I am doing ok on the logic games for the most part, but I am really struggling with the in/out games. Is anyone down to maybe have a study session on this sometime?

B is definitely a flaw in the argument, but can someone analyze my breakdown of D? Here is my breakdown:

50% of people in the survey believe that politician indicted----->politician resign.

35% believe that that politician resign----->politician convicted.

Therefore, more people think politician indicted----->politician resign than those that believe politician convicted---->politician resign.

What I am looking for: First, the conclusion is about "people" in general, but we are using a survey/poll. This introduces the possibility that the poll was biased/unrepresentative. Second, the conclusion makes a sufficiency/necessity conflation in the second comparative statement (about conviction). I didn't see this at first since, and I caught this flaw during BR.

Answer A: This is OK statistical/inductive reasoning. This would describe the flaw if the answer choice put the words "potentially biased" in front of sample.

Answer B: This is the correct answer since the 35% think resign--->convicted. But, the conclusion is about convicted--->resign. Pretty obvious answer choice if you read the last sentence carefully.

Answer C: What term is ambiguous? At best, the argument assumes that "politicians" and "elected officials" are the same thing, but that is an OK assumption.

Answer D: This is what I chose since I failed to see the sufficiency/necessity conflation originally. Would this be correct if the conclusion was correctly stated (if the comparative statement stated resign---->convicted)? Since the two responses convey different beliefs and since the argument is drawing a conclusion/comparison between them, is that a flaw? I am not so sure since the conclusion is about there being "more people" believing X than Y. Since both question were part of the same poll (and presumably same sample size) and since 50% is larger than 35% of that same sample size, would the argument have been valid (assuming there was not sample bias as well)?

Answer E: Why can't the premises all be true?

Is there any chance the lg could’ve been the experimental?

Economic growth -> Increase agri (+ keep biodiversity) -> abandon conventional agri

Conclusion Econo growth -> abandon conventional agri/modify agri

SA?

A. Increase biodiversity -> /Increase agri

Increase agri -> Reduce biodiversity this is not what the stimulus is saying so non sequitur.

B. This would place biodiversity back in the loop and make it relevant by connecting the pieces of the structure

C. But this is alr listed in the stimulus

D. We dont know this

E. Modify agri -> increase agri this flips the lawgic

I have not seen MP questions that begin with a question at the beginning before this one. I got it incorrect since I put B thinking the conclusion came after the word "Certainly" I am not sure how to get to the conclusion in this stimilus.

I listened to JY's BR call on this question ( https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/21699 ).

I don't get why he was so dismissive of answer choice C -- I would say it weakens the argument. An alternative explanation as to why the artist's face showed up in the painting (other than him painting it himself) serves to weaken the argument that painter of the painting has been determined. And that's what C provides -- his face may be there because the actual painter used him as a live model. I mean, he's an artist, completely reasonable that he would be in the milieu of artists in the area, and was asked by a friend to pose as a live model.

I agree that D more strongly weakens, but disagree with (what seemed to be) JY's position that C doesn't weaken at all.

Admin note: edited title mildly; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Hello! Would anyone be down to take LR drills and review them together over Zoom?

Hello everyone! I’ve been improving on my reading ability on the RC section and have been absorbing and understanding the information much better in my drills. I find that my problem are the harder questions. Like I understand the passage well but the complex questions throw me off. Idk if that makes sense but does anyone have any tips on how to counter this?

Is the test on the tablet issued in landscape style or portrait style? I want to practice it the way it comes up on the tablets at the testing site on my ..laptop (tablet style).

Thanks in advance and I hope this helps other people as well. (I watched J.Y.'s video, but I would like to see more strategies that work).

I just took a diagnostic after 6 months of having taken one (no studying in between). I am now ready to start studying with a consistent schedule and take the September Test. The problem is that my diagnostic score 6 months ago which included the LG section was significantly higher than my score from today, which I did without LG. Should I register for the June LSAT and try to study these next 5 weeks (mastering LG) and take it with the LG section, or should I just forget about LG and take it in Sept as the updated test version and take my time partaking on the other sections?

What LGs, preferably in/out games, are good for practicing embedded conditional statements and dealing with them when they pop up?

Need someone to keep me accountable for the next two months. Want a study partner to just study in silence with. We don't necessarily need to be studying the same things, but it would help to have similar goals/workloads to keep each other motivated. I have taken the LSAT twice in 2022 and scored a 167 in November. I have stopped studying for a couple months now and hope to pick things up to get a mid 170. I am currently in school but is generally free all days except Tuesday and Thursdays, and I aim to devote ~50 hours a week to study. Add me on discord xtt#8183 if interested!

