PSA: The Judicial candor passage from PT 82 is in my opinion one of the best comparative passage to learn from. When done properly, you could conceivably eliminate 80% of answer choices before moving onto passage B.

Hey guys, I just started studying for the LG portion of the exam. I was wondering if you had any tips for learning what to look for in the answer choices. For example if the question stem asks, "All of the following could be true except . . . " JY, without skipping a beat, says okay we are looking for 1 Must be false and the 4 others could be true. Not the best example, but its the best I could come up with right now haha. Thank you in advance!

Stimulus says: Manners are necessarily social (i.e. manners require a social element). Morals are not necessarily social (i.e. morals do not require a social element). Rules of etiquette do not apply to situations with morals or manners alone.

Things I noted upon reading:

Most strongly supported?

A: You can be immoral without causing harm. (i.e. you can not be moral in a case that is not social). Yep, this fits with #3 above.

B: An immoral act is never a violation of etiquette. This could be false if the situation also involved manners, so we can´t say it is supported.

C: Morality applies only when one is alone. I think you´d only choose this if you were hella confused.

D.: It is more important... I stopped reading right there and knew this was wrong. There is no comparison being made in the stimulus.

E: A social situation will never have anything to do with morality. Clearly wrong based on #2 and #3 described above.

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

Hi, guys. Recently purchased the Ultimate+ and really am loving the wide range of problem sets available for improving. My question is this: if through my first run (in this case a MSS problem set) of a problem set I finish each question in good time with confidence, clarity, and correctness; is it worth my extra time to go back through this problem set immediately after with the videos and blind review, even if I felt 100% certain throughout? I'm making my way through the CC now.

Also want to say I love the camaraderie on 7sage. I'm very happy to be here. Writing in November for my first time!

Trying to figure out where I should devote my energy in anticipation of the June LSAT!!

We can choose from 4 days for the Oct lsat? (https://www.lsac.org/LSATdates). Are they testing new exams?

Would somebody please help me. I am having an awfully hard time with the RC questions and I feel that some answer choices can be debated as opinionated.

I am finding the RC questions much harder than the LG.

Please help. Question #'s 1, 5, 6, 7, & 8, especially #'s 1, 7 & 8.

Thank you.

Admin note: edited

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

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

i dont understand why this is E

I chose answer choice C because being the rock being submerged in water does not prove the conclusion that is falsifying the idea that life began in the ocean and did not exist on land until half a billion years ago.

Does anyone have an explanation for why C does support the conclusion and why D would be the answer for non-supporting? Thanks!

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

I came across a rule I'm not used to diagramming in PT 85 Game 1, and was curious if any of you have come up with a clever shorthand. I ended up coming up with one on the spot, but I think it led me to make an otherwise avoidable mistake on what should have been a straightforward game.

There are at least two slots separating H and S, but H and S are interchangeable in order. (JY used H _ _ S with a small "LL2") symbol in a switching box, but he himself called it somewhat clumsy.) When I did this game the first time around, I ended up forgetting that 2 slots was a minimum and not exact. Perhaps there's a way to make this rule clearer in the diagram and less of an afterthought?

Another more general diagramming question, not from PT 85: Values are not consecutive. I've always represented consecutive as (AB) and nonconsecutive as (AB) but find this leaves something to be desired in terms of clarity. Any and all suggestions are much appreciated!

On the 2007 prep test, I was unable to arrive at the correct conclusion for RC#13. I was confident that my answer was right and I even got it wrong during blind review. Even now, I’m unsure that I’d be able to deduce this quickly on a test. When I get to the RC section and begin doing drills, how can I study for this type of question? Are all Art, InfAP and Co questions similar?

—deleted—

Listen and subscribe:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify

How can you create systems that set you up for success?

This week, Bailey and Priyana talk about studying for the LSAT with ADHD and how time management and focus strategies commonly used by people with ADHD can help anyone build stronger study habits.

They share practical tips for every stage of the study process, from getting started on tasks to structuring your day, along with Logical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension–specific advice. They also discuss the value of handwritten lists and explain why both Priyana and Bailey swear by sticky notes.

I can understand why (B) is correct - but not sure why (C) is wrong. I think I'm not understanding (C) correctly. What does it mean to "indicate the falsehood of the implications" of a hypothesis? Doesn't the author do so in the stimulus, by showing that predicting an invention according to the hypothesis necessarily entails inventing it (the implications), which would be self-contradictory? Is (C) wrong because self-contradiction ≠ falsehood? I'd really appreciate it if someone could give me an example of (C) since I'm not exactly sure I understand JY's example either.

Thanks in advance!

