https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-1-question-13/

I thought A is the correct answer because it sounds if most viewers started to watch the 1st episode of the program because of the network's ad, it sounds the ad had huge influence or better influence. After all "most" means more than 50%. (Nothing can be more influential than this because it's more than 50%) Why is A wrong? :(

Hi everyone,

Sorry to create another retake advice thread. I scored a 169 on the June test and plan on retaking in September. I would really appreciate any advice on where to go from here since I burnt out pretty hard towards the end of my studying for the June test and don't want that to happen again!

On the test, I missed:

-1 LG

-2 RC

-9 LR (combined; -3 & -6)

I felt prepared going into the test, and fortunately I don't have test anxiety. During the test, I thought that I bombed the last 2 RC passages, so I was very surprised to see that I only missed 2 RC questions total. But missing 9 questions in LR is not typical for me. I would like to get a score at or above the 75th percentile for my target schools, so hoping to get a 171+. My practice tests were well above 169, so I know I scored below my ability.

I don't know where to begin studying for a retake. LGs are second nature to me now, and I rarely miss any LG questions on PTs. I felt I had improved in RC after I figured out a method that works for me, and apparently I did improve, but I still want to work on it so I can feel the same kind of mastery over it that I feel with LG. I've worked through every single LR question type drilling packet, and feel like I have an intuitive grasp of the questions, so I don't know how I should approach LR now. Looking through the questions I missed on the June test is bumming me out, because the questions I missed are question types that I had considered my strong areas during my prep so I think I made careless mistakes on the actual test.

My prep included the LSAT Trainer, the Powerscore LG Bible, the question-type drilling packets, drilling many RC sections, and 35+ timed PTs with intensive blind review.

Do you think I should purchase a 7sage course, or do something more tailored to my weaknesses? I can provide more specific information about the questions I missed if that would be helpful. Really appreciate any advice guys. Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-31-section-2-question-03/

I just had to stop drilling for a second because I came across this question and was amazed at how incredibly sexist it is. Shame

on the lsat writer smdh. There are 3 answer choices that made me lol and take a big swig of coffee.

Anyway back to drilling.

So regardless if I take a timed or untimed test, I only get half of the logical reasoning questions right. The first 10-12 I get right and then it goes downhill. Does this mean that my foundation and understanding for logical reasoning is not good enough? Problem is I feel confident about a lot of my answers :/. Please help me in how I can improve my poor logical reasoning scores!

I've been studying for the LSAT starting in early June and whilst other sections of the test have been manageable, LG section does not seem to show any improvement. I consistently get at least 1-2 questions wrong and even though I watch the videos and do the questions again, I always get at least one question wrong. I feel so stuck in the cycle of failure in the LG section. I keep on getting discouraged by my score. I am currently doing fool-proof method but this does not seem to give me any boost in scores.

Any advice will be deeply apprecited :)!!!

Can anybody tell me what logical reasoning questions that you must be wary of extreme language (only, whenever, all, etc) when approaching? I know inference questions ("the information above provides the most support for which one of the following") but what other questions is it important to be wary of extreme language and keep it vague? Also just on a side note, why is it important to be wary of extreme language on inference questions? I have ever come across an all encompassing answer for this.

I used the Memory Method and it greatly improved my RC ability, but I haven't done it on PTs thinking it'll too much time to forfeit.

Do any of use continue to use the Memory Method on PTs by covering the passage and recalling the main point of all the paragraphs?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-40-section-3-question-25/

Hoping someone can explain why the answer is D.

I understand why A, B and E are incorrect. I got down to C and D but chose C and I'll explain why.

D makes an absolute conclusion. It says, "It is therefore unavoidable that the level of vehicle safety will not be optimal." In other words, "Vehicle Safety WILL NOT (absolute) be optimal." Our stimulus however, makes no absolutely claim, instead using the word "overly optimistic (unlikely)"

I read through the Power-score forum and the admin was attempting to claim that D did not make an absolute claim. I just can't get behind this.

I realize that C ends with a conditional. But it's still a correct conditional that parallels what we see in the stimulus.

Feeling frustrated because this makes no sense!

I first read Passage A, and because I'm a nervous impulsive person, I go straight to the questions that refer only to passage A and do those, and then skim through the questions that refer to both A and B (i.e. "Which of these would both the authors from A and B agree with?") and eliminate a good 2-3 answer choices for each of the questions like that. I do this because I fear that I'll forget what I read in A after I finish with B (or worse, misinterpret A wrong and see it through a different lens after because of what I've read in B.)

