I'm trying to work now to get my RC score down to the -5 range, and I'm drilling a lot on the passage types im bad at, and most of the hard or hardest passages I'll get 2 or 3 wrong, and on the easier ones, 1 or 2 maybe, if I get a good selection of passages its likely I;ll be in that -6 range. EXCEPT for spotlight passages; something about spotlight passages just doesn't click for me, there's a majority 1 star or 2 star passages where I'll get straight up 4 out of 6 or 7 ACs wrong, and I don't understand why, does anyone have any tips? I'm confident my LR will be at -4/5 for August/Sept LSAT, but if I can't get my RC out of the -7/8 zone I won't be able to get a 165

Hi! Recently started learning about formal logic and it's kicking my butt to be honest. I'm still a little confused on how you even identify a conditional statement (I was going through some of the exercises and was like seriously, this is a conditional statement?).

More importantly, I'm still a little confused about how to deduce sufficient vs necessary conditions. I don't want to rely solely on indicators as LSAT is a test about understanding. If you guys could share your tips/explain, I would appreciate that so much, thanks!!

So I got my score and ultimately got a 157. I'm bummed but...what can you do? I bought the 7sage starter and will be playing catch up on studying today. Does anyone have any tips? I have a goal of high 160's.

I was wondering if anyone had a mnemonic they like to use to help remember which indicators belong to each group?

Hello 7sage admin,

Could you guys put a target time on the RC passages? In the LGs, the target time is helpful, and I think that a target time for the RC passages would be super helpful, especially since the timing in RC feels much more unpredictable than the other sections. Obviously, everyone's going to be a little different based on background etc, but a ballpark figure would be awesome. Really loving the curriculum, keep up the good work!

I'm doing some LR drilling right now, and I just wanted to make a discussion post and share my reasoning for a question (as prompted by 7Sage).

C: the glacier that melted to reveal the ancient body is at least 4,000 years old

Reasoning: Artifacts found on the man's body indicate that he lived at least 4,000 years ago, and that he died on the same spot where his body was discovered. Therefore, the glacier - the spot on which he died and was discovered - must be at least 4,000 years old. None of the other answer choices were even close to enticing and were easily eliminated.

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

I took a diagnostic a few weeks ago but haven’t taken any full PTs since then. Right now, I’m only partially through the curriculum, I’ve made some progress in the Logical Reasoning section but haven’t touched Reading Comp yet.

I’m tempted to start taking full-length practice tests to begin building endurance and test-day skills, but I’m also worried it might be too early. I don’t want to waste time on PTs if I’d be better off continuing through the lessons first.

When should I start taking full PTs?

Could someone please explain this one?

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

Hi, friends. I had a lot of trouble understanding the clay tablets passage in PT 74 and I'm wondering if anyone can think of or dig up any similar passages. It seems straight-up descriptive to me, like a history lesson, rather than posing a position or a hypothesis or theory. It only helps so much to reflect on this one example. Anyone?

What are the some online LSAT class courses that you all have taken that worked for you? I took Princeton Review before and it was okay. I'm looking to enroll in a new class coming up for better luck. Please let me know if you have any recommendations

hm

Sorry this is long and I haven't proof it yet for errors, but if you would like to read my email to LSAC regarding my terrible experience today with the October Flex, here it is. As prospective law students, we deserve SO much better than this.

To whom it may concern,

I took the October LSAT flex today. After months of studying and putting in my best effort, I was positive coming into it. I got set up my dad’s office since it has the fastest internet in my house, I checked that my connection was good (about 300 megabits per second) and logged into ProctorU. Come 9:10, when my exam was set to start, I clicked ‘begin’ and the process of checking my video and microphone connection happened almost immediately, but I was told my lighting did not pass the test. I turned my light on brighter in the room and pressed ‘retry’ to recheck the lighting. This time, it wouldn’t seem to load. I waited 20 minutes, attempted to speak to multiple technicians, but nobody was responding or could help me. I was afraid of exiting out of the window in case I wouldn’t be let back in. After 30 minutes, I took the risk of closing the window and reopened, logged back into ProctorU and after only a minute, I was set up and ready to receive my proctor. I felt a wave of relief when my proctor said I wasn’t too late for the test.

