Am I the only person struggling to understand the explanation video? I find it very confusing. Per the explanation from the video, the passage excludes Spain from Europe but isn’t Europe still in Spain which would support answer A? The reason I could perhards see A as the answer is line 7-9 cites the origin of spanish-language proverbs while A says Mexican American proverbs. Besides that, I'm not getting the explanation that proved A wrong and I've watch the video 7 times.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-4-passage-2-questions/

Are there tips for practicing identifying this? Like a list of potential things each paragraph could be? the vocab always trips me up. thanks! @"Juliet - 7Sage"

Y'all.

I just saw someone else post this on another discussion thread, but for any testtakers today or later this week, do NOT forget to click on “Ready to Check In” before (BEFORE!!!) your 10 minute break is up. Do not wait until that timer hits '0'!!

I'm sure everyone registered got this email from LSAC:

--

"Section 3 will not begin until the countdown clock expires. Test takers must click the “Ready to Check In” button before the intermission expires. Once this button is clicked, the test taker is taken to a waiting room. At this point, your proctor will resecure your testing environment so that you can go on to Section 3.

It is absolutely critical that you return to your computer and click the “Ready to Check In” button within the allotted 10 minutes.

If you fail to check in for Section 3 of the LSAT prior to the expiration of the 10-minute intermission, your testing session will be terminated and your score will be canceled. This cancellation will be recorded by LSAC as a Candidate Cancel and reported to any school to which you apply for admission that utilizes LSAC’s Credential Assembly Service (CAS) reports."

I checked in at the 1'20'' left mark. And don't worry, I still had to wait until the full 10 minutes were done, and my proctor was slow to return anyways. PLUS I had another extra minute just BEFORE Section 3 was due to begin. So no one's getting jipped if you 'check in' early.

--

⚠⚠⚠ Please, y'all... DO THIS. ⚠⚠⚠

With question 14, after I fulfill the condition of T testing G on the second day, why can't T test H on the second day as well? The rules tell us I can't have both Ts testing G (done). It doesn't say anything about a rider not testing on the 2nd day twice on different bicycles. Furthermore, what if I chose my set as "GFJH" instead of "FGHJ." Would I be violating any rule? It doesn't mention the bicycles being in order so why do I violate a rule if I decide to place T to test H on the second day. Thanks

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-2-game-3/

In a nutshell, the developer says there is a country whose strict regulatory rules ban personal property holders from erecting buildings on their plot if any rarified animals in danger on the land. These rules render the existence of those animals a serious fiscal burden on them as their hands are tied businesswise. By virtue of those sacred beings, the proprietors feel reluctant about sheltering them and shielding them from harms. Therefore, endangered species would very likely not be jeopardized, if not better served, if the bureaucratic red tape is peeled off for good.

(A) is not the one we are looking for. Because the author is not mixed up between the absence of a condition or the presence of a condition that is no longer in effect which was designed to protect the endangered species from the outset but would be revoked on the assumption that its absence would not likely to harm them and a condition that would be obliged to avoid the endangerment of those rare species on the land.

B) is somewhat irrelevant. Above all, there is no morality-bound call or moral verdict grounded on fact-based assertions or accounts. In my opinion, a value judgment is like this: it is not ethical for humans to endanger those rarified species further by not protecting their subsistence. But this argument is the opposite of the developer's conclusion. Based on the factual grounds, he/she thinks one could go back on this duty because his assessment projects that this dispensation/waiver/relief does not likely harm those species. It rationalizes a claim based on the alleged facts without a value judgment.

(C) is the guy we have been searching for. This Mr. Right has it all. It, all of a sudden, somewhat irrationally, snubs any probability that even if some factors are prone to engender a presumed effect, they might be likely to beget more powerful countermanding/offsetting effects too. Then the final outcome could be more harm to those animals.

For instance, this suspension of the rule application might put those animals out of harm's way if those landowners just do not do anything about this roll-back except feeling happy about the exemption of the financial liability. However, what if there are other hyenas lurking around to capitalize on this repeal? They could be poachers eager to snare those animals to make money out of them. It could backfire on those animals which are be supposed to be protected in the absence of those rules.

