Hello everyone,

While the printable preptests and 7Sage's digital tester use line numbers when referencing sentences in RC questions, I noticed the digital preptests on LSAC's website don't use line numbers, and instead say stuff like "in the middle of the third paragraph". Can anyone confirm what those questions are like when taking the actual test? Also, are we able to check off the box to condense the RC passage on test day as well?

Hi!

I was watching the explanation for the in/out game referring to a group of people who can only be hired if they are interviewed for a position. In the explanation for the last question in the set, it mentions that the problem states at least 4 people are hired. However, I did not see that mentioned anywhere in the problem. Is it possible that there was an edit to the language or is there an inference that was not explained that I missed.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-1-game-2/

Any advice besides reading more to improve in the reading comprehension section ? Structure, timing or types of questions?

So far I have been doing Bottom line but I have not seen much improvement.

Is the LR section harder to improve on or RC? I do great on the games, not so much on either of those. I have 5 weeks before I take my 2nd LSAT test and need to bring my score up by at least 7 points....please any tried and true methods that would really help someone in a pinch or is it still just practice practice practice?

Does anyone have the same feeling?

I bombed every single LR section after PT70.

I find that LR questions after 70 allows more room for making subtle assumptions and hence the answer choices are not as clear as before. This is probably the reason why I got trapped more often.

I narrowed it down to (A) derisive condescension and (B) open dissatisfaction, and then picked (A) after referring back to the language about how Gilliam was "impatient" with strictly representational art. In retrospect, I can see how (A) connotes too strong of a sentiment; but I'm not sure what I could have gone back to or thought while solving under time to show that (A) is too strong and (B) is just right. Can anyone explain their thinking? TIA!

Are there in study groups in Washington DC area for LSAT in September 2017?

So I took the July LSAT and did not do well...like 4 points before my average not well. I am signed up for the August LSAT and I’ve seen a decline in my scores over the past 2 weeks. I know this is all in my head and related to seeing that bad score, so I’m looking for advice on how to overcome this and possibly a tutor to work with in the next week to help with confidence, especially in reading comp. Anything is helpful. Thanks!

Hi,

Can anyone explain to me their reasoning about how they approached the correct answer here?

I thought that A (the correct answer) was wrong here because we have no idea why Chopin did not believe in the local colorists' idealization on line 38. Thus, it doesn't have to be because Chopin thought that the local colorists were "misguided" (aka wrong).

On the other hand I thought that B was right because it seemed a little more supported: in lines 32-35, it at least explains why Chopin wrote using local colorists' conventions: because she thought that the sentimental novels she read when she was little were a bit too excessive. In addition, my thought was: why write something that is so emotional in such a detached manner (line 37) unless you wanted to deafen the emotional impact?

Any #help would be appreciated!

Best regards

I just finished the principle reasoning section, and I'm wondering if I should go back and redo the lawgic lessons. I still find myself really struggling with the forms (and wanting to use them when I attempt to answer the questions). Has anyone had the same problem? Or has anyone gone back and redone the lessons?

BTW I plan to take the LSAT for the first time in April

Can someone please explain?

Hey is anyone coming across an issue where their videos are not loading for the lectures and it says due to their server?

Talks about a reserve price paradoxically to the highest bidder and making money for a desirable item

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

Can someone explain why the answer choice is A not C?

Hi everyone I took the April LSAT and am cancelling my score for the June LSAT retake. I continue to struggle with RC. Trying not to get bogged down by the articles stating RC is the hardest to improve but I cannot seem to grasp how to get through at least 3 passages all correctly. What is your strategy? What is your method of attack when approaching a RC passage? What do you look for and ask yourself along the way? Appreciate any input thanks

An idea just occurred to me about how to approach MP questions in RC. My accuracy in these Qs is about 80%, but obviously I'd like this higher, and it can still be a tricky question type for me (i.e, time sink). A strategy I started using in LR MP questions is if it's a tough one where two answers are nearly identical, I say to myself, "Which one could potentially support the other?" The one that could give support is not the answer. This usually works. I'm wondering if I could apply that same logic to RC questions. Are RC MP questions asking what is the conclusion? Is there a difference in this context between "Main Point" and "conclusion" (Which would mean that the main point, i.e, conclusion, would require the support of premises)? Anybody ever have the same approach? I'm going to start implementing it, but I figure I'd get some feedback. Happy studying!

