Hi, I wonder if anyone can direct me to find the link to "get acquainted with lsat writing"? I remember reading about this tool in preparation for June's LSAT and today finally decide to try it out but could not find the link anymore. Did they take it down because the real writing session had begun? Or am I looking at the wrong places? A link would be highly appreciated.

Btw I heard this writing is not really important - is that correct? I kinda wanna just do the writing before the multiple choice test so I don't have to think about it anymore but definitely have not had a lot of practice...

Thank you!

Hi everyone,

I am currently studying existential quantifiers and although I understand the concept of existential quantifiers, I find it difficult to apply the concept to MBF questions. I've only done a couple of MBF questions with existential quantifiers, but was wondering whether you need to use existential quantifiers for each MBF question? Also, what types of logical reasoning questions require us to use existential quantifiers?

If possible, can someone please reference some questions that require us to utilize existential quantifiers? I would greatly appreciate it! Thanks in advance :).

Hi Everyone!

I am looking for someone to take 1 PT per week and review together via Zoom until the August LSAT. Ideally I would love to review on a weekday or Sunday evening (after 5:30pm EST). For reference, I am aiming for a 168-170, and am specifically trying to improve my speed in Logic Games.

Let me know if you are interested! (:

does anyone have a list of games that have bi-conditionals in them?

Thanks!

For each drill question, it shows a "curve" for the likelyhood of someone with that score getting the question right. But im feeling a bit confused on what that exactly means. So if the black bar is at "135" for example, it means that someone with a 135 was likely to get that question right?

Hello again, fellow 7sagers.

After doing a week of Pacifico's LG drilling method, I've noticed improvements in the relatively easier/medium games regardless of their type. However, I find that I still continue to struggle diagramming the more difficult appearing games. I use "appearing" because even games that are "simple" or "easy" to solve continue to give me a problem if they consist of multiple categories or variables (for example, I got 4 incorrect on PT 3's first game which is not difficult at all). Arguably the most difficult questions, for me anyway, are those with subcategories, particularly in/out games with subcategories. I simply just struggle with creating a good diagram, which is incredibly frustrating because if I could draw these types, I would be only getting about 2 or 3 incorrect per LG section.

So, my main question is this: should I be approaching these question types differently? Perhaps is this a mentality issue? Is continued drilling and familiarity the answer? Yes to all three? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. As I mentioned, my scores would be vastly improved if I simply could diagram these seemingly complicated games more clearly.

This was not a fun flaw question.

At its absolute most basic, the stimulus says:

Conclusion: Not X.

Premise: If we BELIEVED X -> Y.

The assumption here is subtle: Since not Y, not X.

But why on Earth would we make that jump based on the single premise we are given? Also, notice we are drawing a conclusion based on what would be true if we BELIEVED otherwise, not if the case it WERE otherwise.

Answers:

A. A true belief (X) can have bad consequences (maybe, not Y). In other words, the author is failing to consider the possibility that X -> not Y. If this is true, the argument doesn´t work.

B. The author establishes one claim to not be true, but where is the other???

C. Irrelevant, there are no motives mentioned.

D. No implication that the most negative outcome must occur.

E. There is no group of individuals being compared to another.

wanting to get into the 160s what can be done to reach that score

Hellooo,

I guess I wanted to send a discussion to see if this would be a good idea for not.

So background info, I have already completed all my applications back in September because I wanted to only focus on my LSAT and not worry about my applications. So all my schools are simply just waiting for my LSAT score to begin looking into my applications. I’m in a position where I’m only working on my mental psyche bc test anxiety is real for me. Based on all my Pts I’m scoring between 153-160 but I really want to score above 160 to be competitive applicant due to my non competitive GPA. I have confidence in all my other applicant materials but I know there’s importance to the numbers (GPA/LSAT). I decided to also sign up for the January LSAT for a backup if i’m not statified with the score I receive. But i’m debating on either just leaving whatever score on my Nov I get and see what schools decide i’m good enough even with my average scores or canceling it/ leaving it and then working on my January test and if schools decide to make a decision prior to my new test score or wait for it.

