Sometimes when I'm doing the games, I take too long to decide when to split the game boards. Any rule of thumb? Thanks!

Hello, I took the LSAT twice already so I really need help to understand if I should take the Dec 2015 test or Feb 2016 test for Fall 2016 entry into law school. I cancelled my first score, and my second score is in the mid 150s. I really need a 167 to get into my top choice. I've been studying everyday for the last month but I still feel unprepared. I've been scoring 162-164 on my PT exams, with 167-170s on my BR. I noticed that on the test day, I had to reread many stims and paragraphs, which delayed me significantly. I am trying to get better at that.

I have 18 more days of prep left for the Dec. 2015 test, which I am registered for. Please let me know if you have any tips for how I can achieve at least a 167 on the test day and if you think I should take the Feb 2016 exam instead. I also plan on applying ED to the school because I do not plan on taking financial aid.

I appreciate your help during these very stressful times!

Hi guys, I'm a pretty average test taker with scores that are placing me right in the middle of the pack after several months of training. Most recently, I hit 155 while only getting 8 questions correct in the games section. It is my biggest impediment by far.

Here are my questions:

1. I recall JY said something along the lines that "at some point" logic games will just click for you." Has anyone with more studying under their belt been consistently bad at this and then finally broken through?

2. Is it normal to have so many problems with games? My performance on the games in the analytics dashboard is pretty bad when compared against the other students.

3. I'm assuming the only remediation here is to continue re-doing copies of games. If this is the case, have you found it true that this whole process takes an actual year?

In essence, I feel like I'm spinning my wheels when it comes to games.

quick, whats the rule of thumb as to which you should use?

I see why A, C,D, and E are incorrect, but I cannot figure out how B doesn't resolve the paradox. Here is the video explanation: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-4-question-26/

Smoking in bed is the main cause of home fires. Fewer people smoke now than did twenty years ago. But, the number of people killed in home fires hasn't declined.

What I am looking for: What if fewer people smoking decreased smoking related home fires, but another cause increased over that time? What if former smokers substitute smoking for playing with all of their extra matches? Also, there is a difference between people who smoke in bed and smokers in general.

Answer A: This is what I chose, but it is pretty subtle why it is wrong. This is suggesting that smoking related home fires aren't actually deadly, so it's actually not a paradox that the number of deaths didn't decline. It never was a big deal to begin with.

Answer B: If you see what A was doing, then this is the answer you are left with after POE, but I am really struggling to see how this doesn't resolve the paradox. JY is certainty correct in saying that this answer choice presents smoking in bed as a very risky thing: you might fall asleep when the fire starts and die. But, doesn't JY's explanation resolve the paradox? If smoking in bed is an inherently riskier activity, then doesn't it make sense that the number of deaths didn't decline?

Answer C: This definitely resolves the paradox. Just because there are fewer smokers doesn't mean that the right type of smoker has stopped smoking. What if none of those that are most susceptible for starting a fire didn't quit?

Answer D: This addresses the thing that I anticipated. What if another cause of fires increased?

Answer E: This definitely resolves the paradox. If there are more people living together, which can increase the cause of death, then sure, the there hasn't been a decrease in deaths.

Hi all, I'm trying to better understand Flaw-Descriptive Weakening Questions and this one stumped me. After listening to the explanation, I better understand why AC C is correct. However, I am wondering if AC C would still hold up if the wording was changed to "neglects the possibility that there might be widespread disagreement among connoisseurs.." instead of "neglects the possibility that there may be widespread agreement among connoisseurs.."

Any thoughts/clarification/tips would be greatly appreciated on this question?

I don't really see how B is supported in the situation nor how D does not. Can someone evaluate my reasoning?

The question stem is pretty weird. My best guess is that this is a MSS question or a principle question. According to Google, proposition means "a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion."

Industrialists address problems by simplifying them. In farming, this tends to lead to oversimplification. To illustrate, industrialists think water retention and drainage are two independent/unrelated things. That isn't true. Thus, more farming farming problems are created than solved when industrialist get involved in farming.

What I am looking for: My best guess for a principle would be that farmers shouldn't listen to industrialists when they suggest things about farming issues.

Answer A: Most important? No.

Answer B: This is the correct answer choice, but I don't understand how the passage illustrates this proposition. Viewed in all of their complexity? Where is this idea in the passage?

