Aside from just repetition, do you guys know the best way to tell what chart to use for each type of question? Often find myself having a harder time just because I am not using the best possible chart for the scenario and am actually overcomplicating things.

Just a friendly reminder to read every single word throughout the stimulus and the answer choices. I blind reviewed this question for FAR too long and ended up not really seeing a clear difference between any of the answer choices. When something is not adding up and you feel like you are just throwing a dart between two answer choices - you are doing something wrong. As obvious as it sounds, misreading something or glossing over, just as I did, will be detrimental to the whole question.

What I did was gloss over the word "urban" several times while reviewing and my brain just translated it to "rural" for some reason. This one word completely changed the entire questions for me.

But anyways, READ EVERY WORD.

“Some anthropologists argue that the human species could not have survived prehistoric times if the species had not evolved the ability to cope with diverse natural environments. However, there is considerable evidence that Australopithecus afarensis, a prehistoric species related to early humans, also thrived in a diverse array of environments, but became extinct. Hence, the anthropologists’ claim is false.“

Could someone please show me verbatim how to diagram the entire passage Via formal logic and cross reference the mismatched terms that the author used in order to draw the false inference. According to the question it is a mistaken reversal and I am very comfortable diagraming up until the term “however”, after that I got so confused as to what the author was trying to translate.

Now if I’m not mistaken Jy mentioned that because the the author concluded that “the anthropologist Claims were false

ANTHRO CLAIM

“If survive ———-> Cope”

AUTHOR CONCLUSION

“Not survival ——-> Not Cope”

Are those the 2 conditional statements that conflict, that make this entire passage a mistaken reversal ?

Also please keep in mind I kind of dis regarded the premise right above the conclusion because the verbiage is confusing as it doesn’t appear to be a conditional statement that I can diagram

#HelpPlease

Hey everyone, need some help here. The sufficient assumption questions are giving me a pretty hard time. I was curious where I should go back to and review that might help me with these ? I was going through the CC quite fine, Everything leading up to SA made percent sense, including the SA lesson itself. Even the general approach to these questions I found understandable.

But as soon as the actual practice questions started I have never felt more out of the loop. I find converting the questions into Lawgic quite difficult.

Any advice, on what to review or areas that might be a weak link that are making this question type difficult for me ?

Thanks !

Is anyone good at answering these? This question type is the one i am have the most trouble with. How should I approach it? As a strengthening or a SA? Is there a better way to answer these?

Hi,

I keep getting stumped with the difference between trivial and non-trivial inferences. I keep going back to the videos and the quizzes, but I can never tell the difference.

How do you guys think about the difference between them?

Hi guys,

Here is the gist: I have a scientific background and tend to do well on science passages. I suck at art and humanities passages.

It seems like I can go -0 pretty easily on 1 and 2 star passages, -1 on 3 star passages, and anything between -2 to -4 on 4 and 5 star passages.

Obviously I have difficulty with the hard and hardest passages. I find that I read the stimulus in about 3:30 minutes and usually that is enough to understand 1 to 3 star passages really well to get most of the questions right. Spend the same amount of time on 4 and 5 star passages though, and I get a lot of questions wrong timed. I know that it is because a) I spin my wheels on difficult questions and b) I did not fully understand the passage.

I know what I have to do in order to address a), but for b) it seems to be a case of... I need to do a drill set/intensive on hard reading comp passages. I went ahead and printed all the 4 to 5 star passages from PT 7 to 35. Going to do them timed and blind review. And then put them away/archive them and redo them after some time has passed. What do you think?

Which approach benefited you?

For sufficient assumption questions I am a bit confused of whether or not we are allowed to use the contrapositives of the argument for the answer. For example if we have

A

B

the link we need to make is A->B but if one of the answers are /B->/A would that be the right answer choice?

Hi I'd like to know how people got better at RC, both in reading skills and getting a better score. Thanks!

Hey guys!

