Discussions

LSAT

New post

305 posts in the last 30 days

User Avatar
•

Thursday, Aug 28, 2025

Gregmjr

💪 Motivated

Dying in the Time Box

When I am doing blind review, I perform 300% better - an ACTUAL stat I am tracking with LR.

Something about the clock is truly impacting my judgement on these questions.

When I do timed sections of RC - I can get two passages with 100% accuracy on the questions. Then I have no time to do the other passages.

This is becoming a major point of contention for me in my study journey. HELP!!!

0
User Avatar
•

Saturday, Aug 30, 2025

adakid45

😖 Frustrated

Low to High 170s

Before the August test, I was scoring in the high 160s most of the time, with high scores of 172, 174, and 178. Miraculously, I got a 172 on the August test. This is including going to the restroom during a scored section, so I think I could have done better. I need a higher test score in October or November, but I am so tired. Any advice for making that jump? I want a 177.

0
7S
•

Tuesday, Sep 2, 2025

7Sage

Official

The Only Right Answer | LSAT Podcast

Listen and subscribe:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify

Join Bailey and Rahela as they examine the implications of a simple but powerful fact: for every LSAT question, there’s only one right answer hiding among four wrong ones. Learn how recognizing this dynamic can transform the way you evaluate choices and increase your accuracy.

0

My problem on this Q is that I can exclude the other four wrong answer choices, but I can't find the right answer choice right either.

Here is my thought:

The premise: no free market economy -> the maximum total utility is not assured;

The conclusion: a country is not trying to bring about a free market economy -> the country is not acting in the way most likely to bring about the maximum total utility.

The right answer choice: the argument wrongly presumes that trying to bring about a condition that will assure the achievement of an end -> the way most likely to achieve that end.

However, if I put this presumption back to the argument, what is negated in the argument is the sufficient condition here ( to assure the achievement of an end is not satisfied ). This negation doesn't get to the argument's conclusion, which is the negation of the necessary condition in the answer choice ( not the way most likely to achieve that end). So I feel the right answer choice should be like "wrongly presumes that the way most likely to achieve max utility -> trying to bring about a condition that will ensure its achievement."

Could anyone give some light?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-39-section-4-question-23/

0

Hi everyone,

I posted a discussion earlier in my prep about PT 36 S2 Q16, which remarked on how the right answer inferred from the phrase "discussions of" and the fact that it is a passage regarding science that whatever they are discussing is earlier research. I don't agree with it, but that's the LSAT. And it was still the best answer because the other answers can be eliminated with the text.

http://classic.7sage.com/forums/discussion/113/pt36-s2-q16#Item_3

I just did PT 54, on which I came across a related issue: S1 Q8.

The question says all of the answers are supported by the passage EXCEPT. I haven't graded it yet, but I picked C, which says "there has been some study of the environmental effects of drilling-mud discharges." But E also is not supported, and it is directly a S/N condition switch, which in my experience is frequently tested. (E) says "during the drilling of an oil well, drilling mud is continuously discharged into the sea" whereas the passage merely says that the only time the discharge happens is when an oil well is being drilled, not that drilling always means there's discharge. So that is clearly the right answer. But why is C incorrect? Is it for the same nebulous reason as PT36 S2 Q16? The passage is discussing a science related issue, and I know that hydraulic fracturing has been studied in the real world, and generally facts of the sort that the passage provides would be hard to generate without some sort of study, but specifically that the environmental effects? I'm really not so sure this has support. It's obviously an inferior answer to E, but I wouldn't say that it is "supported" by the passage. I'd say it has some support from the passage but certainly cannot be logically inferred. This is compounded by the fact that the other answer choices besides E can be logically inferred from the passage.

A-line 13

B-line 41

D-line 49

Actually, I just realized at line (23) it says "one problem with studying" which probably means there has been studies, maybe. Not sure. Any thoughts? That line could just as easily justify that no studies have been done since it is so difficult. Am I to assume that all difficult things have been done? Or perhaps that all things that are attempted qualify as have "some" done of it? Probably. This post seems to have sorted itself out, but you'll have another take on it. I'll post anyway.

0

Do you guys scan the answers or just jump right in and try out games?

I realize this is very game dependent. I usually scan the answers choices quickly, but if nothing jumps out I force myself to jump right into trying out all the answers. I found myself wasting time on open ended game boards trying to think about why an answer choice could be correct, and coming up with nothing for all my "thinking" time. So know I try to just jump right into testing the answers.

