I'm not sure if any of you have this trouble but I seem to be missing quite a few more questions (2-3) on the first LR section than the second. This is especially prevalent when LR is the first section of the exam. Any suggestions to remedy this?

How is the group 3 or inclusive?? Doesn't negating one element make it exclusive?

For example Jon or Tommy will go to lunch is translated as:

/J -> T

/T -> J

Doesn't that make it so we can only choose one at the expense of the other making it exclusive?

Are the words "all potential" just meant to throw us off?

I am curious to see if anyone can tell me why they use the term "all potential"nuclear reactor sites in such a region.... why did they not just say "nuclear reactor sites in such a region" is the addition of "all potential" just a term to throw us off..... if you removed the word all potential from the stimulus and the answer choices would he question be the same? because to me it just seems that the term all potential is just a label to try and throw us off... because once you mention nuclear reactor sites in such a region.. you already know that you are talking about nuclear reactor sites that are in a geologically quiet region.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-2-question-21/

Hi,

So I'm not sure about the correct answer C...

Why do we have to assume or compare the ancestors to Neanderthals? Why it's required?

Even though we know homo sapiens ancestors of contemporary humans was not significantly more similar to that of Neanderthals than is the DNA of people today, that only means people today was more similar to Homo sapiens when we compared to Neanderthals.

It could be true there are some similarities between ppl and Neanderthals, just not as much as with homo sapiense.

In that case, we cannot conclude homo sapiens did not interbred with Neanderthals (and it could be true both neanderthals and homo sapiens were ancestors of humans).

I'm really confused with C and do not understand why it's required to make the conclusion in the argument (which is they did not "interbreed")

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-1-question-19/

Hello,

I'm having trouble understanding why B is incorrect, and why E is the correct answer.

So originally when going over the stimulus I only found one flaw in the stimulus: The individual players don't tell us about the quality of the team (Parts doesn't equal the whole)

And, I assumed "B" was the correct answer since it kind of described the flaw. "features that are not relevant to the quality of that entity", I guess the features are relevant, but I assumed that those features are not relevant to the overall quality of that entity. Meaning the individual parts can't give us any detail of the quality of the whole.

I don't understand how "E" is the correct answer. Best team most likely to win -> Our club will almost certainly be city champions.....Okay...they have the same transitional conditions...what's wrong here?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-65-section-4-question-26/

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

I have some questions about the proper diagram and meaning of a rule in this in/out game.

Rule 3: "If Yews are not in the park, then either L or O, but not both, are in the park."

- Could someone explain about how to properly diagram this rule (ideally in notation that does NOT involve biconditionals)? I diagrammed it as 2 separate rules (shown below), but I think it only confused me more...

/Y --> L or O (representing 'either/or')

/Y --> /L and /O (representing 'not both')

- If I'm understanding the meaning of this rule correctly, does the contrapositive of this rule basically mean/state that "if both L & O are in the park, then Y is in the park." ? Does the contrapositive of this rule also include "if both L & O are OUT, then Y is IN"?

TIA!

This is a principle question.

I got this wrong in both drilling and blind review.

So I thought I am looking for something that will do the following:

connect the premise to the conclusion

SO, say something about how something that is a health hazard should be banned

My reasoning:

A) This is the one I picked in BR. I thought the phrase "should not be allowed" could be a referent to banned. It could be taking it a bit to the extreme, i.e. making that extra assumption, but to me this seemed like the strongest answer choice.

B) The argument is not about misleading claims, but rather if something is a health hazard it should be banned. This answer choice does not do that.

C) This is stretching the argument to an extreme. This is like saying advertisements for vitamins should include all side effects etc. This answer choice says all health hazards associated with promoted products should be included. The argument says if a product has a health hazard, it should be banned.

D) This answer choice is irrelevant. Conforming to regulations and standards is information that is extraneous and the argument did not address.

E) I thought this was wrong because of the word ban while this answer choice is discussing promoting a product. I guess it could be correct because if it is not a health hazard then it would be healthful. This could be the contrapositive, "if a product does not promote smoking then it is not a health hazard" Then you would take the extra leap and say if it does not promote smoking then it is a healthful product, and you would just ignore the health hazard part since that is no longer relevant.

