Just curious because at first glance these are a little bit more difficult than regular linear games and grouping games

I am just not getting these down. Help!!

SO I just took Section 1 LR of the Feb 1993 LSAT to help me drill and practice studying. I am going to blind review it this evening and then score it.

First does anyone know where I can watch videos of explanations? I know we are fortunate to have the Game review here... but not LR. The Question stems appeared different & I think I might have misinterpreted some.

Second, I used the proctor app with moderate distractions. I was distracted. SO I am going to continue to use the app with distractions to help me train for that... but please please please give me advice on how you train for that. Every time that guy "yawned" I wanted to hit him. :) I was like dude did you NOT sleep last night we have the LSAT today. ha! So any tips there would be greatly appreciated.

Finally, I know I have read that the tests have changed since 1993, which is why I am using these tests for my lunch time training,just wanted to make sure that was correct. I don't think I did as well as I would have liked in this stage, but I know and felt better than I did on my diagnostic test so that is major improvement.

Thanks guys, I really don't know how I could do this without you :)

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-3-question-17/

Any food that is not sterilized and sealed can contain bacteria

JY’s translation: /Sterilized or /Sealed -> can contain bacteria

Jy mentions DeMorgan’s law to reach the translation.

Could somebody explain how the translation works this way?

I initially translated the statement as: /Sterilized and Sealed -> can contain bacteria

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-3-question-11/

I am having a hard time ruling out A. If black water comes into the bay ONLY once every two centuries, how can the conclusion be a comparative statement, saying that it did not reach the same intensity as last years?

I chose D under timed conditions, and because I couldn't really see how A related to the stimulus, but now that I have entertained the above thought, I'm having a hard time crossing off A.

Thanks!

Hi all,

Find that I'm having a very difficult time coming to terms with the right answer choice for this question. I find that B makes too large of an assumption (in assuming that the tools didn't come to the possession of prehistoric ancestors who did not stand upright by some other means) to be effective in weakening the argument. I've tried to see the fault in the other answer choices so that I could at least learn to get to the answer by process of elimination and find myself stuck on D. I've watched the video with J.Y.'s explanation, and I don't know if I'm misreading the way that answer choice is framed, but to me "first" doesn't imply they had JUST stood up. I read it as they were the first individuals who managed to do it. Been stuck on this question for a couple days now. I would love to have a discussion about this question with you guys to see it from a different perspective. I can't help but see D as a more effective answer choice than B, and I know there is no point in arguing with the test.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-49-section-2-question-14/

Why must the answer to relate to the audience? Is it just because the preceding sentence was regarding how the audience could react? Because the specific sentence in question is in reference to "participants," I assumed that it would involve the actors, and that's why C was appealing to me. Any further insight would be greatly appreciated - thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-4-passage-3-questions/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-36-section-1-question-24/

Could someone please explain why C) is incorrect? I understand why B) is correct but after scouring the message boards I can't find anyone who can explain comprehensively why C) is incorrect.

What if 200,000 people read the newspaper, but the survey only accounts for 1,000 of them. Surely then, the conclusion that George Orwell's 1984 influenced a great number of the newspapers readers, would be inaccurate? I mean, isn't "a great number" simply a relative term? If I have 10 of something, 9 would be a great number of them.

Spoilers if you haven't seen the game:)

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-3-section-1-game-3/

Really should have taken a break before attempting this LG. Too many distractions and too late in the day - but it did provide comedic relief for me...

- First of all, do not diagram a parking deck starting with Floor 1 on the top...

- Second - do not misread the last 2 rules as "There are ""ONLY"" New cars on Floor 1, and "ONLY" Used cars on Floor 3

But here is a Challenge -

Q19: If all the production models in the exhibition are used, then which one of the following statements MBT?

Anyone able to make all of the Production models be "used" in the exhibition... I thought they meant that I had to provide a scenario including all the Production models available.

Completely lost that it was only the USED Production models in exhibition....

At least I ended my study time laughing instead of crying:)

Can someone help me with this question? I don't know why A is wrong and D is right, they said that you should strengthen the argument that stripes serve as signal for other zebras. Honestly this one kind of pissed me off.

For this particular question, could someone run me through the process of why whether or not the Ann was offered the fellowship is irrelevant?

I do see how the correct answer makes the conclusion valid but I can also spot a second sufficient assumption: If ann received the offer for fellowship, then the company will not allow her to take a leave of absence. From the stimulus, we know that quitting her job means two things, that she didn't take leave of absence and that she received an offer for a fellowship. Linking this "offer" term with the sufficient condition of the assumption that I had just listed, we then know that the company will not have let her take a leave of absence. And due to the bi-conditional, we know that if she isn't allowed to take leave of absence, that means that the company will find out that she was offered a fellowship. Wouldn't this also make the conclusion valid as well? I just wanted to know if this thought process was also correct and that there are other potential sufficient assumptions for this question.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-2-question-20/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-46-section-3-question-24/

This sufficient assumption question really has me thrown. I've read the Manhattan explanations on this, but I'm still having a hard time with understanding the whole question.