If i decide to want to wait for my January score, even though I’ve already done applications, how does that work? Will schools hold back and wait? or will they make a decision and then determine if waiting for a January score is worth it?

I’m sure reaching out to my schools i’ve applied to and seeing what’s the best way to move forward is a good option but I have a tendency to think ahead to prevent a mental break down on Nov 29th lol

Any advice helps!

This is not really helping me to diagnose weaknesses: I got 7/7 in one 4-star Law RC and missed 2 on a much easier Law RC on the same Pt.

AND: the harder one was the final section of the RC and the final section of the test so in theory I should have been more tired. So I can rule that out as a possible explanation.

Not really a question; it's just kind of mystifying!

For this question answer choice C is correct which makes sense to me. I picked D because I thought the analogy between car technology and computer technology worked well. My question is: are answer choices with analogies usually wrong on strengthening questions? OR does it just depend on the question?

This question is a little complicated to parse because their are two agents in the discussion, the nation who may attack (Potential Aggressor [PA]) and the nation who may be attacked (Target). Clarifying who is who helps set up the lawgic from the stimulus.

In the stimulus you get:

PAs having Fear of Retaliation implies that PAs will hesitate to attack (PAFR -> PAHesitate)

PAFR also implies that PAs are deterred (PAFR -> DetersPAs)

You also get this, which is very unweildy:

if PA thinks Target has great retaliatory power then PA thinks it CANNOT defend itself

(PAThinkTargetHasRetaliatoryPwr -> /PAThinkCanDefend)

an inference we can make right away is:

if /PAThinkCanDefend -> PAFR

if PAs think they CANNOT defend against retaliation then PAs have a fear of retaliation

Now we apply valid argument form 3 - Transitive:

PAThinksTargetHasGreatRetaliatoryPwr -> /PAThinkCanDefend -> PAFR -> DetersPAs & PAHesitate

Is there an answer choice that leverages the first step in order to optimize the final step? D does.

D: if you want deterrence, tell everyone about your great retaliatory power (because of the lawgic from the stimulus).

A: says "DeterPAs -> /PAThinkCanDefend" which confuses the given sufficient and necessary elements

B: says "PAThinksPA(self)HasGreatRetaliatoryPwr -> DetersPAs" and the stimulus doesn't say anything about that first part

C: assumes nations always attack unless deterred, which common sense indicates is probably false (hopefully) But aside from real world knowledge, it says "if PAHesitate -> /PAThinkCanDefend" (if PA hesitates then PA thinks it can't defend against retaliation). What we can say is that SOME PAs that hesitate were deterred. This answer choice is the same as A in its error.

E: We don’t know that retaliatory force has to be GREATER, only that it has to be “so great that a potential aggressor nation would have reason to think that it could not defend itself against such retaliation.” Also, superlatives like "maximum" give me pause and seem to appear in false answer choices often.

Does anyone have any advice for notetaking/annotation for online LSAT? It seems so much more time consuming to use online functions than to simply underline on a paper test. Just looking for some helpful information before my test.

In lesson 2 of Assumption and Weakening questions, J.Y. stated, "Bear in mind that most arguments in real life and on the LSAT do not have a valid relationship." A deeper explanation at this early stage will be very helpful to me. I am particularly interested in the "real-life" side of this argument, but also what this means for the LSAT as I work through this section.

Can someone provide a deeper explanation of this statement?

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/good-v-bad-arguments/?ss_completed_lesson=1003

To help with my studies, I am reading books to practice some of the things taught in the V.2 curriculum. I am reading a book called Political Tribes by Amy Chua. On page 91 it states the following " Experts today agree that merely deploying twenty thousand additional troops would not have been sufficient had American commanders not "stopped fighting Iraq's tribal structure and instead started to cooperate with it..."

I think this sentence is similar to PT 64.1.18.

The way I would translate to a conditional would be

If not "stopped fighting Iraq's tribal structure and instead started to cooperate with it.." then, deploying 20k would have not been sufficient

or

If it was sufficient then they stopped fighting or started to cooperate with it

Any insight on this would be great!

