I'm really struggling to understand this question.

I was wondering if anyone has a list of econ and geology passages. I have a hard time parsing through these types of passages and I want to love reading them. If they have a high amount of infer/analogy questions that would be a great bonus too.

Thanks!

Edit: Jazz/blues also

Did some searching on the forums and couldn't find a clear cut answer on fool proofing.

For context - I am scheduled to take the JAN 2020 LSAT (may move it to FEB 2020).

I am currently just through the CC on LG, about to start RC. I am almost always able to solve the logic games with -0 or -1, however, time is almost always an issue. New games definitely take me longer than what JY recommends, but I can usually get them almost perfect with more time.

I took the SEP 2019 LSAT and scored 153 and went -11 on LG/AR, -10 on RC, and -18 on LR.

I feel that the core curriculum will definitely improve my LR scores - there was some basic concepts that I was missing that I think will enable me to improve there. At this point - does it make more sense to spend the time to start fool proofing AR/LG or to move on to RC? I went close to -10 on both, but understand the concepts behind LG well enough to solve them, albeit slowly.

I have been a little all over the board with LR questions, averaging anywhere from -2 to -5. It's my worst section and no matter how much I review past questions I continue to make mistakes. Some seem to be due to timing because on BR I can usually find about half of my mistakes. I think my brain just goes cloudy. Any advice for LR refining in the last few weeks before LSAT/how to get over the slump? Feeling unmotivated #help

Hey guys! 166 June, wanted 170+. It's nice to say "okay, I'm going to law school," but MAN--I wanted a higher score! I was scoring 170s on PTs, so I'm shook. What can I do to study for August? I've already put 200 hours into this test.

Hey guys,

I was just looking for some specific PTs, mainly the newer ones, that are available for download and discovered that Cambridge is still licensed to sell PDFs of every PT. They also have some awesome Bundles including one for all Logic Games from PTs 1-70 for $90 (instead of $295 for purchasing them separately). If you don't need all of those but want to do JY's method for the games using PTs 1-35/38 they also have a bundle for that, which is only $42.

Just wanted to share this since I was driving myself crazy using the copy machine every time I wanted to make extra copies for a game from one of the 10 Actuals books I have, which incidentally don't include PTs 1-6, 8 or 17.

Hope this helps!

Happy studies :)

Is there are lesson here on diagramming? I've skated through maintaining a -5 average without diagramming on LG but it's become difficult to break the plateau. I don't even know which goes first with ifs, only if, would not it etc.....

So some of my top missed categories on PTs have been NA/SA/PMR, not because I think they are particularly difficult but sometimes I'm just missing the argument at hand or not properly seeing how the arguments are drawn in my head. A lot of the time when I see parallel flaw at the end of the test especially, my mind just says skip because there's just so much information to read. But, I know that if you parse the logic of the stimulus correctly, it's way easier to spot an AC that correctly fits. On Thinking LSAT, they mentioned looking at the conclusion of the stimulus and seeing if that accurately matches the AC, but I still can't read everything properly because some of the ideas can become too convoluted.

I'm wondering how y'all approach these questions in a formulaic way, do you spend time writing out the argument in lawgic format, or is there a better approach?

Omg I've been wracking my brain trying to think through this question, could really use some help!!

I have trouble understanding why D is correct.

I dismissed it because D claims that the two faulty studies do not support a causal finding, when the premise is based on the two study's correlational finding. The conclusion also specifically clarifies that it only applies under the assumption that "IF night lights cause nearsightedness," so even if the studies are faulty and do not support a causal finding, it doesn't hurt a conclusion that already operates under a world where night lights do cause nearsightedness.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!!!!

I never took science past grade 10, and know nothing lol. Do people with 0 science knowledge have any tips on how to better understand them?

Hi,

When I was looking at the answer choices of this question, I was stuck between B, C, and E. Can anyone help explain why B is right and why C and E are wrong?

Any #help would be appreciated!

Thanks!

does anyone have a list of games that have bi-conditionals in them?

Thanks!

Whenever I do diagram for a question, I find that I get very enveloped in it and as a result am less likely to notice the "gap" in the stimulus that needs to be connected for sufficient assumptions. Basically, I find diagramming to obscure this assumption recognition process for me. But I am not sure if this is because I am not diagramming correctly, if diagramming becomes less "involved" over time as you do more of it, or if my brain simply interprets the question better by not diagramming?

My process basically is: find assumption, then find the answer choice that connects the two "unconnected" ideas, then just confirm that the necessary and sufficient positioning isn't making some sort of flaw (e.g. mistaking necessary for sufficient or vice versa).

I'm studying for a 167+, so any advice on how to reduce my margin of error for this process would be appreciated! Last PT was a 161 (which was the official Jan LSAT).

Hi everyone,

I’m consistently scoring around -4 per LR section, and I’ve noticed a frustrating pattern. Two of the questions I miss are usually 4–5 star difficulty so fair enough. But the other two are often 3-star or easier, and when I review them, I immediately see the correct answer and understand exactly why it’s right. I usually just shake my head and wonder how I missed it.

Timing isn’t an issue. I’ve done a lot of timed practice, feel comfortable under time pressure, and usually have time at the end of each section to review any questions I flagged. By the time the section ends, I’m confident in almost every answer I’ve chosen, but I’m still missing these “should’ve got it” questions.

Has anyone else dealt with this? Any strategies or mental habits that helped you tighten up and eliminate these kinds of preventable mistakes?

Appreciate any advice.

Hi everyone! I feel like I heard someone mention in the comments or maybe in the 7sage podcast that there is a way to foolproof LR, but I can't remember where I heard that or how to do it. Does anyone have any ideas?