This strategy doesn't seem terrible, since I still do ~okay~ on the passages, but it also probably takes up more time because I'm re-reading questions? I wanna know if anyone else has tips / good strategy for Comparative Passages. I'm still trying out my strategy, but if it's deemed inefficient or unnecessary, I'm still in the early stages so I'll be ready to change/modify to a different strategy.

Thanks, community!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-2-question-02/

Does the stimulus in this question illustrate a causal relationship between the Sumerian's inability to support agriculture and its collapse? I'm wondering if the second to last sentence of the stimulus can indicate a mere correlation, that there were other factors that caused the collapse unrelated to agriculture. I'm just having trouble understanding if the causation was something indicated through indicator words or if it was implied based on the information of the stimulus.

If someone can help me understand this question, I would be most appreciative. I have been staring at it for the last 15 minutes, I looked at the Manhattan explanation (on their forums) and was not satisfied, it really does not make sense to me.

If someone could help me, I would be most appreciative! Please, please help me! :(

When the question asks: "which exhibits a pattern of reasoning most closely similar?" indicating a Parallel question, is it implicitly given to us that the stimulus contains a valid argument? Or can we not assume that? Just wanted to make sure because I think that would help me eliminate answer choices (that contain invalid arguments) quicker.

This is in contrast to Parallel Flaw, which explicitly states "which exhibits a pattern of *flawed* reasoning...?"

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-2-question-06/

I hate that I'm getting stumped by a question this early in the section, but I've gotten this wrong both timed and also during blind review. I keep choosing C, although the answer is B:

(paraphrased stimulus)

Legislator: Your agency is responsible for regulating an industry shaken by scandals. We gave you funds for 500 investigators but you only hired 400. I conclude that you intentionally limited hiring in order to prevent the full extent of the scandals from being revealed.

Regulator: No, we tried hiring the 500 investigators, but the starting salaries were frozen so low by the legislature that it was impossible to attract enough qualified applicants.

Q: The regulator responds to the legislator's criticism by...

B. providing info that challenges the legislator's conclusion

C. claiming that complying with the legislature's mandate would have been an insufficient response

I chose C. because the regulator was saying that complying with the legislature's mandate (the one to hire 500 investigators with low frozen salaries) would have been an insufficient response (in combating the scandals)

I see why B would be the right answer since the regulator introduces new information that suggests an alternative explanation, which challenges the legislator's conclusion. I'm just not sure why C is wrong.

Any help would be much appreciated! I have tried to find this explanation or discussion of this question online elsewhere and haven't been able to.

Hi there.

I have been preparing for LSAT for 2 weeks and my progress right now is that I finished the Powerscore Bible of LR and also the relevant part of 7sage and I have also done around 8 PTs. So as I practice the LR with the PT, I try to finish the section in 35 mins but if I do that, then I am always around -8. However, if I do take my time and finish it around 45mins then I am around -4. So my question is that, what should be the main concern for me right now, to get more right answers or to try to finish the section in time? Or is there any other right things to do that I am missing right now? Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-4-question-13/

I understand why "A" is correct but still cannot arrive at why "E" is incorrect. My thought was that "E" allowed for the possibility that instead of not believing the testimony, some just did not find the testimony (which may have been one that implicated the defendant) significant enough to render a guilty verdict. In other words, all members of the jury could have believed the testimony, yet some may not have viewed it as significant enough to decide on a guilty verdict.

Does "E" just not draw upon the flaw in the reasoning behind the conclusion from the premises?

I was close to understanding this in last night's BR call, though I think I still need more input to clear my mind up on this.

Thanks in advance!

Hi, I'm consistently having problems with the Social Science and Law sections in the reading comprehension sections. I score almost perfect on my Humanities and Natural Science sections, but I can't seem to get more than 2 or 3 right within the two other areas. I was hoping there was some kind of strategy or method of thinking that I could try and incorporate that would help me within Social Science and Law.

If anyone has any good tips that would be awesome.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-75-section-4-game-4/

I'm so confused with the rule "Any feature occupying more than one slot must occupy consecutively numbered slots."

Could anyone list all (or some if all is impossible) possibilities of this rule?

I thought it just means,

it there are multiple Xs, it would be XX.

But it seems there are other possibilities other than this...the part "consecutively" bothers me.

