Even though the question stem doesn't explicitly say "which one of the following could be a *COMPLETE AND ACCURATE* list of people selected" like what most of other questions do, do I still need to automatically assume that the list needs to be complete? Are they the same thing?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-9-section-3-game-3

Hey guys,

I was just looking for some specific PTs, mainly the newer ones, that are available for download and discovered that Cambridge is still licensed to sell PDFs of every PT. They also have some awesome Bundles including one for all Logic Games from PTs 1-70 for $90 (instead of $295 for purchasing them separately). If you don't need all of those but want to do JY's method for the games using PTs 1-35/38 they also have a bundle for that, which is only $42.

Just wanted to share this since I was driving myself crazy using the copy machine every time I wanted to make extra copies for a game from one of the 10 Actuals books I have, which incidentally don't include PTs 1-6, 8 or 17.

Hope this helps!

Happy studies :)

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-75-section-1-question-19

Hi everyone! I am really confused on this question.. I understand how the correct answer (B) explains why the average in the country as a whole went down, but I don't understand how it explains how the average in each region went up.

Any help would be awesome!

Thank you!

Hello 7sages,

I'm confused about such rules as shown in the title, and I will use some of the examples from the PTs

(Spoiler Alert)

1. Exactly twice as many of the film buffs see the Hitchcock film as see the Fellini film

2. At least many French novels as Russian novels are selected.

3. At least twice as many roses as orchids must be used.

I'm quite confused which one is more, hope you can give me some advice, thank you!

Hi guys I am trying the Fool proof method and doing like 3 copy of one game back to back, when I reach 6th try it feels like not only I memorized the inferences but I also memorized questions' already. I will write out all the inferences under timed condition and eliminate all answer choices before reaching the correct answer. But when hit target time (normally one minute less than that) I feel its more memorizing than learning. Am I doing something wrong?

Please advise me to how to get the most out of Fool Proof Method.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-56-section-3-question-21

I understand Jon's explanation on this question, but I was tricked by the question's word choice "revival" in the answer choice (D).

Doesn't "revival" imply that the ballroom dancing had been once popular before?

The passage doesn't mention anything about this.

Probably, I was too nitpicking, but could you clarify this?

Thanks!

I chose B because I thought it weakened the argument showing that it does not matter the amount a person digesting the fiber thus weakening Kyra's claim.

Can someone explain A and B to me?

C) being economical and readily available does not affect Kyra's argument and thus is irrelevant, we only care about how absorption affects mineral absorption

D) calcium intake is discussing new information, bone mass and osteoporosis is irrelevant because it's not even discussed about in the argument/recommendation

E) Strengthens. People are getting fiber from other places which supports Kyra's claim that with the amount recommended people would be more likely to have fiber that is significantly above the recommended intake and affect mineral absorption

PT16-S1-G1, trying to setup the rules with conditionals and having a bit of an issue trying to figure out why Rule 3 " Neither S nor W can be added to the same class as Y" is a biconditional for S-Y and S-W instead of just a single conditional. Biconditionals are either/or/but not both and I cannot for the the life of me back that out from this conditional statement. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I can work out S-->/Y based on group 4 negate necessary but that's all........

Link to question and explanation:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-56-section-2-question-24/

I watched J.Y.s explanation and he says that we're presuming the documents were in fact opened. But, is it really a presumption when the author explicitly says "WHEN the document was opened"? The author says when (in other words "if") the document is opened, then Y results. And then with (A), we're just confirming the sufficient condition, saying yes it was opened. Is that considered an assumption?

I am looking at the LSAT Prep book distributed by Kaplan and I am already confused about the material. (I have not purchased a 7Sage course yet as I'm on the trial, so I hope it is okay that I am already asking questions). The first chapter is about LSAT Reasoning and Levels of Truth (true, false, and possible). I know this may sound stupid since we already think about Levels of Truth in our daily lives, but I'm really not understanding the material based on the way they have worded things...

The book says that possible can be described as "could be true" and "could be false". Can a statement possibly be true and possibly be false at the same time, or is it just one or the other? For example, one "question stem" they gave was "Which of the following must be true?" The analysis was the answer must be true and "Therefore, the four wrong answers must be false, or are merely possible (i.e., could be false)." When they said the wrong answers could be "merely possible (i.e., could be false)", why did they not describe "merely possible" as could be false OR could be true? Is it because a could be true statement can be proven to be false?

Another example is when they ask the question, "Which of the following could be true?" The analysis was the answer could be true and that a "must be true" answer would also fit. Why is this? Isn't a "must be true" answer different from "could be true"? It has already been proven that it is true...

In other words, can a statement possibly be false or possibly be true at the same time, or is it just one or the other? Can a statement ALWAYS "possibly be true" and "must be true" at the same time?

I guess if I am getting tripped up on such a simple concept maybe I should just give up now...I really overthink things...

Thank you!

-Amanda

Most A are C; Most B are C, can we make the link that "some A are B"?

Wondering if anyone has had experience with different approaches to RC passages. I would specifically like to know what notation 'systems' have worked for other people. Thanks!

I watched the video explanation for this, but I don't think I understood it 100%.

I think the author's logic is simplified as farther=brighter=younger but I don't quite understand how a brighter star is supposed to be younger. Is this true in real life? Ha..

Maybe I'm overthinking this problem..?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-20/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-1-question-22/

Can anyone help me restate option B to better understand what it really says? I can't find anything that helps me understand this question.

For mastering the logic games, from what I've gathered, it's suggested to do JY's method for each game by watching the videos and repeating the inferences on blank copies until a firm understanding of each game is reached. However, in doing so won't my scores be affected on my PTs leading up to the test because I will have already seen the games and know how to do them? I'm worried that on the one hand this wouldn't give me a good indication of where my score would really be than if I hadn't previously seen the games, but I'm also worried that if I wait to drill on those games until after I've taken the PTs to which they belong I won't have enough time since it will be closer to the test date at that point.