I'm really confused. In my reasoning, I did not address the "promote smoking" part, maybe that's where I went wrong. I still think this could be a big leap of assumptions. If someone can tell me if my reasoning is valid/reasonable and explain answer choices A and E to me, I would be most appreciative!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-3-game-3/

I have a question relating to conditionals in grouping games.

Although this was a relatively simple game in that L and P are together and G and H are not together, rendering a limited number of combinations, the two conditional statements upon which the more difficult questions depended made the game significantly more challenging.

In the video explanation for this game, instead of diagramming the conditionals in the typical if---> then format, J.Y. instead quickly jotted down the resulting game boards for each conditional. In this sense, the game is unique in that the two conditionals provided actually resulted in two fully solved "worlds." Because this rarely happens in grouping games, I wasn't in the habit of looking to see if the conditionals resulted in solved worlds. What J.Y. does, makes the game significantly easier.

My question is this: Whenever we have conditional statements in a grouping game that result in a solved game-board, should we jot down the solved game board? Or should we wait to see if questions require it? I suppose that doesn't make much sense...maybe what I'm getting at is, HOW do we know when use this technique.

Either way, this was a very simple game, made difficult by conditionals. I'd like to know how to avoid making the error I made in the future. Thoughts?

So, I've drilled LR using Tests 29-58. I BR all my work. I was getting 2-3 wrong per section, which is my target, but once I moved into the 50's I started getting 5-6 wrong per section.

I just can't seem to cut this number down. Most of my wrong answers hinge on details that are so subtle it's absolutely infuriating; answer choices that hinge on the correct interpretation of the word "susceptible" or other minutia.

I seem to have hit this plateau where nothing I'm doing is helping. How do I improve when most of my wrong answers hinge on these really small details? BR doesn't seem to be helping. I'm wondering if there are suggestions.

I want to save Tests 60 and above for full-timed tests, so I think I'm going to go back to the beginning and drill LR all over again :(

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-4-question-13/

Admin: Edited out passage because it was word for word. Please paraphrase.

I wanted to ask if this is the breakdown. because in J.Y.'s video he says that where it states "so it is no less wrong to grant this power to society" is the conclusion, but i see that as the sub conclusion.

and I thought the main conclusion would be [The ancient Greeks failed to recognize that morally, democracy is no improvement over monarchy] ..... because then you say "why should i believe this" and the rest of the argument tells you why.

The "/A->B" rule is so important for grouping games that PowerScore uses a special symbol ("A(-|-)B", or "the double-not arrow") to note it. As a person who understands how important this is for grouping games, I think the "double-not arrow" is brilliant. As a person who has tried to explain it to others, it is both frustrating and confusing. The "double not arrow" is ONLY used when the sufficient term is negative and the necessary term is positive--or is it the opposite? It makes a huge difference, but I find it almost impossible to keep it straight in my head, much less explain it to someone else. For that reason, I think JY is wise to avoid using it here at 7Sage.

But what if it were not confusing? I have come up with TWO arrows that practically write themselves and make grouping games much easier. All you have to do is look at the way we write out "/A->B" and "A->/B."

Note how the slash comes first in the "/A->B" situation, but comes second in the "A->/B" case. Let's turn those slashes into pictures. If we put the forward slash first, we can make a "/\" picture. If we put it second, we get a "\/" picture.

/A->B turns into A(-/\-)B

A->/B turns into A(-\/-)B

Pictures are helpful if they mean something, so let's call the "/\" picture an "erupting volcano." The "erupting volcano arrow" means that something is erupting, so that something must be in your slot. The "\/" looks like a "leaky funnel," which means something is leaking, which means something must be OUT.

If you can remember that "slash comes first" means "/\," and "/\" means "erupting volcano," and "erupting volcano" means something must be in, you can turn a "/A->B" rule into a full slot within seconds. And if you can remember what a "leaky funnel" does, you'll fill an out slot just as fast.

