Hi everyone, I'm looking for a study partner that is doing well on LR (-0-2) and wants to help someone that isn't! Message me if you are interested!

How do y'all review for RC like untimed/timed sections for wrong and flagged questions?

i got this answer choice correct but im not sure why successful is negated ; i think its because initially successful is necessary and to make it sufficient yoiu have to negate; i know why prime purchasers is negated

Anybody in the Phoenix area down to form a study group?

Hey all, I'm struggling to understand why AC A in PT 119, Section 1, Question 14, is incorrect. I've reviewed the video explanation, online forums, and comments, but the best explanation I could come up with is below. Help on understanding this would be much appreciated - I've thought through this for several days but am still confused. I've never been this stumped after reviewing a wrong RC answer.

Q14: I understand why AC C is correct but am still struggling to eliminate A, especially since A seemed supported by lines 37-40 "personal and cultural screens of silence and secretiveness that have enshrouded her past". Here are a few things that I believe discredit A as a viable answer choice:

Although this might be a subtle distinction, in this context "history" means a a factual record of historical facts, where Naomi "reconciles" history - in other words uncovers or accepts difficult truths about her personal history and the historical context in which she lived.

Heritage, as JY alludes to, refers to cultural or ancestral legacy, including cultural traditions.

In this case, being discouraged from exploring heritage is not supported(?). I would still argue that if AC A references history (not heritage) it might be supported by lines 37-40. Even with the distinction between history and heritage, I'm not fully convinced that A is not supported. These in-text lines refer to cultural secretiveness. Does this mean that Naomi was discouraged from seeking her heritage? Secretiveness of the past does seem to refer to a form of discouragement.

Hi everyone,

I am having difficulties finding an approach for detail-heavy passages, i.e. that don't have much of an argument to them but instead a lot of facts and details (For example Passage #1 - Burning Forests of LSAT 38/114 Section III). Since I usually focus on finding the argument and author's tone in each passage, I often lose of a lot of time going back to the details to answer the questions for this kind of passage.

Does anyone have any tips or strategy?

Thank you!

how do you guys do MBT and MSS conditional logic questions quickly / in a timely manner? When I am doing a timed run sometimes the language of the stim feels like gibberish to me so that doesn't help because I'm re-reading it several times. Then I also feel like diagramming the whole thing takes too much time. From there I'm already tempted to skip it. However, in BR, the answer feels way more obvious once I understand the logic at play -- it just takes too long to grasp the logic at play. If anyone feels the same as me, how did you 1. read the stimulis without freaking out / decipher it without needing to read it a million times 2. do you diagram it ? or do the inferences stand out in your head quite quickly? 3. Was it a matter of just drilling these questions more and then you got the hang of it ?

Calling other non-trads. My youngest child is heading to college, and I am considering law school. I hold a BA in Human Physiology and an MBA and I am currently a COO of a tech and media co.

Let me know if you are interested in creating a non-trad study group.

Hi everyone,

I’m consistently scoring around -4 per LR section, and I’ve noticed a frustrating pattern. Two of the questions I miss are usually 4–5 star difficulty so fair enough. But the other two are often 3-star or easier, and when I review them, I immediately see the correct answer and understand exactly why it’s right. I usually just shake my head and wonder how I missed it.

Timing isn’t an issue. I’ve done a lot of timed practice, feel comfortable under time pressure, and usually have time at the end of each section to review any questions I flagged. By the time the section ends, I’m confident in almost every answer I’ve chosen, but I’m still missing these “should’ve got it” questions.

Has anyone else dealt with this? Any strategies or mental habits that helped you tighten up and eliminate these kinds of preventable mistakes?

Appreciate any advice.

Whenever I do diagram for a question, I find that I get very enveloped in it and as a result am less likely to notice the "gap" in the stimulus that needs to be connected for sufficient assumptions. Basically, I find diagramming to obscure this assumption recognition process for me. But I am not sure if this is because I am not diagramming correctly, if diagramming becomes less "involved" over time as you do more of it, or if my brain simply interprets the question better by not diagramming?

My process basically is: find assumption, then find the answer choice that connects the two "unconnected" ideas, then just confirm that the necessary and sufficient positioning isn't making some sort of flaw (e.g. mistaking necessary for sufficient or vice versa).

I'm studying for a 167+, so any advice on how to reduce my margin of error for this process would be appreciated! Last PT was a 161 (which was the official Jan LSAT).

