Hi everyone,

Is it possible to compile all the questions you've missed on all past PTs? I thought I could do this using the flagging function, but don't see an easy way to toggle between flagging on individuals PTs and selecting questions to re-try using the Question Bank. Basically, I want to print out and re-test all the questions I've missed in one problem set.

Best and thanks in advance,

Maria

Where in the stimulus do we find support for the fact that zebra mussels MUST be regarded as hazardous waste if they don't transform the waste products they filter and remove? Answer choices D and E seem really close here.

Admin Note: Please use the format "PT#.S#.Q# (G#) - brief description of question."

I am trying to understand how to tackle reading comprehension blind review and practice drills for radical improvement. I do understand how the memory method is supposed to work as a process but I need to prioritize or do something. I find myself alternating with speed reading and not fully connecting referential phrasing dots to meet the 3 (mostly ends up being 4 1/2 minted still) then getting a poor understanding of the passage overall. Or reading for clarity as J.Y. does in explanation videos, trying to mimic real-time imagination strategies , then killing more time. Both resulting in about 10 to 13 minutes per passage. Which one do I prioritize? Should I focus on better reading then time will automatically fall in line with confidence? Or am I missing the point altogether? #help Pleaseee. Thank you in advance.

Why can’t we have a class on just conditional chains?

Hi All,

The last sentence of the paragraph 2 reads: '...they argue that as the quality of black schools improved relative to that of white schools....'

J.Y. explains that from this, we cannot infer whether the quality of white schools remained the same, improved, and decreased. I understand this, but am wondering what the different interpretations of the sentence would be in the 3 scenarios.

What I think (assigning numbers as indicators of 'quality'):

Say the white schools originally were 10, black schools 5.

(1) In the case that white schools improved to 15, the net increase in quality for them would be 5. Therefore, whatever increase in quality of the black schools would have to be greater than +5, whether it be 11 or 12 (must be at minimum 11)

(2) In the case that white schools remained the same, then black schools can increase in any amount (but given the context of the passage, unlikely that it would supersede that of the white schools' original, 10)

(3) In the case that white schools decreased, say to 8 (so -2), black schools can increase in any amount, say 1, because that is still a greater than a -2.

Before J.Y.'s explanation, what I thought (1) would be meant if white schools improved to 15 (+5), black schools would also increase by +5 to 10. If this were the case, would the sentence have read: '...they argue that as the quality of black schools improved in parallel to that of white schools....'?

Please let me know what you think!

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-15-section-1-passage-4-passage/

I originally put A, I now understand why A is wrong. But I don't really understand why D is the right answer choice and what it means by "supposed class allegiance"

Hi, friends. I had a lot of trouble understanding the clay tablets passage in PT 74 and I'm wondering if anyone can think of or dig up any similar passages. It seems straight-up descriptive to me, like a history lesson, rather than posing a position or a hypothesis or theory. It only helps so much to reflect on this one example. Anyone?

Goal: To further refine my process of elimination (P.O.E.) and answering skills for LR by building a crowd-sourced taxonomy of techniques.

How you can help me (and all other 7Sages): Contribute your favorite(s) below. Be sure to mention...

Here are two examples:

EXAMPLE A:

EXAMPLE B:

The more people that reply, the better we'll all get!

Dear friends,

I just missed your group study on Jan 8th. Here is one question I don't know why C is the best answer to Q13.

As the two sentences are responses from Bordwell in proving musicals still fit into his theory, he mentioned that first musicals are derived from live theater, second, a structure from other genre makes viewers prepare for and thus accept them realistic. The author then attack him that "pigeonholing genres" is not necessary for viewers in watching films. So that is choice C is another way saying that "pigeonholing genres" is unnecessary? Thank you for helping me out.

Admin note: edited title

Hello! Wondering if anyone can offer some insight on where the textual basis is for the correct answer "B." I selected "C" as the answer with the assumption that comments about racism by a Communist Party Organizer would implicitly attack white chauvinism and also denote some sort of involvement in African American issue politics. I was not convinced that this was direct enough evidence, so am open to answer B but am curious where the direct support lies. Is the support the "cautiousness" and desire to appeal to moderates referred to by the author? Thank you for the help!

Taking all suggestions before the January LSAT!

Im drilling between preptests and I have been "drilling" but instead of doing new questions i focus on all the question types I have done in my previous preptests. Has anyone else done this before? Is it effective? or should I focus on material I havent seen before from earlier preptests? or both

I need help to understand when to switch & negate a valid conclusions on contrapositives. The videos from Invalid Argument Forms are confusing and are just not clicking. When I think I know how to "draw valid conclusions w/ transitions AND w/ intersection statements" I suddenly don't and don't know what I'm doing wrong. Can anyone suggest the videos or any other methods to review to understand the material?

