Hi everyone,

I first started studying for the LSATs about a year ago, and have taken the LSAT 3 times since then. I plan on applying this year.

Nov 2018: 161

Mar 2019: 161

Jul 2019: 163

I had been consistently PTing at 165+ since May, but my digital July testing center had issues which I know affected my performance. I'm planning on taking the test one more time in November, and since I have another shot, I was hoping to tackle the 2 things that have consistently brought my score down: flaw + argument part question types.

I can tell you all 19 flaw types and I can tell you exactly what the highlighted argument part phrase/sentence is doing in an argument -- in my own words. My problem is the freaking answer options... I feel like 95% of the time I have a hard time understanding what the answer options are actually saying. Is it just me or has anyone else struggled with this? I have generally taken the strategy of skipping those questions and coming back to them, but now that I've (literally) bought myself another opportunity, I thought I'd try to master these.

If you are a tutor and think I could benefit from a session with you, please let me know! I'm open to tutoring at this point as well.

Thanks!

FW

I was told from previous test takers that we can select dates under different country for flex tests

can anyone confirm this?

Just kills me on the inside when I can rock the tough ones and I miss the super easy ones according to 7Sage :)

Whats up

Admin. note: Did you mean to send a direct message instead? Use Discussion > Discussion Inbox to send a direct message.

Hello

Any suggestions? I am able to get my wanted score only in BR.

On June it will be my 4th attempt.

I've been really trying to study LG for the Jan LSAT. The problem I'm having is that I understand the rules but I diagram the rules/inferences different then JY, thus I get questions wrong or questions take me forever to do. For example on Preptest 5 Game, I wrote the classes down and distributed the grades. While JY in his video did the opposite. If I use JY's diagram, every question goes by extremely fast. How can I get better at diagramming games that I am seeing for the very first time?

I can't understand why C is the right answer.

I mean if Stilgoe's case would have been stronger if he used these sources then would that it indicate that their view was more negative towards the railroad then the other writers?

Based on this reason, that's why I chose E, but it turns out E is wrong.

I'm stuck in this question.

Can anyone tell me how C is right and E can't be an answer?

Thanks!

Necessary condition" Fear of retaliation --> Deter attack/military deterrence

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

Does anyone know how to access the giant web outline with all the components that the guy uses through the LR sections it looks like a massive web I would really like access to it to see all the essentials components outlined on a visual field.

Anyone near the Charleston area willing to study together? I find I focus more when I'm with someone else studying together and none of my friends can help me.

I do very well on LR questions but always trip up in one of the following situations:

Want to make sure I'm thinking through this correctly. C is right because it suggests the incorrectness of a premise, that the reason that Peter's actions are more blameworthy than Alicia's. The relevant part of C is just that Peter's running a red light, an illegal action, caused the action that caught the police's attention. I'm struggling to figure out whether the part of C that says that Alicia took extra care to avoid police noticing her contradicts the premise that there's a diff in the blameworthiness. I would argue that it doesn't, but I want to ensure that I've nailed down the important part of the correct answer choice.

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

Hi everyone,

I'm currently reviewing PT 37 that I completed yesterday and I'm on section 2 #12. Even watching JY's video, I'm still a little confused about the "cannot" and "without" in the stimulus. Anyway, I was just wondering-- what do you do when you have two indicators but they're in different groups? Or the way that JY presents it, maybe we're disregarding the "without" for being in group 3? And we're just treating it as a "no"?

I mean, either way, for the two indicators in one sentence issue--I feel like there was a lesson on this or that it was mentioned somewhere, but I can't seem to find it. If anyone could let met know or let me know what lesson it was in, that'd be great. And if you can further explain #12 I'd really appreciate it too! Thank you! :) Happy studying!

Hi all, I started doing timed past tests but can't finish LG sections (LR and RC are fine). Should I come back and finish the leftover LG questions untimed but continue doing the rest timed? How should I go about doing timed prep tests now?

for those interested: https://harvardlawreview.org/2021/03/turning-neighbors-into-nuisances/

Hello,

Here is my analysis for question 17 in section 3 for prep test 72. This is a weaken question; therefore, I wanted to weaken the connection between the premises and the conclusion.

Argument Analysis:

Premises:

Individuals who get injured due to unsafe actions not only cause injury to themselves but also can put financial and emotional burdens on others who they are close with.

Conclusion:

The Government is vindicated in making actions that are considered risky to one’s health illegal, in order to guard other people’s interests.

