loophole teaches us to solve wordy parallel questions by running the numbers (principle & parallel question chapter). How can I apply this method during the actual exam and study period?

Is it just me or was this the easiest Reading Comprehension you've ever seen?

Hey 7sage hive mind! I just finished the Strengthening Section of the CC and I struggled more than I have with any of the other question types thus far. For a lot of people it seems like after going through weakening, strengthening feels easy. I'm having the opposite issue... my entire weakening section went really well, but once I got into middle difficulty level, to harder questions on strengthening I feel like my accuracy plummeted. I'm hesitant to move on in the CC until I really understand this question type. Does any one have any thoughts as to why someone could excel with weakening but struggle with strengthening? I even tried negating answer choices to try and weaken the argument but I feel like it doesn't work for every question.

Thanks in advance!

Can anyone help me figure out what B is wrong? thank you!

Hey everyone, i'm looking for possible advice on how to improve in LR

I've began 7sage early this year for a month and a half but had to stop due to an intense semester. But I've completed the whole CC for LR in June and I've scored well on the question sets for every question type (not extremely well on the hardest sets tho). However, when I drill LR sections (PTS 36-45) I do not do as well as I've expected to do. Currently I average -14 to -16 per 51 questions. Some problems I experience is 1- I don't understand the stimulus well (even after BR) and 2- I mismanage my time and get stuck on a question for wayyyy too long. Thus, shooting myself in the foot and ruining my chances of getting other questions right as I don't have enough time.

Now I realize that these problems are common and sound easy to overcome as I can skip those questions and focus on the ones that I understand well and can answer easily instead of wasting time. However, I want to improve drastically on this section because it's half the test and it paves a way to a higher score.

My current line of thinking is that I should focus on getting 22 questions correct (hopefully) and I should skip three to four, which would my decrease my wrong answers to 6-8. I know this is easier said than done but I've found BR to be helpful and can see myself achieving that in the following weeks.

Having said that I'd like to hear what y'all have done to improve your score in this section and what you think about my current line of thinking. Any advice would be highly appreciated. Also, if there are helpful discussion forums out there that you found helpful please link it.

Thank you

Hi all, could someone please help me with this question? Its a small grammar thing, but I am stuck!

Obviously, we cannot in any real sense mistreat plants (MP). Plants do not have nervous systems (NS), and having a nervous system is necessary to experience pain. (EP)

The conclusion above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?__

P: EP -> NS

Plants: /NS

So, /NS -> /EP

C: /MP

A: /NS -> /EP -> /MP

Or, MP -> EP -> NS

I think I know why the correct answer is: "Only organisms that can experience pain can be mistreated". But the other answer choices use the word "any" instead of "only". Is there a difference in the two for sufficient assumption questions ?

Thank you so much!

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-4-question-18/

Hello! I’m sitting for the November LSAT and currently working to finish Fool Proofing LGs from PTs 1-35.

Would it be the best use of my time to continue on this trajectory (mixed in with full PTs, of course) or would it be more astute to FP the LGs from the later PTs (50s-80s) that I am working on?

Thank you for your time and input!

P.S. I am also planning to sit for the January test.

Hello All,

I recently drilled this PT section. While I found the game to be pretty smooth, I was quite confused when I missed nearly all the questions on the first try, and 3 questions on the 2nd. I've located the issue to my interpretation of "3-hour block starting at 1pm." In JY's videos, this leads him up to 3:30 pm. But isn't that only 2 and a half hours? Although my game board is just like JY's in that we both have 5 slots, mine ends at 4pm. Because 1-4 is 3 hours? I'd appreciate further insight/ ways to avoid, or at least, finesse interpretation errors such as this one. I'm failing to see how "3 hour block starting at 1pm"could possibly go up to 3:30 no matter how its read. Thanks!

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

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-65-section-2-game-4/

While I have managed to reduce greatly my incorrect ACs in RC, it is still my poorest section. So far, my approach to studying for this section has been incredibly random. I have usually only found that repetition and completing many reading comprehension sections was the best remedy to improvement. If anyone has found a helpful approach to practicing and analyzing RC questions, please let me know!