Hey guys, for some reason, even after BR'ing the questions I wasn't confident, I'm still missing -6 per LR section.

(These six questions are all questions I did blind review.)

To give a context, this is the second LSAT exam I've ever taken in my entire life, and the first time I'm BR'ing a PT.

There's no common patterns in the types questions I'm missing in particular.

This LR section is, in reality, my biggest weakness.

I started off fine on the Logic Games, and after BR'ing RC, it led to a -2.

It's just the LR that's difficult, any advice? Or does it just take practice?

Hi,

Is anyone currently in NY preparing for the June LSAT? I wanted to see if y'all wanted to started a group chat for any last minute preparations. This will also help for anyone who has questions during the cycle this year we can all give support to one another.

Hi all! I am reviewing PT86.S1.Q21. I understand why we can get rid of answer choices a,c and e as well as the general flaw in the argument being that the spread of organic farming is only a problem for having enough food if all farmers switch to organic farming. However, I am having trouble with what differentiates answers b and d. I know it has something to do with the logical meaning of some and all, and their opposites not some and not all. The explanation video for this question leaves it up to us to think about at the end, but I'm hitting a wall so all help appreciated! Thanks!

Is anyone else familiar with JY's suggestion of turning weakening questions into resolve questions (essentially reading all the premises and negating the conclusion in the stimulus, ultimately creating a paradox)? I have a lot of trouble with weakening questions, but when I turn them into resolve questions they seem so much easier to solve. Is this a method that I should adapt or could it become detrimental?

Check out JY’s explanation breaking down the passage for PT 42, Section 3, Passage 4. He shows how crucial it is to be able to visualize. It is a great passage to hit hard for review!

Hey everyone,

I just finished my LSAT writing section. However, I realized that when it prompted me to take a picture of my id, i held it away from the camera and next to my face on accident. I believe it will be super blurry, so is this something I need to worry about? Am I overreacting?

I need help really bad guys. I read the Ellen Cassidy book on Logical Reasoning and throughout my studies I've been doing really good on Logical Reasoning. I just hit the newest Practice Tests (80s) and it seems like every answer choice I pick is wrong. I'm struggling so bad with these newer tests and their abstract language. I'm crying and so so anxious about my upcoming test because it seems like nothing is working. It seems like all my work has been for nothing. Does anyone have any advice at all on how to reset my mindset for the newer Logical Reasoning sections? I try going to Manhattan Prep and watching JY's lessons on the new answer choices but it seems like literally nothing is helping.

I've watched some of JY's video explanations of comparative rc passages, and in each one, he suggests reading the first passage, going through the questions and eliminating what doesn't fit, and then going to the second passage, then going back to the questions and selecting final answers. I see the intuition behind this strategy and have tried applying it, however I notice that I end up taking significantly longer on comparative passages than other reading comp passages, even when the content is more mild in terms of readability. So I was just wondering if other people find that this method doesn't work for them and whether they find more success reverting back to the traditional way of doing RC? I know everyone's different when it comes to rc, but I'm mainly wondering whether maybe this strategy is something more concrete like LR strategies, or if it truly is just preference. Thanks!

Hello all,

I recently took the June 2022 Test and am not pleased with my score. Compared to my other test in January I did improve but only by 3 points. 133-136. I know not the best and a bad score. But my score I need is only a 146. So I’m 10 points off.

By this fall, I’m starting a career job, and all. But I am contemplating a retake for a third test in the future.

I need advice though: should I wait and study longer? Since this last test I studied from February to Early June so almost 4 months. But this time should I take 8-12 months instead? Also, what other strategies would anyone recommend this time around? Mix of 7Sage, Books and a tutor?

Again, I think I am going to take a 2-3 week break to strategize a new plan with any advice y’all can give me and hit the ground running in August/early September

Thanks.

Hello 7Sagers,

Anyone have an alternate way from JY's of conceptualizing the game board set up on this one?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-4-game-3/

Happy studying!