Answer C: Anyone else? No.

Answer D: I I felt pretty good about this one during the exam, and I kept it during BR. Isn't this pretty much verbatim stated in the final sentence of the passage?

Answer E: This was difficult to eliminate, but it is too broad. We know that industrialists oversimplify things, but we only know that it creates problems in the realm of farming, not everything. Plus, you would have to assume that oversimplifying something is fundamentally flawed. Maybe it is or maybe it isn't.

Only poetry cannot be translated well.

Why is it diagrammed /TW-->P?

I thought that with cannot we pick one idea, negate it and make it the necessary. So if I chose poetry to be negated, why can it not be TW-->/P. Some help would be great. Thank you!

I am pretty clueless on this one. I had the answer down to C or D, and I chose D (kept it during BR). I am completely lost as to how E is the weakener, so help would be greatly appreciated. Here is my breakdown:

This is a weaken question.

Few graduate students are aware of the attempt to unionize (some are aware; most are not aware). From there, I diagrammed the rest:

Grad students MOST not aware

Grad students SOME aware‑m→believe union would not represent their interest or do a bad job pursuing those interests

Therefore, grad students‑m→disapprove. Therefore, grad students shouldn't unionize.

What I am looking for: A lot wrong with this one. First, the argument assumes that if most of a group disapprove of something, then that thing shouldn't be done; this is sort of like an appeal to the crowd fallacy. What if it is in everyone's best interest for everyone eat their vegetables, but most people don't want to do it? Second, the argument makes an invalid inference. We don't know if MOST grad students disapprove. We only know that SOME of them are aware and Most are not aware (does no awareness mean disapproval? What if they are just ignorant?) Along the same lines, the argument is assuming that believing the union would not represent their interests/believing that the union wouldn't effectively pursue their interests is the same thing as disapproval. Lastly, the argument seems to be making a pro vs. con flaw by ignoring the potential benefits/pros of unionizing. The argument only talks about the possibility that the union won't have some people's interests in mind or won't be effective. What if there are things that outweigh those potential cons? The argument doesn't even address that relevant concern.

Answer A: What long standing practice?

Answer B: Fails to exclude alternative explanations? Why does the argument need to do this? We presumably have a few reasons why the students don't like the idea.

Answer C: I had it down to this one and D. I eliminated this one because something not being a good idea isn't mentioned in the passage. Just because something "shouldn't be done" doesn't necessarily imply that that thing isn't a good idea. I think this answer choice would have been better if "not a good idea" were substituted for "not be done."

Answer D: I was pretty confident with this answer choice, and I kept it during BR. Doesn't the argument do this? The argument is limiting it self to the potential cons of unionizing: it might not represent the interests of people or it might do a bad job representing the interest of people. What if there are other reasons to unionize that outweigh those concerns?

Answer E: This is the correct answer, but I felt 100% confident eliminating it. Does the argument equivocate on active disapproval and lack of approval? I don't see where it does this. Sure, it blurs the distinction between active disapproval (assuming that those who are aware of the union and believe that the union won't have their interests at heart/think the union won't do an effective job disapprove) and lack of awareness, but I don't see where the argument conflates active disapproval and mere lack of approval.

I'm just getting started with this and I would like to know what is the difference between the Law, Humanities, Social Science and Natural Science passages, especially if the sole purpose ti for structure and reasoning. Is it important to make a distinction between them, if so why? Is there a difference between the types of questions asked, if so why? Is there a difference in the type of reading or style per passage. The test is not suppose to favor any particular major, however, the jargon and background knowledge makes it difficult and seems to favor or reward those in certain fields of study. For example, I would expect a criminal justice major to do well on the law passage, a biology major to breeze through the science passage, and an english major to thoroughly enjoy the literature humanities passage. Please comment. I need all the help and the advice I can get. Thank you

I changed my answer to A during BR since B-E are really bad, but I am not seeing how the company president "takes for granted " (assumes) what answer choice A states. Here is my breakdown:

For the new job, we are only going to interview people who have worked for the best firms. Therefore, when we choose someone, we will surely have selected one of the best people.

