Discussions

LSAT

New post

99 posts in the last 30 days

I've been finishing up each LR section with usually 5-8 min to go back and review in real time. At that point, I'm reviewing the questions I've been stumped on within a real time frame. So when I go to finish the PT and it tells me to go back and look at those questions again - I don't really see the point? PLUS sometimes the BR is for qs I got right so that's just a mind warp. Am I the only one who thinks this way?

0

Hi All. I have two questions:

(1) Roughly when did the important distinguishing features of newer logical reasoning questions become the norm? I'm thinking in particular about longer and tougher stems, more frequent strengthen/weaken/RRE questions, less frequent formal logic questions, and generally trickier answer choices?

(2) In these newer LR sections, are the toughest questions typically found between questions #11 and 20? Or are 21-26 generally harder? Or has it gotten more random?

I've been largely following the "save the best for last" approach in my studying thus far, and so have only recently moved from tests #20-45 or so to more recent tests. Recently, I've begun alternating between tests near #80 and closer to the 50s, and plan to keep doing so. Today, though, I took my first test in the 50s (#55) after taking a couple near #80, and the LR sections felt much closer to the old style I'd been used to than the new style I'd seen in #78 and #80---in particular I noticed more formal logic, and that the hardest questions were located near the end rather than the late-middle. So I'm wondering what to expect. Roughly when did the shift that happened between early and late tests occur, and how accurate is my sense (partially based on some article I now can't find) that the newer sections have harder questions towards the late-middle?

0

Hey guys, so my LR score finally has been improved (well sort of), I have been doing some times LR sections from prep tests 1-15 and I usually spend about an hour or an hour and a half on each LR section, I've been scoring either 14/26 or 16/26.

In general, for each question type I am not consistent in my scoring (for example, the test could have 3 or 4 Resolve Reconcile Explain questions and I'll get 1 or 2 right and the rest wrong). Another example, for MC questions if there is a sub conclusion and I noticed that LR timed sections have these, I won't be able to figure out which is the exact main conclusion (see question 4 on prep test 15 as an example).

There is no one question type I am good at, but I notice that the harder the level of difficulty the more likely I get it wrong.

How can I improve my score to at least a 20 and should I be doing timed sections? I am not really sure what to do next.

Oh and if anyone PLEASE has or knows of any resources that can help me improve on Weakening, Flaw and Necessary Assumption Questions that would be great because they are my biggest nightmare.

Thanks! :)

0

Hi all,

I would like to know how do you dissect the principles of the answer choices which has no conditional indicator or universal quantifier?

I've some trouble in correctly dissecting the principle behind answer choices A, B, and D, since none of them has a conditional indicator or universal quantifier. I understood they are wrong because none address the situation when parent should not encourage their children to outdo others. Here, my focus is solely on how to dissect the principles of the answer choices which has no conditional indicator or universal quantifier.

I had tried to interpret their principles as below:

A- If something can make their children happy about it that they do well, parents should encourage their children to do so.

B- If something can help their children have easily satisfied desires, parents should try to ensure their children do so.

D- If something can help their children have important achievements, parents should ensure their children do so.

But in my review, I felt I had pigeonholed these statements into conditional statements. So, perhaps, their principles are just assertion without premises, like "Human should be kind." Assuming such statements are all valid, they would imply that any subject mentioned should follow the prescribed advice irrespective of circumstances. Again, I am not sure whether this is the correct way to discern the principles of A, B, and D.

I am sorry for the long post. Any helps would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!

Leon

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-88-section-4-question-17/

0

Hello,

I did not choose A (the correct answer) in this question because I thought "specific examples" was incorrect given the fact that the passage did not raise any plural nouns and actually seemed quite general to describe their examples. Can someone explain why the examples raised in the passage count as "specific examples"?

Thanks!

#help

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-1-passage-1-questions/

0

Does anyone else find themselves mistakenly solving flaw questions as weaken questions when considering certain answer choices?