I'm finding that I'm still having trouble really intuitively knowing when my job in Parallel Method of Reasoning q's is to mirror the lawgic/structure of the argument, and when we're being asked to carry that train of thought/conclusion/principle into the answer choices (please don't say it's always about structure; maybe I'm not articulating what I mean correctly, but it's defintily 100% the case (after watching many many of JY's videos) that we're asked to carry the salient claim/reasoning into our selection of answer choice. (Ie. PT17.s2.q24 from Problem Set 3; or PT28.s3.q26 also from set 3).

The second q stem reads "which one of the following arguments is most similar in it's reasoning to the argument above?" Both answer choices seem to emphasize an especially strong match with part of the argument, not just a simple structural match...but the stems don't really do all that much to tell us that.

But after going through the practice sets in the curriculum, I can't seem to accurately/quickly distinguish whether paralleling the pattern of reasoning will refer to finding a parallel conclusion, or more broadly, overall parallel structure.

So sorry if this post sounds beyond confusing--I realize my attempt to articulate my struggle isn't great--but I'm just a little surprised that (if this issue really does exist, and I'm not just creating problems....happens) that it's not distinguished/discussed in the curriculum "as a thing".

N.

Hi everyone,

Now this was a weird parallel flaw question because I feel like there are so many different answer explanations for the answer choices on this question all over the web, and I am not sure which ones are the most reliable. Thus, I felt maybe listing what I thought here would help clarify stuff, and I want to know what people here think (is my reasoning here look correct or not correct?)

What I thought was the flaw: transferring a non-transferrable trait from X to a reproduction of X

A-- right because it matches the flaw (crossed out A during the actual timed test because the trait isn't the same in wording like we see in the stimulus)

B-- wrong because this is a conditional relationship, not an argument

C-- wrong because this is a conditional relationship, not an argument

D-- wrong because we want to see some trait transfer from Jo to Layne, and we don't see that

E-- wrong because being similar is not the same as imitating/reproducing (chose E during my PT because I didn't realize this)

Any feedback would be very much appreciated!

thanks!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-36-section-1-question-21/

https://www.canva.com/design/DAEtBunbgIc/av9yHWZPj4q6_miGTu9FoQ/view?utm_content=DAEtBunbgIc&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link&utm_source=publishsharelink

Please let me know any advice for improvement!

I keep on seeing a trend for myself that I keep on getting inference questions specifically the MSS ones wrong. I think my first issue is that while I identify its an inference I don't realize its MSS and lean towards more of a MBT questions. Anyone have any advice on how to identify and approach these questions? Thanks!

How should I be reviewing logical reasoning questions? I find that just reading the explanation doesn’t seem to help me much? I also go over the questions I am not sure about by reading forums but it hasn’t worked out well

How should I prepare for the lsat? I need some kind of in person interaction, but do not have the funds for private tutoring. I know this is 7sage’s forum, but are there specific courses people could recommend? I tried blueprint and it didn’t work out

Hello! I started my RC section at a -4 on my diagnostic, and I've found that after studying the section, my score has gotten worse- going to a -7 or -8. Does anyone have any advice? Has this happened to anyone before? I wonder if I'm just overthinking the answers.

On my last four pt’s I have gotten -7 wrong on each one. In between each pt I foolproof all games from that specific test and continue to go through tests from 1-35 and the pts I completed recently. I have already foolproofed 1-35 as well. On each test I miss the substitution question, one or two total in the first three games, and then I get killled on the fourth game usually missing three or four. I’m hoping someone could give me some guidance on how to get my misses down on that last game. If I could do that I think I’d be in decent shape. On BR I am able to figure the games out and go -0 to -1, so I think I may just not be picking up on the inferences quick enough. Thanks in advance for any advice or tips you have!

Glad I saw this game with the outlier game types cropping up on current tests! Went in with way to cookie cutter of a diagram on the front end. Incredibly thankful for being able to adapt even tho it wasn't as quick as I would have preferred.