My proctor was very helpful with getting me ready for the test, checking my surrounding, etc. I started the test with the Logic Games section. About 5 minutes into the section my test was interrupted by a screen saying I was disconnected from the proctor, and my test was also stopped. I opened the chat box with my proctor and told them it had disconnected. They helped me get back into the section but before they could, they had me go into the system preferences of my computer and do a lot of troubleshooting, then eventually I had to reboot my computer. This was not by choice, but what my proctor, who had control of my screen, was requesting of me. With nothing else to do, I obliged. My computer screen went black for about 15 seconds then came back on. I was terrified. The proctor then told me I could begin my test again and that my test was paused at the initial disconnect, meaning I wouldn’t lose any time in the test. But as I started the test again, I am almost positive I lost time in the section. At least a few minutes had passed that I did not get back in that games section. I finished the section, regardless, putting in my absolute best effort and trying not to think about what had just occurred.

I began my Logic Reasoning section next. 20 minutes in, I coincidentally check my time and see that I have 15 minutes left. A few seconds later, the same disconnect that happened in the Logic Games section occurs. This time, I tell my proctor I have disconnected yet again and they lead me back into the exam. This was only a detour of about a minute and I did not lose any time in the section but was sufficiently paused at the time of my disconnect. As I am working through the section, suddenly I see a notification bouncing at the bottom of my screen from my proctor, and I think, “why is my proctor messaging me while I am trying to focus on my test?” Of course, I don’t react or respond to the notification and continue, although I am very distracted by the bouncing icon. A little while later a new tab suddenly opens on my browser and disrupts my test. It is not your average pop up, but a ProctorU support page requesting that I submit a survey regarding my technical assistance. Mind you, this was during my Logical Reasoning section with about 10 minutes left while completing the most difficult questions in the section. Stunned and disappointed, I immediately close the window. Again, I see a notification at the bottom of my screen from my proctor. I ignore it and haphazardly finish the section, however the interruptions undoubtably affected my performance negatively.

As soon as the time is called for the Logical Reasoning section, I have 60 seconds before the Reading Comprehension section begins and I check to see what my proctor had said. There was a second chat box opened (I assume it was because I had to re download the zip file that allowed the screen sharing by the proctor) and in the text box it said something along the lines of, “you have left the testing screen” presumably talking about when the tech support survey screen appeared 10 minutes before. To be honest, I don’t remember exactly what the chat box told me, but I was worried my test had been flagged for something completely out of my control. This carried into my performance on the Reading Comprehension section. I remember the chat saying I had been disconnected from my proctor, but the first chat box with my initial proctor was still open. So I messaged them defending myself and saying, “I did not leave the screen, a new tab opened during the test from ProctorU and I closed it within seconds”. I now had 15 seconds left until my Reading Comprehension section began. Petrified that my months of hard work had been for nothing, I finished the third section without any disconnects, and my test was complete.

This experience has left me feeling rather defeated. I went into this test with a great mindset and countless hours of studying under my belt. I find these technical issues to be extremely unfair and unprofessional. The internet speed in my house is impeccable and has never been an issue before, so I am left searching for a reason why my test would disconnect multiple times. Luckily I do not suffer from a diagnosed anxiety disorder, because this would certainly be something to trigger a panic attack during the test. That being said, it it can be reasonable expected for any normal person to be affected negatively by the stress of this type of circumstance. Thankfully, I was able to stay composed and complete my sections, but I did so with fear in the back of my mind rather than the 100% concentrated focus I expect when taking such an important test.

