I am having trouble deciphering between answer choices especially determining if an answer choice is too strong or too weak, Any suggestions on how I can improve?

Hey 7sage hive mind! I just finished the Strengthening Section of the CC and I struggled more than I have with any of the other question types thus far. For a lot of people it seems like after going through weakening, strengthening feels easy. I'm having the opposite issue... my entire weakening section went really well, but once I got into middle difficulty level, to harder questions on strengthening I feel like my accuracy plummeted. I'm hesitant to move on in the CC until I really understand this question type. Does any one have any thoughts as to why someone could excel with weakening but struggle with strengthening? I even tried negating answer choices to try and weaken the argument but I feel like it doesn't work for every question.

Thanks in advance!

From my understanding, RC seems to be subjective. I'm still unsure on which approach to use as all of them give me similar results.

How do you all approach RC? Suppose you have a passage in front of you. Do you refer back to the passage? How long do you usually spend on reading the passage? Do you notate at all? What were your RC scores when you first started and what are they now?

Thanks!

How is answer A incorrect and E correct? First, where in the passage is E supported? I can't find it. Next, doesn't A capture not only the main point of the passage but also Goodrich's prescription in lines 40-43 and line 45? Goodrich doesn't think that common law should be looked at as a set of rules (a legal code). Also, line 45 states that common law is a text with history and tradition, and in line 46, studying common law historically is really important. How does this not capture the idea of "a relic of the history of the English people?"

Can anyone help me figure out what B is wrong? thank you!

Unfortunately, I find myself frequently narrowing down RC answers to two choices, then picking the wrong one*. This is especially the case with MAIN POINT questions (although I have no problem identifying conclusions in LR stimuli).

While I know the common types of incorrect ACs (out of scope, too narrow, unsupported, etc.), that knowledge doesn't seem to be helping me, especially in a time crunch.

I've also come across seemingly conflicting information in my study materials* concerning main point questions: some say it has to encompass all the main points of the paragraphs (or else it's too narrow), while others say it should just focus on the main conclusion and any subsidiary conclusions shouldn't be mentioned (or else it's too broad). Which is correct?

It's hard to find the right answer when I'm unsure exactly what it needs to include (or exclude).

ANY help is greatly appreciated, especially that which I can apply within the next couple days (if possible).

Thank you!!!

Background:

**(I've just been studying on my own with the help of some misc. prep books and free online materials [ya girl is broke], but need some additional help.)

Hello! I’m sitting for the November LSAT and currently working to finish Fool Proofing LGs from PTs 1-35.

Would it be the best use of my time to continue on this trajectory (mixed in with full PTs, of course) or would it be more astute to FP the LGs from the later PTs (50s-80s) that I am working on?

Thank you for your time and input!

P.S. I am also planning to sit for the January test.

I’ve been studying for the LSAT exam for a little over two years and I’ve made no progress on the logical reasoning. I always get half right and half wrong, consistently, and most of the time I always get down to two answer choices and most of the time I always choose the wrong answer choice. Before anyone says that I ought to approach this with a memory based effort, my mentality is that I would rather approach it with a critical thinking based effort, because that’s what this exam is measuring. I would rather not shoot myself in the foot all because I decided to memorize each grain of sand on the beach and their names and their elements and their relatives and their language style and their blah blah blah. I just want to learn how to do this exam based on the advice I was already given by some lawyer types, who seem well established, who all said some general advice and were adamant that I should approach it with a critical thinking based effort rather than a memory based effort. So is there at all a tip or method or trick or magic whatever that allows me to look at the question, look at the passage, then look to the answer choices and then somehow go a little bit further in helping me select the correct answer choice?

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

This is by far my worse section. I'm currently scoring a 161and missing like 10 questions on RC. Any tips to lower that to at least - 6.

While I have managed to reduce greatly my incorrect ACs in RC, it is still my poorest section. So far, my approach to studying for this section has been incredibly random. I have usually only found that repetition and completing many reading comprehension sections was the best remedy to improvement. If anyone has found a helpful approach to practicing and analyzing RC questions, please let me know!

Been finding Net Effect Questions to be a challenge. Anyone have tips on how to identify these questions. and then how they approach them. Cost-Benefit Net Effect questions are pretty straight forward its the more nuanced net effect question types that give me more of a challenge at the moment

JY mentioned that he would go over the difference "later," but I couldn't find it...

Does anyone know where this lesson is, and/or can explain the difference to me?

Thanks!

Are we supposed to assume that these chemicals are initially "harmless" or that the dilution process caused them to become harmless? There is nothing in the passage discussing whether or not the chemicals are harmless.

No other answer choice makes sense, but Answer choice A requires some form of assumption to be made.

some insight please.

Hey guys! This is probably a pretty obvious question, but I'm just confirming something. I took the LSAT for the first time last September and completed a writing sample for it, as it shows on my LSAC account. I am taking the test again next week, and on the LSAC website listed above my previous writing sample it says that for this upcoming LSAT, I need to complete the writing sample "as soon as possible." To my knowledge, we only need to have one writing sample on file, so I don't need to complete this one as well, right? I'm just confirming so I don't have any issues next week. Thanks! :D

Does anyone have a good way to explain flaw/descriptive weakening questions and how to approach them? I am still confused after reviewing all the lessons and doing the practice problems. I always fail to identify the flaw made in the argument and end up getting the wrong answer. It just seems like there are many ways to point out the flaw and there are diff types of flaws, so can anyone share some tips on how you identify them/what helps you to understand the flaw in the argument?? thank you!

