Hi everyone,

When I first started LR was my biggest strength but it has really taken a dip in terms of consistency. Does anyone have advice for staying consistent in the LR section? I've been taking more older PT's, could that be contributing? Thank you.

Hi everyone,

I'm really struggling with parallel, parallel flaw, and weakening arguments. It started out as my strongest areas but has plummeted as I am actually trying to figure out the methods and not base it on intuition. Doesn't nearly every single argument have a flaw? Like with an analogy I can always just say "relationship between X and Y isn't similar enough to Y and Z to be compared". It's just so frustrating that the test makers are setting the parameters for whether I'm looking for a flaw or saying some absolutely bizarre, nonsensical, but technically sound (?) argument is actually one that I'm looking for a parallel for. Thank you so much for taking the time to help!

I am having problem with LR, If anyone wants to get together to study for it. I would appreciate it.

I have heard many people say that their scores in RC improved when they started reading outside of practicing for the LSAT. I was wondering if you have had success with this, can you please post things you started reading that helped with your comprehension? I really suck at reading - my RC section drags down my score. No matter what I do or how many passages I do it isnt improving - so I want to try this. Please help if you can!

There is a concept from the first few lessons of MSS that I cannot find. It goes like this: "As one thing occurs, in any direction, another thing occurs in that same direction as a result" For example, if the temperature of a large body of water to a depth of 60 meters rises, so will the chance of a strong storm in that area rise. What is this concept called for the LSAT? Is it universal to all question types? Thank you in advance

Hi, guys there are certain topics in logical reasoning that I would like to be more advanced in.

Those being:

Causation and Phenomenon-Hypothesis Questions

Some and Most Relationships

Can someone offer me additional videos, or what I can do to feel more confident in these lessons.

Please assist me in any way you can.

Best of luck to you all.

I took the lsat a few months ago and was stumped by what should’ve been an easy game. I know I spotted a similar type when I studied it last year, but I can’t find it for the life of me rn even though I’ve scoured 90 games.

It’s a variation on a one layer sequencing game with variable blocks.

So imagine rule 1 is sth like A is either immediately in front of B or C bnb. Which is pretty simple and straightforward. But then the rest of the rules are basically a similar series of 2-3 other “either or, bnb” variable blocks, which is where it can get confusing. I just know I got super confused and stumped navigating this and would like to find the similar game I recalled so I can familiarize myself with the format.

I always find it tough to intuitively decide whether to do a general map and let it be question driven vs solve for all gameboards. often when I get confused by a question I freak out and then end up trying to solve for all gameboards late into the game, eating up time. Can anyone point me to similar games?

#help

Hey guys,

The LawHub isn't opening and my test is tomorrow. What do I do?

#help

Has anyone finished today or whatever? Just trying to see if things went smoothly after yesterdays shit show. I test at 11am est and was able to reschedule with proctorU after I was unable to test yesterday.

Why C is the the right choice?

Context: Some researchers claim that people tend to gesture less when they articulate what would typically be regarded as abstract rather than physical concepts.

Premise: Because some people perceived words like xxx, as XXX....

Conclusion: To point out that such a correlation is far from universal is insufficient reason to reject the researcher's claim.

where is the reconciliation?

I have been struggling in the LR section, especially in the middle to end of the section. After question 14/15, I tend to get mostly all the questions wrong getting about -10 to -12 wrong in this section. I really hope to improve at this section by the NOV 2021 LSAT. If anyone is kind enough to tutor me for about 3-4 hours a week it would be greatly appreciated. I can compensate you for the hours! I am looking to score in the high 150s, at best a 160. My LG is my strongest section as I occasionally only get about -2 or -3 wrong. I have decided not to prepare as much for the RC with the limited time I have as I feel LG would be easier to improve in the coming weeks. I am looking to get down to -5 or -6 on the LR. Let me know if anyone is able to tutor!! It would be very much appreciated.

https://www.canva.com/design/DAEtC7E8FVI/8w2eOp9LgJhpO4aB_AJDUw/view?utm_content=DAEtC7E8FVI&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link&utm_source=publishsharelink

I did PT 80 this past weekend and I began reviewing it yesterday. Game 4 was crazy confusing was it just me? also the 3rd game wasn't difficult but it was taking very long. i missed 5 when i'm typically -0-2 on LG

Hey just wanted to reach out to see if anyone else in the community had issues with taking the October LSAT. The first time I tried to test, the system stopped working in the middle of the exam and I couldn't finish. I sent emails, called, and reported an issue with the exam and rescheduled. Then when it came time to retest, the proctorU system indicated that the original exam, that I couldn't finish, somehow processed as completed as scheduled. So I was unable to take the retake as scheduled. I reached out to LSAC to see how this can be resolved, but I've heard nothing back yet. I'm a little worried they could snub me on the money I paid, as well as the exam attempt. Was anyone else unable to take the October 2021 LSAT because of multiple technical issues with LSAC and ProctorU?

