http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-4-question-07/

I'm confused as to why the answer can't be C.

If supply goes down, and halibut is NOT replaced by other fish, then that means that supply has gone down, and even if demand stays the same the price will go up according to the law of supply and demand. There is nothing to suggest that demand will decrease in this scenario.

Hi everyone! I took the LSAT in February and got a 171. My goal was a 174, which is above the medians at the schools I want to apply to, but I was still happy. I was going to take it again in April but my scores went down so I ghosted the test. I haven't studied since. In my practice tests, my average was 172, but I realized that each test I got 7-8 questions wrong, and sometimes I was lucky and that was a 175 or I was unlucky and it was below 170. Does that mean I never really improved? How do I get to a place of consistently scoring less than 7-8 questions wrong per test? Or have I reached my limit? How did people break out of a score they were stuck at? Especially when there is no pattern in the questions I am getting wrong. Thanks! Hope everyone is doing well!

I scored a 169 on the October LSAT and looking to break 170 on the January test. Reading comprehension is holding me back, and I am currently averaging around -3 – -4 on practice tests for RC. If anyone has any tips/tricks/drilling suggestions to get down to -1 – -2, please let me know!

I registered for the August LSAT. I receive a pen and paper accommodation but the deadline passed on July 23 to register. They didn't send an email until today that I need to register after the deadline has passed. Since I couldn't register the other option is to opt out of the accommodation which also passed. Does anyone know what are my other option other than wait till the October LSAT?

what do you do when you run out of drills? I have done so many method of reasoning drills that I have run out of new questions. what should I do?

Does anyone have experience with taking FLEX in a hotel or other area for reasons that their place is not quiet enough to take FLEX? (hotels, etc.)

Hi all! Hope you're having all having a good day.

I was wondering if you could share your tips on getting better at RC. I used to have consistent -6 and started moving downwards to -10 and now scored -14 on PT 65. I was pretty confident with reading when I started LSAT but now I am a bit short on time and really concerned about getting more than half of the questions wrong.

I do timed PT then read all the passages again during BR to come up with a better LR, HR. And clearly it seems like it's not working and I'd greatly appreciate any help. :)

A while back I completed the "Introduction to Logic Games & Sequencing Games" and "Sequencing Games with a Twist" sections of the CC. I was struggling, so I decided to foolproof the games in those sections before moving on in the curriculum. I went with the Pacifico attack strategy for foolproofing, because it seemed straightforward and organized.

As of now, I have finished foolproofing all the games in the "Introduction to Logic Games & Sequencing Games" section, and most of the games in "Sequencing Games with a Twist".

I have come across the following issue: On my second attempt at the game (after watching the video), I usually do pretty well and may even hit the target time. My third attempt (the next day) is pretty good as well, usually even better than the second attempt. However, when I attempt the game for the 4th time, (a week later) I either get questions wrong or I exceed the target time. It seems that I easily forget how to efficiently make the inferences. Therefore, I am currently at a bit of a loss regarding what I should do next.

Any advice would be sincerely appreciated!

TID

Hi everyone,

I've been struggling to improve for a few months now and can't seem to get more than 18 right in a logic game section. I've done all the lessons in the core curriculum and regularly do the foolproof method. I still can't finish all four games completely. I know my issue isn't understanding the fundamental concepts because I'll complete the most difficult games without any error but then get a few wrong on the simplest games.

It's been frustrating and I was hoping the experts on here could give me a few tips to push past this plateau.

Here is my analysis of the answer choices. Grateful for commenting on my thoughts, please! Thank you!

(A): Both disagreed. Cynthia - the reason to be funded by Gov is to further theoretical knowledge not unforeseen practical applications. Luis - the "expected" to yield practical applications in the stimulus is more definite that "may have unforeseen.." in AC.

(B): Luis disagrees; Cynthia - not known because we don't know what project does she think the Gov should not fund. In the stimulus, we only know Cynthia would agree that the government should fund researches that further the theoretical knowledge, but that does not mean the Gov should not fund projects that have practical application.

(C): Luis - not known because the only thing we know from stimulus is "Gov fund projects --> research that is expected to yield practical applications" (ie. every gov funded research should have practical application), but that does not mean that every research that has practical application should be funded by Gov. As for Cynthia, I am confused because I am not sure if "research project in theoretical science" in AC is equivalent to "research project seeks to further theoretical knowledge of nature" in the stimulus. But in either way, the AC should be eliminated.

(D) Not known because we don't know if the new technologies will help further theoretical knowledge of nature or yield practical applications

(E) Cynthia agrees and Luis disagrees.

Are my interpretations correct?

Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-2-question-14/

Admin edit: title and link

If you've taken the sample on LawHub, how did LG go? I found games 3 and 4 were a bit difficult -- were there any splits/SBGs that I may have missed or did you just plow through using rules? Any recommendations on games similar to game 3?

Is it just me or PT1-20 RC are all over the place? I hold a study average of -5 on 60+ but start bombing on 1990's PT. 4th attempt any now my confidence is all over the place.

Hello!! I am running out of grouping game drill questions. what do I do!! i definitely need more practice

RC is bringing my scores down for the most part, I feel fine with LR but I cant seem to improve on RC. Anyone have tips/resources that have been helpful to them? I'm scheduled for the October test!

Hello, 7Sagers!

I'm a bit puzzled with this NA question and wanted to get your input on the matter.

This question states that medical schools are teaching curative medicine and preventative medicine at a 10:1 ratio respectively. It goes on to state that despite this, the use of preventative techniques lowers medical costs significantly.

