Just something I've been doing a lot lately that I think might help some ppl out.

I commute every day to work, so I leave in the morning and my dad drops me off at the train station and then I ride the train to work. (it really freaking sucks spending 2 hrs 45 min a day commuting!!!)

Using my smartphone, I usually read articles related to tech or science on the train, and as I read I try ask myself questions like "what was the author's purpose in mentioning _______" or "what function does the word _________ serve in this sense" as I go through each article. When you're reading try to do the fool proof method JY talked about where you ingrain the main point of each paragraph in your mind. Then, at the end of the article, ask yourself MSS and inference type questions. Be creative!

I find most of these articles through news.google.com and search for new science, tech, or world news type articles.

I am sure that most of these articles are not of the caliber presented on the LSAT but just reinforcing the methodology used to go through a LSAT passage is VERY helpful.

When I first started studying for RC I found it tough to get through so much material but now I am relieved when I turn the page to the next section and see a passage. Hopefully you will also like the RC section more if you read some articles. The general knowledge you gain might even be helpful on the test!

I remember some people asking what sort of magazines they can read that might help them. Using something like google news is really simple and if you have a smartphone or a tablet and internet access you can build your RC skills on the go!

Hey guys, first of all here is the link to this question.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-59-section-3-question-13/

I seem to be having a lot of problem with questions that require mathematical understanding.

I got this question right through POE, but having a real hard time trying to understand why the correct answer is correct.

So the premise is about the relative difference in the percentage of INJURY between accidents involving large and small cars within the sample of 10,000 accidents (large cars = lower, small cars higher percentage).

And the conclusion is about the general likelihood of being INJURED in large vs. small car accidents (large cars safer).

So far so good, but.. where the hell is the FLAW?

Jon explains the shift in scope by saying that the conclusion is about ABSOLUTE numbers, and it would make sense if it is indeed about absolute numbers (remember, percentage -> absolute number is flawed).

BUT, the conclusion explicitly states "one is less LIKELY," which does not seem to indicate absolute numbers.

Please help!!

Hi everyone,

I posted a discussion earlier in my prep about PT 36 S2 Q16, which remarked on how the right answer inferred from the phrase "discussions of" and the fact that it is a passage regarding science that whatever they are discussing is earlier research. I don't agree with it, but that's the LSAT. And it was still the best answer because the other answers can be eliminated with the text.

http://classic.7sage.com/forums/discussion/113/pt36-s2-q16#Item_3

I just did PT 54, on which I came across a related issue: S1 Q8.

The question says all of the answers are supported by the passage EXCEPT. I haven't graded it yet, but I picked C, which says "there has been some study of the environmental effects of drilling-mud discharges." But E also is not supported, and it is directly a S/N condition switch, which in my experience is frequently tested. (E) says "during the drilling of an oil well, drilling mud is continuously discharged into the sea" whereas the passage merely says that the only time the discharge happens is when an oil well is being drilled, not that drilling always means there's discharge. So that is clearly the right answer. But why is C incorrect? Is it for the same nebulous reason as PT36 S2 Q16? The passage is discussing a science related issue, and I know that hydraulic fracturing has been studied in the real world, and generally facts of the sort that the passage provides would be hard to generate without some sort of study, but specifically that the environmental effects? I'm really not so sure this has support. It's obviously an inferior answer to E, but I wouldn't say that it is "supported" by the passage. I'd say it has some support from the passage but certainly cannot be logically inferred. This is compounded by the fact that the other answer choices besides E can be logically inferred from the passage.

A-line 13

B-line 41

D-line 49

Actually, I just realized at line (23) it says "one problem with studying" which probably means there has been studies, maybe. Not sure. Any thoughts? That line could just as easily justify that no studies have been done since it is so difficult. Am I to assume that all difficult things have been done? Or perhaps that all things that are attempted qualify as have "some" done of it? Probably. This post seems to have sorted itself out, but you'll have another take on it. I'll post anyway.

Hey guys,

I revisited one of my old PTs and got stuck at this question because I am not really understanding what the stimulus is saying. It's about politics and yes, I have ZERO interest in politics so it is extra hard for me to see what the author is saying.

BTW, the link:

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-57-section-3-question-22/

Ok, so I do understand up to the point where the author's argument begins.

Poor candidates need money from rich dudes to win elections and therefore likely to compromise their views (to align their views with their patrons).

But this sentence is giving me a hard time: "But since the wealthy are dispersed among the various political parties in roughly equal proportion to their percentage in the overall population."

In roughly equal proportion to their percentage in the overall population? What? Does 'overall population' mean literally the population of a country? Or does it mean population of the party?

And what does this have anything to with whether or not the candidate will or not compromise?

POE got me to B because the others are very irrelevant but I really want to understand the logic behind it.