Conclusion: Money doesn't exist.

Why? The only thing you need for money to disappear is a universal loss of belief.

Gap seems to be that because something disappears it doesn't exist.

So Manhattan represented this in conditional logic as:

(loss of belief --> disappear) --> NOT exist

Easy enough, although it wasn't my instinct to put loss of belief as the sufficient condition. Still, with this conditional logic, I think I understand how (A) is the correct answer as the contrapositive.

Exist --> NOT (loss of belief --> disappear)

My problem is I'm having a hard time understanding what the necessary condition is saying here. What does NOT (loss of belief --> disappear) actually mean? Something can exist even if there isn't a loss of belief and it doesn't disappear? Also confused about how this works as a sufficient assumption answer, how does this prove that money doesn't exist? Any help?

As a side note, has anyone seen this conditional logic set up in other questions I can look at?

Hey guys, I'm currently in the middle of studying for my first LSAT in September and everyone I know that is currently in law school advised me to use 7sage for the games instead of the Powerscore Logic Games Bible, does this sound true to you?

In other words, can I completely do away with reading the book and attempt to study from the Logic Game Explanations on 7sage? If so, how would I do that, or is there a better way that I should go about studying for these games that anyone advises?

Thanks for the help in advance!!

I suppose the difficulty of any given LR section depends on your strengths and weaknesses, but I'm wondering if there's a general consensus on certain LR sections being much more difficult than others. I'm finding my LR scores are varying greatly.

I'll take one section and get 8 wrong and just be completely utterly stumped. Then I'll take another section and only get 2 wrong.

Anyone else have this experience?

Also wondering which prep-test have LR sections most similar to today's. I know the older one's aren't as similar, but when do they start becoming similar? 35+? 40+?

I understand that E is the correct answer choice, but since this is a sufficient assumption question, isn't E describing a necessary condition? Isn't it too strong? It says New subway cars are REQUIRED. But they're not required. They're sufficient to cause an efficient, attractive subway, which in turn is sufficient to product good economic sense, but neither new subway cars NOR having an efficient and attractive subway system is NECESSARY for good economic sense.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-2-question-02/

Hi I just started drills on RC and the speed is a huge problem for me. My average time to finish 1 passage is 10 mins! That means I can only finish 3 passages in a timed section :(. The blind review result is relatively good. I normally got -1 on a passage after BR, if I didn't fully understand the passage, I could got -3 sometimes after BR.

Any suggestions on how to improve the speed? Any annotation methods you recommend? Thanks!

Another question is: Unlike most LSAT takers, my big understanding problem lies in the passages of literature, art, history...etc... since my background is science/engineering. I have to read the passages at least 2 times before I can understand! Sadly most RC are about literatures and arts......

What is a good strategy for the drills? I am using 1-35 PTs as drills.

Thanks!

I really don't like the way answer choice (E) is worded. It's too ambiguous and abstract that I was not able to wrap my head around it during timed conditions and made me go for easier sounding wrong answer choice even though I knew it was descriptively incorrect!

Can someone explain to me what (E) is even saying?

And do recent tests have answers like this?

Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-2-question-22/

I'm having a difficulty accepting D as an answer for this question. Hoping someone can help!

My issue with this answer choice is that it seems to create a further discrepancy. Answer D doesn't specify whether Peacetime refers to before or after the war. It doesn't seem unreasonable to think that since the war has ended there is peace. I mean, absence of war is peace. All this answer provides is the general statement that during Peacetime oil production and transport in the Persian Gulf result in negative environmental effects. Wouldn't this create a discrepancy? If D is correct, how can there be less damage after the war than before?

I am aiming for -1 or -2 on LG and I just finished LG Bundle (30 seconds ago) using @Pacifico attack strategy. I kept track of my timing and score for each game from PT 1-35. What should I do to improve further? I was thinking to put my results in an excel spreadsheet to find those games which took me 10 or more takes to hit the target time and fool proof them again? Or take PT 1-35 LG games in section formats under 35 minutes?

