JY and a bunch of 7Sage tutors promote a quick pass of questions between passages A and B. What do you guys think? I feel like the time tradeoff to eliminate a few answers is questionable.

To help with my studies, I am reading books to practice some of the things taught in the V.2 curriculum. I am reading a book called Political Tribes by Amy Chua. On page 91 it states the following " Experts today agree that merely deploying twenty thousand additional troops would not have been sufficient had American commanders not "stopped fighting Iraq's tribal structure and instead started to cooperate with it..."

I think this sentence is similar to PT 64.1.18.

The way I would translate to a conditional would be

If not "stopped fighting Iraq's tribal structure and instead started to cooperate with it.." then, deploying 20k would have not been sufficient

or

If it was sufficient then they stopped fighting or started to cooperate with it

Any insight on this would be great!

I was consistently getting -2 on my PTs and after the April exam, I can't seem to get a PT with an RC score higher than -7. Any advice about how to get out of this rut (soon hopefully)? Any drilling advice for these next couple of days would be beyond useful!

Taking the June 2024 LSAT and I've put up some pretty good scores on each section. I've hit -1 on LG, -2 on RC, and -5 on LR. The only problem is that I've never come remotely close to doing all of that on the same test (for example, when I got a -5 on LR, I got my worst ever score on RC; the very next practice test THE NEXT DAY, I got a -2 on RC and put up my worst ever LR score). I'm done with practice tests before test day, but does anyone have any tips on what I can do to brush up and prevent splitting so dramatically?

I really don’t understand where this rule ” For conditionals, A and B negates to A → /B ” came from or how it would be applicable to the actual exam. This comes from the Negation skill builder in the Logic of Intersecting Sets module. It was never stated beforehand in neither the negating conditional statements or elsewhere, at least to my knowledge. I understand it intuitively as you’re saying that rather than both A and B being true simultaneously, you’re positing that /B is a necessary condition of A and thus can’t exist together. However, we previously learned about negation of the conjunction “and” in conditional relationships as being A and B → C negated to /C → /A or /B as specified by De Morgan’s law. I guess I’m just struggling to see, how to tell the difference or when/how to use this new rule in context with a question on the LSAT. Is the rule just referring to when you have both premises A and B as part of the argument a way to negate it, is by using that rule. Like I don't see how just A and B can exist on their own in question. I feel like there must be either A and B -> C or C -> A and B included when encountering this in a question. Greatly appreciate any comments or help someone could add!

#Help

Guys should I cancel my score if it is below 150 and I’m planning to take it in September and hopefully improve by then since I’ll have the whole summer to practice more and more?

I never really fully understood what understanding how to approach the question means could someone clarify this for me?

Hi,

Is anyone currently in NY preparing for the June LSAT? I wanted to see if y'all wanted to started a group chat for any last minute preparations. This will also help for anyone who has questions during the cycle this year we can all give support to one another.

Is there a diagnostic test you can take if you plan to take the LSAT in August 2024 or onward from there? Or should I take an old test that still has the LG section?

I am slightly confused as to how Q22 = AC: C?

Doesn't C leave the possibility of

1.) Network to U to P to T to S to T to R to Q

or

2.) Network to T to S to U to P to T to R to Q

?

I write on Saturday, someone please let me know ASAPPP!#help

I am just happy that I have finished the test today and got sort of valuable experience for sure. A bit lost for some time out of panick. Remote testing at home. No technical issue encountered, proctor was very friendly. Had a ten-minute intermission for the restroom, came back and went through security check.

Honestly, LG was not that hard, and it was the only reason I rushed to take the test this time because I have practiced a lot over a long period.

My goal is 170+, which I know, is only realistic with tons of efforts, at least, for myself.

I will continue to study for the next one in Aug.

Hey all,

I was kicked out of the virtual exam room eight (8) times during the exam, twice during each section, at roughly 15-20 minute intervals. After the eighth time, the Prometric system said that if I 'abandoned' the test again, I wouldn't be allowed to rejoin and finish it. As a result, I had to rush through the final section and guess on half of the questions just to guarantee that I finished before getting kicked again. I have no idea why it happened. It could have been connectivity issues, but I work from home twice a week with no issues and even upgraded my home internet to 5G before the test specifically for this reason. Regardless of the cause, I was kicked out of the test midsection, forced to rejoin the test, and go through the security/screening process 8 times, which obviously wasn't ideal for doing well. 

It's a long shot, but do you know if I have any options regarding whether I can get this test expunged, retake it, or even take the issue up with LSAC or Prometric? I'm not hopeful of anything, but I'd appreciate any help or advice you all could have. 

Can someone explain why the answer isn't D?

I previously chose B and got it wrong. I now see why A is the correct answer.

The question stated "People would not follow a leader if they felt there was nothing they could gain by following that leader. Therefore, even those leaders who are incompetent or evil bring some good to their followers."

In lawgic, this translates to "If they felt there was nothing they could gain by following that leader, people would not follow a leader. Therefore, even those leaders who are incompetent or evil bring some good to their followers."

Nothing to Gain (/GA) --> Not Follow a Leader (/FL). So /GA-->/FL. The contrapositive of this is FL-->GA. (If you follow a leader, then you have something to gain).

