http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-1-question-16/

I had a hard time to solve this question and couldn't find the exact flaw.

I was confused between B and C and ultimately chose C, but the answer is D.

I have no idea why D is right and others are wrong.

Can anyone explain me this question?

Thanks!

For those getting 173/175 +... what's your breakdown per section?

Anyone studying for the September/October LSAT located in the East Bay/SF area?

Hello guys,

So I've been studying for the LSAT for about 3 months now, but not at all in the correct, intensive way that 7Sage shows us. As a matter of fact, I've been studying the wrong way...This course recommends that we prepare for a year maybe more, but with life and work that doesn't seem realistic. My fear about putting the LSAT off until a year from now, is what if I get discouraged or life gets in the way and I end up not taking the test.

That said, how long are you guys planning to prepare for before taking the LSAT?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-2-question-01/

I’ve been struggling with questions like this. It’s clear that the author is using an attack on the character of the writer, but that part where (A) says “as evidence that this person is not competent on matters of scientific substance” is not descriptively accurate. The author’s argument doesn't mention R’s competence on matters of scientific substance, it only tries to say the _book_ doesn't merit professional attention.

Hello!

Simple question + looking for confirmation.

If a rule says: If Sarah is cool, she will go to the party with her sister; otherwise, she will not.

Sarah cool ---> Party with sister

~ Sarah Cool ---> ~ Party with sister

Yes? I read somewhere that this is like an 'if and only if' rule... can someone comment?

Their contrapositives:

~Party with sister ---> ~Sarah cool

Party with sister --> Sarah cool

Has anyone created their own LG pkg sort of like the Cambridge pkgs that you wouldn't mind sharing? I know I'm asking a lot. LOL I've started and stopped trying to complete my own pkg a few times. I'm looking for maybe a list of each question type for each LG question type for all LSATs available. I have LR pkg just didn't want to pay for the LG pkg just yet. Anything would be greatly appreciated!! Also, those who have purchased the LG pkgs, is it worth it?

Hey everyone, if someone could give me a quick explanation on failing either the sufficient or necessary I would greatly appreciate it.

In LSAT Prep Test 15 (June 1995) - Section 4 - Logic Game 3 JY does exactly that during question 19. Here is a link: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-15-section-4-game-3/

There I asked, "Can I get clarification on how rule 5 becomes irrelevant during question 19? I usually understand satisfying the necessary but this mixed me up. If F is on 4 and 6, then J has to be on 3; that I understand. Because of this, G does not have to be on 1, correct? However, it still can be. When the necessary condition is satisfied through the question stem (as that is what happens in 19) then sufficient condition (G) becomes a floater?"

Furthermore, JY also shows a similar scenario when explaining rule 3 here: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-11-section-1-game-2/

Thanks!

Still feeling super iffy about taking the June LSAT. Can anyone confirm when is the last possible chance to withdraw from this test? LSAC says "June 8th 2014", so is it safe to withdraw on that day anytime before 11:59??

Thanks!

I feel so unprepared and am finding a hard time to find a balance between being an author, mom, wife and LSAT. Any tips?

I'm having what I think is a weird issue. I'm not doing well with the MP/MC questions but I seem to be doing ok with the other questions. Doesn't that seem odd? If I'm having trouble with the MP/MC questions how am I able to do the other question types? Isn't this question type the most important as far as LR questions? If you can't identify the argument how can you be successful with the other question types? I think my problem is that I can determine the main conclusion if the indicator words are there but not so much if they're not. So, I'm not getting many of the harder questions correct. I'm not doing so well with determining the premises, sub-conclusions, etc. I'm using Manhattan along with 7 Sage. Obviously I have more reviewing and studying to do, but what am I missing? I'm just not getting this question type. I'm taking September test so I still have time. It's just kind of frustrating. I've been studying off and on for the past year due to some major health issues. I'm just now getting back into really studying so I know I may just be rusty but I wasn't getting these questions right when I was studying hardcore. Any questions or thoughts?

Hi, I'm currently in the process of solidifying different categories of logic games problems i.e. basic linear, advanced linear, etc. and I'm doing problems culled from the Appendix of the Powerscore. However, I realized 7Sage also has logic games sorted from PT 35-50 https://uploads.7sage.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/logic-games-sorted-by-type.pdf and the terms used for categories differ from those of Powerscore. For example, Powerscore distinguishes games by calling them basic linear, advanced linear, grouping, combination, etc. whereas 7Sage has In/Out, Sequencing with Twist, etc.

In this case did you guys go through all the different categories in both Powerscore and 7Sage?

So,

"H will go before J if and only if it is after M." is a biconditional statement...

and is broken down into two different conditions, right --

M- H - J

or

J- H - M

If I wrote just " H will go before J if it is after M"

I would have " M - H - J " with H being before J because it is after M

But if I wrote

"H will go before J only if it is after M"

How does that give me J - H - M?

I'm somehow drawing a complete zero and a blank!

What am I thinking wrong?

I just feel like H is not before J in that translation at all...I'm lost and I don't know how or where to get out.

Thank you

Another psychological tip for this section:

Unlike the rest of the LSAT, each question in this section is completely independent from the other. Therefore, it could be a little bit daunting to realize that all of your hard work doesn't "pay-off" for more than one single question. Moreover, the fact that you have to "start-again" 25 times and be accurate for all of these during 35 crappy minutes is a quite stressful thing. All of this invariably leads to one thing: over-anxious reading of the stimulus (since you don't care that much about the reading and the text seems to be on your way) and, on the other hand, over-relaxed/careless reading of the questions (since it feels like you're finally seeing the light and about to move on).