What I am looking for: This is a classic whole to part flaw. Maybe synergies or something creates the emergent property of being in the "top 1%." Also, is being in the top 1% even considered the best? What if the top 1% are very good, but only the top .01% are considered the best? The author's metric for "best" could be bad

Answer A: I confidently eliminated this one during the timed exam, which caused me to spin my wheels on B-E, which caused me to miss this one. During BR, I eliminated B-E first and chose this. But, I don't really understand where the author takes this idea for granted. To me, this isn't describing the "whole to part" flaw nor attacking the author's "best" metric. Specifically, the conclusion talks about "selecting one of the best." But, I don't see how this idea is limited only to the management consultants at top firms. Couldn't the author think that there are also some of the best at not top management firms? The author doesn't say anything to the contrary, so couldn't it be true? In my mind the word "only" is too strong; if this word was replaced with "sometimes," then I think this answer choice becomes more apparent. In other words, I just don't see where the author erroneously presumes this answer choice.

Additionally, say that there 200 firms. He is limiting is search to just the top 2 firms (the 1%). The company president makes no claim about people in the other 198 firms. Why couldn't a member of a top 4% firm be one of the best?

Answer B: What sample?

Answer C: This is what I chose during the timed exam, and the only reason I chose it was because I had to pick something (I had already eliminated A). This answer choice is backwards. It describes a "part to whole" flaw. If this answer choice were reversed, then I think it would work.

Answer D: Accepting? Irrelevant idea.

Answer E: Competent at every task? Irrelevant.

On PT 58.1.13, we have one of the harder main point questions. I got this one correct, but I want to make sure I am understanding the passage correctly.

Does the phrase "it is a given" introduce a premise? Also, does "for such" introduce a premise?

EDIT: I got rid of the "always introduce" since there are probably exceptions. I am more wondering if they tend to introduce premises.

I had a very tough time with this question, can someone evaluate my analysis of A, D, and E for me?

This is a weaken question.

The Kiffer Forest Preserve (KFP), which is a part of the A Valley, is where most of the bears in the valley live. The main road through the KFP has been closed for 8 years. During those 8 years, the bear population in the KFP has doubled. Therefore, the A Valley's population will increase if the road is kept closed.

What I am looking for: I think there are a few things wrong with this argument. First is the "part to whole" flaw. It is true that the KFP's population increased, but is that support for the idea that the entire valley's population will increase? Not really. What if the bears just moved there from other parts of the valley? Second is the causal flaw. What if there was something else that led to the increase in the bear population, and the road being closed is spurious? Third is the futuristic prediction. Let's assume that closing the road was the reason for the increase in the bear population, will continuing to keep it closed work? What if the bear population is at max capacity right now and no new bears can live there? You'd have to assume that that isn't the case.

Answer A: I had a very tough time eliminating this one, and I originally chose it during the timed exam. I had enough time to come back to it, and I did change it. I think this is wrong because to weaken the argument, you have to assume that the migration came entirely from other parts of the valley. But, that isn't an OK assumption. This answer choice leaves open the possibility that the migration came entirely from outside the valley.

Answer B: I think this may strengthen the argument since it sort of implies that migration from other parts of the valley was not another cause of the population increase in KFP.

Answer C: This is superficially similar to B, but it is wrong for a different reason. The statement is too weak to undermine the argument. Sure, the population increase in KFP didn't come from bears outside the valley, but what if the bears in KFP just had more babies or something due to cars not scaring off the bears? This answer choice doesn't do a whole lot.

Answer D: I changed my answer from A to this one. I think this is wrong because leaving out the rate of increase in KFP is important. Say that it is true that the population of the bears outside the KFP decreased a little bit, but what if bear population in the KFP increased by a million times? This scenario might strengthen the argument since the total population of the valley would still increase, even though only one small part of the valley is responsible for the increase.

Answer E: This is what I changed my answer to during BR. If the total population of the valley remained the same, then the doubling of the KFP population was solely due to internal migration. It wouldn't make any sense to say that the increase in the population of a part (KFP) transfers to a population increase of the whole.

PT70 Section4 # 17

For #17: Parallel Form

I got confused on how to diagram it (I understood everything except how to diagram (Note: the way I diagram for these is using broad A-->B,etc since the context isn't important but the form of the logic is):

The stimulus says that:

-some halogen lamps are well-crafted

-because halogen lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at FL

-and any item on display at FL is well-crafted

I wrote it as

some A-->B or A(--some-)B

A-->C

C-->B

But my diagram is wrong for:

because halogen lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at FL

it should be A(-some-)C

why is it some?