Today I came across a game, LSAT 10, Game 4 http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-10-section-2-game-4/, that has me rethinking my strategy. I didn't make the inference at the start that Y must be in, though I DID make the difference that at least one of X/Z must be out. When I got to question 23, I quickly looked at my master game board didn't come up with any that must be in, so just jumped right in to trying out the possibilities. I got through A and B, before scanning the remainder of the choices and quickly realized that Y must be in.

The game took way too long in general, not just because of this question, but still interested in how you guys handle "thinking" about correct answer choices, or just jumping in and trying possibilities.

0

I always have a difficult time answering these kinds of questions because

A: I'm not sure how to graph these kinds of questions, and

B: The clock is ticking down, so I wouldn't have time to graph anyway.

The assumption is obvious in both questions, it's just that when I get to eliminating all but 2 answer choices, I often pick the falsely negated AC. Is there a way I can improve my ability to spot the incorrect answer in this situation without spending 3+ minutes graphing? Any helpful tips/techniques? Thank you very much!

0

As is well know, and is often characterized humorously, adults who spend considerable hours working with small children may then speak to other adults in the same language structure and vocabulary as they used speaking with children. Therefore, co-workers who usually communicate with each other with different language structure and vocabulary will sometimes adopt the some of the other person's language structure and vocabulary.

Which of the following statement is most parallel to the above premise's INFORMAL logic:

a) When speaking to other adults, a person studying for the LSAT communicates to others in the same language structure and vocabulary as LSAT stimuli.

b) Humans who effectively communicate with each other sometimes adopt the other person's language structure and vocabulary.

c) I like turtles.

d) When being spoken to by other adults, a person studying for the LSAT is communicated to in the same language structure and vocabulary as LSAT stimuli.

e) Therefore, people who speak to other adults in the same language structure and vocabulary as they used speaking with children should receive extra mental breaks.

_________________________________

Blind Review summary

a) correct answer, even though the LSAT does not test for parallel premises informal logic parallel.

b)Nope, but could be a great answer if the stimuli was for a sufficient assumption.

c)Off topic (in case you don't get the reference )

d) a trap response by reversing answer choice (a)

e) Nope, but could be a conclusion to an inference question.

0

Hi everyone,

How have games changed since the start of the LSAT? I have began to work my way from the latest to the newest and have noticed that some of the earliest ones are very difficult to comprehend and diagram. Im hoping that the wording has improved significantly since then.

Thanks in advance for your comments!

0

Hi,

I was wondering about the approaches people take to diagramming.

Personally, I kind of start diagramming as I read. If the setup is pretty straightforward, I would write the game pieces and slots/board down when I reach them. But sometimes it's unclear which is optimum to use as pieces/board. I find that typically it is not crucial; rather a matter of preference. Often, I just go with what I have down already. (I'm only talking about cases when it doesn't appear essential.)

Although I probably won't be switching it up in the final few days, I'm curious to know how others approach this.

Thanks

0

I am very confused with a specific relationship between universal quantifiers and existential quantifiers. This confusion becomes annoying in Assumption Questions. Please help! So, basically this is it:

1. "A-->C + A -->B"

2. "A-->C + A -most->B"

3. "A-->C + A some B"

For each of three given premises, we can conclude the same "B some C" relationship. Though the first part is the same "A-->C", the second part is different. I thought that this difference is understandable, because "A-->B" implies "A-most->B" and "A some B". So, we should have the same conclusion for "B some C". But the problem often arises.

For example, PT 24, LR2, Section 3, Question 19. Sufficient Assumption.

"Every student who walks to school goes home for lunch. It follows that some students who have part-time jobs do not walk to school."

The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

Premise: Walks to schools-->Goes home for lunch.

Conclusion: Part-time jobs (some) Do not walk to school.

Take the contrapositive of the premise, we have "Do not go home for Lunch--> Do not walk to School"

Now, it becomes clear that he Sufficient Assumption to bridge the gap could be:

1. "Do not go home for lunch (some) Part-time jobs". This is the correct answer choice (d).

(d). Some students who do not go home for lunch have part-time jobs.

2. Do not go home for lunch -most-> Part-time jobs.

3. Do not go home for lunch --> Part-time jobs. (conditional)

If we take the contrapositive of 3, we have "No part-time jobs-->Go home for lunch". The contrapostive is logically equivalent to the original. Now, "No part-time jobs-->Go home for lunch" implies

"No part-time jobs -most-> Go home for lunch." and also implies

"No part-time jobs (some) go home for lunch." (This is exactly what the wrong answer choice A says.)

(a). some students who do not have part-time jobs go home for lunch.

Please help me clear this confusion. Is there anything I misunderstood? I really appreciate your help.

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?