This is a sufficient assumption question but one of the forums I read to understand answer choice (A) explained that NEGATING (A) would demonstrate it to be a sufficient assumption. I totally see that negating (A) would weaken the argument, but I thought we use negation test for necessary assumption questions ...or am I not aware of some exceptions? I know that for some flaw questions that contain "takes for granted/assumes that" language, you can negate the answer choices, but I never heard of using negation test for sufficient assumption questions.

Soo... lets get hooked on phonics here. Anyone else have an "LSAT" voice in your head that dictates how you read/interpret an answer choice?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-36-section-1-question-13/

Did anybody else read “E” and interpret “this" period as the period of November rather than the entire period of September – November? I picked E because I read it as an outside factor, occuring in November that caused the break up

I dont know if I’m just misreading the referential phrasing or if this could be argued to be a bad question. Thoughts?

Hello again

So, still stuck in the 165-169 window after 6 full PTs with an extra section added into the first 3.

My highest LR priorities given my analytics are

Flaw/Descriptive Weakening (1.2)

I was unfamiliar with the flaws and their manifestations

RRE (1.0)

was not grasping the nature of the issue, thereby not being able to find something that would actually explain it

PSA (0.9)

wasn't treating them enough like SA questions, and often skipped these

MSS (0.8)

forgot to see what was actually supported by the stimulus and making massive assumptions in my ACs

NA (0.7)

forgot to bridge/block

So, after my PT last weekend I stepped back and reviewed the relevant curriculum and webinars in order to give myself a refresher, and I will start drilling LR sections during my lunch breaks and after work on the days I'm not doing a PT/BRing.

Any thoughts about this and/or advice would be greatly appreciated

Hey guys,

I had a small hiccup with this redo and it cost me a point. I thought that the antibiotic has the option of one, two or three in, not 2 max since the first rule is conditional. If I put three in antibiotic, one in dietary regimen, I figured I could put one in phys therapy. I'm not sure what exactly I can look for to come to the conclusion that there is 2 max.

Please help.

Nanch

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-4-game-4/

General rule: If a sub category has only one in/out spot, split the game board based on filling that spot, no matter how many worlds comes out of it most probably solve the game or reveal a huge inference.

Context Info: I got serious problem with In/Out game with sub-categories and freeze when I see one so I try to come up with general rules to apply in case I freeze. I would be grateful if you could give me some feedback and tell me what do you think about the rule. If you can think of a game that this rule does not apply to it please mention in comment so I can redo the game.

I am currently working on the weakening questions of this course. I ran into a lot of situation where the ACs have the word "SOME" in them. Sometimes the AC weakens the argument and sometimes it doesn't. I am so confused now. Could someone help me with it? Or is there a summery of this "SOME" word somewhere?

Thanks in advance!

This isn't how I imagined making an impression to the 7Sage community haha.

I decided back in January of this year (2016) that I was going to take the LSAT and use that as a gauge of determining if I should go to law school or not. After taking ten tests over two months (I have since lost the book, so I have no idea which tests they were) I saw my score hovering somewhere between 144 and 146. I decided to enroll into a course, and Test Masters came highly recommended. I dropped a paycheck and a half on it, and thought that I could get my score up in three months for the June LSAT. My goal was to score 160+ using their methods.

I'm not saying that the Test Master's method does not work. I will say it does not work for me. I feel as though I'm the worst person in the class (probably not though). Half the class is scoring well into the upper 150s and lower 160s. One individual is scoring into the 170s. Meanwhile... I've taken and scored the following on each of these tests:

PT62 (March 15, 2016) - 145 - No BR.

PT63 (April 16, 2016) - 144 - No BR.

*Introduced to 7Sage, thus BR*

PT56 (April 22, 2016) - 147 - BR 157

PT58 (April 27, 2016) - 149 - BR 159

PT65 (April 30, 2016) - 146 - BR 158

PT59 (May 2, 2016) - 144 - No BR Yet...