So here's a bit of a buddhist/dalai lama relaxing tip that some of you could use. Whenever you approach LR questions (specially those with long stimulus), try to tell yourself the story behind it. Actually USE body language to accompany each bloody sentence. So if the stimulus goes "Dogs tend to poo more in parks than in sideways" actually RELEASE the poop as you are reading it. And do not try to come up with a conclusion or a possible answer before reading the choices (except for the predictable questions that you should easily recognize if you're about to take the june thing) or at least don't over-emphasize that part. Read attentively and go through the answer options and READ THE OPTIONS with care, NOT with relief. This will help you avoid a lot of mistakes related to traps in the answer choices, and shell game traps where LSAT plants an idea in your head that throws you completely the other way.

Basically, strap your balls on while you're reading the text in the stimulus and don't release them while reading the answers (not just yet anyway).

Peace and good luck everyone!

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-69-section-4-question-16/

Hey test-takers! If you have PT69, care to discuss this question with me?

Upon review, the flaw is glaring and answer choice (B) makes sense.

During the timed test, I chose (C) and now I still can't see why the author did not make that error. H/she went from "salespeople" (whole) to "salespeople in major health stores" (part). This was the reasoning used to the reach the conclusion, so why is it not right to attack it?

Thank you!

I took the LSAT last december (thanks to 7sage!) and scored 167. While my average on tests had been 165, I saw on my test results that I had actually missed a bubble on Section 2, pushing my remaining answers back! Fortunately it was towards the end, but I still missed out on 2 correct answers (argh!!). I could have had a 169.

I'm considering taking again. But I know it's a risk- I could score the same, or lower. It's also incredibly expensive in terms of time and money and I'm now working full time. I'd welcome any thoughts on whether a second try is worthwhile, or advice from anyone who has taken it more than once. Thanks!

Hello,

I've got a common question about linking up a logic chain. I just re-watched the video lesson but it's not precisely the answer to my question. Any help is appreciated!

If you have:

Premise: A ---> B ----> C

-------------------------------------

Conclusion: D ---> C

Is it correct to try to make D ---> A and D ---> B (either one works, along with their contrapositives) OR would it be correct to make A ---> D and B ---> D?

My question is from PT 47 section 3, number 21. According to the video, it is the former method, but I remember doing it the other way sometimes. I got the Q right doing it in my head but it'd be great to confirm it. Thanks again

Ecologist: It is true that the solution of the problem of global warming will require important changes in the way we use fossil fuels over the long term and that the free market must play an important role in making these changes possible. But these facts should not make us forget how crucial near-term limits on the emissions of "greenhouse gases" are to motivate these changes. When the issue was the limitation of ozone-reducing substances, it was short-term emissions limits that quickly brought the needed technologies to the marketplace. These technologies were not available until the international community had adopted specific limits on ozone-depleting substances.

By which one of the following means does the author of this passage make his case?

(A) making a careful distinction between two key terms

(B) questioning the accuracy of the evidence given to support the opposition's case

(C) using an appropriate analogy

(D) using the literal meaning of a word that could be construed as metaphoric

(E) using premises that are contradictory

What is the passage talking about? And why is the answer "C"?

I am having difficulty translating statements with both cannot and without. For example:

A business cannot change its core corporate philosophy without becoming a different corporation. Would I translate this as, [if a company changes its corporate philosophy-> then the company becomes a different corporation]?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-2-question-24/

i'm having difficulty with the following question:

ID THE FLAW: "studies have found that human tears...[redacted]"

CORRECT answer: argument "takes for granted that because certain substances are present...[redacted]"

i can understand why the correct answer is correct by breaking down the argument:

P1: tears have hormones

P2: stress has hormones

conc: so shedding tears must reduce stress.

assumption: hormones CAUSE stress. this is why the author is saying that ~Hormone --> ~Stress

my WRONG answer: argument "overlooks the possibility that if crying has...[redacted]"

but even though i can understand why the correct answer is right i'm having a hard time articulating why my answer (above) is wrong. i thought that the answer was touching upon the idea that there is a correlation, not causation (i.e., if stress is reduced when we cry, this may be because something other than crying causes stress levels to decrease -- so the effect is just a coincidence, not a true causation). could you please help?

thanks, as always! :)

Hi! I am having difficulty with predicting descriptive flaw questions. If anyone has done this question can you please explain to me how the correct answer is D.

So my question is about Step 5 "Watch the explanation video." and Step 6 "Take a clean copy of the game.

Reproduce all inferences from memory with control and speed. "

Should I be repeating the game right after watching the video? Trying to reproduce all inferences from memory?

If so, I feel like a complete fool :) I've been watching the videos right after a game I feel I haven't mastered, then waiting a day before I try the game again...And well that hasn't gotten me to where I want to be, so I rewatched the video and I'm thinking I could have been doing it wrong this whole time...

Has anyone tried this before? I plan on doing it on the PT I take tomorrow and I feel like it could be a legitimate strategy. My RC is consistently my most weakest section, usually 5 min is called as i begin the last passage and the last passage is just about always stacked in regards to the number of questions and the degree of difficulty. This leaves me with precious little time to get through a difficult passage that carries with it a lot of points. At the same time I've noticed that the first passage is consistently the easiest, in terms of structure and content, and is usually accompanied with fewer questions. So my thinking is that I'll be pressed for time right at the end with (hopefully) an easier passage in front of me carrying with it less weight (number of questions).

Has anyone tried this approach before? If so, what did you think?

.

good morning all ,

hope your Easter was fun!!

NA-they are kicking my butt!

negating the right answer usually will get me only a few correct but for the most part it confuses me.

when approaching necessary assumptions my mind reverts to Sufficient assumption techniques because I don't have a clear understanding of how to attack necessary assumptions.

what approach did you use , or how did you overcome necessary assumption questions?

help me my fellow LSAT warriors !