Hi everyone, I'm looking for a study partner that is doing well on RC (-0-2) and wants to help someone that isn't! Message me if you are interested!

For lawgic, Necessary_"is essential"Sufficient?

The category of questions in logical reasoning that I have had the most trouble with are parallel or analogy questions. I am wondering if it would be worthwhile to, upon coming across them in the test, flag these questions and move on and come back to them at the end of the section. The questions are massive time eaters and I feel like my time could be better spent elsewhere. And even still, I will be coming back to them at the end anyway. I'd love to hear of any insights into this. Thanks.

I'm two days into my LSAT studying and I'm on fundamentals. I'm planning to take the test on June 7 and once more in August if things don't quite go well. I think I have time for this. I just wanted to clarify if this is right:

Premises-Provide evidence

Conclusions-Rely on evidence in order to derive an opinion??

Admin note: Edited. Please do not post threads or comments in all caps. This is against the Forum Rules. Thanks!

This specific topic in LR is the one I struggle the most with, and I’m hoping someone has some helpful tips or advice on how to approach it. Any insights you can share would be greatly appreciated!

Hey all, I've heard various things about RC becoming increasingly difficult over recent tests and wondered if anyone who has recently taken an official test can attest to this? Do the 156+ (previously 90s) tests or the 148-155 (previously the 80s) mirror the current test?

Hi Everyone, I have a question on the main conclusion portion. I read the question and then the paragraph, I know they hide the conclusion, I just struggle to find the keywords. Any advice for me to get faster with these questions?

When going through my wrong answers on a PT, I noticed the reason I got some questions wrong as opposed to others is that my brain gets lazy and neglects my steps when I encounter a stem with a topic I don't like (science) or understand. Are there any ways I can improve on this weakness?

I started out doing really good on weakening questions. When the strengthening questions came into play, they were a bit more difficult. Now that they are intermixing, I am extremely overwhelmed and confused. Any tips?

I'm having trouble translating without claims back into english after using logic. For example:

"There can be no rule of law without individual freedom"

Negate sufficient: ROL ---> IF

But when I read this back to myself, how would I frame it?

"If there is rule of law, then there is individual freedom?" Is that what would work here? Please help!!!

Hi, I am confused on LSAT 29 – Section 1 – Question 16. I don’t understand why we don’t have to assume PIE falls into the group of languages that lacks words for prominent elements. In comparison to LSAT 20 – Section 4 – Question 25, which has a similar structure to this problem, answer choice C would force us to assume that Marianne’s involuntary humming is something that she is aware of, which would undermine the premise, but that assumption makes the answer choice incorrect. Why in this problem can we make the assumption, but the other problem, we cannot?

Thank you!

I almost always do considerably better on the experimental section than on the scored one. Generally speaking, improvement is still happening on LR questions, but it's infuriating for my scores to be somewhat static because I do better on the unscored section. Anybody else experienced this and/or found a fix for it? Is the experimental easier?

Hey everyone, I'm scoring around low 160s and having a lot of trouble with Flaw/Descriptive Weakening questions. Even after reviewing the core lessons, I'm having trouble identifying an approach beyond this test: "1) descriptively accurate 2) describing the flaw." I feel like this approach is vague, and it rarely singles out an answer for me. Anyone have some tricks they can share for approaching those 4/5 star Flaw questions? Thanks.

How should I be reading the target times for RC?

Final bits of crunch prep before the Feb 8th LSAT, and I'm struggling most with worrying about time. I noticed that RC Drills have both a Target Time Goal for the passage AND the questions, so how should I be interpreting the time? Is the target time that's listed under the passage specifically for the passage? and separate from the target times of the questions?

Say, for example, my elapsed time for a passage was 3:33 but the target time is 8:53. That target time of 8:53, does that include the questions for the section as well? or is that solely for the passage itself and I should be taking that and adding the additional target times from the questions to gauge the overall target time for a RC section.

AC that is descriptively correct but somewhat falls short of MP (but isn't completely off)

vs

AC that is stronger than what the passage said (but doesn't contradict), but except that captures the MP

Here's the example of the two

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-121-section-3-passage-2-questions/

AC A and D in Q6 are the example of the former and the latter, respectively.

I believe D is stronger than what it was said in Line 52~53 (Indeed ~ Intention), because

D is saying that "unconscious revelation" is guaranteed to happen, while the passage only gives it as sufficient condition (unconscious revelation → more authority)

Some might say that the passage is actually trying to guarantee "More authority & Unconscious revelation", but I believe it was given as a conditional relationship, because Q10 is to see if we have understood this relationship.

So back to my original question, do ACs like D always win ?

(I know we don't have do look for "perfect" AC when it's "most accurately" question. I just want to know which quality weighs more)

I feel like I'm getting burned by questions that don't use the exhaustive formal logic to solve them.

For example, PT 126 Section 3 Question 14 uses 'most' in a 'most strongly supported' context -- here, validity of invalid/valid argument forms involving 'most' are basically irrelevant, despite the fact that the curriculum exclusively focuses on 'most' in that context. The correct answer choice makes the stimulus more likely, but it doesn't prove validity.

