hey all,

i know for LR, the usual benchmark is spend 1 minute per question (for 15 in 15, 25 in 25). And If you're at 1 minute and still can't get it, just skip it.

for RC, what's the benchmark in terms of how much time to spend on a question?

For RC, I've heard of ppl view this by thinking of "processes" (read all AC, reread question stem, go back to passage, and if still can't get it, then skip). They focus on "processes" instead of time.

The challenge, though, is there are some RC questions (like the REALLY LONG analogy questions that take up half a page where the question stem is a a paragraph long and each answer choice is a paragraph long), where just reading the question stem and all the AC's takes like 3 minutes.

Should I just skip these REALLY long RC questions, or just dive in them and spend 3 minutes on them?

Any advice or suggestions appreciated. Thank you!

Hi everyone,

I've been struggling to improve for a few months now and can't seem to get more than 18 right in a logic game section. I've done all the lessons in the core curriculum and regularly do the foolproof method. I still can't finish all four games completely. I know my issue isn't understanding the fundamental concepts because I'll complete the most difficult games without any error but then get a few wrong on the simplest games.

It's been frustrating and I was hoping the experts on here could give me a few tips to push past this plateau.

LR “neutral expression” question

I got right through eliminating the other 4 answers, but I don’t know why answer (c) is correct. Any help would be much appreciated.

Admin note: edited title

Does anyone know where one could find an explanation for this passage. It destroyed me and 7sage does not have an explanation.

PT February 97 passage 3 "feminist opposition to efforts to restrict women's hours of work"

I was browsing youtube in my daily routine to relax before the test when all of a sudden, I got hit with a deja vu moment. For those who remember the RC passage about the ultraviolet catastrophe:

Enjoy~

Hey guys, for some reason, even after BR'ing the questions I wasn't confident, I'm still missing -6 per LR section.

(These six questions are all questions I did blind review.)

To give a context, this is the second LSAT exam I've ever taken in my entire life, and the first time I'm BR'ing a PT.

There's no common patterns in the types questions I'm missing in particular.

This LR section is, in reality, my biggest weakness.

I started off fine on the Logic Games, and after BR'ing RC, it led to a -2.

It's just the LR that's difficult, any advice? Or does it just take practice?

hi all!

first off congrats on all those who sat for the Nov test and completed it in one piece! I feel somewhat accomplished in doing that alone, it being my first official administration. But I am also trying to be somewhat realistic with myself, knowing that I am almost 100% sure that I want to sit for the Jan test and take a shot at getting a higher score!

I had been studying since June before taking the Nov test, so obviously completed all 7sage CC and taken PTs 40-50, so now what?

trying to take into consideration my known weaknesses that I feel in myself, and use those to try and construct a new study plan, I wanted to reach out and see if anyone else in the same/similar situation as myself, have any advice. mainly what you have done in the past or what you will be doing until the Jan test? I'm thinking of more timed sections instead of full PTs to start out & focus more on getting a few extra points from RC (since personally I did not spend much time at all learning RC strategies to begin with), along with getting a constant LR section that I am confident with. what about you?

thanks so much in advance for taking the time to help a girl out :)

Hello,

Here is my analysis for question 17 in section 3 for prep test 72. This is a weaken question; therefore, I wanted to weaken the connection between the premises and the conclusion.

Argument Analysis:

Premises:

Individuals who get injured due to unsafe actions not only cause injury to themselves but also can put financial and emotional burdens on others who they are close with.

Conclusion:

The Government is vindicated in making actions that are considered risky to one’s health illegal, in order to guard other people’s interests.

Prephrase:

Just because something that could be injurious to one individual and that brings pain to their family is not grounds for outlawing it. Think about it this way, just because trampolines can cause you harm and make your family pay your hospital bills doesn’t mean that this is grounds to ban using them.

Answer Choices:

A. This supports the argument because it further justifies why it would feasible to implement the law. The reason is due to the fact that it shows how putting a burden on the people you have close ties to constitutes harm to oneself.

B. This doesn’t weaken because just because we have an obligation to not injure ourselves doesn’t mean that we won’t injure ourselves. For example, one may have an obligation to not eat their sister’s last piece of chocolate cake; however, is that obligation strong enough to prevent us from eating it? Probably not.

C. This strengthens because it meets the necessary condition of posing a financial burden to the family.

D. This weakens it entirely because entirely wipes out the evidence that the argument provided for the conclusion. If the evidence is not sufficient than the conclusion is not entirely justified to be true.

E. Again, just because you have an obligation doesn’t mean that it will guarantee that people won’t do it. The person could easily say, well this law will just affirm this obligation.