Just want to confirm my diagram of "Not Otherwise" is correct.

A police officer is eligible for a Mayor's Commendation if the officer has exemplary record, but not otherwise.

Exemplary Record >> Eligible

Not (Exemplary Record) >> Not (Eligible)

i finally get logic games. i get 9/10 correct but each game takes me around 15 minutes. What can i do to cut it in 1/2 without sacrificing accuracy?

thanks

For #23:Parallel Flaw

like in #17 I had trouble diagramming a part of this stim.

The stimulus says that:

Almost every SP in the past had MTC

Using MTC to introduce VB

Therefore VB will be a SP

I diagrammed:

A-->B

B-->C

-----------

C-->A

But for "Using MTC to introduce VB" is suppose to be diagrammed as:

C-->B

Why? And why is my diagram wrong?

This is kind of a dumb question and I feel like no one else has this problem, but I've realized I constantly make mistakes identifying the scope or relevance of an AC on logical reasoning (RC too). If I'm choosing between two answer choices, I'll choose the more tempting one and later realize it was out of scope, and the right AC was really subtle.

Does anyone have any suggestions for this/exercises I can try/lessons I should focus on? I think I read carefully but I really don't know how far away I can go from the scope of the stimulus

If AC "C" only said "children tend to have more acute tastes: therefore, they zero in on foods with the most distinctive tastes" I would have seen it as being the correct AC right away, but instead this answer goes on to state they get sick more often than adults do? I thought we were not supposed to make assumptions or add things that aren't there when dealing with MSS question types? Although every other AC seemed no good, what popped into my head when looking at AC "C" is how do we know... children become sick more than adults do -where does it state this or is it even allude to it in the stimulus? Any insight would be nice. Thanks!

For #17: Parallel Form

I got confused on how to diagram it (I understood everything except how to diagram (Note: the way I diagram for these is using broad A-->B,etc since the context isn't impotrant but the form of the logic is):

The stimulus says that:

-some halogen lamps are well-crafted

-because halogen lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at FL

-and any item on display at FL is well-crafted

I wrote it as

some A-->B or A(--some-)B

A-->C

C-->B

But my diagram is wrong for:

because halogen lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at FL

it should be A(-some-)C

why is it some?

For #26: I understand why (E) is wrong because the stim. is not defending (never says if right or wrong) but I was just wondering if someone could explain the difference between context and fact (this is what confused me answer (D) says historical fact while (E) says historical context, I just wanted to get a better understand of context vs fact in case it shows up on another question then I can eliminate them even quicker) Thanks :)

Okay, this question has got me. I'm BRing it, and I honestly cannot rule one answer out with confidence. That never happens. A, C, and D all seem pretty subjective to me, "mischaracterizing what Brooks says", "unhappiness varying in intensity of significance" ....are these not more ambiguous and generic than usual, or am I crazy? (actually, please don't answer that, I'm pretty sure I already know the answer) lol.

Could a kind soul please explain which one is correct, why, and why the other 4 are incorrect?

Thank you!

I've take PT 35-58 (58 this morning), and I am in the frustrating 168-172 range. Prior to the 50s, I was consistently going -2/-3 (with a few -0s here and there) on RC. Besides the games, I would have said that RC was my easiest/most consistent section. However, ever since PT 50, my RC score has just been awful: I've averaged -6 to -7 in this section, which has just brutalized my score (my past 3 or 4 exams have been significantly lower than my average because of this). Today was the most frustrating; I thought I turned a corner and aced the RC section, but I went -6. BR was -5 (which is still not what I am looking for). Any advice? I don't really think the passages in the 50s were that different from the other previous exams.

I was between B/E and choose B because I immediately crossed out E b/c of the term HIGHLY productive which isn't stated in the stimulus (but E was right)

- can anyone explain this to me and also why E right over B Thanks :)

Ok so when you get a question that asks you to find the argument with the most simillar reasoning or matches the arguement above are they never a flawed argument? I know we get questions that ask you to match the flaw but I am hoping to use this thinking to eliminate a wrong answer choice or two is this holds.

In short if the Question stem does not say "flaw" is it ok to assume the correct answer choice and the argument in the stimulus are logical arguments?