Hey I'm working on PrepTest 33 S4 G1Q5 (among others) and I keep having issues with complicated question formats.

The general version of the wording that most trips me up is "Which of the following must be true EXCEPT" and an answers like "_____ is not 4". Individually I can deal with these, like when I have an "EXCEPT" question or negative answer choice, but together I keep going in circles.

Are there any steps I should be during to answer these questions without spending 3+ min on them?

For reference, I get -2ish on LG so I am focused on fine tuning, so skipping is something I want to avoid at this point..

Thank you in advance!

I think I understand why D is the correct answer choice. However, I am curious as to what you guys think is the best way to approach this question? Clearly using an in an out game board is the best choice. However, this question was hard for me to answer quickly just because it felt like a question that required a lot of trial and error, which obviously didn't work out (especially time wise).

I have consistently been getting -8/-9 on every timed LR section that I do for the past month. When I BR, I tend to get -6/-7. I have tried drilling harder question types, but nothing seems to be sticking. Should I go back to the core curriculum? I read through all of Loophole too. Taking the Nov LSAT and frustrated I can't seem to master LR.

I was wondering what the main differences between most strongly supported questions and Weakening questions such as how to approach them?

Normal:

Strongly Supported:

Weakening:

Causation and Phenomenon-Hypothesis:

Strongly Supported:

Weakening:

Please let me know if this is wrong and how I can improve my understanding.

Thanks.

Hey there fam,

So I was just doing some NA drills when a question struck me. In LR generally, we're looking for the assumption or flaw, and then want to set about our assigned tasks based on what we find. More specifically the flaw in the argument (between the premises and the conclusion). Does this mean then that when we notice an assumption in between the premises (which we are supposed to take for granted) that we just ignore said assumption or integrate said assumption into the group of things we take for granted?

Stated differently, can we think of any scenario wherein that assumption between the premises is something we need to account for, strengthen, weaken ect?

Thanks!

Has anyone finished today or whatever? Just trying to see if things went smoothly after yesterdays shit show. I test at 11am est and was able to reschedule with proctorU after I was unable to test yesterday.

I know causal, conditional, analogy, but are there more?

The fourth game specifically I thought was tricky and wanted to see if there are any inferences I missed

Hi everyone,

I'm really struggling with parallel, parallel flaw, and weakening arguments. It started out as my strongest areas but has plummeted as I am actually trying to figure out the methods and not base it on intuition. Doesn't nearly every single argument have a flaw? Like with an analogy I can always just say "relationship between X and Y isn't similar enough to Y and Z to be compared". It's just so frustrating that the test makers are setting the parameters for whether I'm looking for a flaw or saying some absolutely bizarre, nonsensical, but technically sound (?) argument is actually one that I'm looking for a parallel for. Thank you so much for taking the time to help!

Is anyone in the DC/DMV area taking the lsat before the logic games get removed that still needs to do fool proofing?

I printed out all the logic games from 1-35 with the intent of fool proofing but I didn’t get to it and now I’m gonna take the lsat post logic games so don’t need it. Would love for it to go to someone instead of just tossing it! DM me if you want it!

I had LR RC LR LR LG - Not sure how much we are able to share about answers but did anyone else get a weird string of Ds toward the end of one of the LR sections? I think it was the third or fourth...this totally threw me off. I saw it posted in another discussion thread too...

Is anyone else having issues with this? It seems like they are making it extremely difficult. I called the tech support and they couldn't help me. Now I'm on a 30 plus minute hold with LSAC. It seems like it would be easier for everyone if they just allowed us to take it on test day at the location. Even if they have to reserve computers for that portion. This is just ridiculous.

Hi,

Do any of you have tips for staying motivated with prepping after getting questions like the ones for the Weakening question drill sets in the Core Curriculum wrong? I always write down why the correct answer choice is right and why I got it wrong, but I keep missing the level four questions.

Eric

If we already have a ProctorU account, do we have to use the login credentials that LSAC emailed us with? I already registered for a time slot with the account I already made. Thanks!

I just want to make sure I’m thinking about this right. I did a game where one rule said if H is in, G is not. And another rule said if J is not in, S is in. So when diagramming, if the slash is through the right variable (necessary condition) it’s always true that both can be out but both can’t be in. If the slash is through the left (sufficient condition) it’s always true that both can be in but both can’t be out (at least one must be in). Right? I tend to make reversal mistakes so I’m trying to make sure I fully understand.

Bee -> sting once

Sting once

—————

Bee

A-> B

B

—————

A

A) Spring -> Sneeze nonstop

Sneeze

——————

Spring

C) Old + brittle -> move with care

/Move with care -> /Old + brittle

Negation: Old + brittle -> Move w care (still valid argument whereas the stimulus is invalid).

D) Only is G2

Ruin roof -> more thunderstorm

/Ruin roof -> /more thunderstorm

Hi everyone! I will be taking the October test as my second attempt, and while I know things are pretty set in stone at this point, I was wondering if there were any last minute quick strategies people had to share? My LR has been hovering around the -6/-8 range for tests in the 80s and I would love to get that down to -5!

Hi everyone! I’m hoping to get some unbiased advice on what you guys think is the best option in my situation.

Long story short I have been at this for a while. I have already tested two times (I cancelled my first score as a first time test taker) and was not impressed with my score. I relied heavily on LG and LR because I was terrible in RC. This is the mindset I had with the first two tests I took so it didn’t go well for me.