(kind of reminded me of assumptions I made on the multi-tiered car dealership game)

I am averaging mid 160's and targeting 170+ for the August LSAT Flex. I am mainly struggling with Reading Comprehension and finding a technique that works for me. Looking for someone to study this and develop a technique with or someone who knows what has worked for them and can help me out.

Hello,

I noticed that I am having trouble diagramming questions whenever I see the words "some" and "most" appear. In some cases, those words are used to indicate a some or most conditional relationship, but in other cases they are not. I noticed that sometimes I am diagramming some or most relationships where none exist, which is making questions take longer and making them more difficult for me than they really are with my skill/knowledge level. For example, I diagrammed question 22 from section 4 from pretest 70 (not sure if I can copy/paste question on discussion forum) as having some and most relationships when they didn't. When I watched JY's explanation, I realized that that problem should've been so easy, but I diagrammed it wrong. Does anyone have any advice about how to know when a some/most relationship triggers and when it doesn't? Thank you!

Hi everyone,

Wondering if anyone has run into this issue. I've naturally been doing well with LR and RC. The 7sage courses helped me get to about an average of -1 on each of those sections. The problem is that I can't seem to get to a consistent -1 to -3 on LGs. Its especially frustrating given how everyone always talks about how it is the easiest section to learn.

I have used the foolproof method fairly extensively. Having done and redone every logic game from Tests 1 - 78. I can redo the sections and get -1/-0 when I do. I also made a tracker of harder and hardest games from Tests 1-78 and did and redid these until I could do them quicker than the recommended time. I've also redone the LG syllabus and whizzed through all the sections.

The problem is... I still am struggling to rap my head around new harder/hardest questions that pop on tests I haven't seen before, especially if its a miscellaneous game. Sometimes its due to panic but other times I am just genuinely stumped. This seems to happen on every new PT I take.

I am averaging low 170s with about -4 or -5 (sometimes worse) in the logic games. I recognize that I am fortunate o have a high base-line score but I have poured in 200+ hours into logic games and it remains my biggest obstacle to being a consistent mid 170 scorer.

Anyone have any advice or deal with the same issue? I've always been awful at puzzles!

First impression wise, not a bad argument, but we're looking for an AC that shows that despite the fact that broadsides had statements about morals, it doesn't mean that most 17th century people were serious about moral values.

Maybe people back then bought broadsides for other reasons unrelated to those moralizing statements. This is the loophole in our argument.

B - gives us another reason why people bought broadsides: they were drawn to the sensationalized account of crime and adultery rather than to the morals.

B shows that broadsides were also entertaining in nature, not just moralizing.

A - regardless of whether broadsides are of low or high literary quality, they were still moralizing in nature, and people still bought them, but we're still left wondering whether people bought broadsides because they cared about morals or something else.

C - gives us an irrelevant mini history lesson.

D - premise booster. Tells us what we know already, namely that broadsides were moralizing in nature, so it makes sense for the clergy to use the broadsides for moralistic purposes. But we're still left wondering whether the people actually cared about moral values or not.

E - it doesn't matter what well-educated people think or feel about broadsides but how they think about moral values. Also tells us nothing about what the remaining non-well-educated people think about morals, which means we most likely can't justify the "most" statement in the conclusion.

I am having a hard time finding the link for this according to the tutorial video. Anyone have this problem?

Hey guys, did you guys finish Invalid Argument form curriculum? If you did, did you find it helpful?

Thanks guys!

1.By blind reviewing every single question, LSAT students save a lot of time and get their target score faster than students who BR only flags questions, while the latter group of students reviews individual PT quicker and takes more PTs.

Which one of the following, if true, would best reconcile the statement above?

A. Few LSAT students have detailed knowledge of LSAT theories about the relationship between BR and score.

B. By BR every single question, LSAT students are getting a deeper understanding of the material, and reinforce their technic for questions they got right.

D. ... your variant