I chose B, and then A, as I was unsure how this claim directly supported the main conclusion...

Hey everyone, I just completed the advanced logic lesson. Most of it made sense, until embedded conditionals.... Reviewing the intro to logic section. 7Sage said they are very rare but very hard.

I am just curious, how hung up should I get on the embedded conditionals stuff ? I suppose as it is the hardest logic lesson I shouldn't be so down about not having it stick after only a day or two of reading the advanced section. But that being said. I have watched the advanced logic section a couple times now, at this point I feel like I am just wasting time ! I am not trying to sound pompous but thus far nothing has ever really made me feel this stupid before and it has me questioning my whole study study plan.

Should I just forge ahead and hopefully this stuff will click with more time and practice/following more along the core curriculum ? In all honesty I am only shooting for a mid 150 range score, Is embedded conditionals worth stressing over ?

Other then that, If anyone has any advice or extra material on this stuff I am all ears. Thanks !

Is it recommended to do the: 1) Introduction to Logic (8.2h), and 2) Advanced Logic (2.1h) sections of the Syllabus BEFORE jumping into the Intro to Logic Games & Sequencing and the rest of the LG topics?

I signed up for 7sage's LSAT starter with the intent of studying Logic Games (LG). I'm primarily using the LSAT Trainer's program and have found it tremendously helpful for the RC and LR sections. I want to ensure that I remain efficient and effective in how I train, all while simultaneously seeking ways to be multiplicative in the different LSAT topics I study. (I hope I am making sense)

**(Disclaimer: I started studying for the LSAT on June 6th, 2018 with the LSAT Trainer and completed the first 18 Lessons. I had some life challenges that took me away from studying. I resumed LSAT preparation with the LSAT Trainer on October 6th, 2018 but decided to start from Lesson 1. I'm about a quarter of the way through the entire book.

I've taken off the next five weeks from work to train up for the Nov LSAT to give myself the most time.

I look forward to the perspectives on this forum.

Is E the right answer because it is the only choice that addresses jurisdictions that have mandatory headlight usage? Thanks.

I take my LSAT next week, and I am in the low 160s at the moment. The literal only things on logical reasoning that is keeping me down are the conditional and causal reasoning questions. Are there any specific lessons from the syllabus that anyone found really, really helped with these? I know I could just rewatch all of them but due to my limited time I want to make sure I'm really prioritizing what matters here. Thanks! Good luck everyone

Hi everyone!

I'm having a hard time with parallel method of reasoning questions. I know that I have to find the method in the stimulus and find the answer choice that uses the same method. Any tips?

Thanks in advance,

Amy

I need help diagramming statements (with contrapositives) with keywords like: some, most, few, many, none, no one. I am having troubles answering Must be True questions on LR section that has those keywords. And, do I always translate such statements in if/then format or is there instances when it is not applicable?

(example question that throw me off with these keywords is Q12, Section 2, PT23. How can they use "weak local government" as sufficient without negating it when the FL structure in stimulus makes it necessary? and if that is possible, why D is incorrect then compared to the correct answer B?)

Thank you!

LR has been one of the hardest sections for me to get a solid understanding of. I went back through the CC and redid all the lessons on conditional logic and it helped immensely. Since then, I have been going back through the different question types in the order of the CC syllabus. I have printed out problem sets by question type from PTs1-35. I do try to add variety to my problem sets. For example, I'll do 10 strengthening, 10 MBT, 10 SA , 5 SA, and 5 MSS on one day. I have been doing all these problem sets untimed. I will spend as much time as needed to answer the question. Once I am 100% confident, I will go ahead and check the answer. If I get it wrong, I write out a detailed response on why I got it incorrect. I have found that my accuracy and speed have started to get better with 1,2, and 3 star questions. However, the 4 and 5 star questions take me a long time. I can spend upward of ten minutes on a single 4/5 star question. I have found that the language of the stimulus for a 4/5 question is incredibly convoluted. At this stage, should I drill 4/5 star questions? How do you get better with these harder questions? For those who have done untimed drills, at what point did you start to incorporate time? Finally, how would do you determine whether or not you're ready to drill full LR sections?

Thanks in advance!

Doesn't [D] just strengthen the premise that scholars are more likely to study successful businesses than unsuccessful businesses? Can someone explain to me why it's right? It doesn't seem to strengthen the support that being more likely to study successful businesses -> overestimating successes of past businesses.

I chose [E] because it seemed to directly relate to the support. Just because scholar are more likely to study successful businesses doesn't mean that they're overestimating the successes of past businesses... what if they're also including setbacks that those successful businesses had along the way? [E] seems to guard against this potential weakness by saying that historical records actually don't allow historians to infer those setbacks. Why is [E] wrong?!