This was one of the most pertinent days of my life and to go through this nightmare is beyond disheartening. I had read about technical difficulties similar to mine since the first flex test in August on the 7sage forum, and I prayed nightly that I would be luckier. Unfortunately, this format of the LSAT does not only favor those with intellect, but those who are lucky enough to not experience a technical difficulty. Where is the justice for those of us who have lost time on our sections, for those of us who have planned out an entire year based on taking a specific LSAT date and have etched out the perfect amount of time to complete applications but are now impeded by uneasiness and worry as we may have to take the exam in January and apply later than the rest of the pool, or even worse, wait another year to apply to law school? As future law students, we deserve a lot better than this system of consistent failure. I sit here, still, in utter shock and I wonder if I will be able to attend a satisfactory law school next fall.

As a reparation for my suffering today I request a full refund that I may use to take a later test, and a confirmation that my test has not be flagged.

I look forward to speaking further about this situation. Until then, have a great day.

-Lucia Izzolo

Admin Note: Related thread is located here: https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/25548/october-lsat-flex-issues

Free will is not applicable in determining responsibility for all situations (its not a one size fit all equation).

We hold criminals responsible bc they cause damage out of free will.

We do not hold drivers (driving while heart attack and cause damage) responsible, even though the heart attack could be prevented from diet (free will).

A. Itself is not a conclusion

BC. Not “Should”

D. Not true

E. Maybe, saying that we do not apply free will equally to all situations (i.e both criminals and drivers under heart attack both stem from free will but they have different outcome).

Hi All,

The last sentence of the paragraph 2 reads: '...they argue that as the quality of black schools improved relative to that of white schools....'

J.Y. explains that from this, we cannot infer whether the quality of white schools remained the same, improved, and decreased. I understand this, but am wondering what the different interpretations of the sentence would be in the 3 scenarios.

What I think (assigning numbers as indicators of 'quality'):

Say the white schools originally were 10, black schools 5.

(1) In the case that white schools improved to 15, the net increase in quality for them would be 5. Therefore, whatever increase in quality of the black schools would have to be greater than +5, whether it be 11 or 12 (must be at minimum 11)

(2) In the case that white schools remained the same, then black schools can increase in any amount (but given the context of the passage, unlikely that it would supersede that of the white schools' original, 10)

(3) In the case that white schools decreased, say to 8 (so -2), black schools can increase in any amount, say 1, because that is still a greater than a -2.

Before J.Y.'s explanation, what I thought (1) would be meant if white schools improved to 15 (+5), black schools would also increase by +5 to 10. If this were the case, would the sentence have read: '...they argue that as the quality of black schools improved in parallel to that of white schools....'?

Please let me know what you think!

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-15-section-1-passage-4-passage/

I take the LSAT on paper instead of on a computer. I would like to be able to print sections and PT's from 7Sage so I am practicing the same format as the real test. How can I print from the new 7Sage?

I don't see how D seriously undermines the hypothesis. How do we know anything about the death of diatoms? For this answer to work, you have to assume that Antarctic diatoms die near Antarctica (why can't they move or float away, or the death shells float away?) Lastly, don't you have to assume that the sediment left by the death shells would be indicative of a population increase? Aren't life and death two totally different ideas?. How are we supposed to know that these are OK assumptions?

Take for instance A (just for the sake of argument, I understand that A is incorrect). I think A would work if you assume diatoms of today are similar to diatoms during the ice age. You would also need to assume that the "unusually large amounts of ferrous material" that does not exist today would not promote a further increase in their population today. How are these assumptions less reasonable than the ones needed for D to be correct?

x

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?

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

*The kind of question this is:* Weaken

*CTX:* Local agricultural official gave fruit growers of District 10 a new pesticide that they applied for three years to their pear orchards in place of the pesticides they had used before.

*Premise(s):* during the three years, the proportion of pears lost to insects was significantly less than it had been during the previous three years period.

*Conclusion:* based on the results, the official concluded that the new pesticide was more effective than the old pesticide, at least in the short term. In limiting the loss of certain fruit to insects.

*What I am looking for:* Just looking for answer choices that weaken the argument. Maybe an alternative explanation as to why the pears lost to insects were significantly less than it had been during the previous three years period.

*Answer A:* Yes, this is the right answer. This is irrelevant and does not weaken the argument. There were less fruit being produced because the number of mature trees has declined of the past 8 years. Who cares. The argument is talking about the “proportion of pears lost to insects.” So, it doesn’t matter how many pears we started with, it’s how many of those that were lost to insects with the new pesticide.

