Discussions

LSAT

New post

240 posts in the last 30 days

I practiced a lot of LG questions and I got a huge improvement on it. However, my timing is terrible.

I want to ask for help on LG timing!

Please drop your advice!

Thank you so much :)

0

Would anyone be willing to review the May 2020 LR with me? There were a few tough questions, and I would appreciate talking with someone about them. I'd prefer to talk with someone who does well in LR.

0

When doing this question, I could not agree with JY's explanation no matter how many times I've heard it. I simply think his reasoning on why he eliminated answer choice A is incorrect. In absolute terms, the rain will definitely increase, because we know the proportion of precipitation as rain has also increased, so in relative terms too, rain has increased more compared to snow.

To me, this answer choice can only be eliminated because of the use of "probably" in both the answer choice and in the stimulus. How should I understand the use of probably, though?

Should I think of it as "in most cases", meaning, in more than 50% of the cases? In that case, I suppose that just like how when given A-most->B-most->C, we can't make any inferences between A and C, in this question, the two cases of "probably" disconnect the causal relationship in the argument, and therefore does not actually strengthen the argument?

What do you guys think of my reasoning, and my analysis on "probably"? The more I think about it, the more it makes sense, and I think as I was typing this out, I've convinced myself that this is the correct reasoning for eliminating A.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-71-section-1-question-12/

0

Hi,

this was a weird LR question that I thought somebody might have some insight on. I used Process of Elimination to find that E was the only possible right answer, but I was not completely sure how E was the right answer when it stated that the Student's criteria was "inconsistent" with "the principle the historian advanced".

For something to be inconsistent with something else, they must contradict each other. The principle the Historian brings up is that "Alexander the Great should not be judged by appeal to current notions of justice". However, the student only stated that, in order to tell if Alexander the Great raised contemporary standards, one would need to "invoke standards other than those of his own culture". This criteria does not HAVE to contradict the principle the Historian brings up because "standards other than those of his own culture" might or might not include "current notions of justice".

Can anybody explain how E is right here?

Any #help would be appreciated!

0

I'm fairly new to 7Sage, but I am curious to know others' thoughts on this. Should I keep doing problem sets in a specific category if I am getting them right every time? Even without blind review? Not trying to brag or anything here, just genuinely curious of what others are doing.

0

Flaw Question-- calling all folks who are a beast at LR:) HELP?

I understand that the answer is C but I want to make sure that I'm breaking down the argument correctly:

*Best way to understand --> Direct Empathy (that's what some psychologists claim, and we're supposing they're right)

*/Direct Empathy ("since it's impossible to gain a direct and complete grasp of another person's motivations" aka Direct Empathy-- I believe this is what the author takes as the truth)

THUS, no way at all to understand (already problem here, it should have been THUS, "no best way to understand" rather than "no way at all to understand")

But that's not even the main conclusion...

*Understand ("One can understand other people"-- again, this is what the author takes as the truth)

THUS, the psychologists' claim is wrong-- it's wrong to state that (best way to understand --> Direct Empathy)

The problem is that the author cannot state that the psychologists' claim is wrong because the author's evidence is flawed--- assumes there's no way when the psychologists are only talking about best way.

However, I'd like to go deeper into this question and modify it-- what if the author correctly said it was "best way to understand" as opposed to "no way at all to understand"-- would the argument be valid then??

*Best way to understand --> Direct Empathy (that's what some psychologists claim, and we're supposing they're right)

*/Direct Empathy ("since it's impossible to gain a direct and complete grasp of another person's motivations" aka Direct Empathy-- I believe this is what the author takes as the truth)

THUS, there's no best way to understand

*Best way to understand (my modified premise-- "But there is a best way to understand people")

THUS, the psychologists' claim is wrong-- it's wrong to state that (best way to understand -> Direct Empathy)

In this case, is the argument's conclusion valid? It's TRUE that the psychologists' claim is wrong because ultimately what we have is... we know it's true that /Direct Empathy & there is best way to understand ... so we can't validly get to "Best way to understand --> Direct Empathy"

(Am I thinking correctly? lol)

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-2-question-11/

0

Hi 7Sage Forum! I am looking for strategies on identifying the Sufficient and Necessary Assumptions in questions. I find myself understanding the material but am getting bogged down in language. Still working through the 7sage curriculum however any advice would be helpful! Thanks!