The claim is that if medical school's have the goal of making medicine lower in cost, they aren't spending enough time teaching preventative medicine.

The correct necessary assumption is purportedly that the amount of time needed to teach preventative medicine thoroughly is greater than one hour for every ten currently being spent on the curative counterparts.

Now, a negation test should confirm this answer, but from my perspective, it does not. Negating the statement results in the time to teach preventative medicine thoroughly being equal or less than one hour for every 10 spent on curative. Now, I assume that at this point the LSAT wants you to assume that because the ratio now favors preventative being taught thoroughly, the argument falls apart because they're no longer spending insufficient time.

But who's to say that the ratio of time spent has anything to do with the actual time spent? The argument has to do with the actual time spent. In fact, we could only be sure that there isn't an insufficiency if we know for sure that the med schools are meeting or exceeding the total amount of hours needed for thorough teaching of curative medicine.

So what if we have a 10:Less-Than-One thoroughness need ratio ? Maybe the schools are teaching 1000 hours of Curative and 100 hours of Preventative, when students actually need 10,000 hours of Curative and 200 hours of Preventative to be thoroughly taught each respectively. (This would give us a 50:1 ratio of time needed for curative vs preventative thoroughness, congruent with the negation of the right answer, but still leaving the argument perfectly in tact.)

If the argument can easily be correct without the designated answer being negated, why can we call it a necessary assumption for the argument? The argument can be just fine without it being true.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-32-section-4-question-19/

Hello 7Sagers,

I’m going over my last PT— 65– and in section 1 Q 16, there’s a sufficient assumption question with a bi-conditional premise. I understand it now, but it was a major time sink on the PT because I froze up. Can anyone think of other questions like this one? It seems cookie-cutter, so I’d like to practice a little more, and it’s too specific to filter in the Question Bank.

Thanks!

So I have an online program from Power Score, and one from 7 Sage...I've mostly been focusing on 7sage, but did some drilling from the Power Score workbooks today on weaken questions, and I bombed the question set. I only drilled weaken games, and got -10 (out of a total 30 questions). I looked at which prep tests the questions were from, and it was tests 19-29... are the questions different from those tests? They definitely read weirder.

I'm a bit worried because weakening questions are my strongest question types in LR, and I'm kinda freaked out I did that poorly.

Thoughts?

Hi everyone,

I'm seeking some advice on studying after the core curriculum. I recently finished the core and took two preptests so far. Both showed weaknesses in causal reasoning and flaw. This seems to suggest that I should start drilling for causal reasoning and flaw type questions, but I also didn't want to burn through a bunch of drills without gaining as much as I could from them. Would a better option be a mix of question-type focused drills + timed LR sections (with thorough BR/review for each)? I thought it might be better to hold back on preptests for now (again because I didn't want to waste them), but I would appreciate any suggestions!

So, I'm taking the December LSAT (my second test) and have just seen hardly any improvement on reading comprehension. I do well on the questions but hardly ever finish in time and end up guessing on most of the final passage. Any last minute tips to speed up??

Has anyone written the proctor u lsat with accommodations? I'm wondering how it works.

Hello,

Here is my analysis for question 17 in section 3 for prep test 72. This is a weaken question; therefore, I wanted to weaken the connection between the premises and the conclusion.

Argument Analysis:

Premises:

Individuals who get injured due to unsafe actions not only cause injury to themselves but also can put financial and emotional burdens on others who they are close with.

Conclusion:

The Government is vindicated in making actions that are considered risky to one’s health illegal, in order to guard other people’s interests.

Prephrase:

Just because something that could be injurious to one individual and that brings pain to their family is not grounds for outlawing it. Think about it this way, just because trampolines can cause you harm and make your family pay your hospital bills doesn’t mean that this is grounds to ban using them.

Answer Choices:

A. This supports the argument because it further justifies why it would feasible to implement the law. The reason is due to the fact that it shows how putting a burden on the people you have close ties to constitutes harm to oneself.

B. This doesn’t weaken because just because we have an obligation to not injure ourselves doesn’t mean that we won’t injure ourselves. For example, one may have an obligation to not eat their sister’s last piece of chocolate cake; however, is that obligation strong enough to prevent us from eating it? Probably not.

C. This strengthens because it meets the necessary condition of posing a financial burden to the family.

D. This weakens it entirely because entirely wipes out the evidence that the argument provided for the conclusion. If the evidence is not sufficient than the conclusion is not entirely justified to be true.

E. Again, just because you have an obligation doesn’t mean that it will guarantee that people won’t do it. The person could easily say, well this law will just affirm this obligation.

Honestly, I wish I hadn’t gotten this question wrong. I had originally picked B because I assumed that because one has an obligation to not do something that they won’t do it. But, how many obligations have we had that we have broken? Conversely, D shows that the evidence that the person gave does not completely bolster the argument for instituting the law.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-3-question-17/

does anyone recognize any similar games to the herbs game from Nov. 2020 flex from any previous LSAT's? would appreciate it if you can guide me to a similar game.

I had 3 LR(I’m unsure as to which we’re real) , 1 RC (the one with lies/mistakes) and 1LG(the one with the flowers)

I feel pretty strong about this test

What is the contrapositive of a biconditional like this: A (--) B and C

Would it be: /B or /C (--) /A

I created a 22 question PT for myself, but I am unsure how to locate the Video explanation of the questions. I am looking to find the video for each question explaining why an answer was correct or not correct. Thank you