Please message me for more info if you'd like to join and you've not already received the info in your inbox. :)

Hello, 7Sage team & fellow 7Sagers.

I have been utilizing the RC passage explanations and have been wondering what I am supposed to get out of them. It seems the level of detail you all go into is well beyond the level of detail we should be absorbing during our read through under time pressure.

In the lessons, we were given a somewhat different sort of break down where low res. summaries and predictions of the following paragraph content were discussed. I found this very helpful as a check on how I broke down the passage and utilized this analysis to answer the questions.

I realize that there is a passage summary underneath the video explanation, but again I am just confused on how these video explanations aid in our RC abilities.

I apologize if their usefulness is obvious to everyone else. I just felt the need to express my thoughts in a manner in which I could receive some feedback.

Thank you.

Third call info:

Take PT 50 and BR on your own before the call.

Submit 2-5 questions you want to review here: https://goo.gl/forms/MEUpRULFRSrHe1Ba2

Note: We will try to limit the calls to under 2 hours. We will review LR questions first and only review RC if we have time.

We will not be reviewing LG.

This step is important: Come prepared to speak through how you approached the question you submitted. If more than one of us had trouble on the same question, we can each have an opportunity to speak through our thought process/which choices we were stuck between. The rest of the group then discusses.

Sign up for Discord and add side braid#1597. Comment on this post if you plan on joining so I can send the link to Discord server and additional info to your inbox.

My goal for this study group is for everyone to both contribute and benefit from each other's success. I want to help you get to that next level and I'm asking for your help to get me there as well.

@tanes256 @meganqliu @mcmlaw36 @Gladiator_2017 @"Kings Never Die" @sillllyxo @cgracia12 @etphonehome @thisissparta @sjiang666 @FiestaNextDoor @sarahmelton6 @leslieh327 @jennybbbbb @nicholasthomas127 @alyssamcc0593 @"Shazia..."

Hey guys! Can someone please help me with understanding exactly how to do BR for reading comp? It's seems much more intuitive to me how do to BR for LR and LG but not so much for RC. Thanks for your help:)

From my understanding, RC seems to be subjective. I'm still unsure on which approach to use as all of them give me similar results.

How do you all approach RC? Suppose you have a passage in front of you. Do you refer back to the passage? How long do you usually spend on reading the passage? Do you notate at all? What were your RC scores when you first started and what are they now?

Thanks!

How is answer A incorrect and E correct? First, where in the passage is E supported? I can't find it. Next, doesn't A capture not only the main point of the passage but also Goodrich's prescription in lines 40-43 and line 45? Goodrich doesn't think that common law should be looked at as a set of rules (a legal code). Also, line 45 states that common law is a text with history and tradition, and in line 46, studying common law historically is really important. How does this not capture the idea of "a relic of the history of the English people?"

Unfortunately, I find myself frequently narrowing down RC answers to two choices, then picking the wrong one*. This is especially the case with MAIN POINT questions (although I have no problem identifying conclusions in LR stimuli).

While I know the common types of incorrect ACs (out of scope, too narrow, unsupported, etc.), that knowledge doesn't seem to be helping me, especially in a time crunch.

I've also come across seemingly conflicting information in my study materials* concerning main point questions: some say it has to encompass all the main points of the paragraphs (or else it's too narrow), while others say it should just focus on the main conclusion and any subsidiary conclusions shouldn't be mentioned (or else it's too broad). Which is correct?

It's hard to find the right answer when I'm unsure exactly what it needs to include (or exclude).

ANY help is greatly appreciated, especially that which I can apply within the next couple days (if possible).

Thank you!!!

Background:

**(I've just been studying on my own with the help of some misc. prep books and free online materials [ya girl is broke], but need some additional help.)

I’ve been studying for the LSAT exam for a little over two years and I’ve made no progress on the logical reasoning. I always get half right and half wrong, consistently, and most of the time I always get down to two answer choices and most of the time I always choose the wrong answer choice. Before anyone says that I ought to approach this with a memory based effort, my mentality is that I would rather approach it with a critical thinking based effort, because that’s what this exam is measuring. I would rather not shoot myself in the foot all because I decided to memorize each grain of sand on the beach and their names and their elements and their relatives and their language style and their blah blah blah. I just want to learn how to do this exam based on the advice I was already given by some lawyer types, who seem well established, who all said some general advice and were adamant that I should approach it with a critical thinking based effort rather than a memory based effort. So is there at all a tip or method or trick or magic whatever that allows me to look at the question, look at the passage, then look to the answer choices and then somehow go a little bit further in helping me select the correct answer choice?