This is a recurring problem across several PT's. For example, see PT 127, Section 2, Question 24. Just like before, pure formal translation and logic doesn't get you the answer. Additionally, see PT 127 Section 1 Question 25. Again, where simply doing 7sage's formal translations and logic doesn't get you the answer. PT 139 Section 1 Question 22 is another example where simply translating 'most' and looking for a 'lawgic' inference doesn't guarantee success. As an additional example, I would argue that in PT 120 Section 1 Question 24 trying to translate the 'most' 'lawgic' actually gets in your way than if you just focus on the other elements of the stimulus.

The curriculum doesn't even cover that there's sometimes a more easily understand application of the word 'most.' For example, PT 119 Section 3 Question 9 uses the phrase 'the most common response' to indicate 'the #1 response.' PT 138 Section 3 Question 4 also involves this verbiage; 'the most polluted cities' are used to indicate 'the top polluted cities.'

There are also questions that reference the word 'most' but in a very irrelevant kind of way (understanding 'most' has very little to do with the reasoning to get the answer right). For example, see PT 131 Section 3 Question 7. PT B Section 4 Question 18 involves the useage of the word 'most often,' and again, formal 7sage lawgic has no answer for how to deal with the application of 'most' in this kind of question..

There are also answer choices that involve your understanding of the application of 'most' with probabilities (and what they can and can't mean). For example, PT 133 Section 3 Question 21. Another example where you need to be confident in 'most''s limitations and strengths as a strengthener is evaluating answer choice D in PT 19 Section 2 Question 18.

PT 151 Section 2 Question 12 involves a very weak usage of the word 'most' to weaken a question.

TLDR: I feel like I don't have a grasp of the word 'most' when it is not used in a formal lawgic context on the LSAT. I find it hard to push out inferences for these questions, especially because the curriculum doesn't really teach 'most' outside of a 'lawgic' context. I added a TON of examples (from across 12 prep tests!) and there are many many more I didn't include. Any advice? Tips? Recommendations? Thoughts?

I am having trouble with MBT questions. This should not be that difficult, but I do not see how the correct answer comes into fruition from the stimulus. Can someone please help.

I know we always say practice practice practice and it will get easier, but I really struggle with reading efficiently on reading comp despite the practice. I am not a fast reader and it takes me a second longer to truly understand a sentence. If I do an untimed reading comp passage, I almost always get every answer correct..... but it will take me like 15-20 minutes. Then, when I do timed, I get almost 50% wrong. Help!! How do I read more efficiently on reading comp?

I'm going through the core curriculum and I got most of the drills from the W/S/E module wrong. it's crazy.

I feel very comfortable with the theory and strategy for this question type but when it comes to drilling, I miss so many of them! What is happening?

Sighh... Guys I'm really struggling with PSAr question types. I understand the idea of "rule and application", and I know the 4 groups for necessary and sufficient indicators, however I am not quite sure I grasp how I am supposed to approach PSAr question types. I frequently end up with two answer choices left where at least one would be correct, but I always pick the wrong one. Ik we should be looking for a rule where the premises in the stimulus triggers the rule, but I keep getting it wrong. Maybe I'm not approaching these properly? Idk, I'm soo confused and frustrated, please SOMEBODY lmk if I'm missing something, or a way to approach these questions🥲.

Hey everyone:) I am just starting my LSAT studying journey, with the intention of taking the exam in June. I have been told about making a Wrong Answers Journal (WAJ), but I wanted some feedback on how others went about it and how it helped them. Did you write down the answers manually? Did you create a doc that you copied and pasted? How did you review the answers during your studying sessions?

Thank you for your feedback and best of luck to everyone on their journey!

I am retaking after getting a 165 on the Oct. test, and I am anxious about difficult LR sections. A predictions video online said that they are adding more formal conditional logic and questions about numbers. Does anyone know of any sections that have more questions like this? I felt like the October test was much more difficult than PTs but it could have also been my anxiety.

I did not initially choose C because the professor never rejected the reasoning in the argument. He simply says that the reasoning should be “discounted”. Am I being too pedantic in this case?

Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

I am almost through the foundations section of the 7Sage curriculum. I do not understand lawgic and I am disappointed in myself. I decently understand it, however when we put it all together to draw valid conclusions, I get lost. Is this normal? Should I move on to the logical reasoning section or relearn everything in foundations?

Hello I am taking the January LSAT next week and I have two questions. I am struggling with flaw questions when its not one of the common flaws listed. I have tried using the piecewise analysis when looking at answer choices, or trying to see if its descriptively accurate and weakens but I am still struggling to get them right. I think I also have issues because I am trying to not negate the premises and conclusions, but some of the correct answer choices does negate them? I think its hard for me to recognize a flaw because I get overwhelmed that there is so many ways to destroy an argument.

I feel like i am missing easy points if anyone has any tips