Discussions

LSAT

New post

276 posts in the last 30 days

Hi Everyone,

These questions are some of the most time consuming in LR, and there are many people in the LSAT community who advocate using certain techniques for eliminating answer choices on these questions quickly. These techniques include strategies like: matching the strength of the conclusion (qualifier words), the type of reasoning (conditional, causation, etc.), and other qualifier words such as most, some, all, etc.

However, I've noticed that in recent exams (70's), LSAC has made these questions (even!) more difficult and time consuming by including all of these features in most of the answer choices. (For example, if the stimulus uses "probably" in the conclusion, 4 out of 5 answer choices will all include the word "probably" too.) As a result, they've eliminated some of the 'quick and easy' tells that we had at our disposal to move through these questions faster.

Has anyone else noticed this trend? If so, what other techniques/shortcuts do you use in order to cut through the problem and eliminate wrong answers quickly?

Thanks!

0

I am working on the LG section of the CC. I am fool proofing all of the games as I go through them, examples and timed sections. How much time should I plan to give between runs on a particular game? After writing a game out 3-4 times (twice a day), I am able to get it down quickly, but I also feel like I am just memorizing. Is there a particular set of games that we are supposed to full proof or just do them as we go? I am also planning on testing in August, so I have about 3 months to work with.

0

Hi all!

I had a question on answer choice E with this one. To me, the reasoning of flaw in answer choice E was the same as that of answer choice D of the same PT same section question 20.

Looking at the explanation of question 20 (Morton: In order to succeed (...)) in other forums on answer choice D, the explanations state that Morton actually DOES consider the counterexamples stated by the skeptics (which is why D is incorrect); the problem was that he just did it through a flawed way. The structure of this passage was:

  • Skeptics have objected (...) by providing counterexamples (context)

  • However, this success is only apparent (Main conclusion)

  • This is BECAUSE (...) (Premise)

    • So, in actuality, this argument DOES consider the skeptics counterexamples.

    Now coming back to question 22, in my line of thinking, the author of the passage does the exact same thing as that of question 20.

  • Jerome refused Melvin's suggestion claiming that he could not afford the money (Context)

  • However, cost cannot be the real reason (Main conclusion)

  • This is BECAUSE he makes the same excuse all the time (Premise)

    • So, in line with the thinking of question 20, I thought that the author DOES in fact consider that it can be the real reason; its just that he supports it though a flawed way. Yet answer choice E (Does not examine the possibility (...)) goes against the line of reasoning of answer choice D in question 20....

    Thanks in advance!

    https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-3-question-22/

    https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-3-question-20/

    0

    Does anyone else find themselves mistakenly solving flaw questions as weaken questions when considering certain answer choices?

    What I will find myself doing when evaluating certain answer choices is saying to myself, "Well if this were true, it wouldn't necessary weaken the argument, so it isn't the flaw of the argument"

    I think this is incorrect because the best method for answering those two question types are different, but I don't actually know on a deeper level why the two methods don't sometimes overlap. Or maybe they do and I'm not always wrong in doing that.

    Instead, I just accept that that is the wrong way to go about answering the question and try to catch myself when I do it and revert back to the correct method to answering a flaw question.

    I know this is a bit abstract, but if someone could help explain more clearly why those two methods don't overlap sometimes when considering certain answer choices that would be helpful.

    0

    Hey guys, so my LR score finally has been improved (well sort of), I have been doing some times LR sections from prep tests 1-15 and I usually spend about an hour or an hour and a half on each LR section, I've been scoring either 14/26 or 16/26.

    In general, for each question type I am not consistent in my scoring (for example, the test could have 3 or 4 Resolve Reconcile Explain questions and I'll get 1 or 2 right and the rest wrong). Another example, for MC questions if there is a sub conclusion and I noticed that LR timed sections have these, I won't be able to figure out which is the exact main conclusion (see question 4 on prep test 15 as an example).

    There is no one question type I am good at, but I notice that the harder the level of difficulty the more likely I get it wrong.

    How can I improve my score to at least a 20 and should I be doing timed sections? I am not really sure what to do next.

    Oh and if anyone PLEASE has or knows of any resources that can help me improve on Weakening, Flaw and Necessary Assumption Questions that would be great because they are my biggest nightmare.

    Thanks! :)

    0

    Can anyone help me out with this one? I ended up getting it right by process of elimination but I'm having trouble figuring out how to write it in conditional logic.

    Thanks!

    0

    Hi guys I would appreciate it if someone could review my reasoning for this question and let me know if this is correct. When BRing I realized that I made a mistake and chose A rather than E which is correct.

    Basically if negated, A says something along the lines of less than 51% of those people who abandon the use of chemical fertilizers will periodically grow alfalfa. Now this may be tempting but it doesn`t really do much, our argument doesn`t say that every person needs to make this switch, just that in order to improve the soil structure we need to ditch chemical fertilizers and begin growing green manure crops.

