Apologize in advance if this has been touched upon, but I was wondering how long it took for you guys to see significant improvements in reading comp from the memory method/any other tips that helped you along the way with it?

Original text ----------

Hello!

I have a question regarding an embedded conditional. Does the interpretation change on the base of where the comma is located at like the following exmples? Thanks for your help in advance, I appreciate it!

If S, then /B unless F

= S → /B unless F

= S → (B→F)

= S and B → F

If S, then /B, unless F

= /F → (S→/B)

= /F and S → /B

Answer ----------

[S and B -> F] and [/F and S -> /B] are the same!!!!!!!!!!!!

I understand the explanation for the question and the diagramming that led to the answer. However, I still am confused with the first line of the stimulus: "Because of the recent transformation of the market". Using the lesson on for/since/because being followed by a premise, that was my assumption and how I attempted the problem the first time around.

None of the explanations use that first sentence at all though. They just use

/10% --> B

and

10% --> 20%

Why is the because in line 1 not used as per the for/since/because lesson?

Danino has expressed dissatisfaction that many genetic studies have attributed the ‘spread of agriculture’ into the subcontinent to migrations. Just to be sure that no one thinks that the practice of agriculture is in the genes, I would like to point out that the spread of the technology of agriculture was associated with the movement of people; agriculturists who took the technology to new regions and taught it to the locals in the new region. Movement of people implies movement of genes. Some migrants ‘export’ their genes to a new region by taking spouses from the new region and producing children with them who stay in the new region. We can never be sure that the attribution of agriculture having been introduced to the Indian subcontinent by migrants is fully true. However, genetic data do support this model, especially of the spread of modern, organized agriculture.

Having said this, I must also emphasize, once again, that collection of more extensive data is always more helpful in understanding our past and of the spread of our inventions and innovations. A Y-chromosomal signature, haplogroup J, was shown to be associated with the spread of modern agriculture. This signature has its highest frequency in the Fertile Crescent region – the region comprising the present-day countries of Syria, Lebanon, Turkey – where the technology of modern agriculture was invented about 7,000–10,000 years ago. Collection of deeper data showed that this signature is quite heterogeneous and is composed of at least four sub-signatures, one of which – haplogroup J2b2 – is confined to the India–Pakistan region.

This sub-signature arose over 13,000 years ago and hence its introduction into India could not have been by migrants who introduced modern agriculture into India. We showed that the haplogroup J2b2 possibly arose in India, because the highest frequency of this haplogroup is found in India. We discovered multiple epicentres of this haplogroup in India and interestingly these epicentres neatly coincided with the seats of introduction of early forms of agriculture in India (as evidenced by the study of fossilized pollen grains by Fuller and his team). It is unlikely that haplogroup J arose independently multiple times in geographically separated places. It probably arose in an ancient population who had spread themselves in geographically separated regions and they invented rudimentary forms of agriculture independently in multiple geographical regions. However, it is notable that these early forms of agriculture remained largely confined to India and Pakistan region.

Question:

Danino believed that genetic studies, which “attributed the ‘spread of agriculture’ into the Indian subcontinent to migrations,” are:

1)incorrect because migrants did not introduce agriculture into the subcontinent.

true because it was indeed migrants who introduced agriculture into the subcontinent.

only partially correct as early forms of agriculture were indigenously developed in the subcontinent.

originally results of expert intuition but later validated by an improved ability to decipher evidence.

Source : https://www.imsindia.com

Need help in finding POV!

Correct Answer is 3 .

But I find AC 1 more suitable because 1st line of passage "Danino expressed dissatisfaction....."

Hi guys,

After finishing the CC and taking a few practice tests, I decided that I'll need to slow down and first drill individual LR question types before diving into more full PTs. I've been using the question bank and doing individual questions timed then leaving one full 35 minute section of JUST that one problem type to do. Afterwards I review the questions. But I still find that I'm struggling and average -8 per section, section of just one problem type that is (which i feel like shouldn't be happening cause I literally did just so many of the SAME question type). I'm wondering how you guys went about this? How did you drill Q types for LR? What helped?

Thanks so much!

So I took the today's exam and I am currently feeling I bombed it so bad. I had one with the 3 LR's and I really screwed in RC. I guessed about 5 questions just in RC and probably missed another 6-7 questions top of that guessed ones.

My situation is little unique. It's my 4th time taking LSAT and previously I had 151,cancelled, and 162. If I cancel today's exam, I will not retake and apply in the coming cycle with my current numbers but I am wondering if that cancellation or lowest score from today's exam (such as like 155-157) will hurt my admission chance.