In JY's videos on comparative passages he usually reads passage A and then answers all of the questions for the first passage before going back to passage B and then answering the questions again. I can see the benefit of keeping the two passages separate to prevent mixing up the content, as they tend to be similar/related, but under time pressure, I tend to do worse when using this method of attack.

How do y'all take comparative passages? One at a time or all at once?

I've been struggling with Inference (Inf, InfOP, InfAP, InfAA) questions on PTs and need some advice on how to approach/how to practice them/which videos and lessons specifically may be helpful. I generally perform pretty well in RC but inferences have been really a bad area consistently. Would appreciate any advice!!

According to the stimulus, the club president has disallowed Jeffrey to vote. Thomas is arguing that that was in violation of club rules.

(Structure)

Premise 1: Rule: Vote --> Good standing member

Premise 2: Jeffrey is a good standing member

Conclusion: The president’s action of disallowing Jeffrey to vote was in violation of club rules.

Here are club rules: only good standing members may vote. (vote—> good standing member)

Jeffrey paid his dues on time and therefore he is a good standing member. Necessary condition is satisfied, therefore we don’t know if he is allowed to vote or not allowed to vote. There could be other criteria to qualify to vote that Jeffrey does not meet, in which case he is not allowed to vote. Or Jeffrey meets all the criteria to vote, in which case he is allowed to vote. We have no information about it.

But, Thomas concludes that the president’s action of disallowing Jeffrey to vote was in violation of club rules. Disallowing Jeff's vote could or could not be in violation of the rules. In spite of this possibility that it may not be in violation, Thomas made a determination that it is in violation. This is the flaw. He is saying that allowing him to vote is in compliance with (authorized by) the rule. (In other words, to be in compliance, Jeffrey should be allowed to vote.)

And that is what answer choice (A) is saying. His argument fails to take into account the distinction between something not being prohibited (allowing Jeffrey to vote) and its being authorized (in compliance with the rule). He is saying that allowing to vote is in compliance with (authorized by) the rule. At the end of the answer choice A, words “by the rule” is omitted. “Authorized” here does not mean his being authorized to vote, but rather, it means being authorized by the rule.

We can also view it as sufficient condition, necessary condition confusion flaw. Because in reaching the conclusion, Thomas mistakenly assumed the club rule as: good standing member —> vote. But this is not in any of the answer choices.

(A) is the correct answer.

(B) There is no character attack here.

(C) There is no such statement being denied or regarded as true here.

(D) What they were voting about is irrelevant.

(E) Whether Althea is authority in club rules or not is irrelevant.

Answer choice (A) was written very tricky that it was difficult to recognize it was the right answer.

Hello, could anyone provide an explanation for general theory? I have seen it pop up several times in MoR question and in other questions as well. I know its a principle that is know in the world like "everyone should eat healthy" but cannot come up with one that does not include should. Anyone have a better understanding of it?

Hey all!

I am pretty sure I understand what JY means but I have never encountered a question where it is okay to independently strengthen a hypothesis without strengthening the support between premises and conclusion.

In JY's explanation for PT 89.S2.Q3 he talks about the question stem and mentions how some (rare) strengthening Q's will say "what most strengthens the hypothesis" (as oppose to "what most strengthens the support between for the hypothesis",) in which case, he says it is okay to pick an answer that doesn't necessarily make the premises more relevant but could be something random that just makes the hypothesis more likely to be true.

I was wondering if anyone knows of any examples of a question like this from a PT? I would like to see it just to ensure my understanding is clear.

Thanks so much and good luck to everyone taking the Jan-Flex!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-89-section-2-question-03/

Hello, is the January 2022 LSAT is too late for this cycle to be considered competitive? Thank you in advance for everyone's answers.

Feb 2000 Passage 1, question 7

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# (P#)"

Of all the questions in RC, I ironically have the most difficulty with the first one - the main point/author's purpose question. I almost always can narrow the choices down to two, which are typically factually correct but focus on slightly different points of the passage. For example, in PrepTest 60, there is a passage involving Luis Valdez and the Teatro Campesino. Both C and D focus on Valdez's contributions to the Teatro, but I incorrectly chose D because I believed the information presented in the last paragraph countered a claim made in C. Despite racking my head about this question, I still cannot figure out why D was incorrect, and I certainly wouldn't have this time to devote to a main point question on the real test.

What is the best way to identify and keep track of the main point when reading a passage? I find JY's method of reflecting after every paragraph very helpful, but I find myself struggling to combine these summaries into a main point that the test writers would agree with. This especially occurs when the last paragraph introduces a new idea, or a counterexample, and I'm stuck wondering if the correct answer needs to specifically address this. How can I identify information that is given time in the passage but does not need to be included in the answer choice?

Thanks in advance!

Can I infer some are -P from the statement that most people are P? I think saying most people are mortal does not mean some people are immortal, but the correct AC of this question seems to suggest the otherwise. Is this a bad LR question?

how do you guys do MBT and MSS conditional logic questions quickly / in a timely manner? When I am doing a timed run sometimes the language of the stim feels like gibberish to me so that doesn't help because I'm re-reading it several times. Then I also feel like diagramming the whole thing takes too much time. From there I'm already tempted to skip it. However, in BR, the answer feels way more obvious once I understand the logic at play -- it just takes too long to grasp the logic at play. If anyone feels the same as me, how did you 1. read the stimulis without freaking out / decipher it without needing to read it a million times 2. do you diagram it ? or do the inferences stand out in your head quite quickly? 3. Was it a matter of just drilling these questions more and then you got the hang of it ?