Hey all, I've heard various things about RC becoming increasingly difficult over recent tests and wondered if anyone who has recently taken an official test can attest to this? Do the 156+ (previously 90s) tests or the 148-155 (previously the 80s) mirror the current test?

(P1) According to dinosaur fossils, dinosaurs had an oxygen isotope ratio in their bones that suggests that their CORES had roughly the same temperature as their LIMBS.

(P2) Today, cold-blooded animals have much warmer CORES than LIMBS.

(MC) Therefore, dinosaurs were probably warm-blooded.

Weaken

This argument assumes, among other things, that warm-blooded animals, unlike cold-blooded animals, do NOT have much warmer CORES than LIMBS, or some other temperature distribution that deviates even more from the dinosaurs'. To anticipate the right answer, I thus was expecting a weaking option targeting this assumption.

(A) Unlike cold-blooded animals, warm-blooded animals only have SLIGHTLY warmer CORES than LIMBS. This goes in the direction of my pre-phrase but is not very strong. Crucially, it remains more likely that dinosaurs were warm-blooded than that they were cold-blooded, just as the author claims. So this answer choice does not seem to actually weaken, even though it gets at the assumption that the author makes, and that I had identified as the weak point of their argument.

(B) Dinosaur fossils don't actually allow you to do the temperature inference described in (P1). This answer is very unusual in that it attacks a premise rather than the reasoning in the argument. Nevertheless, this answer choice definitely weakens, since it takes away the data about dinosaurs that the author presupposes. Keep this answer choice around but be vigilant; see if a less premise-focused answer choice is available.

(C) About oxygen generally. Does not seem to pertain to the argument.

(D) Body temperatures in small and large animals other than dinosaurs. Does not seem to connect directly to the argument; especially since the stimulus does not identify dinosaurs as either small or large.

(E) Warm-blooded animals are more active and use more oxygen than cold-blooded animals. This again does not seem to relate directly to the argument under consideration.

(C), (D), and (E) turn out to be largely unrelated to the argument in the stimulus, and (A) does not seem to weaken the inference made by the author. This leaves (B) as the only remaining answer choice, and thus (B) must be right.

Nevertheless, (B) feels very much uncomfortable and is unusual. (B) just straight up contradicts information that we get in the stimulus, rather than attacking the author's reasoning. It also seems unusual to have this sort of unexpected answer choice so early in the section; just expecting straightforward questions in (Q1)-(Q10) is too naive.

I originally chose (A) because I got too focused on my anticipation of how the right answer could look like, and thus I neglected (B). Nevertheless, a more careful examination of what (A) and (B) are actually saying would have allowed me to get this question right. I need to stay alert to the details of individual answers and compare them against each other; a more thorough examination between (A) and (B) would have allowed me to see that (A) does not in fact weaken and that (B)'s unusual character does not prevent it from being the right answer here. Read answer choices carefully, compare them against each other, and choose the one that has the fewest problems.

RC is by far my worst section-- and the most inconsistent which worries me. I can go from -3 to -8 between preptests.

I find that on preptests I get a lot of inference questions wrong. I'm usually able to eliminate the obvious wrong AC fairly quickly BUT I ALWAYS select the trap AC.

I was wondering how other people tackle these problems and if anyone else has similar problems with inference questions!

Now that you can use mechanical pencils on the LSAT Flex, I thought I would give some advice here as someone that is a self proclaimed mechanical pencil nerd. I have used many in practicing for the LSAT and have to give my #1 recommendation to the Delguard ER . It is 0.5 MM and has a mechanism that prevents the lead from breaking (up to three clicks). It has saved me all kinds of time and frustration. The Delguard ER is great for smaller hands, and the regular non ER model is still great, but thinner. All around it's a great pencil. The eraser is OKAY, so I would recommend a mono black foam stick eraser, but that's your personal preference.

just ran into an answer that entailed a baby preferring certain colors with no indication in the passage that it has any preference.