Hypothetically speaking, if I plan to take PTs 41- the most recently available one (giving me 30+ PTs), should I drill those games before taking the PTs or wait until I take them?

What's the suggested practice for approaching this? I'm definitely aiming for a near perfect score on the games section come June and just want to make sure that whatever prep I do is as effective as it can be.

Hi 7Sagers!

I am scheduled to take the February administration and have a problem. (Don't we all?) For weeks, I've been hitting my target score range (157-160). However, the last two PT's I've taken (74 & 75) have been downhill for me. 150 & 153. (I haven't changed my diet or exercise routines since I was achieving my desired scores). I'm not sure how to handle this/react to it, as the exam is less than two weeks away and the last thing I want to do is postpone taking the exam since I want to apply for Fall admission.

Thanks everyone!

One of JY's reading comp explanations really helped me easily mentally compartmentalize 'than' in complex sentences saving me tons of time (eg whatever thing comes before 'than' is the winner). I am not sure if this even makes sense, but wondering if anyone could share a foolproof method for understanding the word 'against' in sentences?

I am retaking the test for a second time and have just come off an intense run with testmasters, but as you've some people here have pointed out so well, each test prep source has its own strengths/weaknesses. The first time I sat for the test, I was seriously underprepared and scored a 153, which was devastating. After recovering from that, I took up a testmasters tutoring course, and now I'm scoring higher, in the mid to high160's, but my scores on practice tests tend to fluctuate quite a bit and I also tend to struggle with keeping time, so most of these scores are not based on true test taking conditions (I think I'd score much lower in reality because as things are going I rarely tend to finish a section under 35 minutes!). Now I'm tempted to consider pushing back my scheduled test date (February 6th to June 6th) so that I can try out this blind review method... However I should say that I think pushing back the test will only be worth the sacrifice in time if this method is truly likely to help me significantly increase my score (ideally breaking into the low to mid 170's). Do you think I should do it? I would appreciate any thoughts/advice on this!

This is a hard SA question, and I don't see what I am missing. How is answer choice A a sufficient assumption?

My diagram:

(Solution to environmental problem not caused by the government)--->(Major change in consumer habits)--->(Economically Enticing)

Therefore, (Not Economically enticing)--->(Few serious ecological problems solved).

What I am looking for: This is a pretty simply A to B to C argument, and the conclusion as a Not C in it. To link up the chain, say (Not solution to environmental problem not caused by the government)--->(Few serious ecological problems solved).

Answers B-E are way wrong, but I don't see how answer A paraphrases the sufficient assumption at all.

Link: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-2-question-13/

I've noticed that one of my big problems with LG (and there are _many_, are maximum/minimum questions. For example, "the maximum number of Bs that can be in group F is___?" These questions are difficult for me because it's tough to know when I'm getting them wrong. In other words, I don't know when I've done all I can to get to the solution. Now, you might just say, "Run down your rules and make sure you haven't failed anything." Right, OK, but sometimes you do that and you still haven't maximized or minimized because there are other valid solutions that contain more or less of the variable in question. Unfortunately, I don't find JY's videos particularly helpful here because it seems like he just sees the best way to do the problem (and/or he has the benefit of hindsight and an answer key). Are there any actual strategies I can use here, or am I at the mercy of my intuition?

Hello 7sagers, does anyone have any idea how to get the correct answer of question 20 of the second section of logical reasoning from dec 15 lsat? Trying to diagram out the conditionals and am struggling. My tutor couldn't even figure out this question.... JY Ping?? Advice from a logical expert would be greatly appreciated as this question is haunting my dreams!!

I originally signed up for October, but that's just not happening anymore. So I decided to sit out this cycle and study hard throughout the winter. Anyone else considering the February LSAT? Just created a schedule up until the end of January, and would love to connect with others to keep each other accountable.

So I'm am struggling to make improvements in reading comprehension section big time. I was hoping to find a strategy for highlighting/pinpointing certain texts in the passage that are generally (in all likelihood) ascertained in the questions that follow, but I'm not having any luck finding it. The videos tend to highlight the passages as an exhaustive study, which is great, but what I'm looking for is an efficient method to practice with on the PTs. Is there a strategy anyone can recommend?

Also, does anyone know of a list of question types/categories for RC stems, e.g, main point, author's intention, passage structure, etc? The categories used for the LR questions are great, but so far I haven't come across anything that breaks down RC questions.

Thanks guys!

I'm still confused as to how and why Jon's explanation in the video is used to express answer choice A is correct and answer choice C is wrong. I'm not following his logic in the video. Can somebody please explain this? Also there was a comment below the video that there are plenty of old LSAT questions with similar type of errors. I'm not sure, but can somebody point out those questions and the type of error? Thanks.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-1-question-16/

Well I knew I messed up on the Oct. LSAT but not as badly as I actually did.... I scored about 10 points lower than what I was consistently scoring on PTs and now I am a little shell shocked on how to proceed for the Dec. test. I just joined 7sage however I have already done every PT in preparation for the Oct. test. I haven't gone over the actual test yet to see where I messed up, but considering I went from scoring in the upper 160s on practice tests to an upper 150 on the actual test, I'm guessing I just messed up everywhere and would like to chalk it up to just nerves. Does anyone know if its common to just perform poorly on the first LSAT you take? If anyone is/has been in a similar situation or just has any advice at all on how I should proceed I would greatly appreciate it. I've learned that I'm what's known as a "splitter", so I am heavily depending on obtaining the score that I know I can get. Appreciate it