I just worked through PT 44.4.20 and noticed the flaw traced to the lack of support between the premise and sub-conclusion. This is the first time I've encountered a question where the flaw hasn't been between the sub-conclusion and main conclusion. Is this common in other types of question, or does the LSAT usually focus on Sub-Conclusion to Main Conclusion flaws?

LR- PTB.S1.Q1

Misread the question and u was stuck between two answer choices that I thought would be correct. I need to understand the main point for this question because it can lead to tricky answer choices.

Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

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 word-wise.

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 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 get most of my LSAT LR drills correct (usually except for the hardest difficulty) and I find myself overthinking those really hard questions because I am trying to practice a methodology and skill instead of relying on my intuition, that gets the easier/medium/hard questions right. I'm just wondering what my approach should be.

In PT 77, Section 2, Questions 5 and 14 they both use the word "linked" in their arguments. When the LSAT uses the word "linked," does it only mean correlation?

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?

Hi everyone,

I am late to the game and I am using this summer to tackle studying for the LSAT, and taking the August exam.

I know this is an overly ambitious plan of attack but sadly I do not have many other options.

That being said, does anyone have any tips or advice on how I should approach this?? I am not sure if I am better off trying to complete all of the foundational material and lessons, or skipping around or what.

I do not have enough time to complete all 900+ hours of the program before August, so that being said any suggestions are greatly appreciated.

As of now, I am getting through the foundations and then going to begin incorporating the practice tests and such starting mid June, and then from there out switch between the foundation and practice. Not sure if this is the best approach though.

Thank you ! And Goodluck to everyone !

I got this wrong initially by marking down A but the correct answer is E. This stimulus tells us a few things

It can be hard to tell whether adults can be held morally responsible for the treatment they receive because its hard to know if that is on their control or not.

Sometimes people's actions are the inevitable consequences of the treatment they received when they were an infant (and since infants can't control anything they can't be morally responsible for receiving that treatment).

What absolutely MUST be true here?

A. an infant's actions are not on the chopping block here + never is really strong language

B. maybe this is true but it feels really tangential

C. this concept of partial responsibility does not exist anywhere in the stimulus we are operating in a binary universe

D. we know that the statement (people cannot be morally responsible for things they can't control and the inevitable consequences of things they can't control) is true but this offers a false contraposition of that statement (suff - neck confusion)

E. If everyone sometimes performs acts for which they are not morally responsible, that means that no-one should be held morally responsible for every act one performs.

Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

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!

Anyone in Texas want to start a study group??

I take the exam on Sunday and im in need of some last minute tips. I dont plan on taking another PT but I will be drilling and taking individual sections over the next 3 days.

How do I tackle 4-5 level LR questions? On the PT I just took I got every question right except for the 6 questions that were 4-5 level difficulty. I thought I got them all right but I fell for every trap answer ):

Any suggestions on increasing RC score a couple points? Even if it is new strategies / how to eliminate wrong answer choices? Im awful at this section and have not been able to increase my score consistently. The best I've gone was -6 but just now I got -11.

Hello,

I was wondering if anyone knew more the less the frequency of Hybrid Games in the Logic Games section of the LSAT??

So out of 4 Games, how many are likely to be Hybrid games? All of them, half of them, maybe one?

As I was practicing the PTs offered here in 7sage, I noticed that pretty much every single Logic Game in the more current exams are a Hybrid of sequencing, matching, and grouping and all of them were quite elaborate. None of them were exclusively sequencing, matching, or grouping. Is this how the LSAT will be? All Hybrid? If so it's fine I just would like to know if anyone has any insight or previous experience.

Hi everyone! I am trying to do a big u-haul of how I approach LR questions. I am trying to have a heightened focus on accuracy and process over speed and results. I'd really, REALLY, appreciate it if someone could give me feedback on how I analyzed/broke down this question and the answer choices (I got it wrong the first time). Thanks a bunch!

Conclusion: Herniated disks and bulging disks could not be the cause of serious back pain for back pain sufferers.

Why?

P: Half of group 1 had these herniate disks and bulging disks, yet they did not experience back pain.

The argument fails to consider something.

Flaws I can see:

These are two groups of people, how can we conclude something based off of two groups with distinct differences (back pain sufferers vs non back pain sufferers)?

Perhaps there are other key differences that cause the herniated disks or bulging disks to cause back pain for actual back pain sufferers.

Answer Choices: The doctor's argument fails to consider the possibility that...