Ever since we got to this section, I've been confused.

Hi everyone :). I would really appreciate some advice on the LR section of the LSAT. I have studied the LR section of the exam through 7 sage+ LSAT trainer. I have recently done around 5 sections untimed sections from multiple tests. I have been scoring around 15-16/25-26. I would really like to increase that score. I am wiring the exam in October and I want to get around 21-22 questions right under timed conditions. I was planning to keep doing full sections after sections till my score increases, and then time myself. I am also making sure that I read the explanation for why I am getting the questions wrong. I wanted some advice. Should I continue to do individual sections ? Or should I review the LR curriculum again ?

Thank You :)

Nimra

As the October test is fast approaching, I have been focusing on what has now become my weakest section, reading comprehension. I miss at best -9 questions, and usually do not finish within the time restraints or end up overlooking details because I am rushing. I would like to reduce this number to at least -7, preferably -5. Does anyone have any tried and true techniques they use tackle the passages? I tried focusing on three passages, but I have seen very inconsistent results with that method (I did score 21/27 one time, probably lucky!)

Hi there!

So I finally started getting to all four a couple of weeks ago, which was really exciting for me (I'll do a write up on the 7sage forum posts that made that possible for me after Sat). What I've noticed in this last week however is, that I'm not getting to the last two or so questions (sometimes). I'm wondering if that's because of my policy of saving the comparative passage for last? There's no particular reason for it, it was something a fellow 7 sager mentioned he did because they gave him trouble and so I tried it out (though I haven't noticed the same issue in my takes). Sometimes I do it last because the comparative has fewer questions than the remaining passage (less point potential), but sometimes I just do it automatically rather than waste time thinking about it mid test, and I've almost been too afraid of losing the progress I've made to try the other way (I know, it's not something I should be afraid of and yet). Problem is, sometimes I get to the last passage with not much more than 5 min left. Maybe 6.5 or so. So I wanted to ask what you all thought. If I did the comparative passage earlier, do you think I would be able to get to more questions?

I don't understand why the answer choice is not A?

Does anyone know where you can practice translating for English to logic for inference questions. For example a bunch of question stems for practice and we translate them to logic.

lsat9.s2.question-16.misc

Hi, I'm working through the drills for Psets 1-9 and since there aren't videos I thinks it's a win-win for me to type up the solutions to the ones I get wrong. Would appreciate if fellow 7Sager's could ground or critique my logic.

Type: MBF

Conclusion: cannot have something legally permissible and immoral (note: they used 'inconceivable'... I'm taking a leap by making converting that to cannot. Is this ok ?)

Lawgic:

cannot group four, negate immoral and we get

Legally Permissible -> Moral

Morally wrong -> Legally impermissible

(A) Says the law does not cover all circumstances of moral wrongs. But from stimulus, if something is morally wrong then it is necessarily legally impermissible, which means that it is covered by the law. Correct MBF answer choice

(B) never group four, negate legally impermissible: Morally excusable -> legally permissible....this is saying that legally permissible acts are morally good, tricky language using the negations and word 'excusable' makes it a good trap answer choice. but definitely could be true

(C) Could be true. stimulus says nothing about gov officals

(D) Could be true. unrelated

(E) Could be true. Moral permisability has nothing to do with burdens on the economy

Admin note: edited title

So I am learning Logical reasoning through the book "The Loophole". So it says that "Your loophole and resolution have to be powerful" and "Your inference and controversy have to be provable" But then when I got to the Provable question stem section it said that the question stems-- conclusion, NA, Method, Argument part, The flaws-- all used loophole. Can someone please explain this? I don't understand.. because the book initially said that loopholes have to be powerful.

Is there a summary of all of the different question types for LR that briefly explains the strategy for handling each of them? I am not opposed to putting one together myself, but if there is already one available, well then that saves me some time!! Thank you.

I got this one right in BR, but would like an explanation as to why it is the best answer.

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [first set of words]"

Hi, can anyone elaborate on the math that J.Y. does in this problem in the explanation video? I’m still confused on how he got 200 for one aspect of it.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

Let me know if you’re in the Bay Area and would love to study? I’m having such a hard time with the LR section!!

Currently in middle of LG part of CC. I hear a lot of talk about foolproofing the "LG bundle". What are people on the starter package supposed to foolproof? Any advice appreciated. Thanks!