Following Incompetent or Evil Leader (FIEL) --> Bring Some Good (BG). So FIEL-->BSG

A most closely matches this.

(Expound upon theories) EUO-->BT (Believe are True)

(Any theory expounded) ATE-->GOT (Grain of Truth)

B talks about worst circumstances and then vicious people. But A sticks with the subject of theories being expounded upon, and the stimulus talks about following leaders.

Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

What is the difference between observation and phenomenon on LSAT?

A lot of people who were part of the 170+ were able to reliably get -0 on the logic games section which gave them more room to make mistakes in the other sections. Someone could get -4 RC, -4 LR, and -0 LG and still get a 170. But now, with the section that people could reliably get -0 on removed, how will amount of questions needed to be correct to get to 170 change? Will the curve be more forgiving now that LG, the typical -0 section is gone, and the other sections that are less predictable and have more opportunities to make mistakes (especially RC) are still here?

I picked C initially. I picked this answer because when the question mentions "malicious" my brain starts thinking for reasons why the toddler is not morally wrong in this situation. While this could be a decent explanation of the first sentence, it falls flat for the second. Additionally, WE DON'T DISCUSS ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR. This is really important: for principle questions, you are not going to get new information in the answers. It must be a general summary or explanation of the passage, not with new information.

Question A is right, it summarizes the passage well.

Question B is about attention, which isn't relevant

Question D is about ends, which isn't mentioned

Question E is about effectiveness, which isn't mentioned

Admin Note: Edited title and removed PT questions. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question" Also, please do not post the entire question and answer choices for the LSAC question; this is copyrighted content and is against the Forum Rules.

I initially chose C. This is a good trap answer, a very good trap answer indeed. The trap comes when they say that rural people communicate less. The passage talks about communicating ELETRONICALLY less, not communicating less in general. If you read this quickly, it makes perfect sense. Rural people communicate less electronically, so answer C is correct. However, because answer C is missing electronically, it is wrong. This is very sneaky!!!

Answer A is a classic difficult answer. It perfectly summarizes, which is the job of a good principle answer, but it does so in verbose language that is different from the passage.

Answer B is irrrelevant and introduces new information

Answer D is irrelevant and introduces new information,

Answer E is irrelevant and introduces new information

Watch out! Trap answers are very sneaky!

Admin Note: Removed PT questions. Please do not post the entire question and answer choices for the LSAC question. This is copyrighted content and is against the Forum Rules.

Hello!

I was wondering if we took the LSAT this June and submitted a writing sample, will we have to write a new writing sample for the August 2024 exam? (Since the format is changing a little bit)

Which type of drilling mode for LR is the most accurate/ close to the actual LSAT? The options are:

1)7Sage Virtual Tutor picks

2) Particular tags

3) Tags and PrepTests

4) Incorrect when last taken (PrepTests)

5) Incorrect when last taken (Autobuilder)

Which option should I select? I usually do option one, but I feel like its practice sections always consist mainly of 3-4 question types. For example, I will generate a practice section with made up of mostly Flaw, Parallel, and Method of Reasoning, while no Sufficient Assumption, RRE, MSS, etc., appear at all. Is this what LR sections are like on actual LSATs?

Specific reference questions ("the author mentions X primarily in order to..." and so forth) are the only RC question type I really have not mastered at all and they come up in almost every PT. If anyone has any resources that would be great.

I took the April test and scored 164, but was PT-ing in the high 160s. My goal is to score in the 168-174 range, but rushed to take the June test under unideal circumstances (I'm studying abroad and was not in an ideal testing environment) because the logic games is my best section. I scored 162 which I'm not happy with, and plan to retake in the fall -- any opinions on whether it would look worse to keep this lower score or cancel it? If I keep it, is it worth writing an addendum at all?

Hey guys! 166 June, wanted 170+. It's nice to say "okay, I'm going to law school," but MAN--I wanted a higher score! I was scoring 170s on PTs, so I'm shook. What can I do to study for August? I've already put 200 hours into this test.

I recently did AP3 RRE1 Exc1 PF1 and didn't get question 10 correct. I chose A because it mentioned synthetic products ... which does not mean that they are natural. However, this choice was incorrect. Can anyone explain how they got the right answer?

Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

UPDATE: False alarm - I was in too deep. AC E is a fine conditional statement alone, but it does not fit into the premise chain. Obviously, you can't say exceed budget this year --> renovate next year - we have no way of knowing this is true. This is why the answer choice must be D.

I'm having a hard time with a fundamental principle exposed in PT94 S4 Q13.

premise chain: renovate this year --> renovate next year --> exceed budget next year

conclusion: exceed budget this year --> exceed budget next year

Gap: where does exceed budget this year fit into the premise chain?

AC D (correct): renovate this year --> exceed budget this year

AC E (incorrect): renovate this year --> exceed budget this year

I understand why D is correct. It would create the following chain: exceed budget this year --> renovate this year --> renovate next year --> exceed budget next year. This would allow the conclusion: exceed budget this year --> exceed budget next year to be properly drawn.

I do not understand why E is incorrect primarily because I do not understand why we couldn't formulate a correct premise chain like this: renovate this year --> exceed budget this year --> renovate next year --> exceed budget next year

This still gets me to the correct conclusion. I guess I just don't understand why renovate this year must be necessary to exceed budget this year and cannot be sufficient.

Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."