Calling other non-trads. My youngest child is heading to college, and I am considering law school. I hold a BA in Human Physiology and an MBA and I am currently a COO of a tech and media co.

Let me know if you are interested in creating a non-trad study group.

Most of us are taught to make inferences for game Rules, but perhaps we should all be more on guard to make inferences when interpreting Questions….

Example:

LSAT 62 – Section 3 – Game 2:

When I hit question 11, I was already mentally exhausted so I didn’t make the key inference that JY pointed out…. that there was 1 g and 2 rs. Then it occurred to me that a lot of seemingly “local” questions state things a less than obvious way – and it’s far more effective to look for inferences IN THE QUESTION.

Again, I'm thinking we can all improve on effectiveness in LG if we also look to draw inferences in SOME questions - at least ones like in the example - they appear local but still too broad at first...

Thoughts?

I am trying to apply to Cardozo law for next year, and it is not updated or something is not working right.

It is only giving me the option of applying for 2021 and it says applications are coming soon, instead of for 2020.

Anyone else having this problem?

On the original site, when I didn't like my performance on a certain drill or when I'd like to drill the same drill again, I would duplicate it. But this duplicating feature doesn't seem to show up in the new site. Will it contain this

from obsolete version, PT 11 S4 Q23 answer choice C

Is this a correct example of "it makes a generalisation that is inconsistent with the evidence":

This tsunami was caused by an earthquake.

So all the tsunamis are caused by earthquakes

what is your example

I'm confused with definition and/or terminology. Is numbered ordering the same as basic linear ordering (with a number line), or is there a difference? [3D numbered ordering and Advanced Linear ordering]

Also is there any relationship between numbered ordering and relative ordering.

Please help. Thank you.

I take my LSAT next week, and I am in the low 160s at the moment. The literal only things on logical reasoning that is keeping me down are the conditional and causal reasoning questions. Are there any specific lessons from the syllabus that anyone found really, really helped with these? I know I could just rewatch all of them but due to my limited time I want to make sure I'm really prioritizing what matters here. Thanks! Good luck everyone

just realized like three days ago that I signed up for the LSAT in the eastern time zone and I live in central!!! I have been trying to wake up at 6:30am (central) this week so it won't be as bad when I have to wake up at 7:30 (eastern) but that was definitely something I should have considered when signing up!!! oops. any tips from anyone?? thanks in advance

Hey all, I'm struggling to understand why AC A in PT 119, Section 1, Question 14, is incorrect. I've reviewed the video explanation, online forums, and comments, but the best explanation I could come up with is below. Help on understanding this would be much appreciated - I've thought through this for several days but am still confused. I've never been this stumped after reviewing a wrong RC answer.

Q14: I understand why AC C is correct but am still struggling to eliminate A, especially since A seemed supported by lines 37-40 "personal and cultural screens of silence and secretiveness that have enshrouded her past". Here are a few things that I believe discredit A as a viable answer choice:

Although this might be a subtle distinction, in this context "history" means a a factual record of historical facts, where Naomi "reconciles" history - in other words uncovers or accepts difficult truths about her personal history and the historical context in which she lived.

Heritage, as JY alludes to, refers to cultural or ancestral legacy, including cultural traditions.

In this case, being discouraged from exploring heritage is not supported(?). I would still argue that if AC A references history (not heritage) it might be supported by lines 37-40. Even with the distinction between history and heritage, I'm not fully convinced that A is not supported. These in-text lines refer to cultural secretiveness. Does this mean that Naomi was discouraged from seeking her heritage? Secretiveness of the past does seem to refer to a form of discouragement.

It says "rock music has nothing going for it" but even if A is true...can't LP still have value if they accompany visual art? Since visual art itself provides some value...

I'm confused with this question :(

Thank you

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-75-section-1-question-03/

I've loved this course so far! However, one thing I struggle with more than anything is diagramming the Logic Games. For me, this is the hardest part of the section and I have lesser confidence in this section than all the others. Time and space for drawing is a constriction that further messes with my confidence, although I do diagram each clue out. My biggest program after is combining the clues. Can you offer any tips or suggestions?