Hello!

Could some explain to me why C is correct and how they arrived to the answer? Would also appreciate it if you could tell me why the other answer choices, especially D (which is what I chose), are incorrect! Thank you so much.

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

Anyone have some tips on LR ? Would love to have a zoom call with someone who's strong on LR and maybe teach me a different approach? I read the powerbooks .. use Khan.. have Kaplan tutoring coming up.... Sometimes I learn better from peers.

I personally find this the hardest LR question in PT 14; it is (1) bizarre on the level of content, (2) very long and overloads test takers with information, and (3) at the very end of the fourth section, thus hitting you at a point of the test where you already spent 2+ hours intensively thinking about stuff and are mentally exhausted.

In paraphrased form, the stimulus says:

(1) Phenomenon: In the Peruvian desert, there are different sets of lines in the sand. These lines occur in different layers: On the top layer, there are lines that branch out from a single point. Beneath that, there are lines that form a bird figure.

(2) Hypothesis: An investigator argues for the conclusion that both of these sets of lines were brought about by aliens, who supposedly used the Peruvian desert to land their space ships. To support this conclusion, the investigator evokes the premises that the lines in the sand would have been useless to Incas.

The first thing to do here is to figure out what the stimulus is even about: The phenomenon itself is not immediately clear – it is crucial to note that there are TWO sets of lines, not just one –, and the investigator’s hypothesis is counterintuitive to a degree that it becomes all too easy to disregard the glaring selective attention fallacy in their reasoning (Aliens or Incas, not Incas; therefore aliens). So the first hurdle here is to even figure out what is going on, and to throw out one’s common sense intuitions out of the window (How can you even identify the different layers of ancient lines in the sand? How did the lines stick around for so long? All of these questions become irrelevant).

The next hurdle then is the question stem, which again seems bizarre: Here, the test writers tell us that we seek to establish the conclusion that the lines are supposed to refer to astronomical phenomena, and that we are supposed to block an alternative hypothesis to the effect that the lines are non-astronomical. So at this point this seems to become a sort of strengthen question. The question stem is unusual to an extent that it becomes hard to pre-phrase or anticipate how a right answer might look like. Thus process of elimination seems to be the best approach:

(A) North American natives arranged stones in ways that allow for the measurement of astronomical phenomena. This seems to strengthen a little bit in that it points out a seemingly analogous case (It is not only in South America but also in North America that people used geological means to keep track of astronomical phenomena). However, it seems unclear how this answer choice would also have the blocking effect that the question stem is asking for. Thus keep around as a candidate but expect that one of the other answer choices might well be better.

(B) The straight lines indicate positions at which astronomical events could have been observed ‘at plausible dates,’ and the bird lines could represent a constellation. This gets at both sets of lines and associates both of them with astronomical phenomena. The answer thus is fairly specific. Furthermore, the answer itself postulates its own plausibility (‘plausible dates’), which seems like a massive hint, though again unusual. Like the rest of this question, (B) thus again seems wildly counterintuitive, but in the scenario we are supposed to explain, (B) arguably makes the most sense. In particular, (B) approximates the desired function more than (A). Thus far this thus is the least bad answer choice.

(C) The lines form patterns. This answer choice is worse than (B), due to its lack of specificity and its apparent disconnect from the question stem. Worst answer choice thus far.

(D) Central American Natives used rocks to measure astronomical phenomena. This answer choice seems almost identical to (A) and thus provides good grounds to dismiss both (A) and (D): There can only be one correct answer choice, two virtually identical answer choices thus are likely to both be false.

(E) The bird lines might be older than the straight lines. Again irrelevant; (B) must be right.

Takeaways: This seems to be a question where the LSAT really tries hard to make test takers focus exclusively on reasoning structures, not on common sense intuition or plausibility. In this sense, the question is similar to other early LR questions that seem weird content wise but make syntactical sense on the level of formal logic. Focus on getting a clear understanding of what is going on in the stimulus and the question stem; I spent four minutes on this and still felt overwhelmed. Get a clear grasp of what the phenomenon is, what the explanation attempt from the stimulus is trying to say, and how the two alternative explanatory directions from the question stem relate to another. Then use process of elimination to get through the answers.

Hey all, I'm struggling to understand why AC A in PT 119, Section 1, Question 14, is incorrect. I've reviewed the video explanation, online forums, and comments, but the best explanation I could come up with is below. Help on understanding this would be much appreciated - I've thought through this for several days but am still confused. I've never been this stumped after reviewing a wrong RC answer.