And there's no reason to ever get them mixed up!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-3-question-21/

hello everyone, this is a question that was asked but there was no clear answer. The answer choice for A, if you take the contraceptive it matches the flaw. Is A only wrong because D just has a better match? if D were not there, would A be correct?

Hi, I'm not sure why D is wrong and B is correct...

since it says there was reasonable grounds...etc I thought it follows the conditional statement and it's justified.

Any ideas why D is wrong ? :(

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-3-question-18/

If you had to name the top 5 things you always keep in mind while doing the RC section, what would they be? I am really having trouble breaking a -6 average on RC and was looking for some helpful hints that I may be overlooking.

Hi everyone, do you do comp. passages last or first or just in the order they appear?

Context: My goal is a 173. I will be taking the September LSAT. RC was usually my forte, and I never had to worry about it, but ever since hitting the modern tests (60+), something has not been clicking, and on my last two p-tests, I got 6 wrong in each RC section. Minus 6!! My goal is to get -1 or -2 on each section, and LR and LG have (slowly) been shaping up to this standard or exceeding it. So RC is definitely now my Achilles heel.

I think it's because I suck at comparative passages or because the questions just seem harder on modern tests (or both). Not sure. I was wondering if it would help to do comp. passages in a certain order.

Near the end of my RC sections, with 5 minutes left, I panic a lot and it blinds my intuition. If I'm between two answer choices, you best believe I end up choosing the wrong one in those 5 minutes because I'm not thinking clearly.

If I do comp passages first, I get the hardest thing out of the way and I have a peace of mind for the rest. The danger is that I spend way too much time in the beginning and then panic because I don't have time and miss questions on easy passages.

If I do comp passages last, I get the easiest/easier passages down first, but totally bomb the comp passages because they are harder to solve in general, but add in the fact that I'm also panicking!

Aghhh. Any suggestions/help/anecdotes regarding RC are super welcome!

It's just frustrating because once I think I've got a certain section down, another pops its head up! Like fighting a hydra.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-1-question-11/

I got my answer right for this question. But in JY's explanation, he explained the meaning of the last sentence as: # of people who consume Caffeine is GREATER OR EQUAL to # of people who consume other addictive substances.

I am confused that JY explained "as many as"="GREATER OR EQUAL to". I always remember "as many as" means "EQUAL to" from my grammar lesson. Could someone help me with this confusion?

Thank you in advance!

BTW, JY mentioned this question is extremely hard. How much time should I spend on an extremely hard questions? I am still in drilling mode and I spend 4 mins on this question. I know for sure that is too much time for 1 question........

I saw someone post in a different discussion a video of Nichole Hopkins (from ilovelsat.com) going over her notation method. Does anyone else use her method? I just wanted to get some thoughts from others who have tried it. While watching the video, I was excited because I really thought it was going to be helpful. However, trying to implement it has been difficult.

I haven't had a lot of trouble with the RC section, except when I'm taking a full practice test. I haven't really employed any notation method because during the core curriculum, I was doing very well on RC. My notation method was pretty much just circling random things I thought might come up and notating the argument structure loosely. Before I started doing full tests, I was getting -1 or -2 on full, timed RC sections. But on the full test, I've been getting -5 to -7.

So, I thought I'd try Nichole's method. So far, it's really slowing me down and I don't comprehend as much as I used to. I'm just wondering, is it just a matter of doing it over and over until it becomes second nature before it becomes helpful? Or should I just go back to what I was doing before?

Hello fellow September LSATters :)

What's your game plan for the next month?

My last two PTs (71,72), I scored a 173 and 172 respectively. I'd be BEYOND happy with that score on the actual LSAT. But I'm getting nervous about the actual test date and wanted to hear some thoughts on what might be the best way to embrace the final month. At the moment, I plan on PTing and BRing twice a week (expect the final week before test) with a day or two or timed-sections in between. Thoughts?

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

Hi guys, I got a problem with translation of last rule of Game 4 of PT 24.It would be great if someone could help me and explain my error to me?