After realizing I would need to test again, I started with a new tutor for RC about a month ago and it has helped a ton so far. She has a method that is different from any other method I have learned where it’s more of a strategical/step by step approach. It’s different from what people typically tutor in RC, but nonetheless, very helpful so far. The only issue i’m having is the method either isn’t very consistent (I notice some passages I go -4 or less… other passages -10 plus) or i’m not comfortable with it yet. My tutor says that this is a foolproof way to get up there in the highway percentile of test takers…but it takes a couple of months to perfect it. I don’t think i’m terrible, however, definitely not scoring consistently where I would need to be to not heavily rely on the other two sections (sometimes… other times i’m fine so it’s hard to say)

I scheduled my test for June and it’s the last chance I have to go to law school in the fall so I really want to give it a shot but i’m worried about having so many tests on my record. What are the odds of me improving with this method in the last week? Should I take the test? If I do have to test again in August will having 4 tests look really bad for me? I’ve always heard admission only looks at the highest score but i’m worried having 4 will look awful for me.

THANK YOU

Does anyone have a breakdown of the subdiscipline of social science passages on the LSATs?

(Background -- I am asking, as I double-majored in sociology/political science; I work in public policy; and so I am well-versed and find it easy to read and analyse Sociology/Political Science/History passages, but find archeology/linguistics/anthropology quite a bit more obtuse! And am wondering what my odds are for getting something within my zone of comfort!]\

Ok so pretty much X 50 ppl

Y has 100 ppl

X 1 person hospitalized

Y has 4 ppl hospitalized

So initially I thought this doesn't really seem like a paradox but wtv, lets just explain why Y has more hospital patients.

A. Ok if preventive health programs are more common X than in Y that'll explain why Y has more people in hospitals.

B. (I was between this and D just because I couldn't eliminate D) This actually explains the phenomena though. If city X is a leader in outpatient treatment whenever possible that explains why they have less hospitalizations they just send everyone home.

C. Perfect the drinking water of Y has DANGEROUSLY high toxins compared to that of X so that could cause more people to be sick and end up in hospitals

D*: (Read carefully) The hospitals in Y are of high quality and X ppl are sent there for treatment. Ok just because X people are sent there let's say to get the pain medication that wouldn't explain why Y has more hospital patients. They could just go get the medication and leave.

E. Fair assumption to make that if stress is correlated with higher hospitalizations

I took my diagnostic test recently, my test score was pretty mediocre. I feel confident in my LR sections, this is my strength. I always enjoyed this section and I am pretty consistent in getting these right. However, I tanked in the LG and RC section. I ran out of time in RC and that's were most of my missed questions came from. In the LG section, I read them all, but could not make sense of how to diagram or where to start.

I am aiming for the LSAT in October, but will probably take the Aug. test depending. I know I can score in my target range, but I really need to get the LG / RC sections up if I am to do so.

My question is, should I skip to LG / RC sections in the 7sage curriculum and focus on building these skills up? Or continue to work through the curriculum in order as listed? Does the material build on and I will be missing the fundamentals to LG or would it be okay to skip around and target my weak areas?

Any advise would be appreciated. Thanks!

I didn't pick the right answer choice (C) only because I did not understand what it was saying at all. What does it mean when it says the "first thing's having caused the second?"

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

I was wondering how I should attack/understand this question?

It asks if it discusses the relationship between the reliability and one of the AC's. What does relationship mean in this case? Is the question asking if the passage mentions some sort of a connection between the reliability and one of the answer choices?

Thank you.

Hi,

Since this has no video explanation for it, I want to know whether I fell in line with the rest when I reached that conclusion. In this question, the author argues that butter manufacturers should be allowed to call their products "Can't believe it's not butter or Skim fat butter" to ward off any negative nuances from the term "Imitation butter". This person cites two reasons to back up one's allegation. A) People should be fostered to consume more low fat butter products because of their health concerns, arising from a high cholesterol level. B) This hostile naming like Knock-off/Ersatz could stave potential consumers off from those well-intentioned products owing to their aversion to the names. In that way, the industry could push people to indulge in more butterfat which could pose a threat to their health (esp. cardiovascular). In order to weaken this assertion, I thought it would be better off for me to claim that this aversion could beget more positive results healthwise for those buyers in the market. What if they, finding those suggestive names unbearably repulsive, decided to find the authentic low fat butter products which significantly slashed the fat content? For instance, they would rather find a real McCoy low fat butter, projecting an image of authenticity,instead of phonier butter substitutes, which happened to have less butterfat in it? People who voted for Trump would rather turn to him to gratify their desires, whatever they might be, in lieu of settling down for his miniature, Ron DeSantis, emulating his extreme creeds. I just thought that it was important for me to tackle the author's point that the negative naming could take a toll on public health because it deters people from purchasing the imitation butter which is healthier for them thanks to the low fat content in comparison with the regular ones. Thus, one of the ramifications was supposed to bear the unexpected consequence that made everyone more robust and hale: cutting off the consumption of butterfat more noticeably than what was expected from the fake butter. What are your thoughts on this? I would like to hear from other would-be legal minds. Thanks!

Hi all,

I've been struggling to wrap my head around this question (i'll post below). Can anyone explain this?

"It must be true that the lowest-numbered line on which" changes to "no lower than line". . . Why is it not that F can be lines 2 or 1?

It must be true that the lowest-numbered line on which

(A) F can be assembled is line 2

(B) G can be assembled is line 3

(C) J can be assembled is line 2

(D) K can be assembled is line 3

(E) M can be assembled is line 2

(A): Does it have to be true that F can be no lower than line 2? In other words, could F be 1st?

F could be lower than line 2! We have no rules stopping F from being 1st, and for completion’s sake—though you probably wouldn’t do this on Test Day—we’ll give you an example. F could be 1st, for example if the order were: FMGSJKH. Although there are several other possible scenarios in which F can be 1st, finding just one is sufficient to determine that this choice’s statement “could be false.”