Hello everyone,

I am posting this in LR because LR is something very new and foreign to me and I feel that if I can master LR, RC is going to be a breeze. Now, I know the answer off the bat is going to be "do what feels best for you," focus, and discipline. I completely agree with that sentiment, yet I wanted to see what has worked best for you and why with the entire goal of inspiring others to learn and add new tidbits into their current strategy.

If you do chunking, how many words do you chunk when you read and why does that work for you?

For those of you who don't chunk what works best in your strategy and why?

I have realized that for myself, that I had developed very bad reading habits after leaving college, I've been out a good while so I skim a lot and hardly read as much as I used to. For now, I have gone back to "word by word" reading until I can spot important words while chunking. My goal is to chunk 3-4 words as I read.

Currently, I time out towards question 4/5 leaving me rushing to just pick an answer and pray I got it right. Slowly, I have gone from getting 1 answer right to 3/5 on a good day until I get to the level 4-5 difficulty level questions and then I get 1 or 2 right if I am lucky enough to figure it out, but then time out for questions 3,4,&5.

Looking forward to reading your story.

Thank you for your time,

Alfonso

Hi all. I do really well in RC (-3 at most), and I'd like to answer any questions you have about RC. I'll be having a Zoom session in about an hour if anyone wants to join me. Please let me know if you are interested below!

Join Zoom Meeting

https://us05web.zoom.us/j/84191350690?pwd=TTZ1ME41WkM3UGF4VlVPZ3ZWTTlhUT09

Meeting ID: 841 9135 0690

Passcode: qc8kj6

Unfortunately, i don't understand this weak question at all, or why the answer is C. C seems to link excessive blinking to confidence, which is a factor in an official's ability to conduct well in office, but i don't see how it affects the overall conclusion: any impact of excessive blinking is deleterious to election results. The author doesn't make a clear connection between someone's ability to perform in the office and his ability to perform in the election. i chose A instead, which linked the candidate's debate performance to his election performance. Can someone explain this to me? As a side note, i seem to notice with more recent tests that the earlier LR questions are a lot harder than older tests -- i rarely had wrong answers before problem 12. is there a reason for this increased difficulty in the early questions?

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

For question 19 of section 3 on the october 2008 test, the stimulus reads: "Bureaucrat: The primary, constant goal of an ideal bureaucracy is to define and classify all possible problems and set out regulations regarding each eventuality. Also, an ideal bureaucracy provides an appeal procedure for any complaint. If a complaint reveals an unanticipated problem, the regulations are expanded to cover the new issue, and for this reason an ideal bureaucracy will have an ever-expanding system of regulations."

Answer choice A reads "An ideal bureaucracy will provide an appeal procedure for complaints even after it has defined and classified all possible problems and set out regulations regarding each eventuality."

In negating this answer choice, I believe that the clause "even after it has defined..." all the way to the end remains constant in both the answer choice and its negation. If this is the case, how does it not break the conclusion of the argument that "an ideal bureaucracy will have an ever-expanding system of regulations."?

To attack the premise or not to attack the premise

I keep hearing over and over again that I'm not supposed to attack the premise but this question from the weakening portion of LR seems to do just that. Doesn't answer choice D attack the premise? If the argument concludes that it couldn't be the case that the cave paintings depicted the current diets of the painters since they must have needed to eat sea animals during the long journey there, wouldn't D attack that premise since it's saying maybe not?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-1-question-20/

PSA/SA questions and Strengthen/MSS always trip me up. Anybody have any recommendations on how to differentiate the two consistently?

Can someone help me to check if my analysis is right?

Premise:

Two group of fish: one traditionally raised with dull routine and the experimental hatcheries raised in stimulating routine

The experimental hatcheries was bolder to explore new environment and try new food.

Conclusion:

Experimental Fish are more likely to survive.

Choice

Some fish raised in traditional hatcheries die because they are too timid in their foraging for food.

Firstly, this must be true because the whole point of the augment was the difference between traditional and the experimental fish. We have to argue that the traditional group doesn't have that unique quality of the experimental fish.

Secondly, if we apply the negation test: none fish raised in traditional are too timed foraging for food, the argument falls apart.

Thank youuuuu!

Admin note: edited title

Hi, I did some problem sets and this was one of the questions that I got wrong: PrepTest B - Section 1 - Question 14 (regarding the artists and subsidy)

Could anyone explain to me why the answer is C?? My weakness is pseudo assumption and I've read this question multiple times, but I still don't get it haha.

Hello again, fellow 7sagers.

After doing a week of Pacifico's LG drilling method, I've noticed improvements in the relatively easier/medium games regardless of their type. However, I find that I still continue to struggle diagramming the more difficult appearing games. I use "appearing" because even games that are "simple" or "easy" to solve continue to give me a problem if they consist of multiple categories or variables (for example, I got 4 incorrect on PT 3's first game which is not difficult at all). Arguably the most difficult questions, for me anyway, are those with subcategories, particularly in/out games with subcategories. I simply just struggle with creating a good diagram, which is incredibly frustrating because if I could draw these types, I would be only getting about 2 or 3 incorrect per LG section.

So, my main question is this: should I be approaching these question types differently? Perhaps is this a mentality issue? Is continued drilling and familiarity the answer? Yes to all three? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. As I mentioned, my scores would be vastly improved if I simply could diagram these seemingly complicated games more clearly.

I took the June test and am planning to register for August now in case I'm not happy with my June score. The test date change/refund deadline is July 2 for the August 14 test - why is it so early? When I was originally registered for April I was able to change my date to June for free as late as March 27. It's kind of frustrating because you only get 1 day from when the June scores come out to decide if you want to take August.

Hi guys,

I have a question on the difference between question stem types that ask for "which of the following most closely conforms to one of the principles" vs. "which of the following, if valid, most justifies the argument?"

I'm specifically looking at PT 58.1.23, which is a conform to principle type question. The right answer is C), which is "social concerns should sometimes take precedence over economic efficiency."

Now, I know that in a PSA type question, the "sometimes" in the answer choice would make the answer choice way too weak to be make the argument valid. But is it acceptable to have a "weaker" answer choice for Conform to Principle type questions?

I am confused about how to classify the different question types into formal logic vs. those that use informal logic. For example, would you classify MBT as formal logic because it uses conditionals, but WSE as informal because it uses primarily the spectrum of support? Would other types fall in the middle, like SA, which some answers/questions involve conditionals and the spectrum of support?

Hey all,

What's really tripping me up is that this question stem is written in the passive voice. The stem saying "could have remained unchanged in force and focus IF which one of the following had been advanced as a counterexample in place of the word 'absentee'" makes me believe that the original explanation wouldn't have to be amended if it weren't for the counter example of "absentee" being used. So I was trying to find a counter example that talked about an individual performing the action unilaterally, while not needing the explanation that resolves the impasse which is what I thought the question stem was asking me to do.

If the question stem was "the reasoning could remain unchanged in force and focus if which one of the following words is used in place of the word 'absentee'" rather than the goddamn passive voice, then it really would be much easier.

Can someone clear up my confusion? Am I just crazy???

Paging JY

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-4-question-22/

Hello! Was working on this obsolete exam RC as practice and unfortunately only got 2/6 correct. Was wondering if anyone could please explain questions 16, 17, 18, and 20. Thank you!

Hello-JY mentioned these games are rare. Wondering if there have been any on the more recent administrations of the the LSAT. Thanks

Gosh, this question is crazy hard...

Can anyone explain how the author is "impugning" the motives of Roehmer in the last sentence? It really doesn't look like the author is questioning/attacking Roehmer's motives at all-- the author is just saying that Roehmer is doing it for her supporters

Thanks!

Best regards

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-84-section-3-question-22/

Hello guys,

Im a bit confused about the difference between these two types of grouping games. For repeating item type games, it's often really helpful to make a chart, but for int games the explanation videos almost never include making a chart. How can you tell these game types apart? Whats the different between interchangeable items and repeating items, and how can you tell quickly if a chart a good idea or not?