Honestly, I wish I hadn’t gotten this question wrong. I had originally picked B because I assumed that because one has an obligation to not do something that they won’t do it. But, how many obligations have we had that we have broken? Conversely, D shows that the evidence that the person gave does not completely bolster the argument for instituting the law.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-3-question-17/

Does anyone have a breakdown of the subdiscipline of social science passages on the LSATs?

(Background -- I am asking, as I double-majored in sociology/political science; I work in public policy; and so I am well-versed and find it easy to read and analyse Sociology/Political Science/History passages, but find archeology/linguistics/anthropology quite a bit more obtuse! And am wondering what my odds are for getting something within my zone of comfort!]\

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 for the past couple of PTs I took, I always did well on the first LR section (avg -2) and got a couple more wrong on the second LR section (avg -4 to even -6). I noticed that on the second LR I get even some of the easiest questions wrong. This doesn't happen when I take a long break between my first LR and second LR. Also, I tried taking the second LR first and the first LR later, and the same thing happened. I scored better on the first LR section I took, even though it was technically the second LR section. I'm assuming this is because I get worn out and lose concentration. Any advice on how to fix this?

P.S. My LR BR score is about -2 in total.

Hi all!

I have some questions pertaining to RC and would greatly appreciate any thoughts from you! In my cold diagnostic, I got about 5 wrong; after almost 6 months of studying, however, I still got the same amount of questions wrong. At this point, since I have been practicing the memory method/paragraph summary and passage structure for a while, I can get most of the facts straight from the passage. Yet still I make (often stupid) mistakes - for the ones that I didn't get right the first take, a majority of them have answers that are now so obviously right that I just want to travel back in time, grab me at my shoulders and shout "what the hell is wrong with you to choose anything but the right answer!" Is this something that you might have encountered too?

Also on the level of certainty of picked answers on RC. I seldom feel fully confident about my choices; I might be able to explain why I chose certain ACs during review, but in a time-constraint PT, I am almost always guided by a mysterious force called "that feels right."

All kinds of suggestion on RC would be greatly appreciated!!

Thanks so much in advance!

.

This question asks us to find an answer choice that matches the flaw in the stimulus.

The form of the argument in the stimulus and the form of the argument in the correct answer choice are not at all identical, and this is the difficulty of this question.

The argument in the stimulus says:

Stallworth claimed that [A]

A+B --> C

/C

Therefore, /B

A = Stallworth supported the proposal

A+B = Henning also supported the proposal (the "also" was referencing Stallworth's support)

C = proposal received government approval

Answer choice A says:

TV news claimed that [A and B]

A --> /B

Therefore, /B

A = the traffic accident occurred on Aylmer Street

B = Morgan witnessed the accident from his kitchen window

The TV news made two claims (claim A and claimB), then a not both rule (A --> /B) is stated. Since both A and B can't be true at the same time the author concludes that B must not have happened. However, the author is ignoring the possibility that it was A that didn't happen.

Answer choice B says:

City government claimed that [A]

A private institute claimed that [B]

Therefore, the city government is to blame for A

A = 15% of city residents are behind on their property taxes

B = property taxes in the city are higher than average

The flaw here is that the author assumes B caused A, rather than a number of alternative possibilities such as high unemployment or people being distracted by studying for the LSAT every day and forgetting to pay their property taxes. The other unwarranted assumption is that the city government sets the taxes. Maybe the citizens vote to determine the tax rate. It's even possible that the county determines the property tax rate in this city. It would not be logical to blame the city government for something they have no control over.

Answer choice C says:

According to Kapoor [A]

According to Galindo [B]

Therefore, if B --> /A

A = haz waste site does not pose danger to the community

B = haz waste site is on an unsuitable tract of land

Two different ideas (danger and suitability) are discussed but assumed to be the same idea. We don't know why Galindo thinks the land is unsuitable. Maybe it's because this land is really rocky and it's expensive to dig holes in the ground for burying waste. Maybe the hazardous waste just smells bad and Galindo doesn't want to drive by the waste site on the way to work every day.

Answer choice D says:

According to rivals [A]

B --> C

Therefore, Harris is a poor choice for mayor

A = Harris favors the interests of property developers

B = a good mayor

C = willing to stand up to property developers

This argument assumes that Harris is not willing to stand up to property developers. Again, this is an argument that conflates two different ideas (favoring the interests of developers and being willing to stand up to developers). There is no reason Harris can't do both. Also, even if Harris isn't "a good mayor," he could still be a better choice for mayor than anyone else who is willing to do it.

Answer choice E says:

Latest government figures claim [A]

B

Therefore, /A

A = regional unemployment rate declined in the last six months

B = the region lost thousands of manufacturing jobs

The assumption is that the unemployment rate can't go down in a period when manufacturing jobs were lost. However, maybe it was Amazon that bulldozed a factory in the region and put up an office building. The two ideas (regional unemployment and jobs in a specific industry) are not the same.