A lot of people who were part of the 170+ were able to reliably get -0 on the logic games section which gave them more room to make mistakes in the other sections. Someone could get -4 RC, -4 LR, and -0 LG and still get a 170. But now, with the section that people could reliably get -0 on removed, how will amount of questions needed to be correct to get to 170 change? Will the curve be more forgiving now that LG, the typical -0 section is gone, and the other sections that are less predictable and have more opportunities to make mistakes (especially RC) are still here?

I've been able to consistently get -0 or -1 in LG, and I got my first perfect LR (both sections) yesterday. Best RC score I've gotten was -1, but I've been scoring -3 to -4 pretty consistently. I'm definitely doing better than when I started, and I'm usually able to catch most if not all mistakes during BR, but I'm having trouble nailing down those last few points while I'm timed (even when I'm not feeling rushed). Any tips on improving RC? Thanks in advance!

Hi everyone, just want to confirm the validity of the answer choices. I find this question confusing, even though I can see (A) is the best AC.

The breakdown of the core is:

ignore anything not directly related to the funded research ——> serendipity is no longer a part of scientific discovery

I can eliminate B,D,E on first read, and after looking into (A), it's essentially saying: directly related——> purposefully seek(no serendipity)

So the conclusion of the argument can go like: ignore anything not directly related to the funded research——>focus on only the directly related stuff——>purposefully seek(no serendipity)——>serendipity is no longer a part of scientific discovery Correct?

However, I still feel like (A) is just the contrapositive of the conclusion! If so, does it work for necessary assumption questions to use contrapositives as the bridge?

Also, is (C) wrong because "personally prefer" is a big stretch?

Thanks a lot!

When it asks about the primary function of a specific paragraph, should we pick the answer that connects it back to the whole psg/MP or the answer that relates it to one part (like the paragraph at hand is meant to exemplify the last sentence of the previous paragraph or something like that but that in turn is meant to support the MP)?

And when it asks about the primary function of a specific word or line, should we pick the answer that connects it back to its role in the paragraph it's in or the answer that relates back to the whole psg/MP?

Also is there a difference in the approach if it asks about the "primary function" versus "function?"

I'm finding myself taking a bit longer and getting these function questions wrong and would appreciate any insight or method that helped you!

For this question, I chose E in the first round but switched to B in the blind review. I thought B would be a safer choice since the word "criticism"/"criticized" is used by both Murray and Jane. If Murray does not think it is wrong for politicians to accept gifts from lobbyists, why would they assume other politicians should have been criticized? Could someone please explain to me why B is not correct?

Im having trouble knowing when to include words like "H/T" in a space. What clues should I be paying attention in including a word/word?

I had this question right initially but doubted myself and switched the answer during the blind review.

For statements with if and only if, does it matter which variable I write first?

Example: V is selected if and only if P is selected

the if and only if here is referring to P so the solutions in the book show

P (--) V

not V (--) not P

but if I wrote it out as

V (--) P

not P (--) not V

Would that be correct since this is a biconditional statement? if past would make P sufficient condition and the only if part would make P the necessary condition. Am I thinking of this correctly?

Also, can I think of biconditionals as implying that the two variable must always go together meaning that PV will always be together in the "in" group or in the "out" group. There is never a possibilities where one variable is in and the other is out. So, I could show them as a block in my diagram.

Hi Everyone!

I just completed the Logic Games lessons and now I'm ready to start drilling. I was wondering, how do you all approach drilling? Personally, I'm planning to do four games per day. Here's my routine: I tackle one drill, take a short break, and then watch the explanation. After that, I move on to the second drill, take another break, and watch the explanation. At the end of the day, I revisit both drills.

By the way, I have set the difficulty level of the drills to medium. Do you think that's the right level, or would you recommend a different difficulty?

Hey! I have been studying for a few months with my test in October. Lately I have been super focused on getting the LR wrong answers down. I average at -6 with my lowest -3. I usually have 2-3 minutes left to go over my flagged questions, so I do not think timing is the issue. I only get 5 star, sometimes 4 star, questions wrong. What is the best strategy I can use this next month to get my wrong answers down?

This question took me a lot of time but i still dont get why A is the answer because in A arent we affirming the consequent which is a conditional logic error ( if x then y - all poor then honest ; if y then x - all honest if poor )???

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

Just want to share my thoughts and notes:

This formula right here: independence -> progress doesn’t warrant that more independence = more progress, so E is incorrect.

Cultures -> needs independence to replace dependence (natives replace outside imposition) -> progress.

A. anticipated answer choice

B. Staff and students are digging too deep, we’re only looking at cultures as a whole

C. Tailor is too details, not needed

D. Must is g2 so Advance -> prevent outsiders, not really align with the lawgic above.

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