Hi Guys, I postponed my test to Jan. Would like to find some study partners to join for some LSAT LR hard questions and detailed reading for hard RC passages.

Drilled all the 1-35, just started to drill 36 above. Please let me know if your pace is similar to me.

Aim for 168 in Jan. Now is at late 155-160.

I really don’t understand where this rule ” For conditionals, A and B negates to A → /B ” came from or how it would be applicable to the actual exam. This comes from the Negation skill builder in the Logic of Intersecting Sets module. It was never stated beforehand in neither the negating conditional statements or elsewhere, at least to my knowledge. I understand it intuitively as you’re saying that rather than both A and B being true simultaneously, you’re positing that /B is a necessary condition of A and thus can’t exist together. However, we previously learned about negation of the conjunction “and” in conditional relationships as being A and B → C negated to /C → /A or /B as specified by De Morgan’s law. I guess I’m just struggling to see, how to tell the difference or when/how to use this new rule in context with a question on the LSAT. Is the rule just referring to when you have both premises A and B as part of the argument a way to negate it, is by using that rule. Like I don't see how just A and B can exist on their own in question. I feel like there must be either A and B -> C or C -> A and B included when encountering this in a question. Greatly appreciate any comments or help someone could add!

#Help

I'm having a hard time understanding how the explanations for the right/wrong answers on these weakening questions don't contradict one another.

PT 86 S1 Q14

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-86-section-1-question-14/

PT29 S1 Q16

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-1-question-16/

In Q14, JY says (C) is incorrect because we don't know whether bats are included in the "most." Whether or not they are included establishes the relevance of this "most" claim -- you have to be included in the "most" otherwise we don't care. With this in mind, I initially eliminated answer (B) while doing Q16. But JY says (B) is the correct answer for Q16 because since some languages lack words for parts of their environment, it isn't surprising that Proto-Indo-European have no word for "sea." They could have still lived by the sea, making the premise less relevant. I'm confused for two reasons. First, we don't know if the Proto-Indo-European speakers are included in the "some," if they aren't included in this group then this claim becomes irrelevant. Second, the reason (B) is correct on Q16 seems in-line with the thought process I used when incorrectly picking (C) for Q14: if most animals normally rarely bite, then it isn't surprising that bats rarely bite. Rabid bats could still bite, making this premise less relevant. I can see why (B) is the best answer for Q16, but now I'm confused about why (C) is wrong for Q14. What am I missing?

Hey everyone-

I am going through the core curriculum for the second time (a year apart) and had an idea I'm playing with and think is helpful.

I started fool proofing both solving the game completely (as JY often does in his video) and never splitting the board. I realized that when under time pressure, I may not see all of the inferences that lead to a full and complete solve, but I still need to find the correct answers in a timely manner.

For an idea of how this looks from a process standpoint:

*Repeat until I can answer all of the questions correctly and well under time without the fully solved game board.

After doing this, I felt there was another skill set being developed and felt less flat footed going into games if I couldn't fully solve a game board.

I am going to provide these caveats...

What do you guys think? Anyone else experiment with doing this?

Does anyone know where you can practice translating for English to logic for inference questions. For example a bunch of question stems for practice and we translate them to logic.

Hello! Wondering if anyone can offer some insight on where the textual basis is for the correct answer "B." I selected "C" as the answer with the assumption that comments about racism by a Communist Party Organizer would implicitly attack white chauvinism and also denote some sort of involvement in African American issue politics. I was not convinced that this was direct enough evidence, so am open to answer B but am curious where the direct support lies. Is the support the "cautiousness" and desire to appeal to moderates referred to by the author? Thank you for the help!

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-04/

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

*The kind of question this is:* Weaken

*Premise(s):* Marijuana has THC → THC has been found to inactivate herpesvirus (IH) → IH can convert healthy cells into cancer cells.

*Conclusion:* Marijuana can cause cancer.

*What I am looking for:* extra information that we didn’t know about marijuana and its correlation with THC.

*Answer A:* No. That strengthens the argument by showing that scientists had a consensus and the same results.

*Answer B:* Yes. There is information we did not know about marijuana and how it neutralizes THC.

*Answer C:* No. That strengthens the conclusion.

*Answer D:* No. Great, but that is only an “IF.” It would still stand that marijuana causes cancer.

*Answer E:* No. Marijuana is beneficial to cancer patients, but it would still cause cancer for none cancer patients.

Hi guys, I am wondering if there is a study group in DC for September 2017.

I've been doing well on my PTs (in the 170+ range), but every time, i do sooo badly on the experimental section. I'm talking -6 to -9 questions wrong. Should i be concerned?? I dont even get how it's possible for me to go from -1 on one LR section to -8 on the next.