This is by far my worse section. I'm currently scoring a 161and missing like 10 questions on RC. Any tips to lower that to at least - 6.

Been finding Net Effect Questions to be a challenge. Anyone have tips on how to identify these questions. and then how they approach them. Cost-Benefit Net Effect questions are pretty straight forward its the more nuanced net effect question types that give me more of a challenge at the moment

Are we supposed to assume that these chemicals are initially "harmless" or that the dilution process caused them to become harmless? There is nothing in the passage discussing whether or not the chemicals are harmless.

No other answer choice makes sense, but Answer choice A requires some form of assumption to be made.

some insight please.

Hey guys! This is probably a pretty obvious question, but I'm just confirming something. I took the LSAT for the first time last September and completed a writing sample for it, as it shows on my LSAC account. I am taking the test again next week, and on the LSAC website listed above my previous writing sample it says that for this upcoming LSAT, I need to complete the writing sample "as soon as possible." To my knowledge, we only need to have one writing sample on file, so I don't need to complete this one as well, right? I'm just confirming so I don't have any issues next week. Thanks! :D

Does anyone have a good way to explain flaw/descriptive weakening questions and how to approach them? I am still confused after reviewing all the lessons and doing the practice problems. I always fail to identify the flaw made in the argument and end up getting the wrong answer. It just seems like there are many ways to point out the flaw and there are diff types of flaws, so can anyone share some tips on how you identify them/what helps you to understand the flaw in the argument?? thank you!

I really don’t understand where this rule ” For conditionals, A and B negates to A → /B ” came from or how it would be applicable to the actual exam. This comes from the Negation skill builder in the Logic of Intersecting Sets module. It was never stated beforehand in neither the negating conditional statements or elsewhere, at least to my knowledge. I understand it intuitively as you’re saying that rather than both A and B being true simultaneously, you’re positing that /B is a necessary condition of A and thus can’t exist together. However, we previously learned about negation of the conjunction “and” in conditional relationships as being A and B → C negated to /C → /A or /B as specified by De Morgan’s law. I guess I’m just struggling to see, how to tell the difference or when/how to use this new rule in context with a question on the LSAT. Is the rule just referring to when you have both premises A and B as part of the argument a way to negate it, is by using that rule. Like I don't see how just A and B can exist on their own in question. I feel like there must be either A and B -> C or C -> A and B included when encountering this in a question. Greatly appreciate any comments or help someone could add!

#Help

Hello! Wondering if anyone can offer some insight on where the textual basis is for the correct answer "B." I selected "C" as the answer with the assumption that comments about racism by a Communist Party Organizer would implicitly attack white chauvinism and also denote some sort of involvement in African American issue politics. I was not convinced that this was direct enough evidence, so am open to answer B but am curious where the direct support lies. Is the support the "cautiousness" and desire to appeal to moderates referred to by the author? Thank you for the help!

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-04/

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

*The kind of question this is:* Weaken

*Premise(s):* Marijuana has THC → THC has been found to inactivate herpesvirus (IH) → IH can convert healthy cells into cancer cells.

*Conclusion:* Marijuana can cause cancer.

*What I am looking for:* extra information that we didn’t know about marijuana and its correlation with THC.

*Answer A:* No. That strengthens the argument by showing that scientists had a consensus and the same results.

*Answer B:* Yes. There is information we did not know about marijuana and how it neutralizes THC.

*Answer C:* No. That strengthens the conclusion.

*Answer D:* No. Great, but that is only an “IF.” It would still stand that marijuana causes cancer.

*Answer E:* No. Marijuana is beneficial to cancer patients, but it would still cause cancer for none cancer patients.

I've been doing well on my PTs (in the 170+ range), but every time, i do sooo badly on the experimental section. I'm talking -6 to -9 questions wrong. Should i be concerned?? I dont even get how it's possible for me to go from -1 on one LR section to -8 on the next.