(D) is a bit weird-do. No need to zoom in on those landowners to play a blame game. Those landowners could indeed enjoy the removal of regulatory rules in a different way than anticipated. For instance, once those regulations are rescinded, they decide to turn those animals into their cash cow to rake in dollars. Sure, it is possible. But it is not a flaw that is the most noticeable in his argument. The principal perp is his negligence about considering the side effects or backlash from the revocation esp. from the perspective of those animals meant to be protected by design. That was what his/her conclusion was about.

(E) is a total jerk and a typical A-hole wasting my time. This argument has no bearing on those landowners on whose tract no endangered species live.

Hey everyone!

I'm looking to get some more LR practice under my belt and hone in on my skills by tutoring. I have yet to master this section, but I have improved a good amount. When first starting out I started out averaging -13/-14 per LR section and have gotten that down to -4/-5! I'm looking to primarily tutor those early in their studying stage and have difficulty with concepts!

Hello everyone,

While the printable preptests and 7Sage's digital tester use line numbers when referencing sentences in RC questions, I noticed the digital preptests on LSAC's website don't use line numbers, and instead say stuff like "in the middle of the third paragraph". Can anyone confirm what those questions are like when taking the actual test? Also, are we able to check off the box to condense the RC passage on test day as well?

I am taking the Jan LSAT and scoring well on LG and LR but RC keeps dragging me down. What is the best way to boost my RC score with just over two weeks until test day?

Hi!

I was watching the explanation for the in/out game referring to a group of people who can only be hired if they are interviewed for a position. In the explanation for the last question in the set, it mentions that the problem states at least 4 people are hired. However, I did not see that mentioned anywhere in the problem. Is it possible that there was an edit to the language or is there an inference that was not explained that I missed.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-1-game-2/

Any advice besides reading more to improve in the reading comprehension section ? Structure, timing or types of questions?

So far I have been doing Bottom line but I have not seen much improvement.

Is the LR section harder to improve on or RC? I do great on the games, not so much on either of those. I have 5 weeks before I take my 2nd LSAT test and need to bring my score up by at least 7 points....please any tried and true methods that would really help someone in a pinch or is it still just practice practice practice?

Does anyone have the same feeling?

I bombed every single LR section after PT70.

I find that LR questions after 70 allows more room for making subtle assumptions and hence the answer choices are not as clear as before. This is probably the reason why I got trapped more often.

I narrowed it down to (A) derisive condescension and (B) open dissatisfaction, and then picked (A) after referring back to the language about how Gilliam was "impatient" with strictly representational art. In retrospect, I can see how (A) connotes too strong of a sentiment; but I'm not sure what I could have gone back to or thought while solving under time to show that (A) is too strong and (B) is just right. Can anyone explain their thinking? TIA!

So I took the July LSAT and did not do well...like 4 points before my average not well. I am signed up for the August LSAT and I’ve seen a decline in my scores over the past 2 weeks. I know this is all in my head and related to seeing that bad score, so I’m looking for advice on how to overcome this and possibly a tutor to work with in the next week to help with confidence, especially in reading comp. Anything is helpful. Thanks!

Hi,

Can anyone explain to me their reasoning about how they approached the correct answer here?

I thought that A (the correct answer) was wrong here because we have no idea why Chopin did not believe in the local colorists' idealization on line 38. Thus, it doesn't have to be because Chopin thought that the local colorists were "misguided" (aka wrong).

On the other hand I thought that B was right because it seemed a little more supported: in lines 32-35, it at least explains why Chopin wrote using local colorists' conventions: because she thought that the sentimental novels she read when she was little were a bit too excessive. In addition, my thought was: why write something that is so emotional in such a detached manner (line 37) unless you wanted to deafen the emotional impact?

Any #help would be appreciated!

Best regards

Can someone explain why the answer choice is A not C?

