What is the frequency of the different question type distribution within LR on the recent LSATs?

Hello!

As I am drilling various question types, I have noticed a pattern in how I'm getting questions wrong. My main strategy with LR is that I drill the questions I need to work on most and slowly increase the difficulty. I was drilling specific flaw/ descriptive reasoning questions and as I'm getting to the 4/5 level difficulty questions I have noticed the AC have become very abstract. Even though I'm getting the assumptions right, and understanding the stimulus and where I have to look I'm still struggling to make sense of what they mean and often times that is why I end up picking the wrong AC.

Does anyone have any ideas where I could practice this specific drill? Or any ideas of how to improve this skill?

Thank you!

Hi everyone,

I'm seeking some advice on studying after the core curriculum. I recently finished the core and took two preptests so far. Both showed weaknesses in causal reasoning and flaw. This seems to suggest that I should start drilling for causal reasoning and flaw type questions, but I also didn't want to burn through a bunch of drills without gaining as much as I could from them. Would a better option be a mix of question-type focused drills + timed LR sections (with thorough BR/review for each)? I thought it might be better to hold back on preptests for now (again because I didn't want to waste them), but I would appreciate any suggestions!

Anyone interested in joining our study group. Let me know.

RC is bringing my scores down for the most part, I feel fine with LR but I cant seem to improve on RC. Anyone have tips/resources that have been helpful to them? I'm scheduled for the October test!

wdfgbv

Politics aside, this is a fun read to warm up for logical flaw description questions. "A CONSERVATIVE GUIDE TO RHETORIC" http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/shouts/2013/10/conservative-guide-to-rhetoric-republican-quotations.html

I registered for the August LSAT. I receive a pen and paper accommodation but the deadline passed on July 23 to register. They didn't send an email until today that I need to register after the deadline has passed. Since I couldn't register the other option is to opt out of the accommodation which also passed. Does anyone know what are my other option other than wait till the October LSAT?

Can anyone help me to understand why D is not right?

I really struggled trying to make a motto prediction for this one and was between C and D.

Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

I'm signed up for August, planning to kick it to September.

Anyone know what the difference is between (1) paying to sign-up for September today, and withdrawing for August, and (2) letting the September deadline pass today, and changing my August test date before exam day? It seems like you pay the same amount regardless. I'm wondering if you get a 'Candidate Cancel/Withdrawn' on your record in one scenario vs. the other?

Here's the test change policy: https://www.lsac.org/LSATdates/what-do-if-youre-unable-take-lsat/test-date-changes

Yes nothing is exclusive

Yes some have scored 160 on a diagnostic and are ok ✅

BUTTTTT for the rest of us

All things being equal

This has motivated me within.

💕💕💕💕

Do you know that an unwounded oyster does not produce pearls? 

Pearls are a healed wound.

Pearls are a product of pain, the result of a foreign or unwanted substance entering the oyster, such as a parasite or a grain of sand. 

The inside of an oyster shell is a shiny substance called nacre.  When a grain of sand enters the nacre cells go to work and cover the grain of sand with layers and more layers to protect the defenseless body from the oyster. As a result a beautiful oyster is formed! 

An oyster that has not been wounded in any way cannot produce pearls, because a pearl is a healed wound.”

Author Unknown 

for question 16, How is the answer (A) unusual expressiveness ?

I get that it's the best answer out of all of them but what's "unusual" about the era in question? how would we justify this?

Admin Note: Edited title. For RC questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# (P#) - brief description of stimulus."

Hello! If anyone could clarify where I’m misunderstanding, I would be so grateful!

So the diagram for this is: (B - banker, A - athlete, L - lawyer)

B —> A

L—> /B (the contrapositive would be B —> /L)

—

So you can conclude A (—s—) /L (some athletes are not lawyers- which I believe is the right answer.)

Taking the contrapositive of the first statement is where I have some issues:

/A —> /B

L —> /B

—

/A (—s—) L

And since some is bidirectional, it seems wrongly to read like B (some non-athletes are lawyers or some lawyers are non- athletes)?

I did not initially choose C because the professor never rejected the reasoning in the argument. He simply says that the reasoning should be “discounted”. Am I being too pedantic in this case?

Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

Hello,

I have reached the final logical reasoning question type: parallel or analogy. This question type has highlighted how much I struggle with mapping out formal logic. It isn't necessarily that I don't understand the principles, but rather, where to begin? Once I watch the explanation video and see the first step, I am able to fully understand how to continue, it's just the initial step.

Furthermore, I especially struggle with identifying all of the different logical reasoning ploys, i.e., reason by analogy, appeal to authority, sample to population generalization, and so on.... It seems like there are so many different subtypes that it's difficult to remember them all. Does anyone have a cheat sheet which simply explains all of these niche logical reasoning tactics?