Some people suggested me that since the schools are only looking for the highest score anyway, it will not really hurting anything but I am so worrying right now.

Hi everyone, I am posting because I recognized that I had actually blacken 29 ovals for the reading section and I am wondering whether I should cancel my score. Given that there were only 25 questions in the reading section, I must have repeatedly blacken several ovals. However, I cannot recall whether I made this dreadful marking mistake early on or not, but I feel like my entire response for RC is misplaced and the worst scenario is that I may score nothing for my RC section.

I am extremely anxious right now because the September exam is my fifth and also the final shot. I took my first exam last year and canceled the grade because RC smashed me. I score in the lower 150 twice and my highest score is 158 so far. I was hoping to use the September exam to boost up my score and get application done, but now all I want to do is to cancel my score...

Do you have any suggestion? Should I cancel this time and apply with the 158? Or should I keep it and retake in November? If I decided not to cancel this time, will a extremely low score hurt my overall application? Thanks so much and any help is appreciated!

So, like many of my fellow 7Sage friends out there I took the September 2018 test and probably went -2 or -3 lower than my average PT score. I already decided to retake weather or not by some chance my actual LSAT score is around my average or even possibly above (by some miraculous act of god). Being entirely open, I suck at RC and my LR is below average. My LG is solid and I feel most confident in this section. My "general" plan is to take about two solid weeks to only do RC. I want to try to do 50-60 RC passages a week during this time and review each thoroughly. After I plan to drill LR for another two weeks and do some RC during this time frame also. I will be around three to four weeks out from test day at this point and plan to PT a few exams and do thorough review generally. I have taken roughly 28-30 PT's already at this point and know how to "flow" through a test and how to handle all the different "situations" that the LSAT can throw; I really am just trying to gather a deeper comprehension at this point. I'm really just trying to see if anyone has any opinions they could throw my way ! Thank you, and good luck to all :)

I am looking for a possible group or single study buddy in the Houston Area within the 610 loop .

I am open to an online group as well if that would help .

I've been doing some drills to understand my LR process better because I feel like some questions make me incredibly and irrecoverably slow but when I look at them again, I see the point real quick. So my question here is, if any of you have tried this, how long do you take per average on easy/medium questions vs how long do you take per average on hard/hardest question. Or, do you take longer on a particular Q.type?

Scored my PT average on everything except RC. I was 6 pts below my PT RC which resulted in me being 3 pts below the score I wanted. I feel like on test day I just second guess everything about the passage and end up reading it over and over. Any tips/strategies?

Hello fellow 7sagers,

I am feeling a bit discouraged, as the LG Section has been destroying my confidence and overall my score. As a whole, I am pretty solid on on the RC and LR sections, but the LG section has been holding me back. My problem is i cannot identify which game board to use via the word problem prompt. I am somewhat confident in my abilities to solve the problem but getting to the game board and knowing which one to use has been difficult. I have been scoring on average -11 to -16 on LG sections. Anyone have any tips or advice on how to decipher these prompts in order to identify which game board to use?

When doing this question, I could not agree with JY's explanation no matter how many times I've heard it. I simply think his reasoning on why he eliminated answer choice A is incorrect. In absolute terms, the rain will definitely increase, because we know the proportion of precipitation as rain has also increased, so in relative terms too, rain has increased more compared to snow.

To me, this answer choice can only be eliminated because of the use of "probably" in both the answer choice and in the stimulus. How should I understand the use of probably, though?

Should I think of it as "in most cases", meaning, in more than 50% of the cases? In that case, I suppose that just like how when given A-most->B-most->C, we can't make any inferences between A and C, in this question, the two cases of "probably" disconnect the causal relationship in the argument, and therefore does not actually strengthen the argument?

What do you guys think of my reasoning, and my analysis on "probably"? The more I think about it, the more it makes sense, and I think as I was typing this out, I've convinced myself that this is the correct reasoning for eliminating A.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-71-section-1-question-12/

Hello 7Sagers,

I am currently working on weaken questions and I am having a hard time understanding the task. I understand that I am supposed to focus on the conclusion, but find the gap between the premises and conclusion ( with the ac) that will weaken the argument. However, it is hard for me to do this accurately because i feel its too much in my head and i get confused. What are some strategies you all use to stop yourselves from getting confused. Do you focus only on weakening the conclusion or something else? Can i think of weakening questions in another way?

Not sure if there are many people who have already solved this PT but would really appreciate the opportunity to pick your brains regarding this question.