OK I should finish the LR curriculum tonight. I am really feeling much better about my grasp of the concepts, however I am still falling for traps. So my question is, do you feel it would be beneficial for me to use old practice tests and drill each LR section. Here is what I am thinking. I work 40-60 hours a week. I have a very demanding job and I am right at the start of busy season, so my work week will start being closer to the 60 hours a week, so I am trying to cram as much studying as I can into my day. I do typically take a hour for lunch. So I was thinking... that I could take a timed LR section at lunch, then blind review it in the evenings when I get off work 1-2 times a week. Then score, obviously. Do you think this practice would work??? I was thinking about using the earlier tests... as I do have copies of those. Or should I just wait until I am 100% done with the curriculum. I do not plan on using tests 36+ as they are part of the curriculum, but I thought this might work as far as practice during the day, as we are what 10 weeks out, I know every little studying I can do during the day will be beneficial.

I really don't have an option of taking the December test. September is kinda my do or die test... simply because starting in Aug/Sept my work schedule gets frantic. I am actually taking the week off before the test to get zen and calm... because my job is about to get that insane, but that is a whole other topic for another day.

what do you guys think? I am trying to figure out how to get 30-45 minutes of studying in during my lunch break, because I just eat salad and take a walk, and normally that takes 20 mins of the 60 minutes I get.

Any tips or tricks you used would be awesome! thanks guys!

This is an answer choice:

C) not to be subsidized, it cannot be a profit-making institution

would this be diagrammed as: subsidized --> profit making institution

because of the double negative: not to be, it cannot

Please let me know!! Thanks in advance :D

Perhaps someone out there could help me out with this: on the LSAT, what exactly would it look like to "challenge the accuracy of the given evidence"? This phrase is commonly used as a wrong answer choice on Method of Reasoning questions and I've yet to see an instance where it is the correct answer. Many times it appears as a trap answer choice when an author challenges the context/cause/relevance of some evidence but isn't actually challenging the accuracy of the figure cited.

I know why the credited response (E) is correct.

However i'm having a tough time seeing how (B) and (C) are incorrect.

I initially picked (B)

My reasoning was that the opponent raises an important point: That irradiation fails to neutralize the bacteria that cause botulism and in fact aids it by concealing its warning signs. This seems to contradict the proponent's conclusion that there is no reason to reject irradiation as far as health and nutrition is concerned.

For (C) there appears to be two remedies for keeping food from being spoiled by bacteria the first is: irradiation brought up by the proponent and the second is chemical dip method brought up by the opponent. the opponent seems to bring up a consequence of the first remedy (failing to kill bacteria that cause botulism which can lead to serious food poising).

If someone could help me out with this that you be awesome, thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-1-question-05/

I'm not sure about this one, and I'm having a very tough time seeing why the correct answer is correct.

Link: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-4-question-11/

One way to approach the question "what is real?" is to say that something is real IF AND ONLY IF that thing is posited by the most explanatory powerful theory of the science. Most scientific theories have things posited as real only on theoretical grounds. Therefore, the approach described is flawed.

What I am looking for: This is PSA question, so we need to link up the premise to the conclusion. If something is posited as real only on theoretical grounds, then it isn't a part of the most explanatory powerful theory. That's what I anticipated, but I'm not that confident about it.

Answer A: We don't care about enhancing a theory.

Answer B: This is the correct answer, but I don't really see what it's doing. Doesn't this answer choice assume that there is an overlap between the "most explanatory powerful theory of the science" and "most scientific theories contain only theoretically posited entities?" Why couldn't the "most explanatory powerful theory of the science" be in the group of non-theoretically posited entities (i.e. only in the group of practically posited entities?) That doesn't seem like an unreasonable assumption.

Answer C: I think this is kind of like answer A. We don't care about enhancement of a theory.

Answer D: OK, but this doesn't seem like a sufficient assumption. Plus, are the entities real?

Answer E: I don't think this is it because the author thinks this reasoning is flawed, so this doesn't seem like a sufficient assumption.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-2-question-08/

For this particular question, I'm having trouble understanding why answer choice E is incorrect. Because we know that the batteries that power electric cars come from nuclear or coal plants, and since we know that those power sources causes significant environmental damage, is it logical to state that there may not be a net reduction of environmental degradation? Saying that there won't be a reduction in environmental degradation seemed logical to me because it hints at 2 possibilities: 1. the considerable environmental damage caused by the battery production will produce the damage as would the emissions of an ordinary car. 2. The battery production will produce more damage than the emissions from a ordinary car.

I also had a hard time understanding why answer choice A is correct. The proponents beliefs seemed to talk about the abatement of environmental degradation specifically linked to a decrease in auto-emissions rather than an overall abatement of environmental degradation, while the author seem to not directly touch on the proponents point but rather mention an additionally concern of battery production. Even though battery production creates causes its own environmental damage, isn't it still the case that there is a decrease of environmental degradation that specifically arises from auto-emissions, because of the fact that electric cars don't have its own emissions. If that case is true, wouldn't the proponents stance hold and the environmental consequences aren't as worse as proponents believe them to be.