Hi all,

So I'm drilling a lot of LR timed sections using early PTs (10-20s) because I've kind of burned through the 40s and 50s repeatedly and I want to save the 60s onwards for full, fresh tests. Other than the two for one question-stimulus questions, I feel like once or so per section there's a misc. question stem (e.g. 13.4.17, 13.2.25).

I was just wondering, how common are these misc. question stems in the newest tests? I've done a few PTs in the 60s and 70s and remember there being fill in the blank questions, but nothing quite like this? I was just wondering whether or not these have made a comeback in any way, or if I should just ignore them.

My second question for high scorers in LR, what is your mindset like while taking a section? Currently, I'm experimenting with the balance between making myself go faster/stay on task, and staying calm enough to process everything yet not go too slow. Do you guys tend to lean in either direction? I know it's personal, but just curious.

Thanks!

I like to write in the margins for RC passages and I'm struggling with how to fully grasp a passage on the online flex test. How have people been using the 3 highlighters and/or writing notes?

Thank you

Looking to meet up a few times a week.

I struggle with reading answering all the questions within the 35 minute time frame. Anyone have any advice on this?

Hey everyone,

So I went through the CC awhile ago probably a few months ago ( I've been reviewing it since ) and also have a book by the Princeton review that I'm using for RC/LR . -called cracking the lsat

Logic games is def. my area of weakness - I'm trying to work on that right now, but wanted to fool proof Lr and rc as I thought I was getting the hang of it.

I'm focusing more on review than PT's that's for sure -I've probably done about 5/6ish PT.

For LR , I'm getting about 13/14 right on each section and that hasnt changed much even though I'm studying.

Rc- really goes up low of 14, high of 18/19

I'm aiming for 150's /mid 150's (pref). Target - 155

I began with high 130s before 7sage- mid 140's - then high 140's, and I've gotten one with 152 (untimed).

But now my score is sitting in that plateau area and I don't know if it's moving fast enough to consistently get in the 155 area timed and on test day.

I study about 5-6 days a week , for about 5 hours give or take. (starting mid may) started studying for lsat mid jan (but that was when I was working) so I didn't get that much studying done. Right now I'm doing about 1 pt a week, reviewing the pt and then reviewing CC.

Now I'm doing timed PT .

Taking the july lsat, how many PTS should I be doing a week , timed/untimed - all timed from now on ?

After every pt I go through it and look at areas of weakness.

Not sure if it's just anxiety/ mind set OR if I'm missing an important step. How did you all study coming up to the LSAT ?

Hi Guys, I postponed my test to Jan. Would like to find some study partners to join for some LSAT LR hard questions and detailed reading for hard RC passages.

Drilled all the 1-35, just started to drill 36 above. Please let me know if your pace is similar to me.

Aim for 168 in Jan. Now is at late 155-160.

I'm having a hard time understanding how the explanations for the right/wrong answers on these weakening questions don't contradict one another.

PT 86 S1 Q14

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-86-section-1-question-14/

PT29 S1 Q16

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-1-question-16/

In Q14, JY says (C) is incorrect because we don't know whether bats are included in the "most." Whether or not they are included establishes the relevance of this "most" claim -- you have to be included in the "most" otherwise we don't care. With this in mind, I initially eliminated answer (B) while doing Q16. But JY says (B) is the correct answer for Q16 because since some languages lack words for parts of their environment, it isn't surprising that Proto-Indo-European have no word for "sea." They could have still lived by the sea, making the premise less relevant. I'm confused for two reasons. First, we don't know if the Proto-Indo-European speakers are included in the "some," if they aren't included in this group then this claim becomes irrelevant. Second, the reason (B) is correct on Q16 seems in-line with the thought process I used when incorrectly picking (C) for Q14: if most animals normally rarely bite, then it isn't surprising that bats rarely bite. Rabid bats could still bite, making this premise less relevant. I can see why (B) is the best answer for Q16, but now I'm confused about why (C) is wrong for Q14. What am I missing?

Hi All,

The last sentence of the paragraph 2 reads: '...they argue that as the quality of black schools improved relative to that of white schools....'

J.Y. explains that from this, we cannot infer whether the quality of white schools remained the same, improved, and decreased. I understand this, but am wondering what the different interpretations of the sentence would be in the 3 scenarios.

What I think (assigning numbers as indicators of 'quality'):

Say the white schools originally were 10, black schools 5.

(1) In the case that white schools improved to 15, the net increase in quality for them would be 5. Therefore, whatever increase in quality of the black schools would have to be greater than +5, whether it be 11 or 12 (must be at minimum 11)

(2) In the case that white schools remained the same, then black schools can increase in any amount (but given the context of the passage, unlikely that it would supersede that of the white schools' original, 10)

(3) In the case that white schools decreased, say to 8 (so -2), black schools can increase in any amount, say 1, because that is still a greater than a -2.

Before J.Y.'s explanation, what I thought (1) would be meant if white schools improved to 15 (+5), black schools would also increase by +5 to 10. If this were the case, would the sentence have read: '...they argue that as the quality of black schools improved in parallel to that of white schools....'?

Please let me know what you think!

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-15-section-1-passage-4-passage/

I genuinely did not understand the stimulus.

Hi, friends. I had a lot of trouble understanding the clay tablets passage in PT 74 and I'm wondering if anyone can think of or dig up any similar passages. It seems straight-up descriptive to me, like a history lesson, rather than posing a position or a hypothesis or theory. It only helps so much to reflect on this one example. Anyone?

PT F97.S1.Q18 – Roseville Courthouse

We are asked to identify the point at issue / disagreement between Mayor Tyler and Councillor Simon. Tyler suggested to build a new courthouse for the city of Roseville in 1982 for a price of 26 million dollars, but ‘now’ in 1992 the price of the courthouse is 30 million. Tyler uses these premises to infer that Roseville would have saved 4 million dollars if the courthouse had been built in 1982, as suggested. Tyler also mentions in passing that the existing courthouse has been overcrowded.

Simon responds by bringing in the topic of inflation: The 26 million dollars that the courthouse would have costed in 1982 are equivalent to 37 million in 1992 dollars. Simon takes this to show that Roseville actually saved money by not building the courthouse. Simon also mentions in passing that the courthouse, had it actually been built, would have been underutilized.

There thus are at least two disagreements in this exchange, one much more overt than the other: (1) Roseville was right not to build the courthouse in 1982: Tyler disagrees, Simon agrees. (2) Had the courthouse been built, it would have been put to good use: Tyler agrees, Simon disagrees. The answer choices are tricky in that four of them purport to get at this first disagreement while not actually resolving it. Only one answer choice, the correct one, gets at the second disagreement and actually resolves it:

(A) This gets at Roseville’s actions going forward, does not directly relate to either disagreement.

(B) This gets at the issue of inflation adjusted prices, does not directly relate to either disagreement.

(C) This gets at the extent of Tyler’s responsibility, does not directly relate to either disagreement.

(D) This does get at the second disagreement and points out one issue where Tyler and Simon disagree: Would a new courthouse actually have been needed / been put to good use? Tyler agrees, as Tyler proclaims the present courthouse overcrowded, i.e. insufficient to serve Roseville’s existing population spatially. Simon disagrees; states that a hypothetical larger courthouse would have remained underutilized. The disagreement is subtle, but definitely present.

(E) This confuses the issue of inflation adjustment with financial upkeep, purports to get at the first disagreement but actually misrepresents information from the passage, in an apparent attempt to confuse test takers who did not select one of the previous answers the first time around.

Takeaway: This is a tricky question in that there are two disagreements only one of which gets resolved. The question stem arguably hints at this by speaking of ‘A point of disagreement,’ rather than of ‘The point of disagreement;’ i.e. the question stem leaves open the possibility of multiple disagreements. Nevertheless, this question demands some reflection. Read stimulus and answer choices more than once to get at the nuance of the issues at play. Do process of elimination for the wrong answer choices. If necessary, flag the question the first time around and return to it at the end of the section.

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

Taking all suggestions before the January LSAT!

There are two archetypes for answer choices: one that starts with something along the lines of "presume", "assume", or "takes for granted"; another that starts with something along the lines of "ignores", "overlooks", or "fails to take into account".

