be in S as well? This doesn't make any sense to me. NOJ are in because its an /N--> and /O-->J as an OR group. But its /K-->P as an OR group so why can't K be there too like N and O were?

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-4-game-2/

Hello! I hope everyone’s June LSAT went well. I am writing because I had to cancel my score for the June LSAT because the proctor bothered me so many times during the first two sections I practically had no focus and was stressed the whole exam. Did this happen to anybody else? I was interrupted many times because apparently I was “out of the camera frame” when I was using my scratch paper or when I came close to the laptop screen and my forehead was cut out. This was really frustrating because I can’t see myself on the camera during the test and I just don’t want to worry about this on the next exam. Does anyone have any advice on how to avoid this? A special camera that people used or a certain distance they kept themselves from the laptop?

Thank you!

Hi all,

I've been fool-proofing LG for the past week and a half, and as it pertains to sequencing games, it's become pretty clear to me that box items typically exert the most pressure on the board. Hence, whether it's a rule/question-driven game, looking at where to first place the box item will yield key inferences for the other rules. Along those lines, I noticed in some sequencing games with a twist that a rule preventing items from a sub-category from being next to other items in that same sub-category also exerts extreme pressure on the board (i.e. the notoriously difficult PT68G4, and to a much lesser extent, PT65G2). If we were to compare these two generic rules, it seems to me that the latter rule exerts even more pressure than the former. In other words, we should focus our attention first and foremost to the sub-category rule, even before a box rule in a scenario where both appear. Does this sound right to y'all? Also, if you guys have similar findings on some other generic rules that help you make inferences in different types of games, I'd appreciate it if you could share! Thanks and good luck on the studying!

Original text ----------

Hello!

I have a question regarding an embedded conditional. Does the interpretation change on the base of where the comma is located at like the following exmples? Thanks for your help in advance, I appreciate it!

If S, then /B unless F

= S → /B unless F

= S → (B→F)

= S and B → F

If S, then /B, unless F

= /F → (S→/B)

= /F and S → /B

Answer ----------

[S and B -> F] and [/F and S -> /B] are the same!!!!!!!!!!!!

In the lessons about In/Out games there is use of bi-conditionals like J (--) /K. For other prep material they have used a "negative bi-conditional", so J (-/-) K. Do these represent the same things? I assumed they both meant J and K cannot be selected together. #Help

So I have found, as with many others I am sure, that time is the enemy (in general but way more so on the LSAT) When fool proofing are you guys starting out timed then just reducing the time each round, or do you begin untimed? I am never sure exactly how much time to give myself. I am not 100% on games ever but with a solid 15mins I can figure just about anything out (sometimes I still miss a question), but I know I will NEVER have that for just one game. I am not sure with what games I should be giving myself 8-10 mins, and which I should be giving myself 5...i've been thinking for fool proofing to give myself 10 mins on all to begin with, then each round of 'retesting' reducing it by two minutes? does that sound like a good idea? I really need to improve my logic games because right now I am finishing PT tests and getting usually all of the questions I FINISH right, but only actually finishing 2/4 games, which as you can imagine is killing my score.

I watched the first dozen lessons on reading comprehension and already I've improved. I would typically miss 3-4 questions in a batch of 7-8, and now I'm only missing 1/8, albeit, the most difficult question of the passage. So far, I'm very impressed with the lessons on here. Super helpful!

I've been looking at this question for the last 20 minutes, watched the JY's explanation, and looked through the comments. Still have no idea what is going on. Can someone help explain it to me?

Thank you!

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-36-section-3-question-18/

Hello If anyone can share their journey through reading comprehension it will be greatly appreciated!! Maybe someone who was struggling A LOT and saw break through's or someone whos just killing it in RC (Lol). Please share, I think RC is a section that gets neglected and SHOULDNT. Thank you in advance :) !!!!

Personally I have been struggling with RC but I am making it a mission this month to destroy RC lol, I believe you're only as strong as your weakest link.

I don't understand why answer C can not be correct. Wouldn't the fact that sicily was/was not cold affect the idea that the cold in China had nothing to do with the eruption? If you determine that it was not abnormally cold in sicily that would automatically mean that the eruption was not the cause of the cold in China.

Can we represent this as B->A, as in B(the one possible way) is sufficient to A? For example this would be like 'one way to score 170 on the LSAT is to study well', so [study well] becomes a sufficient condition for [scoring 170].

I kept the specific details out to not spoil anyone, but this was a question from the new drill sets on Lawhub. Someone posted a question about it on reddit but I was wondering if my guess was right.

I don't know why but I always struggle with Flaw questions and get 50% of them wrong all the time. It's just not clicking! Does anyone have any tips that worked for them? Anything would be appreciated.

I've been studying for about 5 months and am taking the August LSAT. I've gone from a 156 diagnostic to solid mid-160 PTs using Mike Kim's LSAT Trainer in tandem with 7Sage explanation videos and analytics.

I recently got two scores of 168, was feeling really close to reaching my goal of 170+, but on the last two PTs I missed a lot on LR and fell back down to 165 and 163, respectively. I'm especially nervous because I had no idea that I was bombing LR and actually felt pretty confident.

Any tips for sharpening my LR in this last month push?

(I have a full-time job and am currently devoting 10-15 hours a week to studying; an expensive tutor isn't an option)

Thanks in advance!

Hi, I wonder if anyone can direct me to find the link to "get acquainted with lsat writing"? I remember reading about this tool in preparation for June's LSAT and today finally decide to try it out but could not find the link anymore. Did they take it down because the real writing session had begun? Or am I looking at the wrong places? A link would be highly appreciated.

Btw I heard this writing is not really important - is that correct? I kinda wanna just do the writing before the multiple choice test so I don't have to think about it anymore but definitely have not had a lot of practice...

Thank you!

Hi everyone,

I am currently studying existential quantifiers and although I understand the concept of existential quantifiers, I find it difficult to apply the concept to MBF questions. I've only done a couple of MBF questions with existential quantifiers, but was wondering whether you need to use existential quantifiers for each MBF question? Also, what types of logical reasoning questions require us to use existential quantifiers?

If possible, can someone please reference some questions that require us to utilize existential quantifiers? I would greatly appreciate it! Thanks in advance :).

Hi Everyone!

I am looking for someone to take 1 PT per week and review together via Zoom until the August LSAT. Ideally I would love to review on a weekday or Sunday evening (after 5:30pm EST). For reference, I am aiming for a 168-170, and am specifically trying to improve my speed in Logic Games.

Let me know if you are interested! (: