Pretty much what the title says. My main issue is with LR. I used to be able to score 18/25. Then I hit a couple highs of 20/25 and was very, very happy. A week before, I started getting 16/15/14 out of 25, a pretty big dip. Took the Sept test, then about a week break. Did a section drill yesterday, got a 13/25. Is my brain broken? Was it too much to hope for a linear increase? For reference, I work full time, so MTWRF I study 4 hours daily: I wake up an hour before work to study, the hour of my lunch break, and 2 hours when I get home. The weekends are about 8-10 hour days for me. Is it too much to hope for a 160 by Oct?

Send Help.

Could someone please explain this one?

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

I have been doing really well on the first 60-65 questions of my practice tests, getting very few wrong, but it is in the last dozen or so questions on the final LR section of the tests where I am getting a majority of my questions wrong. I am aware that the test gradually gets harder throughout the section, but I am unsure why I am struggling so much with this part because I get most of the harder ones right when I drill. Should I be practicing harder drills? If anyone has advice on this problem, let me know.

Hi everyone,

When I was taking the LSAT yesterday my eraser left a large purple mark on my scantron. I want to get my test hand-scored but also want to apply as soon as I get the correct score back. I saw on LSAC's website that I won't be able to request for my exam to be hand scored until the scores are released. Does anyone have any experience with the turn around time for handscoring?

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 everyone,

Just wanted to hear some tips on folks who are very comfortable with Reading Comp. I absolutely loved JYs breakdown and framework for science passage - phenomenon and hypothesis. I studied literature in college, so those science passages are daunting, but with that framework, pretty much every science passage can be broken down into that structure. It's like a swiss army knife to understand them. Love it.

Wanted to hear if you all had similar frameworks for Law / Human/ Arts passages? Particularly law. Those also seem daunting to me and I get overwhelmed by the specificity that many of the law passages tend to have under time pressure. Any type of larger frameworks in law that I can use as a swiss army knife (human / societal practice ---> law, problem existing --> law with answer ???)

Arts and Humanities are fine - my lit degree really comes in handy haha - but would also appreciate your tips in case I get a passage about Ayn Rand or something that I'm not inherently interested in (I hate Ayn Rand).

I usually do pretty well on RC, average 3/4 qs wrong. But sometimes I blow it and get 6-7 if it's a hard science or law passage. Want to be ready for the worst case scenario.

Thanks!

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.

Just curious, I've been doing cookie cutter review and was wondering if this was a pattern that anyone noticed in LR stimulus. For instance, the stimulus would talk about the effectiveness of a product, then it will have answer choice about probability or likelihood of something happening but it's a trap answer. Anyone want to share?

Hi,

I am confused that is "not" itself a 4th group reasoning indicator or has it to be paired up with both as "Not both" to be a 4th group indicator.

Thank you,

I appreciate your help

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!!!!!!

Hello!

Could someone please explain why the correct answer would be E. I put B, but I honestly just guessed. I need some help wrapping my head around this question.

Thank you!

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

can someone explain why D is the right answer

Hey all,

I had a question on Logic Games, specifically those questions that don't give any additional clue and require you to at least have to brute force a few of the question choices. (CBT, MBT questions)

When I watch the LG explanation videos, because JY does his explanation on a sketchpad, it's easy for him to draw the game board and erase the game pieces after he's done brute forcing one of the answer choices. I realized we can't do this, since our LG game boards are done on a scratch paper.

When you go through the answer choices, do you redraw the gameboard/game pieces for each of the answer choice, or do you have one game board and erase the game pieces after you've tried out the answer choice? Would love to get advice on how you do these questions!

Could someone please explain why the answer is A not B? Thanks!

Hey everyone, so I just got my January 2023 lsat score back and it's one point lower than my current highest score. I have taken the test 3 times very spread out over the years as I've navigated being a student/working throughout my studying. My highest current score is 156 (June 2021), and on my most recent test, I scored 155 (January 2023). Any advice would be so helpful as I really don't know what to do!! I really wish I had seen more progress over the years as I was practice testing in low-mid 160s prior to my January test. Should I cancel or is one point not worth a cancellation showing up on my record?

Hi Can you please give me some tips for the writing sample, I need Some advice!

This question asks us to find an answer choice that matches the flaw in the stimulus.

The form of the argument in the stimulus and the form of the argument in the correct answer choice are not at all identical, and this is the difficulty of this question.

The argument in the stimulus says:

Stallworth claimed that [A]

A+B --> C

/C

Therefore, /B

A = Stallworth supported the proposal

A+B = Henning also supported the proposal (the "also" was referencing Stallworth's support)

C = proposal received government approval

Answer choice A says:

TV news claimed that [A and B]

A --> /B

Therefore, /B

A = the traffic accident occurred on Aylmer Street

B = Morgan witnessed the accident from his kitchen window

The TV news made two claims (claim A and claimB), then a not both rule (A --> /B) is stated. Since both A and B can't be true at the same time the author concludes that B must not have happened. However, the author is ignoring the possibility that it was A that didn't happen.

Answer choice B says:

City government claimed that [A]

A private institute claimed that [B]

Therefore, the city government is to blame for A

A = 15% of city residents are behind on their property taxes

B = property taxes in the city are higher than average

The flaw here is that the author assumes B caused A, rather than a number of alternative possibilities such as high unemployment or people being distracted by studying for the LSAT every day and forgetting to pay their property taxes. The other unwarranted assumption is that the city government sets the taxes. Maybe the citizens vote to determine the tax rate. It's even possible that the county determines the property tax rate in this city. It would not be logical to blame the city government for something they have no control over.