Most of us can do these questions based on intuition, especially if we use the method that JY taught us. I still visualize the goku doing his kamehameha blast on the car. But for some of the harder, more abstract questions, for me, it helps to realize what these two answer choice stems are saying.

Hope this helps, cheers =)

I chose B, and then A, as I was unsure how this claim directly supported the main conclusion...

I personally find this the hardest LR question in PT 14; it is (1) bizarre on the level of content, (2) very long and overloads test takers with information, and (3) at the very end of the fourth section, thus hitting you at a point of the test where you already spent 2+ hours intensively thinking about stuff and are mentally exhausted.

In paraphrased form, the stimulus says:

(1) Phenomenon: In the Peruvian desert, there are different sets of lines in the sand. These lines occur in different layers: On the top layer, there are lines that branch out from a single point. Beneath that, there are lines that form a bird figure.

(2) Hypothesis: An investigator argues for the conclusion that both of these sets of lines were brought about by aliens, who supposedly used the Peruvian desert to land their space ships. To support this conclusion, the investigator evokes the premises that the lines in the sand would have been useless to Incas.

The first thing to do here is to figure out what the stimulus is even about: The phenomenon itself is not immediately clear – it is crucial to note that there are TWO sets of lines, not just one –, and the investigator’s hypothesis is counterintuitive to a degree that it becomes all too easy to disregard the glaring selective attention fallacy in their reasoning (Aliens or Incas, not Incas; therefore aliens). So the first hurdle here is to even figure out what is going on, and to throw out one’s common sense intuitions out of the window (How can you even identify the different layers of ancient lines in the sand? How did the lines stick around for so long? All of these questions become irrelevant).

The next hurdle then is the question stem, which again seems bizarre: Here, the test writers tell us that we seek to establish the conclusion that the lines are supposed to refer to astronomical phenomena, and that we are supposed to block an alternative hypothesis to the effect that the lines are non-astronomical. So at this point this seems to become a sort of strengthen question. The question stem is unusual to an extent that it becomes hard to pre-phrase or anticipate how a right answer might look like. Thus process of elimination seems to be the best approach:

(A) North American natives arranged stones in ways that allow for the measurement of astronomical phenomena. This seems to strengthen a little bit in that it points out a seemingly analogous case (It is not only in South America but also in North America that people used geological means to keep track of astronomical phenomena). However, it seems unclear how this answer choice would also have the blocking effect that the question stem is asking for. Thus keep around as a candidate but expect that one of the other answer choices might well be better.

(B) The straight lines indicate positions at which astronomical events could have been observed ‘at plausible dates,’ and the bird lines could represent a constellation. This gets at both sets of lines and associates both of them with astronomical phenomena. The answer thus is fairly specific. Furthermore, the answer itself postulates its own plausibility (‘plausible dates’), which seems like a massive hint, though again unusual. Like the rest of this question, (B) thus again seems wildly counterintuitive, but in the scenario we are supposed to explain, (B) arguably makes the most sense. In particular, (B) approximates the desired function more than (A). Thus far this thus is the least bad answer choice.

(C) The lines form patterns. This answer choice is worse than (B), due to its lack of specificity and its apparent disconnect from the question stem. Worst answer choice thus far.

(D) Central American Natives used rocks to measure astronomical phenomena. This answer choice seems almost identical to (A) and thus provides good grounds to dismiss both (A) and (D): There can only be one correct answer choice, two virtually identical answer choices thus are likely to both be false.

(E) The bird lines might be older than the straight lines. Again irrelevant; (B) must be right.

Takeaways: This seems to be a question where the LSAT really tries hard to make test takers focus exclusively on reasoning structures, not on common sense intuition or plausibility. In this sense, the question is similar to other early LR questions that seem weird content wise but make syntactical sense on the level of formal logic. Focus on getting a clear understanding of what is going on in the stimulus and the question stem; I spent four minutes on this and still felt overwhelmed. Get a clear grasp of what the phenomenon is, what the explanation attempt from the stimulus is trying to say, and how the two alternative explanatory directions from the question stem relate to another. Then use process of elimination to get through the answers.