Hi!

According to your explanation video, the tutor said the cause here is 'technologically superior' and the effect is 'lower infant mortality' but i still can't understand why.

What I thought is the reversed version of that. The cause is 'lower infant mortality' and the effect is 'tech superior'.

And answer choice (A) suggests that the cause can be actually the effect of the other cause, which breaks the causal relationship between 'lower infant mortality' and 'tech superior.' So basically (A) is saying the cause is 'broader access' and the effect is 'tech superior.'

Is my thought process ok to use?

So I am taking the LSAT in September with the new revised model, so I am skipping the LG sections and focusing hard on LR and RC. I wanted to ask what is the best routine to integrate drills into the study session.

I hear a lot of the drills come from PT, and burning though Drills means come PT time, you have essentially already seen some of the questions prior (do I have this right?).

So I wanted to ask if this is the same for post August PTs aswell, and for those taking it without LR, how are you using your PTs and Drills

Any help is valued. Thanks!

im taking the exam in person and when i went on lawhub and clicked lsat it said information on scheulding with a proctor has been sent to you, i just wanted to know if you guys see that also or i missed out on an email or something

Just took PT 84 - wondering if anyone found the LR kind of weird? Not hard per se, but for example PT 84 S2 Q2 (an NA) was more of a soft NA answer? They are usually a lot more clear. Idk maybe I’m just being picky but I found there were a couple questions where the answers were a lot more subtle to me.


Anyways, onto PT 84 S2 Q11

I knew AC was right but crossed it off because I thought it attacked a premise. Looking back it appears I misread the stimulus.

The premise says: “Many features ..." Admin Note: I deleted the premise and Answer Choice C as it is against our Forum Rules to post LSAT questions on the Forum.

And AC C says: "Excessive blinking ..."


I thought that the stimulus read “excessive blinking is not such a feature of confidence” (rather than saying "blink rate is not a feature")

My question is, if it had said what I thought it said, would AC C have been an attack on the premise like I thought it was?

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

Hello,

I did not choose A (the correct answer) in this question because I thought "specific examples" was incorrect given the fact that the passage did not raise any plural nouns and actually seemed quite general to describe their examples. Can someone explain why the examples raised in the passage count as "specific examples"?

Thanks!

#help

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-1-passage-1-questions/

Hi All. I have two questions:

(1) Roughly when did the important distinguishing features of newer logical reasoning questions become the norm? I'm thinking in particular about longer and tougher stems, more frequent strengthen/weaken/RRE questions, less frequent formal logic questions, and generally trickier answer choices?

(2) In these newer LR sections, are the toughest questions typically found between questions #11 and 20? Or are 21-26 generally harder? Or has it gotten more random?

I've been largely following the "save the best for last" approach in my studying thus far, and so have only recently moved from tests #20-45 or so to more recent tests. Recently, I've begun alternating between tests near #80 and closer to the 50s, and plan to keep doing so. Today, though, I took my first test in the 50s (#55) after taking a couple near #80, and the LR sections felt much closer to the old style I'd been used to than the new style I'd seen in #78 and #80---in particular I noticed more formal logic, and that the hardest questions were located near the end rather than the late-middle. So I'm wondering what to expect. Roughly when did the shift that happened between early and late tests occur, and how accurate is my sense (partially based on some article I now can't find) that the newer sections have harder questions towards the late-middle?

Hi,

I understand why B here is right, but I have trouble understanding why D is completely wrong. After all, couldn't "some" footprints include the footprints that Dr. Tyson is looking at, and couldn't missing a feature of the original footprint lead to a huge change in how the footprint is interpreted?

Any #help would be appreciated!

Thanks!

Mary Simms (outdoor advertising rep): "Billboards are the basis of our business. If they are torn down, our ability to earn a living will be severely damaged.

Jack Jordan (local merchant): "The basis of our business is an attractive community..."

When Mary said "our", she meant her advertising business.

When Jack said "our", he meant the town/community.

Hence (C) is the correct answer.

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

Hi 7Sage Forum! I am looking for strategies on identifying the Sufficient and Necessary Assumptions in questions. I find myself understanding the material but am getting bogged down in language. Still working through the 7sage curriculum however any advice would be helpful! Thanks!

Flaw Question-- calling all folks who are a beast at LR:) HELP?

I understand that the answer is C but I want to make sure that I'm breaking down the argument correctly:

*Best way to understand --> Direct Empathy (that's what some psychologists claim, and we're supposing they're right)

*/Direct Empathy ("since it's impossible to gain a direct and complete grasp of another person's motivations" aka Direct Empathy-- I believe this is what the author takes as the truth)

THUS, no way at all to understand (already problem here, it should have been THUS, "no best way to understand" rather than "no way at all to understand")

But that's not even the main conclusion...

*Understand ("One can understand other people"-- again, this is what the author takes as the truth)

THUS, the psychologists' claim is wrong-- it's wrong to state that (best way to understand --> Direct Empathy)

The problem is that the author cannot state that the psychologists' claim is wrong because the author's evidence is flawed--- assumes there's no way when the psychologists are only talking about best way.

However, I'd like to go deeper into this question and modify it-- what if the author correctly said it was "best way to understand" as opposed to "no way at all to understand"-- would the argument be valid then??