Can it really? How do we know?

Another example i've found is that one must PREFER an easier/more efficient task over a more difficult one! But why always??

In a broader sense, i've encountered a few situations in which the word "preferred" appears in answer choices, and i cant help but feel that the use of "preferred" is a sneaky attempt to get me to make an over-assumption!

Maybe it's just me, but anyways, I need to stop psyching myself out.

I am scoring about 4/5 points lower then goal score, but on those PT I am getting -5/-6 LG . This is my best section and I am usually lower then that but lately have been higher and not sure why. I know I can go -0 or MAX -2, but not doing it recently. When I BR I just shake my head because I fix the couple little mistakes so quick and wonder how I even ended up at that AC timed. I have full proofing all LG from 1-35 now so maybe it's because I have been doing too many games ?? not really sure and looking for advise to tweak up LG before test. Thank you!

I am coming up on my October LSAT, and my RC scores have started to slip. I'm not quite sure how to tackle this! I think the PTs in the 70s and 80s are turning up the heat a bit with the questions, but I'm wondering if anyone has any tips for reviewing my tests, remembering details, etc...I am watching the question explanations for the questions I'm missing, but it doesn't seem to be making a difference.

I so, so, so appreciate any advice that you can offer!!!

Really confused by the extent to which we rely on diagram in this question. For PF questions, when is the case that we do not strictly follow the diagram in the stimulus? https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-2-question-22/

STIMULUS:

H–>/G

——-

H /G (confirm one theory at the expense of the other)

However, AC E:

D–>/J

——–

/D–>J (either or)

If the above is true, why is AC E is still the correct AC? Or in this case, are we choosing the best AC?

Hello,

I am writing the November LSAT and I am genuinely so confused and over whelmed with how to get started. How often do I need to do a practice test how do I work through all the material? They removed logic games, how do I tackle the other sections?

Can someone explain why E is wrong?

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

Really confused by the extent to which we rely on diagram in this question. For PF questions, when is the case that we do not strictly follow the diagram in the stimulus? https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-2-question-22/

STIMULUS:

H–>/G

——-

H /G (confirm one theory at the expense of the other)

However, AC E:

D–>/J

——–

/D–>J (either or)

If the above is true, why is AC E is still the correct AC? Or in this case, are we choosing the best AC?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-4-question-07/

I've watched JY's explanation and the only other forum post regarding this question, but I'm still not sure why my reasoning for B is incorrect.

I understand the diagramming to be:

P: know a lot about history —> easy to impress intellectuals

C: /(know a lot about history) —> /(easy to impress intellectuals)

I also understand this to be a case of:

Invalid Argument Structure

A —> B

———

/A —> /B

What doesn't make sense to me is I chose B though because I'm thinking it's possible

(you could know a lot about history ---> /(easy to impress intellectuals)) or (A --> /B). I'm not sure if my reasoning is correct and it's just not appropriate in this situation because it fails step 2 of the flaw test or if something else about it is flat-out incorrect. Any feedback is appreciated. Thank you.

Hi everyone,

I first started studying for the LSATs about a year ago, and have taken the LSAT 3 times since then. I plan on applying this year.

Nov 2018: 161

Mar 2019: 161

Jul 2019: 163

I had been consistently PTing at 165+ since May, but my digital July testing center had issues which I know affected my performance. I'm planning on taking the test one more time in November, and since I have another shot, I was hoping to tackle the 2 things that have consistently brought my score down: flaw + argument part question types.

I can tell you all 19 flaw types and I can tell you exactly what the highlighted argument part phrase/sentence is doing in an argument -- in my own words. My problem is the freaking answer options... I feel like 95% of the time I have a hard time understanding what the answer options are actually saying. Is it just me or has anyone else struggled with this? I have generally taken the strategy of skipping those questions and coming back to them, but now that I've (literally) bought myself another opportunity, I thought I'd try to master these.