Currently on PT 57.

Due to time limitations I am taking every 1-2 LSATs as full length timed, and doing the in-betweens as timed sections. Devoting time to BR is also demanding so I make sure I have enough time to attend to both BR and taking timed tests/sections.

I'm currently scoring about 170-172 before BR. I managed to get 180 after BR on PT 56. My biggest weakness is still LR.

I have the entire month of September to devote towards this test. How can I make the final push for as high of a score as possible? Due to circumstances my goal is basically a 180 or as close to it as possible. This is my only chance for getting into one of the lower of the T14 schools.

I'm going over questions I got wrong and understanding what I did wrong. I'm also going over lessons from the syllabus when I find that a certain type of question is giving me a lot of trouble. Current weakness is LR where I am still getting many questions wrong.

With that in mind, how should I schedule my studying for this month? This is the final assault and I'm finding it VERY hard to increase score.

I just don’t see where the author endorses anything. The author, to me, doesn't seem to reveal anything about where he/she comes down on this debate. I just can’t find one word that would do this. It seems instead, that the author is going out of his/her way to stay detached using phrases such as “she points out”, “she maintains”, “they maintain” “Gluck observes”. Could someone please point out one word that indicates the author is not indifferent?? I hate to say it, but JY did not provide much of an explanation on this question, though he is great with the other questions. (Still got much love for you bro!)

Passage: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-3-passage-2-passage/

Questions: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-3-passage-2-questions

How do I diagram this?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-20/

For this question here:

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-2-question-21/

My question:

If E is right, it didn't resolve this discrepancy. Because E implies "if all and only those who ate a particular seafood dish at the restaurant contracted the illness", which only prove that contaminated dish caused the illness. But what official believe is that "contaminated seafood caused the cases of illness". "seafood" and "dish" is not a same thing.

So I understand that logic games now are on two pages to give more room to write out diagrams. This is great. How are you guys incorporating it into your practice though, just an extra sheet of paper? Also if they are two pages do you know if they are always on pages facing each other, so you can see both when the test book is open? Or is it possible that I'll have to flip pages to get from the first page to the second?

How about this question.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-1-passage-3-questions/

I still confused about A and C.

In actually test, 54% people choose C and A only 31%

I still feel C make senses.

This game was terribly difficult for me, but after spending quite a bit of time thinking about it, I think I've figured out what surely has to be the best way to set this game up. The game seems confusing because it pretends to have 5 game pieces (the five cities) which are connected to each other. The epiphany I had was that those really aren't the game pieces: the CONNECTIONS between the cities are the game pieces, and it's really just a 9 piece in-out game. The 9 pieces are the 9 unique permutations of the 5 cities' connections. Boo-ya! -Do people still say that?

Anyway, I wondered if anyone else had thoughts on this game, or if there is a reason why this set up/approach to the game isn't the absolute best.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-40-section-2-game-3/

Taking in October. Doing great on games, and really love In/Out games. But one of my biggest concerns for test day is that I won't recognize an I/O Game as an I/O Game right away. I say this because there are a number of past games that JY runs as I/O Games (genius), but that others don't run as I/O Games because the cues aren't that obvious. When we're practicing, we usually know it's an I/O game because it's in a bundle or part of a quiz. But once or twice on prep tests, I've hit a game and only a few minutes in did I realize it was an I/O game.

This is a very long way of asking if there is a lesson that I missed, or if anyone has some good cheats, for a foolproof way to spot an I/O Game instantly.

Hi All!!

I am working my way through the Logic Reasoning lessons (I just finished up the first "strengthening" problem sets).

I keep finding myself reading the stimulus more than once OR I read the same sentence more than once to ensure I understand the sentence.

Any tips on how make it through the stimulus the first time without having to re-read?

Time is everything on the LSAT!!! Any tips or words of encouragement will be much appreciated!

Thanks much! Happy studying =)

Hi all! I'm new to the forum although I have been using the LG videos which I've found very helpful - thank you for providing this free resource!

I'm curious, does anyone read the questions first before reading the passage? I used to do this on the SAT (baaack in the day) and found it helpful.

Any other good RC prep tips? I haven't really concentrated on this section in my studying.

Thanks!!

Hi guys ,

I have been trying hard to improve upon my LSAT strategies for all sections and must say that have been able to do fair enough for LR and RC sections. But I am so tense as I can't happen to get most of my logic games correct. Honestly the only game I have improved is linear games, but rest all I tend to mess up in my head always, and even if I were to get it right I would take so much time that I would just be able to get through one of all 4. Please help I need serious advice on how to get hold of different types and master them. Your input is seriously appreciated. Thanks

I'm still getting like 10 wrong in LR and its disheartening because I've been taking timed sections out of PTs (don't have time to do full length except on weekend) and I just seem to do so badly on LR than any other section.

