I took the lsat a few months ago and was stumped by what should’ve been an easy game. I know I spotted a similar type when I studied it last year, but I can’t find it for the life of me rn even though I’ve scoured 90 games.

It’s a variation on a one layer sequencing game with variable blocks.

So imagine rule 1 is sth like A is either immediately in front of B or C bnb. Which is pretty simple and straightforward. But then the rest of the rules are basically a similar series of 2-3 other “either or, bnb” variable blocks, which is where it can get confusing. I just know I got super confused and stumped navigating this and would like to find the similar game I recalled so I can familiarize myself with the format.

I always find it tough to intuitively decide whether to do a general map and let it be question driven vs solve for all gameboards. often when I get confused by a question I freak out and then end up trying to solve for all gameboards late into the game, eating up time. Can anyone point me to similar games?

#help

help can someone please explain why H isn't in 2 for this question?

Admin Note: Edited title. For LG questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# (G#) - brief description of question."

Hey all,

Hoping for #Help, does anyone have a comprehensive list of rules on how to translate words into Lawgic? Like, every single indicator word I will see, the group its in and the rules, exceptions, bi-conditionals, all of that jazz, I totally understand how lawgic works once translated into abbreviated form, but, I seem to really struggle with translating it quickly enough and I am really unsure of myself which makes me freeze up, I am willing through most questions with intuition and doing quite well, but, the lists to help with translation that I have seen aren't exactly comprehensive, hoping someone who is as analytical as I am has gone to some lengths to make a more exhaustive list of words/rules and would be willing to share.

It says "rock music has nothing going for it" but even if A is true...can't LP still have value if they accompany visual art? Since visual art itself provides some value...

I'm confused with this question :(

Thank you

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-75-section-1-question-03/

Doesn’t the right answer [E] confuse necessary for sufficient?! Maria satisfies both of the necessary conditions but that doesn’t make the sufficient condition (being eligible) trigger. If we can't conclude that she's eligible JUST from satisfying the two necessary conditions, then how can we say that she should be granted leave? I thought that was the "oldest mistake in the book." Here's how I diagrammed:

Eligible for leave -> applied at least three months before leave period starts and have one year of paid employment

Eligible for leave -> granted leave

Hi,

For those who have used Manhattan Prep RC, could anyone direct me on how to find out which PTs they use through out the book? I'm looking at the book and I don't see any indices of works used. This would be very helpful because I don't want any book to ruin certain PTs for me.

Thanks

Hello! Wondering if anyone can offer some insight on where the textual basis is for the correct answer "B." I selected "C" as the answer with the assumption that comments about racism by a Communist Party Organizer would implicitly attack white chauvinism and also denote some sort of involvement in African American issue politics. I was not convinced that this was direct enough evidence, so am open to answer B but am curious where the direct support lies. Is the support the "cautiousness" and desire to appeal to moderates referred to by the author? Thank you for the help!

I really don’t understand where this rule ” For conditionals, A and B negates to A → /B ” came from or how it would be applicable to the actual exam. This comes from the Negation skill builder in the Logic of Intersecting Sets module. It was never stated beforehand in neither the negating conditional statements or elsewhere, at least to my knowledge. I understand it intuitively as you’re saying that rather than both A and B being true simultaneously, you’re positing that /B is a necessary condition of A and thus can’t exist together. However, we previously learned about negation of the conjunction “and” in conditional relationships as being A and B → C negated to /C → /A or /B as specified by De Morgan’s law. I guess I’m just struggling to see, how to tell the difference or when/how to use this new rule in context with a question on the LSAT. Is the rule just referring to when you have both premises A and B as part of the argument a way to negate it, is by using that rule. Like I don't see how just A and B can exist on their own in question. I feel like there must be either A and B -> C or C -> A and B included when encountering this in a question. Greatly appreciate any comments or help someone could add!

#Help

Hi everyone,

When I first started LR was my biggest strength but it has really taken a dip in terms of consistency. Does anyone have advice for staying consistent in the LR section? I've been taking more older PT's, could that be contributing? Thank you.

#PT94 - S2 - Q15

Can anyone explain options A and B? Many thanksss!

I'm also not sure about the flaw in the stimulus. In my understanding, the stimulus goes as:

I think the flaw in the stimulus is that it takes the illicit negation of the premise to support its conclusion. The conclusion implies that if one could gain some good from the incompetent or evil leaders, one would follow that leader (the illicit negation of the premise). This is why the incompetent or evil leaders bring some good to followers.

If my understanding is correct, I didn't find any similarity to the stimulus in both options A and B.

Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

This is the third time I select the correct answer and once I check in on the results the answer choices have been changed.

Absolutely clueless on this one. I've probably watched the video 5 times, and I just don't see how B weakens the argument that is in the passage. Also, can someone look at my reasoning for A?

Win democratic elections not fully subsidized--->poor candidates supported by rich. As a result, it could be true that the poor candidates will compromise their positions to win the rich guy's support. However, the proportion of rich people in all of the political parties is the same as their proportion in the population. Thus, the belief that it could be true that poor candidates will compromise their position to win the rich people's support is wrong.