I initially chose D. My reasoning was that looking at mortality patterns with other animals could perhaps reinforce or weaken the idea that more full grown male horse bones = people rode horses. What if mortality patterns of domesticated goats living with the Botai also shows that they had more full-grown males, thus also going against the typical pattern for domesticated animal usage? What if the Botai people just really love male animals? Basically my reasoning was that looking at mortality patterns of other animals could be a point of comparison.

I guess the weakness to my reasoning is that even if goats or other animals go against the typical hypothesis re: domesticating animals, the hypothesis regarding domestication of horses could still be true? So in essence it may not be a good point of comparison and may not yield any information to evaluate the hypothesis? I'm not sure, just trying to pick holes in my reasoning.

I also tried to reason for A: So I'm thinking this is a way for the author to evaluate whether the presence of more male bones than female bones is good enough evidence for the conclusion. If more bones show signs of being gnawed on or something, it could maybe weaken the claim that the Botai people rode horses.

Am I on the right track with A? What do you think regarding my explanation for D?

Admin note: edited title

Hi all, I started doing timed past tests but can't finish LG sections (LR and RC are fine). Should I come back and finish the leftover LG questions untimed but continue doing the rest timed? How should I go about doing timed prep tests now?

Is it recommended to do the: 1) Introduction to Logic (8.2h), and 2) Advanced Logic (2.1h) sections of the Syllabus BEFORE jumping into the Intro to Logic Games & Sequencing and the rest of the LG topics?

I signed up for 7sage's LSAT starter with the intent of studying Logic Games (LG). I'm primarily using the LSAT Trainer's program and have found it tremendously helpful for the RC and LR sections. I want to ensure that I remain efficient and effective in how I train, all while simultaneously seeking ways to be multiplicative in the different LSAT topics I study. (I hope I am making sense)

**(Disclaimer: I started studying for the LSAT on June 6th, 2018 with the LSAT Trainer and completed the first 18 Lessons. I had some life challenges that took me away from studying. I resumed LSAT preparation with the LSAT Trainer on October 6th, 2018 but decided to start from Lesson 1. I'm about a quarter of the way through the entire book.

I've taken off the next five weeks from work to train up for the Nov LSAT to give myself the most time.

I look forward to the perspectives on this forum.

I need help diagramming statements (with contrapositives) with keywords like: some, most, few, many, none, no one. I am having troubles answering Must be True questions on LR section that has those keywords. And, do I always translate such statements in if/then format or is there instances when it is not applicable?

(example question that throw me off with these keywords is Q12, Section 2, PT23. How can they use "weak local government" as sufficient without negating it when the FL structure in stimulus makes it necessary? and if that is possible, why D is incorrect then compared to the correct answer B?)

Thank you!

Can someone help me to check if my analysis is right?

Premise:

Two group of fish: one traditionally raised with dull routine and the experimental hatcheries raised in stimulating routine

The experimental hatcheries was bolder to explore new environment and try new food.

Conclusion:

Experimental Fish are more likely to survive.

Choice

Some fish raised in traditional hatcheries die because they are too timid in their foraging for food.

Firstly, this must be true because the whole point of the augment was the difference between traditional and the experimental fish. We have to argue that the traditional group doesn't have that unique quality of the experimental fish.

Secondly, if we apply the negation test: none fish raised in traditional are too timed foraging for food, the argument falls apart.

Thank youuuuu!

Admin note: edited title

Tips to increase speed on RC passages without missing questions and the right answers?

I am having a hard time spotting the right answer for NA questions. Can someone provide a way of attacking the answer choices? I always negate the answer choice to see if it destroys the argument, but I don't think I am doing it right. I keep falling for a trick answer choice. #HELP

Any tips to improve reading comp??

LR I'm averaging 40/50, LG 20/25, but my Reading Comp is around 12/25 which is really lowering my overall score.

I want to know why answer E is wrong. In Manhattan Prep. It says "everyday food" is irrelevent to the question. However, couldnt water be part of everyday food? Is this also making assumptions?

Admin note: edited title

I am thoroughly confused by this question.

The correct answer just explains why TI remains ordinary. But why does that even need an explanation?

I thought the discrepancy is why TI is more popular than M despite TI being ordinary. Hence, wouldn’t the correct answer have to strengthen the mitigating reason for why TI is more popular?

The premise only talks about how TI’s location attracks customers, but it doesn’t address if that makes TI more popular than M. So I was looking for an answer that would suggest that the location is a significant factor in determining TI’s popularity, significant enough to render its ordinary food less relevant.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-82-section-4-question-21/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-57-section-3-question-21/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-1-question-17/

can anyone explain why JY labels the first sentence in question 21 [the first link] a phenomenon and not a conclusion, but the first sentence in 17 [the second link] the overall conclusion. what's the functional difference in those sentences?