*Answer B:* Not the right answer. This weakens the argument. Insect abatement programs were used in the last 5 years, and were successful. That explains why the pears lost to insects were significantly less than it had been during the previous three years period.

*Answer C:* Not the right answer. Over the past 5 years, the birds that prey on the insects that feed on the pears have spent more time in the district 10 region. Weakens.

*Answer D:* Not the right answer. Insects in district 10 that infest pear trees are water breeders, and access to water for them is shrinking. This means the insects did not get to the pear trees. Weakens.

*Answer E:* Not the right answer. It is saying the old pesticide is still in effect after it has stopped being used, so it may not be the new pesticide that is credited with eliminating many pear eating insects. Weakens.

This necessary assumption question discusses the treatment of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) with a newly developed drug. CFS is associated with three different symptoms, and we don’t know if these symptoms are the effects of only one virus or of multiple different ones. Tests of the new drug indicate that this drug lessens the severity of all three CFS symptoms. The stimulus takes this to provide evidence to the effect that CFS probably is caused by one single virus, not by multiple different ones.

Pre-phrase / anticipation: We need an assumption to the effect of ‘If a single treatment lessens all of a given syndrome’s symptoms, then it is more likely for this syndrome to be caused by a single virus than by multiple ones.’

The pertinent answer choices are (B) and (D). (B) states: “It is more likely that the new drug counteracts one virus than that it counteracts several viruses.” This matches the consequent in the anticipated assumption but leaves out its antecedent. (B) thus does not make the argument valid and would fall short of being a sufficient assumption. But is (B) necessary? If negated, (B) would indicate that it would be equally likely or even more likely that the new drug affected several viruses. This is not at all what the author is trying to argue and thus would seem to rob their conclusion of any support.

(D) states: “Most syndromes that are characterized by related symptoms are each caused by a single viral infection.” This in itself might be right, and arguably (D) would be a good strengthen answer choice. (D) gets at the conclusion and points out parallel cases where similar correlations have been observed as well. A number of things seem off though: (1) Do we know that the alleviated symptoms in fact are ‘related,’ as this answer choice suggests? We certainly know that they all are effects of one or more causes, but does that also render these effects related to one another? (2) The conclusion in the stimulus takes the results of the experiments with the new drug to provide evidence to the effect that CFS has a single cause, but (D) does not contain a connection to these experiments. Instead, (D) is just making a general claim that arguably strengthens the conclusion in isolation but that does not also connect it to the other parts of the argument.

As an NA answer choice, (B) thus seems better than (D). (B) is essentially saying: In probabilistic terms, the new drug’s acting on three different effects indicates that these three effects likely have a single cause rather than three different ones. By contrast, had the drug only affected two of CFS’s three symptoms, it would have been likely that there are at least two causes for CFS, one virus that triggers two of its symptoms and another virus that triggers the third one. (B) is thus hinting at a sort of appeal to simplicity behind the author's reasoning. The author seems to assume: If two different hypotheses about the causal relationships behind a given correlation are possible, the simpler hypothesis is more likely correct.

I am saying this because there are some terms that I dont know what the question means. Like am I supposed to know what a generalization, alternative explanation, or evidence is? Could someone please explain this. There was this one question in the AP lesson that talked about Crime and Media coverage. I chose A for the answer because the explanation was supporting the conclusion. However the actual answer was E which was an "Alternative Explanation" What does that mean?

Hey everyone, quick shortcut for these kinds of LG questions. First, look at each of the answer choices and see if any of them must be true. The ones that aren't are instantly wrong. Think about it--you're testing for logical equivalence. For two statements to be logically equivalent, they must be true in all circumstances. If either one of the statements isn't true all of the time, they can't constitute a logically valid premise, and they can't be used to imply the validity of other statements.

Hope this helps!

Can someone explain why they chose B over E?

Can someone please explain to me how they arrived at the answer to this evaluate logical reasoning question?

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