I have a few questions when it comes to logical reasoning so please bare with me. So I know how to pick the correct conclusion and premise and I can do the lawgic translation but I am having a problem translating the lawgic back into English and yes I have reviewed the lessons. Its like when I translate the lawgic back to English what I think the translation is saying is not what the answer choices are saying which then throws me off when its comes to picking the correct answer.So since I was having a problem with this I would paraphrase the conclusion and premise and try to piece together the answer which works for some questions but its not effective in mastering every question as opposed to the lawgic translations. I also get confused when it comes to the group 4 translations so I will add a link in for a question where you can see my thought process.

When should you be doing lawgic translations for logical reasoning questions? When do you know if conditional logic is being used in the stimulus? Is lawgic and logic the same thing?

Are there any tips when it comes to paraphrasing the stem for the lawgic translation? Sometimes I have a little trouble trying to figure out exactly what letters that I should use that will grasp the whole concept of the premises and conclusion. For example, I know that my paraphrase with letters will not be the exact same as JY's but I must admit that his paraphrase captures the whole concept and mine seems overly complicated which then throws me off because I be having the correct premise and conclusion,. What can I do that will help me with the paraphrasing and confusion from the lawgic translation to the English Translation?

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/self-expression-strengthen-question/?ss_completed_lesson=931

Premise: What they seems to ignore is that, trivially anything we do is self expressive and also their claim isn't interesting

Conclusion: We are not obliged to take their claim seriously.

Translation: /I and T

/S

Answer is /I...S or /T...S

So the correct answer was C but was confused because I thought that when it came to group four terms you have to do the contrapositive after the negation and Jy didnt. So I thought the final answer would have been s...t or /s.../t but it was t.../s

I saw a comment on this question that stated: but & and are logical equivalents. Is this true?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-2-question-10/

Wrong Answer (D) and Right Answer (E). I can't seem to reach the understanding on how E is relevant, e.g. doesn't contain information introduced in the passage on whether or not zebra mussels can transform hazardous waste and why they would be considered hazardous waste. I chose (D) because out of all the answers it seemed like the closest to being supported, as it mentions one of the 'redeeming qualities' of zebra mussels.

I got 4 out of 5 right in this drill but got this particular questions drastically wrong. I selected B and on blind review selected C. I never felt E was correct during the drill or blind review. I do not know what I am not seeing on this particular question. I do not understand why C is incorrect. If 40% in the first group reported awaking paralyzed with a strange presence in the room, wouldn't it be correct to say 60% had not? Or is C wrong, because it only mentioned "strange presence" and excluded "paralyzed" as part of the answer? #help

I'm one of the 35% people that chose (B) and still am not fully convinced that (E) is better. To compare the two ACs, I'll list all potential objections/flaws they each have for them to work:

(B) says, salt is not the only dietary factors associated with high blood pressure. It takes for granted that the people in the question actually were consuming these other foods, and the intake of such foods in combination needs to be significant enough, not only to offset the effects of their high salt intake, but also to bring their blood pressure down to very low.

(E) says, some people have abnormally low blood pressure and they have heightened cravings for salt to maintain a blood pressure that's not too low. It assumes without justification that these people are in fact the people talked about in the stimulus, and their high salt intake was in fact the result of their heightened cravings.

I'll admit that (B) makes a lot of unwarranted assumptions. But the "cravings" in (E) really trips me up because I think the assumption of "heightened cravings for salt" implying "high salt intake" is the exact kind of bad assumptions that LSAT usually punishes us for making. My only justification for choosing (E) over (B) is that it makes fewer assumptions. Can someone please help me out on this one? This question is bothering me so much and I don't know what I need to do differently to avoid similar mistakes in the future. Any help is hugely appreciated!

Can someone explain the percents/proportion relationship that makes B the right answer? I am having a hard time understanding it. #help

For the correct answer choice, why does it matter if the trees used are or old or new since the answer is talking about the harm caused by the products they will be turned into? This is the reason I did not choose it #help

Hi All,

I'm hoping to find the section where J.Y introduces the idea of piecemeal analysis. I kept hearing him talking about it during the flaw section but I can't remember where he introduced the idea of peicemeal analysis. He suggested that he introduced it in Method of Reasoning.

If anyone has the lesson, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you

Correct: D

Incorrect: E

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-08/

Explanation: "D" makes it where we can't say that the effects go away with age. By saying that the 2nd and 3rd studies were flawed, we can take away the conclusion that is based on those results. "E" doesn't specify how many children slept with nightlights and weren't nearsighted. "E" could have 5 children that were nearsighted and slept with nightlights along with 95 children that slept with nightlights and were not nearsighted. Because we don't know if the other children were nearsighted even though they didn't sleep with nightlights, or slept with nightlights and weren't nearsighted, or not nearsighted and didn't sleep with nightlights, we can't form a conclusion on partial results. It just talks about several older children that were nearsighted and slept with nightlights. That's not enough say that nearsightedness caused by nightlights goes away with age.

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

Does anyone want to review the RC section from PT 84 tomorrow (Saturday, 7/21/18)? I'm looking for someone to review with, so if you're interested, send me a message so we can set up a time to chat about it.