I understand the whole formal logic chain, pretty simple, however I do not understand why the last sentence is added to the end of the chain (a necessary condition) when the sentence starts out as 'The only', which implies sufficiency. Not sure for legal reasons if I am able to post the actual question on here, but I am more the welcome to if somebody if willing to assist me. Thanks!

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]." Also, you are correct - please do not post the entire actual question in forums for LSAC/legal reasons, the title format helps others reference the PT and question. Thanks!

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-86-section-1-question-10/

Hello! I started my RC section at a -4 on my diagnostic, and I've found that after studying the section, my score has gotten worse- going to a -7 or -8. Does anyone have any advice? Has this happened to anyone before? I wonder if I'm just overthinking the answers.

I don't understand the correct answer for this one at all. Can someone breakdown why all the wrong ones are correct and D is correct? Here is my breakdown:

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-65-section-3-passage-3-questions/

Answer A: This is what I picked both times, I don’t really see what’s wrong with it. Doesn’t legally requiring something describe US/Canadian law while not legally requiring it parallel Roman law? To me, this is perfect…

Answer B: Roman law didn’t make anything illegal, so this isn’t it.

Answer C: Roman law didn’t distinguish between legality, so this isn’t it.

Answer D: Completely dumbfounded how this could possibly be the answer. Roman law didn’t make blackmail illegal outright. You had to show harm, and THAT made it illegal. I don’t see how this is analogous to Roman law in the slightest…

Answer E: Higher fines? Roman law didn’t have harsher punishment.

On my last four pt’s I have gotten -7 wrong on each one. In between each pt I foolproof all games from that specific test and continue to go through tests from 1-35 and the pts I completed recently. I have already foolproofed 1-35 as well. On each test I miss the substitution question, one or two total in the first three games, and then I get killled on the fourth game usually missing three or four. I’m hoping someone could give me some guidance on how to get my misses down on that last game. If I could do that I think I’d be in decent shape. On BR I am able to figure the games out and go -0 to -1, so I think I may just not be picking up on the inferences quick enough. Thanks in advance for any advice or tips you have!

I took the exam in Asia, so I believe its a non-disclosed exam. It's my first write and unfortunately, I completely lost track of time because of exam nerves (completely my fault, I know) and ending up having to guess the last page for both reading comprehension and logic games. Honestly, like a random guess, not even an educated guess. This sucks and I know that I shouldn't have let it get to me, but I would be lying to say it didn't affect my performance at all for my later sections. I feel like the material itself was not extremely difficult and quite similar to my practice tests, but I guess the whole "realness" of the testing conditions scared the living crap out of me so I messed up. I think this is definitely something I can work with, by setting up more realistic practice test taking conditions. The question is, I want some confirmation whether I should cancel or not. I would love some advice. The law schools I'm planning to apply to take my highest only, but I feel like because I bombed this one so hard I want kind of a somewhat "clean slate" for my next write. Hoping for the best.

This was pretty tricky, and I got it right, but I still don’t have a good understanding of what is technically wrong with A. How is answer choice A not directly contradicting one of P’s premises? It must not because it isn’t the right answer choice.

Video link: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-69-section-4-question-15/

L: You philosophers say that linguists don’t understand language, but you haven’t provided evidence of that.

P: You say that “J and I are siblings” means the same thing as “I and J are siblings.” This isn’t true since the word order is different. For two things to be identical, everything must be the same.

What I am looking for: Both make pretty bad arguments (L makes an absence of evidence flaw), but we really only need to undermine P’s reasoning. P is wrong because he misses the point of what it means to “understand language.” The order of the words doesn’t matter necessarily; it’s the total meaning that matters. P assumes that “identical meaning” is influenced by the “physical” placement of the words.

Answer A: To me, this is attacking one of P’s premises directly (and that was one of the reasons I didn’t pick this one). Attacking the premise is technically an OK way to undermine an argument; the real issue is that the LSAT is very good at creating answer choices that SEEM to attack premises, but they really don’t. This one is different in my mind since it flat out contradicts the final independent clause of P's fact pattern. P defines “identical things” as “things having all of the same attributes.” If L responded, “I disagree with your definition since two things can have a few minor differences and be identical [referring to minor differences in physical structure, but identical meaning]” doesn’t this weaken the argument by directly attacking the truth of P's premise?

Answer B: I think this strengthens P’s argument since it provides another way that differences (context) matter.

Answer C: Wtf?

Answer D: This more succinctly hits the main point, and it is a much better answer choice that A. The issue is over “meaning," not the order of the words.

Answer E: More experience? So what?

Hi,

So I am just really lost on why the right answer here was B instead of A. Can anyone explain why B is right and A is wrong?

When looking at the question, I focused primarily on the last two sentences of passage A (kinda treated those last two sentences as a LR question).

As a result, A looked like it weakened the argument passage A gives in these last two sentences because it created a reason for the phenomena (of rich people usually paying about the same under progressive tax as they would under flat tax) to be surprising (and thus less "unsurprising").

In addition, I just didn't see how B weakens the idea that this phenomena was "unsurprising", and as a result, I thought B was incorrect.

#HELP

Thanks!

During my blind-review sections or untimed sections I average -3, yet on timed sections I average -7/-8 which on a bad day can be -10. I don't understand how to close the gap. I've read Loophole and am trying to find patterns but sometimes the questions just throw me for a loop or have subtle distinctions from the right answer choice. Any successful methods of closing this gap and improving speed?

I need help with trying to answer the questions that ask something along the lines of "Which of following could substitute the condition (insert rule here)"? I don't know how to approach these at all.