The rule states V cannot be in 'unless' (negate sufficient) both H and M are in.

Can, is a indicator (negate necessary) which in this case because we have cannot should be translated /H or /M -->V and its contrapositive would be /V --> H and M.

The correct translation based on J.Y. video and answer choices is V ---> H and M.

I found this comment posted on the PT explanation page And I was wondering if anyone could answer what this person has to say because I'm in the same exact position as this them. If you could watch the pt explanation video or look at the question than look at the copied and pasted comment below: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-52-section-1-question-22/ (Explanation link)

linmat09

I have no issue identifying what part of an answer choice is a conclusion and which part(s) is/are a premise. However, I’m not always sure how to translate a prem or conclusion into which is necessary and which is sufficient.

For ex., we only have the necessary conditions for something that is wholly truthful. BUT when I read A, (and for the sake of this question lets assume that he was actually abducted so that it meets the “true” component of the necessary), I can’t tell what becomes sufficient and necessary.

So assuming it really was true and it wasn’t intended to deceive, how do I know that these are sufficient and not necessary IN the answer choice?

Is there really a way at all to conclude something in an answer choice THAT IS GIVEN TO US AS A SUFFICIENT in the stim? I could only think of something like “The only wholly truthful statement ted made to the investigator was true and he was not trying to deceive the investigator….”

But clearly, that doesn’t make very much sense. lol

OR, could they give you an answer choice that said something like “Ted made a wholly truthful statement, therefore, his claim about (and go off on a long confusing description) was both truthful and made without the intention to deceive”

Hey guys,

So I just recently did Game 3 from PT 62 as a Grp-chart game and got -2. Later I learnt that doing that game in a non chart form helps with not making mistakes.

So my question is, when you have two set of variables given with a certain number of spaces allotted for e.g. exactly 4 employees, Q,R,S,T each attend exactly two of the talks,F, G, H, I.

OR something like researchers H,L,P will learn at least one at most three languages R,S,T for e.g., how do you tell for sure whether to use a chart or not?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-67-section-2-question-20/

I am having a lot of trouble seeing how C and D are not saying the same exact thing. Here is how I broke down the structure of the argument.

Premise: Mars escaped severe bombardment by asteroids.

Major Premise/Minor Conclusion: There could have been microbial life on Mars prior to there being such life on Earth.

Premise: Many meteorites originating from Mars have landed on Earth.

Conclusion: Life on Earth may have started when a meteorite carrying living microbes were carried here from Mars.

Most explanations for this question say that D is wrong because it does not establish the truth of the main conclusion, saying that just because there was life on Mars does not guarantee that a meteorite carried life from Mars to Earth. But the thing I am having trouble understanding is that both the minor conclusion and major conclusion account for the possibility that they are not true by using could/may. So in order for the both conclusions to be true, all you would need to show is that it is possible.

After all, if the minor conclusion is true, if there is a possibility that there was microbial life on Mars, isn't it certainly true that this allows for the possibility for a meteor to carry such life to Earth (which is what the main conclusion is).

Can anyone show me their diagram of this question?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-4-question-12/

I am having hell of a hard time figuring this one out; I have 3 issues here:

If the press were not profit making the only alternative is subsidy and with it outside control

1)I was thinking: NOT profit making------> Subsidy and Outside control

but then I remembered "the only" is group 1 indicator and I changed my diagram to:

Subsidy and Outside control--------> NOT profit making

and of course this does not lead to the right answer choice...

2) what's up with that AND? which one is right?

Not Profit Making--------> Subsidy & outsideControl

or

NOT profit making--------> Subsidy--------> Outside control

and then link either with Subsidy -------->NOT honest Journalism

3) Am I making this harder that what it actually is? I keep diagraming LR questions...

hi,

I dont understand why E is wrong...it says the citys mayor requested so they invested in computermodeling technology right?

if the mayor was not a proponet they would not request it...I thought. any ideas? :(

Is it bc of the part *because of* ? so we dont know if its because of that reason mentioned in E...but could be other reasons?

thank you in advance.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-1-question-18/