Q14: I understand why AC C is correct but am still struggling to eliminate A, especially since A seemed supported by lines 37-40 "personal and cultural screens of silence and secretiveness that have enshrouded her past". Here are a few things that I believe discredit A as a viable answer choice:

Although this might be a subtle distinction, in this context "history" means a a factual record of historical facts, where Naomi "reconciles" history - in other words uncovers or accepts difficult truths about her personal history and the historical context in which she lived.

Heritage, as JY alludes to, refers to cultural or ancestral legacy, including cultural traditions.

In this case, being discouraged from exploring heritage is not supported(?). I would still argue that if AC A references history (not heritage) it might be supported by lines 37-40. Even with the distinction between history and heritage, I'm not fully convinced that A is not supported. These in-text lines refer to cultural secretiveness. Does this mean that Naomi was discouraged from seeking her heritage? Secretiveness of the past does seem to refer to a form of discouragement.

Hello 7Sagers,

I am currently working on weaken questions and I am having a hard time understanding the task. I understand that I am supposed to focus on the conclusion, but find the gap between the premises and conclusion ( with the ac) that will weaken the argument. However, it is hard for me to do this accurately because i feel its too much in my head and i get confused. What are some strategies you all use to stop yourselves from getting confused. Do you focus only on weakening the conclusion or something else? Can i think of weakening questions in another way?

Is there no explanation for this vide? I'm confused why it shows discussion only... :(

I started studying for the LSAT a week ago. I am taking my LSAT in September. What version would you guys recommend V1 or V2?

Rewords the conclusion

hey all,

i know for LR, the usual benchmark is spend 1 minute per question (for 15 in 15, 25 in 25). And If you're at 1 minute and still can't get it, just skip it.

for RC, what's the benchmark in terms of how much time to spend on a question?

For RC, I've heard of ppl view this by thinking of "processes" (read all AC, reread question stem, go back to passage, and if still can't get it, then skip). They focus on "processes" instead of time.

The challenge, though, is there are some RC questions (like the REALLY LONG analogy questions that take up half a page where the question stem is a a paragraph long and each answer choice is a paragraph long), where just reading the question stem and all the AC's takes like 3 minutes.

Should I just skip these REALLY long RC questions, or just dive in them and spend 3 minutes on them?

Any advice or suggestions appreciated. Thank you!

Okay, Im having so much trouble trying to fund out what goes into the sufficient or the necessary conditions. Specifically in group 3 and 4. I feel like I get it wrong every time. Can anyone direct me to a specific lesson in the syllabus or explain to me how to better distinguish what goes in the sufficient or the necessary.

Anybody in the Phoenix area down to form a study group?

Let me first say that I was granted 50% extra time for the LSAT so I'm still getting used to the difference. My last test was a 165 with 23/26 LR, 23/25 LR, 16/23 LG, 21/27 RC. I feel really confident about LR for the most part but 3 of the questions I missed were strengthening questions so I'll definitely drill those. I actually misread one of the logic games that was stacked traits and totally bombed it with 2/7 for that game but I'll also drill those to make sure I don't make that mistake again and if I would've understood the game I'm fairly confident I would've gone 20-21/23 in that LG section. HOWEVER, the RC is screwing me up big time. It is SO difficult for me to get any type of improvement in RC. I am so stuck and not sure where to go even with accommodations I am absolutely unsure how to approach RC passages sometimes. Should I just drill them like any other game? How about Reviewing the RC? I see tangible improvement in everything but RC I feel like.

Edit: I also should note that its mainly Humanities and Social Sciences passages that I feel especially challenging.

Can anyone please explain the pattern of reasoning that would make the answer C?

Hi, I’m new to 7sage and was wondering if there is a PDF with the group 1-4 keywords when we start talking about logic.

My PT scores are around 166-173 and just got a 16mid score in April, aim 173+ in June. Hope to find someone to discuss PTs especially RC/LR section together, also we can oversee each other's study schedules. Please DM me or reply if interested!

I cannot seem to get above a 176 on my blind review. I am grateful that I test at around the same level as my BR (171-175) but I also recognize that I am not going to be able to get above a 175 if I am not doing so on the blind review. I do the wrong answer journals (why did I get this wrong - what was my thinking - why is the correct answer right - why didn't I think it was right - what type of mindset/strategy is necessary for me to get it right next time) and I even log trends in wrong questions. I even have a vocab list I study. I just cannot get past this plateau. Any advice would be helpful