What is the contrapositive of a biconditional like this: A (--) B and C

Would it be: /B or /C (--) /A

I chose D but the right answer was B. Looking back at it, now it makes sense.

Omg I've been wracking my brain trying to think through this question, could really use some help!!

I have trouble understanding why D is correct.

I dismissed it because D claims that the two faulty studies do not support a causal finding, when the premise is based on the two study's correlational finding. The conclusion also specifically clarifies that it only applies under the assumption that "IF night lights cause nearsightedness," so even if the studies are faulty and do not support a causal finding, it doesn't hurt a conclusion that already operates under a world where night lights do cause nearsightedness.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!!!!

Hello!

I am currently progressing through the LR section and I am finding that I am understanding each section OK but I am very confused as to how to more overall identify when I am dealing with an argument versus when I am not. The causality arguments in the WSE section are also confusing me, as JY talks about how there are different kinds of them and I am also finding it hard to differentiate between an Alternative Cause Argument and the Basic One-Off Causal Argument among others. Can someone help summarize these in a way thats easy to understand?? Thanks so much!

If there's a 5/5 difficulty question that I get correct on my first try, should I make an effort to go over and identify/rule out the trap answers? I guess in a way I must have done that in my original answering. I worry that going over them more might make me more confused when my intuition/reasoning was right the first time. Thoughts? Is it worth doing to carry over?

How can I properly drill my LR. Should I go up in difficulty as time goes on, or should I mix the difficulty up? Should I focus on one question type at a time, or should I again mix up the question types. When should I do full sections timed? For context, I have been studying for over a year now and have already taken the exam with LG games, Now trying one last time either September or October.

When we violate a principle, are we essentially negating that principle?

PRINCIPLE: If you intentionally misrepresent someone's beliefs, then you do so in the interest of another person.

VIOLATION: If you intentionally misrepresent someone's beliefs, then you DO NOT do so in the interest of another person.

I am basing my example off of LSAT PT 140 S1Q19.

I currently scoring in mid-160s, and the main issue holding me back is missing 2-3 level 1/2 questions at the beginning of the LR section. Any advice on how I can improve this? I initially thought it was due to rushing or overthinking, but I'm not completely sure at this point. Does anyone have any advice on how I can improve this?

Any tips for flaw questions? It seems as the harder I try, the worse I do for these questions. :,-(

Given that they are the most common LR type, I need big time help.

from obsolete version, PT 11 S4 Q23 answer choice C

Is this a correct example of "it makes a generalisation that is inconsistent with the evidence":

This tsunami was caused by an earthquake.

So all the tsunamis are caused by earthquakes

what is your example

I'm trying to work now to get my RC score down to the -5 range, and I'm drilling a lot on the passage types im bad at, and most of the hard or hardest passages I'll get 2 or 3 wrong, and on the easier ones, 1 or 2 maybe, if I get a good selection of passages its likely I;ll be in that -6 range. EXCEPT for spotlight passages; something about spotlight passages just doesn't click for me, there's a majority 1 star or 2 star passages where I'll get straight up 4 out of 6 or 7 ACs wrong, and I don't understand why, does anyone have any tips? I'm confident my LR will be at -4/5 for August/Sept LSAT, but if I can't get my RC out of the -7/8 zone I won't be able to get a 165

I find myself getting stuck on a lot of weaken/strengthen questions in RC because I just don't know how to approach it. In LR I always tell myself to look for assumptions and overlooked possibilities, and in general think of making the premises less supportive or stronger support for the conclusion, and also staying away from trap answers that independently attack the conclusion or deny premises. However, in RC there's not really clear premises or reasoning so I find it hard to wrap my head around how we're supposed to then strengthen or weaken an author's argument, and whether we should consider ACs that seem to independently go against their position or give an independent reason to strengthen it.

Any suggestions on how to think about these questions?

I have been doing really well on the first 60-65 questions of my practice tests, getting very few wrong, but it is in the last dozen or so questions on the final LR section of the tests where I am getting a majority of my questions wrong. I am aware that the test gradually gets harder throughout the section, but I am unsure why I am struggling so much with this part because I get most of the harder ones right when I drill. Should I be practicing harder drills? If anyone has advice on this problem, let me know.

I never took science past grade 10, and know nothing lol. Do people with 0 science knowledge have any tips on how to better understand them?

Hello! Was working on this obsolete exam RC as practice and unfortunately only got 2/6 correct. Was wondering if anyone could please explain questions 16, 17, 18, and 20. Thank you!