A) This has it really wrong. To make it work, I needs to say the following:

A factor that is in the presence of a certain effect (HD or BG and no pain) may nonetheless be sufficient for a different effect (HD or BG may be enough to produce serious back pain).

This is not what the answer choice says, though. Also, how do we know that HD and BD do not NEED to be present in the circumstance where back pain is present?

B ) Yes, though worded in a way I did not expect, perhaps a third factor and herniated disks and bulging disks all cause serious back pain. This matches the flaw #2 I have above.

C) . This AC has the argument flipped and is assuming the error in the argument- that is the fact that perhaps the herniated disks are present and contribute causally to back pain.

D) This is not the flaw. So what if herniated disks might not occur in half the entire population? The flaw is that they are erroneously concluding something about two different sets of people (back pain vs non back pain and what causally contributes to both).

E- The error is not in the comparative likelihood of herniated or bulged disks' presence when there is pain vs when there is no pain. The flaw is that nevertheless, they are assuming that even if (imo) there are herniated disks present when pain is present, the pain is not caused by the herniated disks. Perhaps herniated or bulging disks and a third factor all together cause back pain.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-4-question-19/

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?

So phenomenon - El Niño - is expected to increase in coming years and this thing causes HEAVY WINTER RAINFALL in T.

Conclusion: Average rodent population in T will increase in the coming years.

WHY: Because rodent populations normally increase during LONG periods of suatainsmd rain.

Hope this layout helps you see that the author is probably either assuming that long periods of rain will occur with heavy winter rainfall or that heavy winter rainfall will cause these long periods of rain.

A. UM ok? this doesn't really appear to do anything to the argument

B. Ok but we know there is going to be heavy rain doesn't really hurt the argument.

C. Ok so I think you can't take other situations which are clearly not the same as T to be indicative of what is going to happen in T. Maybe to have more rodents you need the perfect variables which T is going to have thus our argument still stands.

D*. In T winters marked by HEAVY rainfall (the one that's going to be caused by El Niño normally does not mean that LONG periods of rain occur. This hurts the argument a lot, because it pretty much says "yea we are going to see a lot of heavy rain with this phenomenon but it actually rarely occurs for long periods meaning it probably (rains and stops....) which means we probably won't see an increase of rodents.

E. (Was very confused with this one) But this just requires to many assumptions

The global warming caused by air pollution (the same sufficient conditions for El Niño) is going to produce a large number of effects that could affect rodent populations.

Ok for E to weaken you need to assume that these effects are going to affect our rodents in T, also you need to assume they are going to be bad effects and not let them increase the average of rodents. What if the effects make them super human NYC type rodents, what if its a positive affect for rodents and actually increases them more.

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!

Any tips for MSS/Inference questions for RC please.

Especially, when there is a Passage A and Passage B.

Thank you.

Hey folks. I always seem to struggle with the analogy questions on RC passages. Does anyone have any tips/tricks?

PT 48, S3, P2, Q9 is the latest one I've come across.

Thanks!

Hi folks,

I'm wondering what to do after I do blind review specifically for RC. For LR and LG, I watch JY's videos for questions I missed even after BR. I usually learn a lot from watching JY's videos and see the error of my logic from when I BR'd. But with RC, I watch JY's videos and don't really learn much. I understand why I got the question wrong, but it doesn't inform how I do on the next RC section. I feel like I'm not getting from it what I need to.

Anyone have advice/tips on what they do for RC review?

Thanks!

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 word-wise.

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 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)

Hey guys, I’m going to be taking the November LSAT in a couple weeks and I keep missing fill questions. What is the best strategy to tackle these?

Can someone break this down in terms of approaching a stimulus.

For some reason I get these kind of questions correct. Even on the hardest LR questions, I'll resort to POE and somehow get it right. How? I don't know. They are extremely confusing in approaching a stimulus. Thanks.

We need to connect the assumption that the appreciation of the play and the attention, and thats AC B

Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

Does anyone know why B is not right for q11? Thanks :)

Hi guys, I've been struggling with this question. I chose E. I know that JY explains this by saying we don't know if this use of parathion happens in real world or is it just in our experiment. But doesn't the last paragraph explicitly say that the experiment results are "similar in field planting of strawberries"? Doesn't this show that it indeed happens in real world, that some people indeed used parathion to eliminate T and eventually caused C to reach a damaging level?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-4-passage-4-questions/