Anybody in the Phoenix area down to form a study group?

This is a method of reasoning question. I got the answer correct - B - because stimulus goes and defines unnatural and uses that to destroy the absurd claim it sets out to. However, why is AC D wrong? Is it b/c it is partially right and not fully correct. The claim does say doing something unnatural is impossible - hence to a certain degree that would be a contradiction...

Thoughts?

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

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-3-passage-4-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-3-passage-4-questions/

I am very confused with a specific relationship between universal quantifiers and existential quantifiers. This confusion becomes annoying in Assumption Questions. Please help! So, basically this is it:

1. "A-->C + A -->B"

2. "A-->C + A -most->B"

3. "A-->C + A some B"

For each of three given premises, we can conclude the same "B some C" relationship. Though the first part is the same "A-->C", the second part is different. I thought that this difference is understandable, because "A-->B" implies "A-most->B" and "A some B". So, we should have the same conclusion for "B some C". But the problem often arises.

For example, PT 24, LR2, Section 3, Question 19. Sufficient Assumption.

"Every student who walks to school goes home for lunch. It follows that some students who have part-time jobs do not walk to school."

The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

Premise: Walks to schools-->Goes home for lunch.

Conclusion: Part-time jobs (some) Do not walk to school.

Take the contrapositive of the premise, we have "Do not go home for Lunch--> Do not walk to School"

Now, it becomes clear that he Sufficient Assumption to bridge the gap could be:

1. "Do not go home for lunch (some) Part-time jobs". This is the correct answer choice (d).

(d). Some students who do not go home for lunch have part-time jobs.

2. Do not go home for lunch -most-> Part-time jobs.

3. Do not go home for lunch --> Part-time jobs. (conditional)

If we take the contrapositive of 3, we have "No part-time jobs-->Go home for lunch". The contrapostive is logically equivalent to the original. Now, "No part-time jobs-->Go home for lunch" implies

"No part-time jobs -most-> Go home for lunch." and also implies

"No part-time jobs (some) go home for lunch." (This is exactly what the wrong answer choice A says.)

(a). some students who do not have part-time jobs go home for lunch.

Please help me clear this confusion. Is there anything I misunderstood? I really appreciate your help.

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?

LR “neutral expression” question

I got right through eliminating the other 4 answers, but I don’t know why answer (c) is correct. Any help would be much appreciated.

Admin note: edited title

weaken: a cause b

a there b not there

b there a not there

Strengthen: a cause b

a there b there

b not there a not there

a not there b not there

Do you guys agree with the above? Are there other ways to strengthen/weaken?

Parallel questions have been a huge flaw of mine in PT and drilling, does any1 have any tips that will help me not be utterly confused?

I am confused about how to classify the different question types into formal logic vs. those that use informal logic. For example, would you classify MBT as formal logic because it uses conditionals, but WSE as informal because it uses primarily the spectrum of support? Would other types fall in the middle, like SA, which some answers/questions involve conditionals and the spectrum of support?

Hello! Was working on this obsolete exam RC as practice and unfortunately only got 2/6 correct. Was wondering if anyone could please explain questions 16, 17, 18, and 20. Thank you!

Hello!

I am currently progressing through the LR section and I am finding that I am understanding each section OK but I am very confused as to how to more overall identify when I am dealing with an argument versus when I am not. The causality arguments in the WSE section are also confusing me, as JY talks about how there are different kinds of them and I am also finding it hard to differentiate between an Alternative Cause Argument and the Basic One-Off Causal Argument among others. Can someone help summarize these in a way thats easy to understand?? Thanks so much!

How do y'all review for RC like untimed/timed sections for wrong and flagged questions?

.

I chose D but the right answer was B. Looking back at it, now it makes sense.

Hi everyone,

I am having difficulties finding an approach for detail-heavy passages, i.e. that don't have much of an argument to them but instead a lot of facts and details (For example Passage #1 - Burning Forests of LSAT 38/114 Section III). Since I usually focus on finding the argument and author's tone in each passage, I often lose of a lot of time going back to the details to answer the questions for this kind of passage.

Does anyone have any tips or strategy?

Thank you!