0

Mary Simms (outdoor advertising rep): "Billboards are the basis of our business. If they are torn down, our ability to earn a living will be severely damaged.

Jack Jordan (local merchant): "The basis of our business is an attractive community..."

When Mary said "our", she meant her advertising business.

When Jack said "our", he meant the town/community.

Hence (C) is the correct answer.

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

0

Hi,

I understand why B here is right, but I have trouble understanding why D is completely wrong. After all, couldn't "some" footprints include the footprints that Dr. Tyson is looking at, and couldn't missing a feature of the original footprint lead to a huge change in how the footprint is interpreted?

Any #help would be appreciated!

Thanks!

0

I got this hopelessly wrong. Only after some quite extensive reviewing, I was able to put the explanation together. Anyone who has done this problem before please review my reasoning and add to it.

#help

PP --> Money

D --> EqualPP

D --> PP --> Money

/money

/D

A - I didn't see any conjunctions in the stimulus

B -

Bookstore --> money

LoveBooks

BooksExpensive

---------------

/money

C -

Hist-Fic --> accuracy

Sci-Fic --> /accuracy

----------------

Hist-Scifi --> Difficult

D - Sometimes and difficult to predict, can eliminate this

E -

GoodHealth --> Exercise

Exercise --> AdequateTime

-------------------------------------

GoodHealth --> Exercise --> AdequateTime

/Adequatetime

------------------------------------

/Goodhealth

This parallels.

0

Beans.

(via Trainer)

Find assumption to make legit:

Kermit is a frog. Therefore, he love green long time.

Right: One is a frog only if one loves green. Translation: In order to be a frog one must love salsa verde.

Wrong: One loves green only if one is a frog. Translation: All the salsa verde lovers, are frogs. (but not all the frogs love verde salsa)

I'm struggling with translating the "wrong" statement. It just don't make no sense ricky bobby, and the worst part is it did two days ago. When I don't intentionally think about for like 2 minutes, it seems like the right and wrong statement are saying the same thing.

I know that "if" statements read left to right and "only if" states read right to left (or you just move the if in front of the first clause), but it's hard for me to understand.

This has probably been covered before...but advice is best only if it is fresh. (see what I did there. see it.)

0

Hi All. I have two questions:

(1) Roughly when did the important distinguishing features of newer logical reasoning questions become the norm? I'm thinking in particular about longer and tougher stems, more frequent strengthen/weaken/RRE questions, less frequent formal logic questions, and generally trickier answer choices?

(2) In these newer LR sections, are the toughest questions typically found between questions #11 and 20? Or are 21-26 generally harder? Or has it gotten more random?

I've been largely following the "save the best for last" approach in my studying thus far, and so have only recently moved from tests #20-45 or so to more recent tests. Recently, I've begun alternating between tests near #80 and closer to the 50s, and plan to keep doing so. Today, though, I took my first test in the 50s (#55) after taking a couple near #80, and the LR sections felt much closer to the old style I'd been used to than the new style I'd seen in #78 and #80---in particular I noticed more formal logic, and that the hardest questions were located near the end rather than the late-middle. So I'm wondering what to expect. Roughly when did the shift that happened between early and late tests occur, and how accurate is my sense (partially based on some article I now can't find) that the newer sections have harder questions towards the late-middle?

0

Hello,

I did not choose A (the correct answer) in this question because I thought "specific examples" was incorrect given the fact that the passage did not raise any plural nouns and actually seemed quite general to describe their examples. Can someone explain why the examples raised in the passage count as "specific examples"?

Thanks!

#help

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-1-passage-1-questions/

0

Just took PT 84 - wondering if anyone found the LR kind of weird? Not hard per se, but for example PT 84 S2 Q2 (an NA) was more of a soft NA answer? They are usually a lot more clear. Idk maybe I’m just being picky but I found there were a couple questions where the answers were a lot more subtle to me.