It seems XXYYX is correct as well, but I thought this is wrong bc the last X is there by itself. (It should be XXXYY isn't it?)

I already watched the video but still it bothers me :(

Define, undefined, or partially defined

I am totally lost on this question. What I did was diagram :

--L ---> --C

C --> L

I picked E because it had the word many in it, and I thought from the first sentence it was being consistent. Initially, I was thinking D because of "some" but then I thought well the first sentence has "many" so I should be congruent.

I'm really lost and cannot figure this out. If someone could help me out, I would be most appreciative!

How do you diagram unless, except, only if, and if but only if?

Especially unless, I'm super confused. I have been told to negate the left statement but then others say that's wrong. Also what are you supposed to do with statements like: Unless I get an A, I will not go out tonight....? HELP I HATE CONDITIONAL LOGIC

Hi JY

I came across a question where I don't understand the question stem or how to take on the question type ( Prep Test 36 Q24 Sec 1). Is there a systematic approach on how to take on these "evaluation" questions?

Thanks

I recently took a 2 day break from LR.

I did 2 LR sections today and had much better results. 23/25 and 22/26. I think maybe I needed to just let information and some of the studying I've been doing, sink in. I definitely feel like some of the answers are just "coming" to me now, rather than having to think hard on them. Especially for the first 10 questions.

It's interesting. The questions I circle for blind review are rarely incorrect and sometimes during review I'll second guess myself and actually put the wrong answer down.

Regardless, I'm still finding time to be an issue. The first section I took was 5 minutes over. The second section was 10.

5 I can deal with...10...not so much.

And I know exactly where I'm slowing down as well. It's the harder questions, anywhere from 15 onward. That's also the area I get most of my wrong answers. The first 10 questions I usually complete in 10ish minutes.

I'm wondering if there are any suggestions or time management strategies, specifically for LR, that any of you would recommend?

Hi folks,

I'm struggling with this question in BR. So I figured I'd post my reasoning and see what you all think of it.

Debater:

Premise 1:Because lecturers are superior to students in mastery, lecturing requires hierarchy.

Premise 2: People learn best from peer interaction.

Conclusion: Hierarchy in lecturing is a weakness.

Respondent:

Premise 1: Because teaching/learning requires simple to complex instruction, teaching/learning requires hierarchy.

Illustration of premise: In math, you must learn arithmetic before calculus.

Conclusion: Hierarchy in lecturing is a strength.

What the respondents' reply most vulnerable to criticism for?

There is more than one flaw, so I listed the ones I could see.

Flaw 1: Response does not address what is sufficient for a strength or defend against a weakness, it simply states that it is required.

Flaw 2: Requirement/necessity does not equal strength.

I'm sure there are more, but those were most obvious to me.

A: Initially I thought this was correct because I thought the argument ignored some assumptions of the debater. But it doesn't. When the debater assumes that peer interaction implies not hierarchy, the respondent responds all teaching/learning is hierarchical.

B: We must accept the premises as true so the argument did not assume that methods in math are as effective in other disciplines. It's an illustration of the premise. Eliminated.

C: Irrelevant to Respondent's argument. We are only talking about whether hierarchy is a strength or a weakness.

D: This is correct. They are talking about two different kinds of hierarchy. The first is lecturer to student hierarchy, the second is simple to complex material hierarchy!

E: Again, must accept premises as true.

Found the correct flaw! They're talking about TWO different kinds of hierarchy! Woo.

Wow. In the 30 minute process of typing this post, I figured it out. If this isn't a good advertisement for a damn good blind review process, I don't know what is. I started out defending A was correct, realized it was wrong, and figured out D was correct. Woo!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-1-question-16/

Does anyone know how people can get few (like 1 or 2) to zero wrong on RC. I find it ridiculously hard sometimes to attain the necessary information within 8-9 minutes and to answer the questions for each passage.

Are those people just going back and forth between the Q and passage really really fast?

I have commented in the past about what I call the "some people say" principle. I have just finished checking every "main conclusion" question in Preptests 62-71, and have found that the "some people say" formula appears in 14 out of 27 MC questions. In every single one of these instances, the "main conclusion" can be easily and accurately determined by taking the "some people say" text and negating it. (In many cases, the stimulus does this for you--the next sentence after a "some people say" formula is often something like, "But these critics are wrong," or "This suggestion is unreliable, because..."