What I am looking for: The premise doesn't support the conclusion at all since we don't know whether being proportionally equal nullifies the pressure to conform to the rich guy's opinion. For example, say that rich people are 1% of the population in all political parties; they must then be 1% of the total population. It might be reasonable to say that the rich don't have that big of an influence on policy. Now, what if the proportion was 99%? The rich might have a huge say in policy! Thus, the premise could go both ways in either providing support for the conclusion or not.

Answer A: This is what I chose, but I still am very unsure why it is wrong. I think the argument does fail to address this answer choice. Maybe it is wrong because of the word "primary?" I'm not so sure though since we are usually supposed to accept the answer choices as true. If it is the case that the "primary" function of a party still may not negate the influence of wealth, then doesn't this paraphrase the flaw very well? To me, this is hinting at the idea that the proportion of the wealthy might be so high (or so influential) in political parties that it doesn't matter which one the poor candidate choose, they will have to conform to the wealthy point of view's party.

Say that the word "primary" is the reason why this is wrong (which I am not really sure why it would be), what if this answer choice said "a function of political parties...?" Would it be correct then?

Answer B: Like I said earlier, I just don't see how this weakens the argument. I do think it weakens an argument, just not the one in the passage. Here is my breakdown of this answer choice: say the poor candidate believes, "Every person who takes the LSAT should get a 180 and full ride to Yale" but the Democrats and Republicans both think "absolutely not" (the positions of the parties is way less varied than the position of the candidate). Then sure, joining a political party would compromise the poor candidate's views. But, that isn't the argument in the passage. The argument is that the "possibility of a poor candidate compromising his views to win the support OF THE RICH [not the political party] is not true." How are these two the same argument? In other words, if this is true, isn't the LSAT equivocating between the views of the "political parties" and the views of the "wealthy patrons?"

Answer C: We don't care about government subsidized elections.

Answer D: We don't care about wealthy candidates.

Answer E: We don't care about other flaws.

The answer should be D, as the other answers all call for too much. There is no apparent need for real strength. 'To be believed' is the key phrase.

The passage starts with a conditional claim, then there is a shift, claiming that in order for the A ---> B B has a condition, so in order for the claim to be true we need to assume that the condition is true for all cases. That's why AC E is correct.

So I was scheduled to take the test at 7am this morning and I had ran the equipment check multiple times the night before and the morning of. All equipment checks said I was good to go. However, once i went to start the test, the testing session had another system check called "ports" and repeatedly failed. This "ports" requirement was not a part of the equipment test and I had no idea that this could be a problem. I contacted tech support and they went through my settings and made sure everything was good which it was. I had techs straight up leave the chat multiple times and had other support workers having me repeat the same uninstall-reinstall tasks over and over to no avail. Eventually, after 2 hours, one of the techs just sent me a link that let me bypass the testing session and finally take the test around 9:30. There was no problem with screen sharing or them controlling my computer so I can only assume this was a technical error on their part.

While I got to take the test, it was immediately after 2 hours of non-stop heart-pumping stress and a few nervous breakdown close calls. I will definitely be taking it again in October but this has set back my app date by a few months all while I have to study for the lsat again while finishing my senior thesis. Im at a loss for how I will manage all of this now. Besides just letting off steam with this post I would like to know what you all think I should do. I do have chat logs with the technicians. I know filing a formal test complaint with LSAC will delay my scores by 3 weeks. Should I try and contact LSAC by other means and let them know the situation? The biggest thing is that I do not, under any circumstances, want to take it again through ProctorU.

But I was under the impression that conditional statements are not comparisons. I read the first sentence as a comparison and therefore ignored it since I did not read it as a conditional statement. How should I have broken down the first sentence to see the conditional?

Really struggling with LR inference questions. Any advice?

Just when I thought I was out for the logic games, J.Y pulled me back in! his explanations are so addictive. Having a masters in pure mathematics is even worst because I like this stuff.

Does anyone have a good way to explain flaw/descriptive weakening questions and how to approach them? I am still confused after reviewing all the lessons and doing the practice problems. I always fail to identify the flaw made in the argument and end up getting the wrong answer. It just seems like there are many ways to point out the flaw and there are diff types of flaws, so can anyone share some tips on how you identify them/what helps you to understand the flaw in the argument?? thank you!

Hi ... I need more practice with labeling. Where can I get more problem since I have gone thru the 4 problem sets.

In this example:

True Premise: A --> B

True Premise: B --> C

Inference: A--> B --> C

Is the inference a valid conclusion? Or is it just like a mundane re statement or the premises? Is it even an inference?

A --> C would of course be a valid and true inference or conclusion (depending on argument setup), right?

Can someone explain this?

I have heard many people say that their scores in RC improved when they started reading outside of practicing for the LSAT. I was wondering if you have had success with this, can you please post things you started reading that helped with your comprehension? I really suck at reading - my RC section drags down my score. No matter what I do or how many passages I do it isnt improving - so I want to try this. Please help if you can!

If anyone want to go over Logical Reasoning Core Curriculum together? if you are interested, please let me know.

Why is the answer E but not C?

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