    E is a much better answer because it tells us that we can`t use chemical fertilizers AND grown green manure crops, so we have to ditch chemical fertilizers as stated in the argument

    When negated it sounds somewhat like, some farmers in the region will grow green manure even if they do not abandon the use of chemical fertilizers, suggesting that we do not need to ditch the fertilizers in order to grow green manure, and ruining our argument.

    I also struggled a little with answer choice D, but here`s my reasoning

    I think its incorrect because when negated it just says chemical fertilizers themselves do not have a destructive effect on soil, this can be true because the argument is assuming that its the switch from green manure to chemicals that has deteriorated the soil structure, it doesn`t need to be that the chemicals themselves are destructive.

    Let me know what you think!

    https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-2-question-20/

    0

    I've been finishing up each LR section with usually 5-8 min to go back and review in real time. At that point, I'm reviewing the questions I've been stumped on within a real time frame. So when I go to finish the PT and it tells me to go back and look at those questions again - I don't really see the point? PLUS sometimes the BR is for qs I got right so that's just a mind warp. Am I the only one who thinks this way?

    0

    Hi,

    I understand why C is right, but what I have trouble understanding is why D is wrong.

    I mean, in terms of D, couldn't it be argued that Politician P is "appealing to wholly irrelevant issues" by talking about taxpayers' happiness to distract from the real issue of whether or not there is an obligation to raise taxes?

    Any #help would be appreciated!

    Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-26-section-2-question-04/

    0

    Listen and subscribe:

    Apple Podcasts | Spotify

    You only have two chances to take the LSAT: June or October. What do you do if you’re not ready yet?

    In this episode, we break down a real scenario from an international student who doesn’t have the flexibility of U.S. test dates. With limited LSAT administrations available, the usual advice—“wait until you’re ready”—gets a lot more complicated.

    📌 We cover:

        1. How to approach the LSAT when you only have two test dates

        2. Whether you should take the June exam below your goal score

        3. Why having a “backup test” matters even more internationally

        4. What to do if you’re still in the 150s with a 165 goal

        5. When it might actually make sense to take the test early

        6. If you’re studying part-time, working full-time, or dealing with limited LSAT availability, this episode will help you make the call.

    0

    Hello hello!

    I took the February test this weekend (yay!), but I ran into some trouble trying to take the argumentative writing section. When I went to take it last week, my Google Chrome gave me a "Privacy Error". I had to call and ask them to reset the section for me! My plan is try it again tomorrow, but I wanted to ask if any other Mac-users experienced the same issue and what you did to get around it.

    Thanks!

    0

    help This might be a dumb question.

    I get the correct answer (emphasize the degree of unpredictability in S and O model) However, I was hesitant to pick it because I somehow interpreted it to mean that the model itself is unpredictable, not that the ideas in the model are unpredictable. I think it's because I interpreted it to mention degree of unpredictability of the model not in the model. Is there a difference in these 2? How do I differentiate whether they are discusses the model itself or elements of it.

    Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-1-passage-4-questions/

    0

    Hi,

    I chose C here because I thought it was supported by lines 5-7 and I didn't choose B because I didn't see how the passage showed how laws were less/more rigid (since I didn't see anything about laws being flexible or changeable). Can anyone help explain why B is right and C is wrong?

    Any #help would be very appreciated!

    Thanks!

    Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-2-passage-4-questions/

    0

    So I have a question on Problem Set questions, particularly the last two ones. Usually I am on a role and get most to all of the questions right in the sample single questions before the problem sets. Those sample single questions seem to be also numbered at the harder ranges like 10-25 ish. However when it comes ot the problem sets, especially the ones with 5 stars, they seem to be exponentially harder than any of the sample questions before the sets. For an example: in the Necessary Assumption section, I was pretty much able to get most of the questions right in the single questions. Not only that, the questions I got wrong consisted of a minor misreading of the passsage or answer choice. And don't forget that these questions are also in the 10-25 range which I believed would have helped me with the 5 star questions. It turns out that I was wrong. The difficulty in figuring out the correct answer choices even after significant amount of times has been evident. A question 13 from a 5 star question in a problem set seem to be exponentially harder than a question 13 from any of the sample single questions before the problem sets. I have been wondering, where does getting the 5 star questions right rougly place you in the LSAT score ranges compared to 4 star or 3 star?

    0

    In hindsight I understand why D is correct (PT 3 section 2 Q 9), but I eliminated it because in the STIMULUS the comparison was to the same amount of whole milk. The question stem tells us that the coconut oil doesn't "usually cause" the blood cholesterol level to rise which allows us to consider the fact that people use more of one product than another. Is this type of chunky question stem that allows for a gap in reasoning that wasn't present in the stimulus happen in other LSAT LR questions? Or is this abnormal since it's a very old test?

    0

    Confirm action

    Are you sure?