If you are a tutor and think I could benefit from a session with you, please let me know! I'm open to tutoring at this point as well.

Thanks!

FW

I chose AC C and didn't even know I was wrong until I did heavy review on the right AC D.

C. I initially thought "Yes the author would agree it is a predominant strength for the Mexican American writers to not be tied down by a literary establishment. It would follow reasonably that without the need to be accountable to a larger establishment the writers are more free to experiment."

The part where this is wrong is the 2nd half - "So are free to experiment..." Where is the support from the passage that the author believes the writers are more free to experiment in ways Mexican writers can't? There isn't any. In fact, where is the support that Mexican writers can't experiment??? This was an assumption I made - that if you are tied to a literary establishment, you won't be able to experiment. But in fact no such reference is made. All we know is that Mexican writing tends to be characterized by longer writing, more "cosmopolitanism," and more theoretical content. We don't know that Mexican writers are discouraged from being experimental.

My takeaways - 1. Where is "experimenting" mentioned? It's not, this should be a red flag if the AC mentions a theme / content that's not found in the passage. 2. It is a big assumption that to be tied to a literary establishment, even if the author thinks this is a bad thing, may not mean you're less able to experiment. What if in fact the establishment has been encouraging experimentation relentlessly to Mexican authors?

D. I was put off by "regional" writers; I didn't think the author believed Mexican American writers were regional at all! But this doesn't matter!!! We could exclude the Mexican American writers completely and the author would still have to agree with this AC.

The Mexico city literary establishment = "this community." They believe "regional" writing (dismissive tone) is "parochial" again a negative tone word. So in Mexico "this community" writes in a certain way and has control for who is successful and who isn't. If someone is writing "regional" and "parochial" content, is this going to win the award for best book in Mexico? No, because the establishment who runs the show doesn't value the regional and parochial content. They value something else.

The question stem for this question asks us to pick an answer choice that shows that the explanation we were given in the stimulus is only a "partial one." I was doing this question as part of my weakening problem set. I read through the stimulus and was quickly able to identify my premise and conclusion:

P: Time runner's foot spends on the surface is less on a hard surface

C: Hard surface makes for greater running speed than a soft surface

I ended up choosing answer choice B, because I thought it provided us with an alternative explanation for why runners perform faster on the hard surface. In my mind, I thought the author was neglecting to acknowledge that it was actually the height of the runners that was affecting their performance rather than the hard surface.

If I were to add the following to answer choice B:

"when running on hard surfaces"---- would this make answer choice B correct? If not, why? Or would the stimulus have to make reference to the short v. tall runners?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-2-question-09/

I am having a hard time spotting the right answer for NA questions. Can someone provide a way of attacking the answer choices? I always negate the answer choice to see if it destroys the argument, but I don't think I am doing it right. I keep falling for a trick answer choice. #HELP

Am I the only person struggling to understand the explanation video? I find it very confusing. Per the explanation from the video, the passage excludes Spain from Europe but isn’t Europe still in Spain which would support answer A? The reason I could perhards see A as the answer is line 7-9 cites the origin of spanish-language proverbs while A says Mexican American proverbs. Besides that, I'm not getting the explanation that proved A wrong and I've watch the video 7 times.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-4-passage-2-questions/

Are there tips for practicing identifying this? Like a list of potential things each paragraph could be? the vocab always trips me up. thanks! @"Juliet - 7Sage"

Y'all.

I just saw someone else post this on another discussion thread, but for any testtakers today or later this week, do NOT forget to click on “Ready to Check In” before (BEFORE!!!) your 10 minute break is up. Do not wait until that timer hits '0'!!

I'm sure everyone registered got this email from LSAC:

--

"Section 3 will not begin until the countdown clock expires. Test takers must click the “Ready to Check In” button before the intermission expires. Once this button is clicked, the test taker is taken to a waiting room. At this point, your proctor will resecure your testing environment so that you can go on to Section 3.

It is absolutely critical that you return to your computer and click the “Ready to Check In” button within the allotted 10 minutes.