Thanks!

Hello!

I am currently progressing through the LR section and I am finding that I am understanding each section OK but I am very confused as to how to more overall identify when I am dealing with an argument versus when I am not. The causality arguments in the WSE section are also confusing me, as JY talks about how there are different kinds of them and I am also finding it hard to differentiate between an Alternative Cause Argument and the Basic One-Off Causal Argument among others. Can someone help summarize these in a way thats easy to understand?? Thanks so much!

hi! (fair warning, this a question from is the genuinely tragic mirrors passage btw): for the life of me, i cannot figure out why c is the right choice for this one. i think it's largely because i literally just don't understand what the answer choice means. like genuinely sentence/word-wise i have no friggin clue.

on a theoretical level, i get that the idea of "separating observers from scientific phenomenon" as it's discussed in the text + how this informs the tendency of scientists to prefer certain explanations for phenomena. but i don't understand how that idea is conveyed by the words of answer choice c. answer c reads: "One explanation of what mirrors do reveals the traditional tendency of physicists to separate a phenomenon to be explained from the observer of a phenomenon."

i've been racking my head trying to parse the bolded part word-by-word but i genuinely can't figure it out. isn't the point the text is making that science ppl prefer explanations that don't rely on the observer? how does "separating a phenomenon •••to be explained••• from the observer of a phenomenon" do that?? if someone could even just help break down what this part means that would be useful lol. ty in advance (3(/p)

I am having a hard time with this section, any tips? I have the LSAT-Flex scheduled for July and I still can't get through this section smoothly. the other two sections I am ok with. I just find Logical Reasoning to be too wordy and get easily distracted with the answer choices.

Hi! I just kind of confused about how to apply the lawgic we learned in CC to solve LR questions in real life? I was just going over the valid/invalid argument forms and found it sooo hard for me to understand all these forms and apply them when solving questions. Looking for suggestions on how to fully grasp these materials and actually applying them... Thanks!

How do y'all review for RC like untimed/timed sections for wrong and flagged questions?

When it comes to these harder disagreement type questions, are we supposed to look for what the two speakers explicitly disagree about or is it supposed to be implied? The video explanation seemed to indicate that it was the latter, but I feel that answer choice C points out something the two speakers were disagreeing about explicitly.

Is Answer choice B incorrect because it talks about the possibility of creating art that "people enjoy and support?" I felt that neither of the two authors gave any answer for that.

As for answer choice E, I read it as saying "express" rather than "achieve." If it had said "express," would this have been the correct answer? JY points out a bunch of assumptions you'd have to make for this to be the correct answer in the video, but are those correct assumptions? He never confirms whether they are or not and then the video ends.

I've also read other explanations that state the reason why this choice is wrong is because it talks about what is "wise" while the speakers only talk about what "should be" but how are those two things mutually exclusive? I felt that if someone were to ask either speaker whether it was wise to have public art that helped "express consensus," Laurie would say yes because it's something that public art "should do" and Elsa would say no because it's an impossible goal.

If anyone is going to answer my questions, please watch the video explanation first or you won't know what I'm talking about.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-87-section-3-question-22/

Hi everyone,

I am having difficulties finding an approach for detail-heavy passages, i.e. that don't have much of an argument to them but instead a lot of facts and details (For example Passage #1 - Burning Forests of LSAT 38/114 Section III). Since I usually focus on finding the argument and author's tone in each passage, I often lose of a lot of time going back to the details to answer the questions for this kind of passage.

Does anyone have any tips or strategy?

Thank you!

Hi, I am confused on LSAT 29 – Section 1 – Question 16. I don’t understand why we don’t have to assume PIE falls into the group of languages that lacks words for prominent elements. In comparison to LSAT 20 – Section 4 – Question 25, which has a similar structure to this problem, answer choice C would force us to assume that Marianne’s involuntary humming is something that she is aware of, which would undermine the premise, but that assumption makes the answer choice incorrect. Why in this problem can we make the assumption, but the other problem, we cannot?

Thank you!