Prephrase:

Just because something that could be injurious to one individual and that brings pain to their family is not grounds for outlawing it. Think about it this way, just because trampolines can cause you harm and make your family pay your hospital bills doesn’t mean that this is grounds to ban using them.

Answer Choices:

A. This supports the argument because it further justifies why it would feasible to implement the law. The reason is due to the fact that it shows how putting a burden on the people you have close ties to constitutes harm to oneself.

B. This doesn’t weaken because just because we have an obligation to not injure ourselves doesn’t mean that we won’t injure ourselves. For example, one may have an obligation to not eat their sister’s last piece of chocolate cake; however, is that obligation strong enough to prevent us from eating it? Probably not.

C. This strengthens because it meets the necessary condition of posing a financial burden to the family.

D. This weakens it entirely because entirely wipes out the evidence that the argument provided for the conclusion. If the evidence is not sufficient than the conclusion is not entirely justified to be true.

E. Again, just because you have an obligation doesn’t mean that it will guarantee that people won’t do it. The person could easily say, well this law will just affirm this obligation.

Honestly, I wish I hadn’t gotten this question wrong. I had originally picked B because I assumed that because one has an obligation to not do something that they won’t do it. But, how many obligations have we had that we have broken? Conversely, D shows that the evidence that the person gave does not completely bolster the argument for instituting the law.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-3-question-17/

I would love someone to help me with the understanding the underlying flaw. I have seen this stimulus type, and it seems very cookie cutter for me. In my understanding, the argument's flawed reasoning is that the argument assumes that 1. warmer air increases humidity, and 2. that the only thing that can cause an increase in rainfall is an increase in temperature of warm air. However, I am seeing some other patterns, it goes from a probable modality (using tends to be humid) to a highly likely modality (in the conclusion).

Admin note: added link

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-2-question-17/

Hey guys,

I speak primarily to those who have done foolproofing and put all their heart into improving LG for a long time but still struggle with the games.

I have foolproofed the games again and again for the last twelve months but whenever I face a fresh game section, I struggle very much with registering new rules into my head and pushing out inferences.

I have come to accept LG as my main weak point, contrary to the popular opinion that LG is the easiest section to improve.

Although I have been down in the lonely dumps on numerous occasions, I have not given up improving LG. The progress has been painfully slow, but practicing games is better than not doing games.

That is my LG philosophy and I no longer beat myself up too much for losing so many precious points on this section.

If you are in the same boat as me, you are the unicorn I've been searching for. Let us not be disheartened but continue doing what we can to minimize the damage in LG.

And I'm beginning to think that it is possible to score well on this exam without having the mastery on the logic games that has been so elusive to me. It is not the end of the world to suck at LG. My realistic goal is to suck less each day.

I believe in us. Let us keep at it!

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-04/

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

*The kind of question this is:* Weaken

*Premise(s):* Marijuana has THC → THC has been found to inactivate herpesvirus (IH) → IH can convert healthy cells into cancer cells.

*Conclusion:* Marijuana can cause cancer.

*What I am looking for:* extra information that we didn’t know about marijuana and its correlation with THC.

*Answer A:* No. That strengthens the argument by showing that scientists had a consensus and the same results.

*Answer B:* Yes. There is information we did not know about marijuana and how it neutralizes THC.

*Answer C:* No. That strengthens the conclusion.

*Answer D:* No. Great, but that is only an “IF.” It would still stand that marijuana causes cancer.

*Answer E:* No. Marijuana is beneficial to cancer patients, but it would still cause cancer for none cancer patients.

Hey guys! 166 June, wanted 170+. It's nice to say "okay, I'm going to law school," but MAN--I wanted a higher score! I was scoring 170s on PTs, so I'm shook. What can I do to study for August? I've already put 200 hours into this test.

I am having a hard time between Option A and E.

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

Did anyone else move immediately away from A because of the more absolute syntax that was being used? I answered incorrectly in both my regular round AND in blind review...

Admin note: For the community to better assist you, please include PrepTest number, section number and question number in the following format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question"

E.g. PT37.S1.Q12 - Political scientist: Efforts to create a more egalitarian

Seems likely my test center will be closed for this storm on the Gulf Coast, but I haven’t heard anything yet. How much advance is typically given for a test center closing and how would I be contacted? Email?

For those of you who were waiting to take it here. Just stumbled upon it going through problem sets... no explanations yet, but at least it can be added to your analytics now.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/preptests/

Anyone have a sense of general order of difficulty for Logic Games ---- And/Or a plan of attack based on that?

ie If the 3rd or 4th passage Game to be most difficult, then save to the end...

or if two games are equally difficult, save one with least questions for last?

Thoughts?