Example: PT M20.S2.Q11

Hello,

I noticed that I am having trouble diagramming questions whenever I see the words "some" and "most" appear. In some cases, those words are used to indicate a some or most conditional relationship, but in other cases they are not. I noticed that sometimes I am diagramming some or most relationships where none exist, which is making questions take longer and making them more difficult for me than they really are with my skill/knowledge level. For example, I diagrammed question 22 from section 4 from pretest 70 (not sure if I can copy/paste question on discussion forum) as having some and most relationships when they didn't. When I watched JY's explanation, I realized that that problem should've been so easy, but I diagrammed it wrong. Does anyone have any advice about how to know when a some/most relationship triggers and when it doesn't? Thank you!

First impression wise, not a bad argument, but we're looking for an AC that shows that despite the fact that broadsides had statements about morals, it doesn't mean that most 17th century people were serious about moral values.

Maybe people back then bought broadsides for other reasons unrelated to those moralizing statements. This is the loophole in our argument.

B - gives us another reason why people bought broadsides: they were drawn to the sensationalized account of crime and adultery rather than to the morals.

B shows that broadsides were also entertaining in nature, not just moralizing.

A - regardless of whether broadsides are of low or high literary quality, they were still moralizing in nature, and people still bought them, but we're still left wondering whether people bought broadsides because they cared about morals or something else.

C - gives us an irrelevant mini history lesson.

D - premise booster. Tells us what we know already, namely that broadsides were moralizing in nature, so it makes sense for the clergy to use the broadsides for moralistic purposes. But we're still left wondering whether the people actually cared about moral values or not.

E - it doesn't matter what well-educated people think or feel about broadsides but how they think about moral values. Also tells us nothing about what the remaining non-well-educated people think about morals, which means we most likely can't justify the "most" statement in the conclusion.

I am averaging mid 160's and targeting 170+ for the August LSAT Flex. I am mainly struggling with Reading Comprehension and finding a technique that works for me. Looking for someone to study this and develop a technique with or someone who knows what has worked for them and can help me out.

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/

Hi, I've been hitting the mid-high 160's and I'm finding my core weakness is not understanding what the ACs are saying. This means the AC is using hard referential phrasing, or weird grammar like using embedded clauses without commas / run-on sentences, or the wording is just ambiguous.

I'm trying to parse the sentence piece by piece in my BR, but does anyone have any help for this issue?

My solutions so far are: parse word by word / phrase by phrase in BR, reduce the AC down to subject verb object. This is still really hard and I miss a lot of questions just because I don't know what the AC is trying to tell me. Thanks!

Hi all,

I’m looking for a study buddy who’s really solid with RC — I used to average max -3 on RC with older tests but am now doing worse than before — now I sometimes get -7. I am currently averaging anywhere from 168-173. If anyone would benefit from explaining how they arrive at certain answers/compare PTs — DM me! Would love to meet via Zoom couple of times throughout the week until the Nov flex.

Hey guys, did you guys finish Invalid Argument form curriculum? If you did, did you find it helpful?

Thanks guys!

I just thought of this today and wanted to know if it would be an issue, the place I have been practicing for the LSAT in and where I plan to take it from is an upstairs room that doubles as a storage place for all my parents useless things that they don't want to throw out but do not need currently. Examples are scrap books, non perishable food, suitcases, pictures and some more things like that. The room is big and in the center I have my big desk I have been working at, nothing around me is of any academic value but will I be required to move things out of the room?

If anyone needs help on LR let me know!

Glad I saw this game with the outlier game types cropping up on current tests! Went in with way to cookie cutter of a diagram on the front end. Incredibly thankful for being able to adapt even tho it wasn't as quick as I would have preferred.

(kind of reminded me of assumptions I made on the multi-tiered car dealership game)

Just finished the November lsat flex.

I got LR-RC-LG. LR was very easy and it’s probably like something in the 60s. RC was just brutal, and I feel it’s even harder than the October’s RC. LG was always my best section (average about -0 or -1), but this time I just feel really bad. I don’t know if it’s because LG was the lsat section or what, but I just could not make any useful inferences at all.

I got 161 in the October test and I’m wondering if I should cancel this test or not.

should I just use the 161 to apply my safe schools and retake in January?

Listen and subscribe:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify

Discover the study habits that move LSAT scores forward and the ones that hold progress back. This episode explains why untimed drills, careful review, and rest days matter more than nonstop timed practice. Tune in for practical strategies to break through plateaus and study smarter, not harder.

Hey all,

Like many, I've doing a number of PTs and find that parallel flaw questions are my weakest point in LR.

I was wondering if anyone had advice about when to use mapping on parallel flaw questions vs. when to intuit the flaw and answer choice match?

For example, I've just completed PT 53, and JY uses a conditional map for Question 21 Section 1. I realized after watching JY's explanation that trying to reason through or intuit this flaw would have been rather futile.

However, on the same PT—Question 13 Section 3, JY reasons through the flaw in his explanation. His explanation was great (it was a part relating to whole flaw) but I'm not confident in my ability to know when to use reason and when to use maps.

If anyone who is proficient at Parallel Flaw questions could share language cues or other details they use to know when maps are optimal and when they should reason through the question, I would really, really appreciate them!

Thanks so much, *also my first 7Sage post.

Hi everyone, I'm starting my LSAT studying journey, looking around and trying different online platforms that I feel work best. I enjoy 7sage, but feel a lot in the core curriculum is locked, like over half, what packages would you guys recommend worked best for you? Thanks!!!!!!

Just making sure I am right for the right reasons

Not being able to hear -----> Not every permutation is understandable----> Not Spoken Language completely effecient.

AC E

Hi,

Does anybody know why the answer here is not C? This passage is confusing the hell out of me

Admin note: minor title edit; for RC please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# (P#) - [brief description]"