Answer choice C says:

According to Kapoor [A]

According to Galindo [B]

Therefore, if B --> /A

A = haz waste site does not pose danger to the community

B = haz waste site is on an unsuitable tract of land

Two different ideas (danger and suitability) are discussed but assumed to be the same idea. We don't know why Galindo thinks the land is unsuitable. Maybe it's because this land is really rocky and it's expensive to dig holes in the ground for burying waste. Maybe the hazardous waste just smells bad and Galindo doesn't want to drive by the waste site on the way to work every day.

Answer choice D says:

According to rivals [A]

B --> C

Therefore, Harris is a poor choice for mayor

A = Harris favors the interests of property developers

B = a good mayor

C = willing to stand up to property developers

This argument assumes that Harris is not willing to stand up to property developers. Again, this is an argument that conflates two different ideas (favoring the interests of developers and being willing to stand up to developers). There is no reason Harris can't do both. Also, even if Harris isn't "a good mayor," he could still be a better choice for mayor than anyone else who is willing to do it.

Answer choice E says:

Latest government figures claim [A]

B

Therefore, /A

A = regional unemployment rate declined in the last six months

B = the region lost thousands of manufacturing jobs

The assumption is that the unemployment rate can't go down in a period when manufacturing jobs were lost. However, maybe it was Amazon that bulldozed a factory in the region and put up an office building. The two ideas (regional unemployment and jobs in a specific industry) are not the same.

Admin note: edited title

I guess the reason why its true is because its strengthening the reason to use sugar on the wound, best explained because of its dehydrating effect. I originally choose E but then switched it to A and got it right in a blind review.

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

(1) Most profitable investment: The rate of inflation EXCEEDS the rate of return by a given percentage (say, x%). That is, in real terms, the investment generates a loss; the inflation rate overcompensates whatever profit is being made here. According to the stimulus, this means that the VALUE of this investment declines by the same percentage (x%) at least. Value thus is presented as a function of profit.

(2) Any other investment – that is, any investment that is LESS profitable than the one described in case #1: The value of this investment declines by MORE than x% – that is, the differential between the inflation rate and the rate of return must be even greater than in case #1. Inflation overcompensates the rate of returns even more than in the first case.

Answer choice (C) suggests: The second investment (any investment that is not the most profitable one) is LESS profitable than the most profitable one. If VALUE is a function of PROFIT, and if VALUE in the second case declines more than in the first case, then the second case cannot describe the maximally profitable investment described in case #1.

I’m not sure I’m getting either the economics or the logic behind this right, but it seems to me that a lot of the information presented in the passage is redundant. To conclude what answer choice (C) says ("Case #2 does not describe the most profitable investment"), we only would have needed to know (1) that case #1 is the most profitable investment, and (2) that case #2 can be distinguished from that investment. Is this right / is there a more efficient way to solve this, especially under timed conditions?

I understand the explanation for the question and the diagramming that led to the answer. However, I still am confused with the first line of the stimulus: "Because of the recent transformation of the market". Using the lesson on for/since/because being followed by a premise, that was my assumption and how I attempted the problem the first time around.

None of the explanations use that first sentence at all though. They just use

/10% --> B

and

10% --> 20%

Why is the because in line 1 not used as per the for/since/because lesson?

I am thoroughly confused by this question.

The correct answer just explains why TI remains ordinary. But why does that even need an explanation?

I thought the discrepancy is why TI is more popular than M despite TI being ordinary. Hence, wouldn’t the correct answer have to strengthen the mitigating reason for why TI is more popular?

The premise only talks about how TI’s location attracks customers, but it doesn’t address if that makes TI more popular than M. So I was looking for an answer that would suggest that the location is a significant factor in determining TI’s popularity, significant enough to render its ordinary food less relevant.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-82-section-4-question-21/

Why is it that for MBT questions we do not try all scenarios before picking an AC? For example, question 3 reads, “If K sits directly between L & P, then M must sit between..” for this in the live commentary, she writes PKL but doesn’t try for LKP. I understand that both scenarios lead to the same AC. However, shouldn’t we try all scenarios before selecting an AC? A MBT AC should apply to all scenarios, not just one. Just trying to figure out what’s best practice. #help

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

I had mapped it as:

/RDW - /Alleviate

- IEI -> RTV

w/ the contra, i sort of see why B is correct:

[ Nat. Responsibility -> /RTV -> /IEI -> RDW ]

Does that make sense?

But why wouldn't E be correct? Is it that the idea of alleviating conditions of injustice are not the same thing as creating conditions of economic justice?

I can't parse out or understand the assumption being made in this question below:

Paleontologist: It is widely, but falsely, held that life began in the ocean and did not exist on land until half a billion years ago.

The answer is D but I do not understand why

Admin Note: Deleted the question and answer choices because it is against our Forum Rules to post the entire question and answer choices on the forum.

#help why is E the correct answer? I am confused because there seems to be nothing in the stimulus that alludes to E being correct, and it seems as if one would have to have prior knowledge of mussels/their chemical transformation abilities to know this. I do not necessarily think any of the other choices or very strong, but this choice E seemed very random to me. I'd appreciate any insight of what I'm missing!

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