I have a question about the law as it is presented in this stimulus: if something isn't prohibited in the law, does that automatically make it legal?

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

I understand how A is correct, can someone please explain it to me? thanks

I genuinely did not understand the stimulus.

I'm having trouble finding support for answer choice D. Can someone help out?

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [first set of words]"

Hi! I'm taking the LSAT in Nov. and I'm having trouble with In/Out questions. ANYTHING HELPS!!

PT F97.S1.Q18 – Roseville Courthouse

We are asked to identify the point at issue / disagreement between Mayor Tyler and Councillor Simon. Tyler suggested to build a new courthouse for the city of Roseville in 1982 for a price of 26 million dollars, but ‘now’ in 1992 the price of the courthouse is 30 million. Tyler uses these premises to infer that Roseville would have saved 4 million dollars if the courthouse had been built in 1982, as suggested. Tyler also mentions in passing that the existing courthouse has been overcrowded.

Simon responds by bringing in the topic of inflation: The 26 million dollars that the courthouse would have costed in 1982 are equivalent to 37 million in 1992 dollars. Simon takes this to show that Roseville actually saved money by not building the courthouse. Simon also mentions in passing that the courthouse, had it actually been built, would have been underutilized.

There thus are at least two disagreements in this exchange, one much more overt than the other: (1) Roseville was right not to build the courthouse in 1982: Tyler disagrees, Simon agrees. (2) Had the courthouse been built, it would have been put to good use: Tyler agrees, Simon disagrees. The answer choices are tricky in that four of them purport to get at this first disagreement while not actually resolving it. Only one answer choice, the correct one, gets at the second disagreement and actually resolves it:

(A) This gets at Roseville’s actions going forward, does not directly relate to either disagreement.

(B) This gets at the issue of inflation adjusted prices, does not directly relate to either disagreement.

(C) This gets at the extent of Tyler’s responsibility, does not directly relate to either disagreement.

(D) This does get at the second disagreement and points out one issue where Tyler and Simon disagree: Would a new courthouse actually have been needed / been put to good use? Tyler agrees, as Tyler proclaims the present courthouse overcrowded, i.e. insufficient to serve Roseville’s existing population spatially. Simon disagrees; states that a hypothetical larger courthouse would have remained underutilized. The disagreement is subtle, but definitely present.

(E) This confuses the issue of inflation adjustment with financial upkeep, purports to get at the first disagreement but actually misrepresents information from the passage, in an apparent attempt to confuse test takers who did not select one of the previous answers the first time around.

Takeaway: This is a tricky question in that there are two disagreements only one of which gets resolved. The question stem arguably hints at this by speaking of ‘A point of disagreement,’ rather than of ‘The point of disagreement;’ i.e. the question stem leaves open the possibility of multiple disagreements. Nevertheless, this question demands some reflection. Read stimulus and answer choices more than once to get at the nuance of the issues at play. Do process of elimination for the wrong answer choices. If necessary, flag the question the first time around and return to it at the end of the section.

This section alone has four weaken questions!!! I don't think i've ever had a section with so many flaw and weaken questions together... anyway, since JY's explanation videos are not available yet, I want to put these confusing ones out here for discussion:

Q22

Premise: (because) if we want to know medieval epi includes some claims, we just ask whether any epi believe it. If they did, then it is part of medieval epi; if they didn't then the opposite is part of medieval epi.

Conclusion: The solution to define medieval epistemology simply as the epistemological beliefs of the medieval epistemologists.

The correct AC is E, however I feel like E is weakening the premise. since we're supposed to weaken the support in this type of questions, I'm not sure E does that and also this argument feels like circular reasoning to me. Please feel free to point out any problems in my breakdown of the argument.

Q24

premise: if pollen from a drug-producing crop flies into a nearby non-drug-producing crop of the same species, the drug could fertilize and turn it into a drug-producing crop.

conclusion: genetically engineered crop raises the possibility that drug will end up in the general food supply.

I chose E for this question, becuz i think E provides that even though X happens, doesn't mean Y will necessarily ensue (X, not Y).

Similar to Q22, I find the correct answer choice D to weaken the premise, instead of the support.

Aside from just repetition, do you guys know the best way to tell what chart to use for each type of question? Often find myself having a harder time just because I am not using the best possible chart for the scenario and am actually overcomplicating things.

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