Anyways, onto PT 84 S2 Q11

I knew AC was right but crossed it off because I thought it attacked a premise. Looking back it appears I misread the stimulus.

The premise says: “Many features ..." Admin Note: I deleted the premise and Answer Choice C as it is against our Forum Rules to post LSAT questions on the Forum.

And AC C says: "Excessive blinking ..."


I thought that the stimulus read “excessive blinking is not such a feature of confidence” (rather than saying "blink rate is not a feature")

My question is, if it had said what I thought it said, would AC C have been an attack on the premise like I thought it was?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-84-section-2-question-11/

0

Hey all,

I've been gradually improving on RC over the last 10 PTs (-6 to -8) to (-3 to -5) by spending more time upfront understanding the passage content/structure/emphasis and less time wastefully deliberating over answer choices. Generally, I feel pretty efficient about how much time I spend on each question based on the question type and its respective difficulty.

However, I notice that for harder meaning/synonym and author's attitude questions, I find myself spending a longer period of time debating answer choices (~1 min+) than I should be (~30 sec). For author's attitude questions, I circle key words that reflect the author's opinion as I read the passage and write an A next to the longer parts of the author's opinion. For meaning/synonym questions, my strategy is to replace the word in the stimulus at its respective location with the answer choices and see if it fits.

Usually, 2-3 of the answer choices can be easily eliminated, but when the remaining two answer choices have the correct type of tone (i.e. both positive/negative) and only differ in degree, I end up spending way too much time debating between the two by looking at the passage for textual evidence and eventually end up going with my gut. I know JY's advice for difficult RC questions is to cut your losses, go with you gut, and rack up points on easier questions, but I feel like there's a better way to approach these questions more confidently to minimize time spent and improve accuracy.

How do you guys approach these question types?

0

I feel like in the last two months alone, 7Sage has introduced new tags (especially for LR) out of blue? While I appreciate the ability for more detailed analysis, it's a bit anxiety-inducing to discover there's a new dimension on this test that I need to master. How often does 7Sage add/discover tags?

0

I often read arguments in the Flawed Assumption stems in LR and find myself regarding them as things I hear often. I don't even mean to be all that nice in this observation.

I wish option E was literally always, "The argument has no flaws."

I guarantee that even if the LSAC issued a blanket statement saying that hypothetical option E was NEVER the correct answer, people who commonly use these hypothetical flawed techniques in day-to-day arguments would still pick E.

0

im taking the exam in person and when i went on lawhub and clicked lsat it said information on scheulding with a proctor has been sent to you, i just wanted to know if you guys see that also or i missed out on an email or something

0

How do I become better at identifying referential phrasing? I feel like I'm very slow and inaccurate at identifying them and being able to point them out. I would appreciate any advice or help given!

0

So I am taking the LSAT in September with the new revised model, so I am skipping the LG sections and focusing hard on LR and RC. I wanted to ask what is the best routine to integrate drills into the study session.

I hear a lot of the drills come from PT, and burning though Drills means come PT time, you have essentially already seen some of the questions prior (do I have this right?).

So I wanted to ask if this is the same for post August PTs aswell, and for those taking it without LR, how are you using your PTs and Drills

Any help is valued. Thanks!

0

Hi!

According to your explanation video, the tutor said the cause here is 'technologically superior' and the effect is 'lower infant mortality' but i still can't understand why.

What I thought is the reversed version of that. The cause is 'lower infant mortality' and the effect is 'tech superior'.

And answer choice (A) suggests that the cause can be actually the effect of the other cause, which breaks the causal relationship between 'lower infant mortality' and 'tech superior.' So basically (A) is saying the cause is 'broader access' and the effect is 'tech superior.'

Is my thought process ok to use?

0

Any suggestions or tips on maintaining the energy level during test (outside of doing more full test)? I find the first section I am great then something breaks midway through the second section. Thanks in advance.

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?