Admin note: edited title

A while back I completed the "Introduction to Logic Games & Sequencing Games" and "Sequencing Games with a Twist" sections of the CC. I was struggling, so I decided to foolproof the games in those sections before moving on in the curriculum. I went with the Pacifico attack strategy for foolproofing, because it seemed straightforward and organized.

As of now, I have finished foolproofing all the games in the "Introduction to Logic Games & Sequencing Games" section, and most of the games in "Sequencing Games with a Twist".

I have come across the following issue: On my second attempt at the game (after watching the video), I usually do pretty well and may even hit the target time. My third attempt (the next day) is pretty good as well, usually even better than the second attempt. However, when I attempt the game for the 4th time, (a week later) I either get questions wrong or I exceed the target time. It seems that I easily forget how to efficiently make the inferences. Therefore, I am currently at a bit of a loss regarding what I should do next.

Any advice would be sincerely appreciated!

TID

Dear friends,

I just missed your group study on Jan 8th. Here is one question I don't know why C is the best answer to Q13.

As the two sentences are responses from Bordwell in proving musicals still fit into his theory, he mentioned that first musicals are derived from live theater, second, a structure from other genre makes viewers prepare for and thus accept them realistic. The author then attack him that "pigeonholing genres" is not necessary for viewers in watching films. So that is choice C is another way saying that "pigeonholing genres" is unnecessary? Thank you for helping me out.

Admin note: edited title

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!

Taking all suggestions before the January LSAT!

Hey there fam,

So I was just doing some NA drills when a question struck me. In LR generally, we're looking for the assumption or flaw, and then want to set about our assigned tasks based on what we find. More specifically the flaw in the argument (between the premises and the conclusion). Does this mean then that when we notice an assumption in between the premises (which we are supposed to take for granted) that we just ignore said assumption or integrate said assumption into the group of things we take for granted?

Stated differently, can we think of any scenario wherein that assumption between the premises is something we need to account for, strengthen, weaken ect?

Thanks!

Do the number of problem sets we're given for different types of LR questions reflect the frequency in which we will see them on actual LSAT tests? For example, we are given 24 Flaw/Descriptive Weakening sets, but only 3 AP sets. Does that mean that on actual LSAT tests that there are likely to be more Flaw questions?

Hey friends! Until now I've been using charts for grouping games anytime the game pieces can be used more than once, but I just came across a game with those conditions where JY used a standard grouping setup. I was able to complete the game without errors with a chart when I wrote the PT, but after watching JY's explanation I think it would have been faster to use the standard grouping setup instead.

So my question is, should I be using a different criteria for deciding when to use a chart? Thanks in advance!

Hey everyone-

I am going through the core curriculum for the second time (a year apart) and had an idea I'm playing with and think is helpful.

I started fool proofing both solving the game completely (as JY often does in his video) and never splitting the board. I realized that when under time pressure, I may not see all of the inferences that lead to a full and complete solve, but I still need to find the correct answers in a timely manner.

For an idea of how this looks from a process standpoint:

*Repeat until I can answer all of the questions correctly and well under time without the fully solved game board.

After doing this, I felt there was another skill set being developed and felt less flat footed going into games if I couldn't fully solve a game board.

I am going to provide these caveats...

What do you guys think? Anyone else experiment with doing this?

These questions. DAH.

I went with C for 22 and D for 27. I even got them wrong in BR. I know these questions are pretty weird, but I would love help understanding why the correct answers are correct and why the answers I chose are wrong (though mostly the former).

Thanks in advance!

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-1-passage-3-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-1-passage-3-questions/

Hi there!

So I finally started getting to all four a couple of weeks ago, which was really exciting for me (I'll do a write up on the 7sage forum posts that made that possible for me after Sat). What I've noticed in this last week however is, that I'm not getting to the last two or so questions (sometimes). I'm wondering if that's because of my policy of saving the comparative passage for last? There's no particular reason for it, it was something a fellow 7 sager mentioned he did because they gave him trouble and so I tried it out (though I haven't noticed the same issue in my takes). Sometimes I do it last because the comparative has fewer questions than the remaining passage (less point potential), but sometimes I just do it automatically rather than waste time thinking about it mid test, and I've almost been too afraid of losing the progress I've made to try the other way (I know, it's not something I should be afraid of and yet). Problem is, sometimes I get to the last passage with not much more than 5 min left. Maybe 6.5 or so. So I wanted to ask what you all thought. If I did the comparative passage earlier, do you think I would be able to get to more questions?

So I'm on the MSS lessons, and I didn't really do the drilling questions timed, i just did them and then went back and BR-ed them. Should I start doing the drills timed or is it better to take my time with them and save the "timed" part for the PTs?