If you fail to check in for Section 3 of the LSAT prior to the expiration of the 10-minute intermission, your testing session will be terminated and your score will be canceled. This cancellation will be recorded by LSAC as a Candidate Cancel and reported to any school to which you apply for admission that utilizes LSAC’s Credential Assembly Service (CAS) reports."

I checked in at the 1'20'' left mark. And don't worry, I still had to wait until the full 10 minutes were done, and my proctor was slow to return anyways. PLUS I had another extra minute just BEFORE Section 3 was due to begin. So no one's getting jipped if you 'check in' early.

--

⚠⚠⚠ Please, y'all... DO THIS. ⚠⚠⚠

With question 14, after I fulfill the condition of T testing G on the second day, why can't T test H on the second day as well? The rules tell us I can't have both Ts testing G (done). It doesn't say anything about a rider not testing on the 2nd day twice on different bicycles. Furthermore, what if I chose my set as "GFJH" instead of "FGHJ." Would I be violating any rule? It doesn't mention the bicycles being in order so why do I violate a rule if I decide to place T to test H on the second day. Thanks

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-2-game-3/

In a nutshell, the developer says there is a country whose strict regulatory rules ban personal property holders from erecting buildings on their plot if any rarified animals in danger on the land. These rules render the existence of those animals a serious fiscal burden on them as their hands are tied businesswise. By virtue of those sacred beings, the proprietors feel reluctant about sheltering them and shielding them from harms. Therefore, endangered species would very likely not be jeopardized, if not better served, if the bureaucratic red tape is peeled off for good.

(A) is not the one we are looking for. Because the author is not mixed up between the absence of a condition or the presence of a condition that is no longer in effect which was designed to protect the endangered species from the outset but would be revoked on the assumption that its absence would not likely to harm them and a condition that would be obliged to avoid the endangerment of those rare species on the land.

B) is somewhat irrelevant. Above all, there is no morality-bound call or moral verdict grounded on fact-based assertions or accounts. In my opinion, a value judgment is like this: it is not ethical for humans to endanger those rarified species further by not protecting their subsistence. But this argument is the opposite of the developer's conclusion. Based on the factual grounds, he/she thinks one could go back on this duty because his assessment projects that this dispensation/waiver/relief does not likely harm those species. It rationalizes a claim based on the alleged facts without a value judgment.

(C) is the guy we have been searching for. This Mr. Right has it all. It, all of a sudden, somewhat irrationally, snubs any probability that even if some factors are prone to engender a presumed effect, they might be likely to beget more powerful countermanding/offsetting effects too. Then the final outcome could be more harm to those animals.

For instance, this suspension of the rule application might put those animals out of harm's way if those landowners just do not do anything about this roll-back except feeling happy about the exemption of the financial liability. However, what if there are other hyenas lurking around to capitalize on this repeal? They could be poachers eager to snare those animals to make money out of them. It could backfire on those animals which are be supposed to be protected in the absence of those rules.

(D) is a bit weird-do. No need to zoom in on those landowners to play a blame game. Those landowners could indeed enjoy the removal of regulatory rules in a different way than anticipated. For instance, once those regulations are rescinded, they decide to turn those animals into their cash cow to rake in dollars. Sure, it is possible. But it is not a flaw that is the most noticeable in his argument. The principal perp is his negligence about considering the side effects or backlash from the revocation esp. from the perspective of those animals meant to be protected by design. That was what his/her conclusion was about.

(E) is a total jerk and a typical A-hole wasting my time. This argument has no bearing on those landowners on whose tract no endangered species live.

Hey everyone!

I'm looking to get some more LR practice under my belt and hone in on my skills by tutoring. I have yet to master this section, but I have improved a good amount. When first starting out I started out averaging -13/-14 per LR section and have gotten that down to -4/-5! I'm looking to primarily tutor those early in their studying stage and have difficulty with concepts!

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.