Honestly, just the Blind Review has helped me more than any amount Test Masters has. The BR shows me where I could be scoring if my mind was quicker to process the questions.

However, the last two tests have crushed my spirit. I thought it was a fluke, but now it's looking like an actual problem. With the June LSAT five weeks away, now is not a good time to be in a score dive. By now, I was hoping to be scoring into the lower 150s. I've already decided that I'm taking the June LSAT unless they cancel it, but I'm also prepping for the September LSAT as well. I may decide to just wait until next year to go to take the LSAT. I did not realize how difficult this test was to study for, and that I'm not able to get where I want to be within three months.

Unfortunately, nobody that I communicate with (save for my boss who is a lawyer, but he doesn't have time for my rants) on a regular basis understands the pains of the LSAT. They understand it's hard. However, they do not understand just how hard it is, and how much difficulty I have with it. Which is why I'm here - ranting to people who are studying for it just like me.

I know that I do need to do a BR of PT59, but I needed to get away from that test. I'll get the BR done on Wednesday. Tuesday and Thursday are Test Master classes, which are four hours long and take all of the time I should be using for BR.

I appreciate your good thoughts and listening to my rant. Thank you. I feel much better now.

Hey everyone,

I've been focussed on drilling for the past month, and have realized that many stimuli are used multiple times in different tests, with different question stems. Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering...

Does anyone know why the writers of the LSAT reuse stimuli instead of writing completely new stimuli?

And secondly, has anyone noticed stimuli from earlier tests reappearing in more recent tests? The latest PT I've taken is 66 and I'm just curious if I might see older stimuli in the newest tests, but with different question stems.

I know this isn't really important - just curious.

[deleted]

Cannot for the life of me understand this rule:

"K is advertised during one of the first two weeks."

Doesn't this mean that K cannot be in weeks 3 or 4? Wouldn't K being in either 3 or 4 (which it does, as per J.Y.'s explanation) break that rule that K has to be in the first two weeks? Am I taking this rule way too literally or something?

Thanks y'all!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-1-game-4/

JY is recommending reading the LR question stem first and figure out what question type it is before moving on the the stimulus, which I fully agree and find useful.

However, there are some question stems referring to a specific part of the stimulus and it probably won't make sense if you read it first. (here is an example where JY recommends returning to the questions stem later: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-4-question-05).

So, my question is, what to do with an LR question stem that has a lot of contextual information? Do I just stop thinking about it if I found the question stem containing too many contextual information? Or do I try to figure out a bit what is going on, who the question stem is referring to, etc. and carry the question stem when reading the stimulus? For example, in the example above, should I just skim the question stem and return to it later after reading the stimulus, or should I try to figure out that I am going to support Zimbabwe's argument and then read the stimulus?

I have this book, "Ace the LSAT Logic Games" and I can't seem to find any online explanations for the games in here because they don't mention which PT they're from and googling key words is not bringing up anything in search results. One I'm having a particular hard time with understanding is a game that has to do with spa sessions involving mud, kiwi, lime, and nutrient treatments. If anyone can explain why K has to be first in this game, I would really appreciate it. It seems to be the source of why I'm not getting certain questions right. Just can't wrap my head around it.

Also, if anyone knows how to figure out which PT's are in this book so that I can search for additional help online, that would be great.

Thank you

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-52-section-1-question-25/

From a common sense stand point, the necessary assumption makes sense.

So because blah blah is injurious to democracy, then legislators should not do something. Why should the legislators not do something? Because it is injurious to democracy.

So if the legislator does do that “something,” then it is blah blah injurious to democracy.

But what is the correct way to diagram using logic?

A -> -B.