What I will find myself doing when evaluating certain answer choices is saying to myself, "Well if this were true, it wouldn't necessary weaken the argument, so it isn't the flaw of the argument"

I think this is incorrect because the best method for answering those two question types are different, but I don't actually know on a deeper level why the two methods don't sometimes overlap. Or maybe they do and I'm not always wrong in doing that.

Instead, I just accept that that is the wrong way to go about answering the question and try to catch myself when I do it and revert back to the correct method to answering a flaw question.

I know this is a bit abstract, but if someone could help explain more clearly why those two methods don't overlap sometimes when considering certain answer choices that would be helpful.

0

Hi all!

I had a question on answer choice E with this one. To me, the reasoning of flaw in answer choice E was the same as that of answer choice D of the same PT same section question 20.

Looking at the explanation of question 20 (Morton: In order to succeed (...)) in other forums on answer choice D, the explanations state that Morton actually DOES consider the counterexamples stated by the skeptics (which is why D is incorrect); the problem was that he just did it through a flawed way. The structure of this passage was:

  • Skeptics have objected (...) by providing counterexamples (context)

  • However, this success is only apparent (Main conclusion)

  • This is BECAUSE (...) (Premise)

    • So, in actuality, this argument DOES consider the skeptics counterexamples.

    Now coming back to question 22, in my line of thinking, the author of the passage does the exact same thing as that of question 20.

  • Jerome refused Melvin's suggestion claiming that he could not afford the money (Context)

  • However, cost cannot be the real reason (Main conclusion)

  • This is BECAUSE he makes the same excuse all the time (Premise)

    • So, in line with the thinking of question 20, I thought that the author DOES in fact consider that it can be the real reason; its just that he supports it though a flawed way. Yet answer choice E (Does not examine the possibility (...)) goes against the line of reasoning of answer choice D in question 20....

    Thanks in advance!

    https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-3-question-22/

    https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-3-question-20/

    0

    Just took PT 84 - wondering if anyone found the LR kind of weird? Not hard per se, but for example PT 84 S2 Q2 (an NA) was more of a soft NA answer? They are usually a lot more clear. Idk maybe I’m just being picky but I found there were a couple questions where the answers were a lot more subtle to me.

    
Anyways, onto PT 84 S2 Q11

    I knew AC was right but crossed it off because I thought it attacked a premise. Looking back it appears I misread the stimulus.

    The premise says: “Many features ..." Admin Note: I deleted the premise and Answer Choice C as it is against our Forum Rules to post LSAT questions on the Forum.

    And AC C says: "Excessive blinking ..."

    
I thought that the stimulus read “excessive blinking is not such a feature of confidence” (rather than saying "blink rate is not a feature")

    My question is, if it had said what I thought it said, would AC C have been an attack on the premise like I thought it was?

    Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-84-section-2-question-11/

    0

    Hello! So I’m doing the Premium course and I just completed the weakening and strengthen question types. I got the majority of questions wrong during the explanation portion where there’s a sample question and JY goes through it. Usually I pause the video, try to answer it, then look to see why I got it right or why I got it wrong. The problem is on these W/S questions I got the majority of all of them wrong.

    My question is, should I start to do the timed questions at the end of the chapter to complete the portion or should I go over it all over again from the beginning or should I try to use a different method to attack these question types? I keep trying to use this Goku method where you don’t attack the premise or conclusion and you try to focus on the support but I feel like that method is arbitrary and ambiguous because the support can imply many different options. Or should I just give up since I have been studying for 6 months now (Khan Academy and powerscore) and should find a new career choice... lol I’m kidding.

    Thanks!

    0

    According to the stimulus, the club president has disallowed Jeffrey to vote. Thomas is arguing that that was in violation of club rules.

    (Structure)

    Premise 1: Rule: Vote --> Good standing member

    Premise 2: Jeffrey is a good standing member

    Conclusion: The president’s action of disallowing Jeffrey to vote was in violation of club rules.