Thanks so much,

Sav

to drill LR in full sections

For this question I picked A, and then B for final. I now know that A is the right answer, but I want to be sure that I understand why I had gotten this wrong.

For a short recap, Oscar's conclusion is "Thus a country's economic well-being will not be a function of its geographical position but just a matter of its relative success in incorporating those new technologies". Here I am thinking okay cool well-being is determined:

Geographical Position --> Incorporating those new technologies

Now for Sylvia, they counter this because they say that it is due to the poor country (the south as mentioned by Oscar), is not able to acquire the $$$ to incorporate the tech. They conclude by saying that it will only "widen the existing economic gap between north (rich) and south (poor)".

So going into the questions, I chose B because I thought that since the poor countries didn't have $$$ for implementation that it would cause the gap. However, I see that A was right because widening the gap meant that the rich prolly wouldn't know how rich they were unless the poor were some amount of poor? However, what does "natural resources" in A mean? Could it mean economic? Oil? I believe that was a part of what tripped me up, but I believe another was the assumption that I made which didn't allow for me to truly grasp Sylvia's conclusion.

Anyone have any suggestions when going into these questions? Or ways that I can improve in NA?

I was consistently getting -2 on my PTs and after the April exam, I can't seem to get a PT with an RC score higher than -7. Any advice about how to get out of this rut (soon hopefully)? Any drilling advice for these next couple of days would be beyond useful!

I initially chose C. This is a good trap answer, a very good trap answer indeed. The trap comes when they say that rural people communicate less. The passage talks about communicating ELETRONICALLY less, not communicating less in general. If you read this quickly, it makes perfect sense. Rural people communicate less electronically, so answer C is correct. However, because answer C is missing electronically, it is wrong. This is very sneaky!!!

Answer A is a classic difficult answer. It perfectly summarizes, which is the job of a good principle answer, but it does so in verbose language that is different from the passage.

Answer B is irrrelevant and introduces new information

Answer D is irrelevant and introduces new information,

Answer E is irrelevant and introduces new information

Watch out! Trap answers are very sneaky!

Admin Note: Removed PT questions. Please do not post the entire question and answer choices for the LSAC question. This is copyrighted content and is against the Forum Rules.

Is there a diagnostic test you can take if you plan to take the LSAT in August 2024 or onward from there? Or should I take an old test that still has the LG section?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-32-section-4-question-17/

I still don't understand why D is wrong and E is the right answer.

I don't see why E is related to widespread use part. The reason why I chose D is "taking larger-than-prescribed doses" and "be fatal" part.

Can "taking larger-than-prescribed doses" be "widespread use" and "be fatal" be "could be dangerous" which the stimulus says?

Can anyone enlighten me why D is wrong and E is right?

Thanks!

This isn't a question so much as an admission of idiocy that to date I haven't been able to break. I read question stem and rules too fast and often assume something incorrectly. My panic over time constraint is a total psychological mind f***. Notwithstanding knowing that this is my issue, I continue to fall prey to this anxiety. Maybe posting this publicly will be like a "first step" in my rehabilitation ;)

My problem on this Q is that I can exclude the other four wrong answer choices, but I can't find the right answer choice right either.

Here is my thought:

The premise: no free market economy -> the maximum total utility is not assured;

The conclusion: a country is not trying to bring about a free market economy -> the country is not acting in the way most likely to bring about the maximum total utility.

The right answer choice: the argument wrongly presumes that trying to bring about a condition that will assure the achievement of an end -> the way most likely to achieve that end.

However, if I put this presumption back to the argument, what is negated in the argument is the sufficient condition here ( to assure the achievement of an end is not satisfied ). This negation doesn't get to the argument's conclusion, which is the negation of the necessary condition in the answer choice ( not the way most likely to achieve that end). So I feel the right answer choice should be like "wrongly presumes that the way most likely to achieve max utility -> trying to bring about a condition that will ensure its achievement."

Could anyone give some light?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-39-section-4-question-23/

Hello 7Sagers!

I'm looking for some tips to help improve my reading comprehension score. I am currently scoring around -12 which is of huge concern given I take my second LSAT in January. While practice is, of course, key to improving my RC score, I need to see lots of improvement in a relatively short amount of time. At present, I seem to be struggling the most with my speed. I take too long answering the questions, which indicates to me that I need to spend more time analyzing the passage. Perhaps some tips on low resolution summaries might help? Any insights would be greatly appreciated!

hi, guys!

if possible, i'm looking for some advice - thank you so much in advance :) i have taken the LSAT four times and canceled one of my scores last october due to extenuating circumstances.

my fourth score, the nov. 2023 LSAT, is much lower (:/) than my highest score and i'm worried would put me in a disadvantageous position considering that i'm applying this application cycle, which i was planning to in the next couple of days but hadn't expected this. considering that i already have one score cancellation on my record, do you think that also cancelling my nov. 2023 LSAT score would be harmful to my application?

any and all thoughts are appreciated!!!