B -> -A? (But this can’t be right, because “-A” would mean that blah blah is not injurious to democracy…

So I was watching a thing on Netflix about algorithms and, all of a sudden, the guy starts explaining what I think I recognize as the weird game from PT 77. I checked it out, and sure enough: It’s a really simplified version of the Gale-Shapley algorithm which won a Nobel Prize in 2012. I don’t know anything about algorithms, but I wonder if there are other well known algorithms that could appear in the games. I think some basic, common algorithms would make for a really interesting and potentially somewhat relevant study. Certainly a familiarity with the Gale-Shapley algorithm would have made 77 G3 a breeze. It’s probably a bit far reaching to include in LSAT study proper, but I think it would be an interesting side project that could develop some relevant skills and teach exactly the kind of abstract thinking which is so important on Games and especially when weird games pop up.

So anybody know any cool algorithms they think would be worth checking out?

Hey Guys,

Needed some help with diagramming a couple of sentences into lawgic and their contraceptives.

1. If Aliens or Ghosts are in the house, then Tim and John are not in the house...Is the info I have written below correct?

- The way I have diagrammed this is like: A or G --> /T and /J. Taken further, this becomes: A --> /T, A --> /J ; G --> /T, G --> J. If Aliens are in the house, then Tom is not there. If Aliens are in the house, then John is not there. If Ghosts are in the house, then Tom is not there. If Ghosts are in the house, then John is not there.

- Contrapositive: T or J --> /A and /G. Taken further, this becomes: T --> /A, T --> /G ; J --> /A, J --> /G. If Tom is in the house, then Aliens are not the house. If Tom is in the house, then Ghosts are not in the house. If John is in the house, then Aliens are not in the house. If John is in the house, then Ghosts are in the house.

2. Totally confused about diagramming "Tom will play really well for his soccer team if John or Bill, but not both, play on the same team as him."

I understand that John or Bill, but not both will be diagrammed as /J (--) B, where contrapositive is J (--) /B. But how do I diagram the info about Tom. Is this correct? /J (--) B --> T? If yes, what will be the contrapositive?

Thanks for your help, as always.

I tried this game for the second time after a five months period, I got all questions right just under the target time but I spent nearly two minutes looking at the conditional rules to find some kind of deep inference which was a huge waste of time. Is it ever a good idea to look for deep inference when there are already like lots of conditional rules. I am not really sure when to stop and hit the questions. Do you have any rule of thumb that could help?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-3-game-4/

When doing games, I like to attempt to solve as many probabilities as possible before going on to the questions. In short, spend time upfront in order to save time when answering questions.

However, after doing four or more boards, I begin to realize that there are too many probabilities to solve in order to complete the game in a good time.

My question is, are there any clues to look out for to help me not attempt to solve all probabilities?

How can you tell that it is not better to try to solve everything up front????

Okay, BR-group people, don't get at me for this one (though I won't blame you if you do)... but I missed this question in my personal blind review, which was before the 4/23 BR group and didn't catch it until afterwards. I initially selected "A" but changed my answer to "D" during my blind review.

My issue with "A" was that I didn't see the astronomer concluding "there is evidence against [the hypothesis that life evolved extraterrestrially]" but that the hypothesis could be regarded as false simply because proponents of it only had evidence against another hypothesis and no evidence to support their own hypothesis. Is this in itself the "evidence"? In the final half of "A," what is the word "evidence" in "that there is evidence against that hypothesis" referring to exactly?

Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-1-question-09/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-23/

Here is my conditional reasoning:

teachers are effective ------> when they help students become independent learners

teachers have power to make decisions in their own classrooms ------> enable their own students to make their own decisions

become independent learners -------> students' capability to make their own decisions

teachers are to be effective --------> have power to make decisions in their own classrooms

Apparently my conditional reasoning in line two is incorrect??

But I don't understand why it would be.

"Yet not until teachers have the power to make decisions in their own classrooms can they enable their students to make their own decisions."

This looks like: Not until TD can they enable SID

"until" is group 3, negate sufficient

So negate "not TD" which would make it just TD and keep it in the sufficient spot which would turn to TD --> SID.

But this screws up the chain.