Hi everyone I took the April LSAT and am cancelling my score for the June LSAT retake. I continue to struggle with RC. Trying not to get bogged down by the articles stating RC is the hardest to improve but I cannot seem to grasp how to get through at least 3 passages all correctly. What is your strategy? What is your method of attack when approaching a RC passage? What do you look for and ask yourself along the way? Appreciate any input thanks

For question 19 of section 3 on the october 2008 test, the stimulus reads: "Bureaucrat: The primary, constant goal of an ideal bureaucracy is to define and classify all possible problems and set out regulations regarding each eventuality. Also, an ideal bureaucracy provides an appeal procedure for any complaint. If a complaint reveals an unanticipated problem, the regulations are expanded to cover the new issue, and for this reason an ideal bureaucracy will have an ever-expanding system of regulations."

Answer choice A reads "An ideal bureaucracy will provide an appeal procedure for complaints even after it has defined and classified all possible problems and set out regulations regarding each eventuality."

In negating this answer choice, I believe that the clause "even after it has defined..." all the way to the end remains constant in both the answer choice and its negation. If this is the case, how does it not break the conclusion of the argument that "an ideal bureaucracy will have an ever-expanding system of regulations."?

I have a question about the law as it is presented in this stimulus: if something isn't prohibited in the law, does that automatically make it legal?

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

I understand how A is correct, can someone please explain it to me? thanks

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation. I am not sure about my explanations for "B" and "D"

*The kind of question this is:* Weaken

*CTX:* Post office must be replaced with a larger one.

*Premise(s):*

• The present one cannot be replaced.

• Land near the present (center of town) location is more expensive.

• Cost of acquiring a site is a significant part of the total construction cost.

*Conclusion:* Post office can be built more cheaply on the outskirts of town.

*What I am looking for:* A reason, that outweighs the burden of cost, in favour of the office to being built near the present (center of town) location, rather than on the outskirts.

*Answer A:* No. That is just information. Irrelevant. The building code is not a stated obstacle.

*Answer B:* Yes. The office on the outskirts will need a parking lot that is more expensive than not having one.

*Answer C:* No. That’s an issue that the new post office would not need to worry about. It is not mentioned how this would be a problem.

*Answer D:* No. So what if they have to deliver mail to home. The mail will still arrive to the costumers. The post office on the outskirts will still be in business.

*Answer E:* No. That’s not a problem. That’s just the process that will be taken to build the office in the center of town.

I'm having trouble finding support for answer choice D. Can someone help out?

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

Hi! I'm taking the LSAT in Nov. and I'm having trouble with In/Out questions. ANYTHING HELPS!!

This section alone has four weaken questions!!! I don't think i've ever had a section with so many flaw and weaken questions together... anyway, since JY's explanation videos are not available yet, I want to put these confusing ones out here for discussion:

Q22

Premise: (because) if we want to know medieval epi includes some claims, we just ask whether any epi believe it. If they did, then it is part of medieval epi; if they didn't then the opposite is part of medieval epi.

Conclusion: The solution to define medieval epistemology simply as the epistemological beliefs of the medieval epistemologists.

The correct AC is E, however I feel like E is weakening the premise. since we're supposed to weaken the support in this type of questions, I'm not sure E does that and also this argument feels like circular reasoning to me. Please feel free to point out any problems in my breakdown of the argument.

Q24

premise: if pollen from a drug-producing crop flies into a nearby non-drug-producing crop of the same species, the drug could fertilize and turn it into a drug-producing crop.

conclusion: genetically engineered crop raises the possibility that drug will end up in the general food supply.

I chose E for this question, becuz i think E provides that even though X happens, doesn't mean Y will necessarily ensue (X, not Y).

Similar to Q22, I find the correct answer choice D to weaken the premise, instead of the support.

Aside from just repetition, do you guys know the best way to tell what chart to use for each type of question? Often find myself having a harder time just because I am not using the best possible chart for the scenario and am actually overcomplicating things.