UPDATE: False alarm - I was in too deep. AC E is a fine conditional statement alone, but it does not fit into the premise chain. Obviously, you can't say exceed budget this year --> renovate next year - we have no way of knowing this is true. This is why the answer choice must be D.

I'm having a hard time with a fundamental principle exposed in PT94 S4 Q13.

premise chain: renovate this year --> renovate next year --> exceed budget next year

conclusion: exceed budget this year --> exceed budget next year

Gap: where does exceed budget this year fit into the premise chain?

AC D (correct): renovate this year --> exceed budget this year

AC E (incorrect): renovate this year --> exceed budget this year

I understand why D is correct. It would create the following chain: exceed budget this year --> renovate this year --> renovate next year --> exceed budget next year. This would allow the conclusion: exceed budget this year --> exceed budget next year to be properly drawn.

I do not understand why E is incorrect primarily because I do not understand why we couldn't formulate a correct premise chain like this: renovate this year --> exceed budget this year --> renovate next year --> exceed budget next year

This still gets me to the correct conclusion. I guess I just don't understand why renovate this year must be necessary to exceed budget this year and cannot be sufficient.

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

I am having some self doubt and would love to hear thoughts!

I have been studying for the LSAT since late September now, and have improved my score from a 152 -> 162 so far. I am hoping that if I keep up my pace I can get to a 168, but truly a 162 isn't bad either.

I am having doubt about if I timed taking the LSAT incorrectly. It's my first go-round, with little guidance on applications and I'm not applying to a t-15 school. Is January LSAT going to be too late to send in my scores with my apps? Should I wait to apply until after my LSAT? It will be the first I have taken.

I really want to apply this cycle, I am just now facing that doubt that I'm sure many do as the time creeps closer and you're doing something that no one near you has done.

Any advice? Tips? Relatability?

Thank you

I recently did AP3 RRE1 Exc1 PF1 and didn't get question 10 correct. I chose A because it mentioned synthetic products ... which does not mean that they are natural. However, this choice was incorrect. Can anyone explain how they got the right answer?

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

This question doesn't have an explanation, so I wanted to see if anyone could back up my reasoning.

The flaw of the question stem is that it confuses necessary conditions for sufficient ones. Correctly formatting the script as well as having it be submitted by an agent is necessary for the script to not be discarded, but it does not guarantee that it won't be. There could be another reason, such as that it arrived too late, that it would be discarded.

A is not the correct choice because it is a valid argument.

B is not correct because it's a different flaw. It takes for granted that Jon is a good cook. You can also argue that it's flawed in that the necessary condition "delicious" is subjective.

C is correct, although its a bit tricky. It confuses sufficient conditions for necessary ones. Exercising daily or quitting smoking will improve Bob's health, but he doesn't need to do either one to improve his fitness level. He could lose weight by dieting for example. I think this is what makes this question so difficult (5 circles).

D is incorrect because it's a different flaw. It confuses the sufficient conditions for one argument with another. A car not having a permit or having an expired one are sufficient conditions for police being allowed to ticket. The Police being allowed to ticket does not mean they will ticket; They could give you a warning or maybe do nothing.

E is incorrect because its a different flaw. It takes for granted that because a dog can do advanced tricks it will respond correctly to basic commands. It's possible that a dog could do a backflip but would refuse to sit.

let me know if my reasoning is accurate - thanks!

Any tips for someone who consistently has RC as their worst, avg 8 questions wrong?

[I am posting on behalf of a 7Sage user. Please feel free to leave your comments below. Thank you for your help!]

Hi, could someone please explain this question to me? I didn't understand the video.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-32-section-1-question-16/

Hello all-

Can someone tell me what PT the following LG is?

A group of seven friends – Harriet, Ingrid, Jasper,

Katie, Linh, Mercedes, and Nate—are deciding which

of them will compete in next week’s Chili Cook-Off.

The friends make their decisions consistent with the...

HELP ADMIN

Thank you SO much!!

I really need to solve this game and having a difficult time so would like the explanation.

JY and a bunch of 7Sage tutors promote a quick pass of questions between passages A and B. What do you guys think? I feel like the time tradeoff to eliminate a few answers is questionable.