Can someone explain?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-1-game-2

I watched the explanation for this game and am struggling with why in the set up you can not assume that HIRED equals INTERVIEWED (i.e., that they are interchangeable terms), since interviewing is a required condition for hiring?

I interpreted the corresponding rules to be just attempting to confuse me and depicted all hires as, by default, interviewed in my rules interpretation, e.g., I interpreted rules 4 and 5 to be combined as: F-K-M (if F then K then M). But clearly this does not work in the execution of the game!!!

Why is this not a valid interpretation?

I was wondering if anyone could help me out here. Always had trouble understanding this concept.

1. Say I am negating [A and B]. I know this turns to [/A or /B]. Does this or mean that BOTH A and B are out? I know it means either A is out, or B is out but can both possibly be out?

2. Conversely, if I was negating [/A and /B], I know this becomes A or B. Does this or mean that BOTH A and B could possibly be in? I know it means either A is in, or B is in, but can both possibly be in?

Not entirely sure when the "inclusive" or applies or not. Thanks a lot guys!

I'm having trouble applying contrapositives because in many instances they seem like bunk. Specifically, it seems like they require unsupported assumptions other than those that can be derived from game rules. Here is an example:

A group of three must be selected from the variables, A, B, C, D, & E:

1. If C is not selected, then B is not selected

2. D and E cannot both be selected

3. In order for A to be selected, B must be selected.

According to the study guide that I'm using, the contrapositive of rule 1 is, if B -> C. As I see it, although B -> C may be true there is nothing that requires it to be true. To my mind and contrary to the contrapositive of rule 1, it is also possible, although not required under the rules that if B is selected then C is still not selected. That being said, contrapositives are a proven concept and its unlikely that I'm right and my study book is wrong, so what am I missing, what systematic leap in logic am missing to make the concept of contrapositives useful on the LSAT? Thanks

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-2-passage-1-passage

Hi everyone -

I'm currently working on Reading Comprehension and am working through The LSAT Trainer. In Lesson 35, an art passage from PT 29 is dissected.

My question is about question #6. Though I understand that the author did not agree that the work of pre-World War I painters had the power to predict social changes (and therefore why this is the correct answer choice), I do not see how answer choice D can be said to have been shown in the passage. Mike Kim writes in his explanation that the author did say that artists had the power to anticipate later artists in the second paragraph, but I don't see how this was stated or can even be inferred. "Developments in the arts" does not equal "anticipation of later artists." Arts ≠ Artists. Maybe he is seeing something that I'm just not seeing, but I would love to understand how he got to this conclusion.

Am I just being too critical of the words here?

Any input is appreciated!

Oh and a PS to anyone who is unsure about buying The LSAT Trainer - it's helped me increase my practice test scores by 16 points but more importantly it's helped me to form better habits for understanding why answer choices are right/wrong and what exactly each question type demands - which none of the other prep books did for me.

Hi 7sagers! I've sent out a few study buddy requests but am not having much luck. Is there anyone in Europe (for time zone purposes) that would like to set up some skype study dates? I'm taking the June 2016 LSAT and scoring around around the 160 range in prep tests. Let me know if anyone is interested!

I have been studying logical reasoning stimuli that include a sentence about what someone OTHER than the author says, usually near the start of the paragraph. I call these the "some people say" statements. They are different from "expert testimony," which supports the conclusion. These "some people say" statements do NOT support the conclusion. In fact, after looking at them carefully, it looks like almost every conclusion in a "some people say" stimulus is a simple negation of the "some people say" statement.

I like the term "antithesis" for these statements, since the "thesis" of the stimulus is the conclusion and the "some people say" text is the logical opposite of that.

Admin: Removed link to blog. Please read rules on advertising:

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion#/discussion/15/forum-rules

I would love to know if anybody can find any counterexamples to this "some people say" rule. If not, then it would provide a simple and teachable logical reasoning shortcut. Just "find the anthithesis" near the top of the stimulus, negate it, and find the evidence to support that negation. It's easy to find if you know what you're looking for.