So I was utterly confused after reading the first sentence. I just didn't get how they were able to use the color of gazelle teeth to tell whether a group of humans were nomadic or not. I just don't understand how this "support" supports the conclusion that N was nomadic but C were not. How would the color of gazelle teeth tell you anything about human lifestyle?

What are you even supposed to do after reading an argument like this and being utterly confused? I can skip but that just delays the inevitable. I have to come back it. How do you talk yourself out of confusion?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-c2-section-2-question-17/

Hi everyone! I am trying to do a big u-haul of how I approach LR questions. I am trying to have a heightened focus on accuracy and process over speed and results. I'd really, REALLY, appreciate it if someone could give me feedback on how I analyzed/broke down this question and the answer choices (I got it wrong the first time). Thanks a bunch!

Conclusion: Herniated disks and bulging disks could not be the cause of serious back pain for back pain sufferers.

Why?

P: Half of group 1 had these herniate disks and bulging disks, yet they did not experience back pain.

The argument fails to consider something.

Flaws I can see:

These are two groups of people, how can we conclude something based off of two groups with distinct differences (back pain sufferers vs non back pain sufferers)?

Perhaps there are other key differences that cause the herniated disks or bulging disks to cause back pain for actual back pain sufferers.

Answer Choices: The doctor's argument fails to consider the possibility that...

A) This has it really wrong. To make it work, I needs to say the following:

A factor that is in the presence of a certain effect (HD or BG and no pain) may nonetheless be sufficient for a different effect (HD or BG may be enough to produce serious back pain).

This is not what the answer choice says, though. Also, how do we know that HD and BD do not NEED to be present in the circumstance where back pain is present?

B ) Yes, though worded in a way I did not expect, perhaps a third factor and herniated disks and bulging disks all cause serious back pain. This matches the flaw #2 I have above.

C) . This AC has the argument flipped and is assuming the error in the argument- that is the fact that perhaps the herniated disks are present and contribute causally to back pain.

D) This is not the flaw. So what if herniated disks might not occur in half the entire population? The flaw is that they are erroneously concluding something about two different sets of people (back pain vs non back pain and what causally contributes to both).

E- The error is not in the comparative likelihood of herniated or bulged disks' presence when there is pain vs when there is no pain. The flaw is that nevertheless, they are assuming that even if (imo) there are herniated disks present when pain is present, the pain is not caused by the herniated disks. Perhaps herniated or bulging disks and a third factor all together cause back pain.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-4-question-19/

Hey everyone

I have 9 recent PT's left that I plan to take before the November 11th LSAT. Would it be ideal to have all of them except maybe one or two done before the final week leading up to the LSAT? That way I'd have completed all the material and can focus solely on review that week. Or is it better to just keep at my current pace and not switch to primarily review the final week. Thanks for any advice!

I do not understand why the answer is C (Not having his third meal with peppers) rather than A (not having any meal with peppers. Can someone explain this so I can better understand?

Should you use the phase 2 memory method for RC for the real test?

thank you.

Hey guys, I’m going to be taking the November LSAT in a couple weeks and I keep missing fill questions. What is the best strategy to tackle these?

Hey all,

Hoping for #Help, does anyone have a comprehensive list of rules on how to translate words into Lawgic? Like, every single indicator word I will see, the group its in and the rules, exceptions, bi-conditionals, all of that jazz, I totally understand how lawgic works once translated into abbreviated form, but, I seem to really struggle with translating it quickly enough and I am really unsure of myself which makes me freeze up, I am willing through most questions with intuition and doing quite well, but, the lists to help with translation that I have seen aren't exactly comprehensive, hoping someone who is as analytical as I am has gone to some lengths to make a more exhaustive list of words/rules and would be willing to share.

I’m taking the November 2021 LSAT which is coming up in about 2 1/2 weeks, yikes! I keep averaging a PT score of 151 but my goal is to get to a 160. When reviewing I go back through the whole test to pin point my weaknesses and review those topics again.

Does anyone have any helpful tips that may help me in improving up my score?

I honestly didn't see the flaw when I first did this question and am wondering how people who did see the issue manage to go about solving these questions.

Are these two questions basically twins? Or are they different? If they are different, how are they different? I honestly got them mixed up and got both incorrect and I think a large part of it was because of my pre-phase. My pre-phase going in was just all because you have an imperfect correlation doesn't mean there is NO causal relationship. For the question in PT 62, I narrowed it down to A and B and was unable to tell the two answers apart.

I also watched the video explanations for these so there's no need to put the links here, admin!

Hello, is the January 2022 LSAT is too late for this cycle to be considered competitive? Thank you in advance for everyone's answers.

Looking for Similar Logic Games to Practice that are hybrid type with a ton of variables kinda like PT 5 Game 4 or PT 89 Game 4. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.