    Here are club rules: only good standing members may vote. (vote—> good standing member)

    Jeffrey paid his dues on time and therefore he is a good standing member. Necessary condition is satisfied, therefore we don’t know if he is allowed to vote or not allowed to vote. There could be other criteria to qualify to vote that Jeffrey does not meet, in which case he is not allowed to vote. Or Jeffrey meets all the criteria to vote, in which case he is allowed to vote. We have no information about it.

    But, Thomas concludes that the president’s action of disallowing Jeffrey to vote was in violation of club rules. Disallowing Jeff's vote could or could not be in violation of the rules. In spite of this possibility that it may not be in violation, Thomas made a determination that it is in violation. This is the flaw. He is saying that allowing him to vote is in compliance with (authorized by) the rule. (In other words, to be in compliance, Jeffrey should be allowed to vote.)

    And that is what answer choice (A) is saying. His argument fails to take into account the distinction between something not being prohibited (allowing Jeffrey to vote) and its being authorized (in compliance with the rule). He is saying that allowing to vote is in compliance with (authorized by) the rule. At the end of the answer choice A, words “by the rule” is omitted. “Authorized” here does not mean his being authorized to vote, but rather, it means being authorized by the rule.

    We can also view it as sufficient condition, necessary condition confusion flaw. Because in reaching the conclusion, Thomas mistakenly assumed the club rule as: good standing member —> vote. But this is not in any of the answer choices.

    (A) is the correct answer.

    (B) There is no character attack here.

    (C) There is no such statement being denied or regarded as true here.

    (D) What they were voting about is irrelevant.

    (E) Whether Althea is authority in club rules or not is irrelevant.

    Answer choice (A) was written very tricky that it was difficult to recognize it was the right answer.

    0
    User Avatar
    •

    Thursday, Jan 02 2020

    31496

    Newer RC Struggle

    Wanted to see if anyone had advice on tackling the "newer" RC. I used to average -3/4 for the section, but since I have been taking the more modern exams, I have been getting 7-9 wrong.

    With ~2 weeks left till the exam, anyone have any advice they would recommend for adjusting to the harder RC?

    Thank you!

    0

    I’ve been struggling with the harder Logical Reasoning questions that tend to appear near the end of the section, so I want to create targeted drills to improve. My plan is to build sets of five challenging LR questions— 1 SA/NA, 1 Parallel Flaw, 1 Weaken, 1 Must Be True, and 1 Flaw question—since these are the types I often see later in the section.

    Is this an effective approach? Are these question types actually more common at the end of LR sections, or is their placement essentially random?

    1

    Hello,

    How did you guys translate question 9 in the quiz to lawgic? I read the sentence like this "without a will testifying the transferal (WTT), the state of California will auction the properties (AP)." /WTT --------> AP

    I am bit confused about the translation in the lesson. The two ideas selected in the video are "will testifying transferal (WTT)" and "California has no choice (/CC) ." /WTT --------> /CC or CC --------------> WTT. If I were to approach this question mechanically, this makes sense. But what is the sentence actually saying? The confusing bit for me is what the CC here means when you take the contrapositive (California has choice---- to do what?).

    Any thoughts? Thanks

    Admin edit: This is the link:

    https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/quiz-on-group-3-translations-to-lawgic/

    0

    So I am taking the LSAT in September with the new revised model, so I am skipping the LG sections and focusing hard on LR and RC. I wanted to ask what is the best routine to integrate drills into the study session.

    I hear a lot of the drills come from PT, and burning though Drills means come PT time, you have essentially already seen some of the questions prior (do I have this right?).

    So I wanted to ask if this is the same for post August PTs aswell, and for those taking it without LR, how are you using your PTs and Drills

    Any help is valued. Thanks!

    0

    Confirm action

    Are you sure?