*Best way to understand --> Direct Empathy (that's what some psychologists claim, and we're supposing they're right)

*/Direct Empathy ("since it's impossible to gain a direct and complete grasp of another person's motivations" aka Direct Empathy-- I believe this is what the author takes as the truth)

THUS, there's no best way to understand

*Best way to understand (my modified premise-- "But there is a best way to understand people")

THUS, the psychologists' claim is wrong-- it's wrong to state that (best way to understand -> Direct Empathy)

In this case, is the argument's conclusion valid? It's TRUE that the psychologists' claim is wrong because ultimately what we have is... we know it's true that /Direct Empathy & there is best way to understand ... so we can't validly get to "Best way to understand --> Direct Empathy"

(Am I thinking correctly? lol)

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-2-question-11/

I'm fairly new to 7Sage, but I am curious to know others' thoughts on this. Should I keep doing problem sets in a specific category if I am getting them right every time? Even without blind review? Not trying to brag or anything here, just genuinely curious of what others are doing.

Hi,

this was a weird LR question that I thought somebody might have some insight on. I used Process of Elimination to find that E was the only possible right answer, but I was not completely sure how E was the right answer when it stated that the Student's criteria was "inconsistent" with "the principle the historian advanced".

For something to be inconsistent with something else, they must contradict each other. The principle the Historian brings up is that "Alexander the Great should not be judged by appeal to current notions of justice". However, the student only stated that, in order to tell if Alexander the Great raised contemporary standards, one would need to "invoke standards other than those of his own culture". This criteria does not HAVE to contradict the principle the Historian brings up because "standards other than those of his own culture" might or might not include "current notions of justice".

Can anybody explain how E is right here?

Any #help would be appreciated!

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/

Hi,

Can anyone explain why the answer here is B instead of C? I just feel like JY's explanation for why B is right instead of C seems a bit insufficient

Thanks!

Is anyone else familiar with JY's suggestion of turning weakening questions into resolve questions (essentially reading all the premises and negating the conclusion in the stimulus, ultimately creating a paradox)? I have a lot of trouble with weakening questions, but when I turn them into resolve questions they seem so much easier to solve. Is this a method that I should adapt or could it become detrimental?

does anyone have a list of games that have bi-conditionals in them?

Thanks!

Hi,

When I was looking at the answer choices of this question, I was stuck between B, C, and E. Can anyone help explain why B is right and why C and E are wrong?

Any #help would be appreciated!

Thanks!

So some of my top missed categories on PTs have been NA/SA/PMR, not because I think they are particularly difficult but sometimes I'm just missing the argument at hand or not properly seeing how the arguments are drawn in my head. A lot of the time when I see parallel flaw at the end of the test especially, my mind just says skip because there's just so much information to read. But, I know that if you parse the logic of the stimulus correctly, it's way easier to spot an AC that correctly fits. On Thinking LSAT, they mentioned looking at the conclusion of the stimulus and seeing if that accurately matches the AC, but I still can't read everything properly because some of the ideas can become too convoluted.

I'm wondering how y'all approach these questions in a formulaic way, do you spend time writing out the argument in lawgic format, or is there a better approach?

Hey guys! 166 June, wanted 170+. It's nice to say "okay, I'm going to law school," but MAN--I wanted a higher score! I was scoring 170s on PTs, so I'm shook. What can I do to study for August? I've already put 200 hours into this test.

Did some searching on the forums and couldn't find a clear cut answer on fool proofing.

For context - I am scheduled to take the JAN 2020 LSAT (may move it to FEB 2020).

I am currently just through the CC on LG, about to start RC. I am almost always able to solve the logic games with -0 or -1, however, time is almost always an issue. New games definitely take me longer than what JY recommends, but I can usually get them almost perfect with more time.

I took the SEP 2019 LSAT and scored 153 and went -11 on LG/AR, -10 on RC, and -18 on LR.

I feel that the core curriculum will definitely improve my LR scores - there was some basic concepts that I was missing that I think will enable me to improve there. At this point - does it make more sense to spend the time to start fool proofing AR/LG or to move on to RC? I went close to -10 on both, but understand the concepts behind LG well enough to solve them, albeit slowly.

Hi all. So I'm taking my LSAT next week and I've been scoring in the high 160's and low 170s on all my practice tests so far. Most of the time when I get a question wrong it's only because I read the question stem wrong. But since this is my first LSAT, I want to retake it in January just so I have one more try before applying to Law Schools. I've already started some of my applications.

The issue is that in January I'm getting a rhinoplasty procedure a couple of days before the LSAT. I know I can't push it to February because I want to apply to T-14 and T-20 schools and I feel like they wouldn't accept an LSAT as late as February, but I'm not sure.

Do you guys think my operation would have any impact on my performance on test day? It's a closed operation so I won't have stitches or anything. Is it worth the risk, or should I just take it in February instead. Ideally I would've postponed the procedure but it's been scheduled for months now and it would be too expensive to make changes at this point.

Or alternatively, I can take it in January and then once more in February, but how bad does 3 tries on the LSAT look?

Hi,

Does anybody know why the answer here is not C? This passage is confusing the hell out of me

Admin note: minor title edit; for RC please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# (P#) - [brief description]"

If anyone needs help on LR let me know!

Hi, I've been hitting the mid-high 160's and I'm finding my core weakness is not understanding what the ACs are saying. This means the AC is using hard referential phrasing, or weird grammar like using embedded clauses without commas / run-on sentences, or the wording is just ambiguous.

I'm trying to parse the sentence piece by piece in my BR, but does anyone have any help for this issue?

My solutions so far are: parse word by word / phrase by phrase in BR, reduce the AC down to subject verb object. This is still really hard and I miss a lot of questions just because I don't know what the AC is trying to tell me. Thanks!

During my blind-review sections or untimed sections I average -3, yet on timed sections I average -7/-8 which on a bad day can be -10. I don't understand how to close the gap. I've read Loophole and am trying to find patterns but sometimes the questions just throw me for a loop or have subtle distinctions from the right answer choice. Any successful methods of closing this gap and improving speed?