I'm getting -0 to -2 on RC and LG combined but LR has been a nightmare.

I need a score as high as I can get so I can beat the declining medians and get into a good school. However, this is proving hard because I'm getting 10 wrong on LR...

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-3-question-19/

You can look at the stimulus in this link.

I believe Jon's explanation for B is wrong because an editor may modernize spelling without providing an explanation, for instance, if similar modernizing has been done in more than one quotation, then you can modernize them just inserting a general statement in the preface.

I know why D is right, but still don't know why B is wrong.

Can anyone help me clarify it?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-37-section-2-question-12/

This is a MBT question.

I translated the stimulus into:

Prepare good meal-->good food-->good soil-->good farming--->good cultural values

A.The creation of...

E. When food is bad...

I am having trouble with Answer choice E. I translated E into the contrapositive of bad farming--->bad soil--->bad food..It seems pretty correct to me unless food is bad is not the conclusion.

I diagrammed it and got K-->LS,O----> H Then for conclusion K--->H when doing all this how do I get to D? I ended up picking E because I knew it couldnt be D (terrible logic i know)

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-46-section-2-question-23/

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-4-question-07/

This question asks us to identify a flaw.

Attorney: I ask you to find Mr.Smith guilty of assaulting Mr.Jackson. Regrettably, there were no eyewitness to the crime but Mr.Smith has a violent character: Ms.Lopez testified earlier that Mr.Smith, shouting loudly, had threaten her. Smith never refuted this testimony.

Ms.Lopez testy smith threatening her+Smith not refuting--->Smith has violent character----> he assaults jackson.

Three obvious flaws:

1. smith didn't refute doesn't mean he indeed threat ms.lopez. 2. even if smith did, threatening ms.lopez doesn't necessarily make smith a violent character- it could be a one-time thing. 3. even if smith is violent character, it doesn't mean smith is violent all the times and thus assault mr.jackson.

Answer choices:

A. Aggressive behavior is not a sure indicator of a violent character

C. Since smith never disproved the claim that he threatened ms.lopez, he did in fact threaten her

E.Having a violent character is not necessarily associated with commission of violent crimes

All three seem reasonable to me. Which one to choose?

Please first take a look at two really tough question PT53 sec1 Q16 and PT55-S1-Q21

For PT55-S1-Q21, it seems to be most supported question, but actually it turns out to be sufficient assumption question, which the correct answer build up the gap between "many people took certain action" and "everyone ought to take action".

For PT53 sec1 Q16, I think if LSAC change the question type to necessary assumption this one will become way easier. But instead of asking assumption, they just throw Must Be True question in front of you. That makes this question much harder.

For most of inference and most supported question, there is no argument. So we can just draw the conclusion or reference based on the stimulus. But for some special inference and most supported question, there did exist an argument, sometimes with terrible flaw or gap, and then the question require you to draw the inference, then the right answer choice about this type of inference about should be the choice that build up the gap.

This type of question is really tough cause it is counter-intuition and against our judgement about the question type. They turn inference question to be assumption question.

Any thoughts? comments?

Hello all,

I've just started taking full length timed tests, starting with preptest 42 and plan on completing 43-69 up to the October test. I am currently scoring around the low 160's. My big issue is timing with the Reading Comp. I'm consistently scoring -2 or less on games, and around -4 or -5 on LR. Can I improve my score enough to get around a 170? I feel if I can just improve on my RC timing within the next 25 or so preptests I take, I should be all set for October. Thanks for your help!

Chris

Hello anybody,

I just recently started studying for R.C. In LR, I found "identifying" question stems extremely helpful. It helped me tunnel mind for what I was looking for thus allowing me to eliminate incorrect answer choices more quickly. I am wondering if doing this is possible for R.C.? Are there groups of words that are sufficient for identifying all the different types of questions in the R.C. section? Thanks in advance for any future input.

Jake

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-3-question-25/

This question asks us to parallel argument.

J presents a either or situation in which both outcomes are undesirable. T in turn shows J that if customers are environmental responsible, that no business' market share will decrease thus making first option more desirable.

I can see why A is the correct answer: J again presents either or situation both with terrible outcomes and T provides an condition that makes one of them better. What I would like to clarify is why B is incorrect. Is it because T provides solutions that incorporates both options?

Admin note: Please do not post full questions.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-32-section-1-question-20/

This question asks which of following answer choice will strength the conclusion EXCEPT.

The conclusion is that the current map used to show where different types of garden plants will flourish is more useful than the older map.

b is irrelevant because modern station can be over 60 years old as long as the data gathered from them are not 60-year-old!

However I cannot see how does D supports the conclusion? It is assuming the more and better weather data you have, the more likely you can get accurate weather pattern to predict the growth patterns?