I have the June LSAT, and I took a PT two days ago and bombed the logic sections. -10 on experimental and -7 on the scored one. I aced the first games, but both times, I encountered some kind of layered sequence (grouping, twist), and I found myself running out of time and guessing.

I specifically took PT91, and the two killers were the electrician game and the crop rotation game. I've drilled since and realized I've tried to categorize first, but how the heck do you do these quickly?

My PT scores are around 166-173 and just got a 16mid score in April, aim 173+ in June. Hope to find someone to discuss PTs especially RC/LR section together, also we can oversee each other's study schedules. Please DM me or reply if interested!

Confused as to why we did not chain the second rule, O---> P/ (PT36 S4 G1). Previously in PT 33 S4 game 2 there was a similar condition and we did put it in our chain. Did anyone else notice this? I know that any condition with an "and" gives us one option with both games pieces . Any condition with an "or" will give us at least one of the two game pieces. "or" and Both can give us three different outcomes. I just don't understand what are the rules for chaining "or" and "both" conditional statements. Additionally we had PT 23 S1 G2 where we had an in/out game. One of the conditional rules here was Mh +Li--->Oh. Im assuming we could not chain this condition because it was two dimensional ???? Someone please help #help #admin

I am doing ok on the logic games for the most part, but I am really struggling with the in/out games. Is anyone down to maybe have a study session on this sometime?

I had a quick question regarding answer choice C: Most agree that introduced species can cause extinctions.

The passage says that ecologists realize that when humans introduce new species into existing ecosystems, even pristine, species-rich habitats are threatened. So I thought that because it says "ecologists think", we could say that "most ecologists agree that."

However, is the reason this is wrong because when the LSAT says "ecologists think", we don't know exactly how many ecologists that think that? E.g. it could be 2 ecologists think, but it would be not provable to say that it's "most ecologists think".

Just curious to see if this is an actually right interpretation of the difference between these concepts. Thanks.

Hello

Any suggestions? I am able to get my wanted score only in BR.

On June it will be my 4th attempt.

How do I know if I should switch from V1 to V2? More specifically, how different is V2 and how do you know if it would be a better fit for your learning style?

Thanks :)

Hi, I’m new to 7sage and was wondering if there is a PDF with the group 1-4 keywords when we start talking about logic.

General question for LR for fellow students. If you had to rank the difficulty of all the types of questions in LR, how would you rank them?

I've watched some of JY's video explanations of comparative rc passages, and in each one, he suggests reading the first passage, going through the questions and eliminating what doesn't fit, and then going to the second passage, then going back to the questions and selecting final answers. I see the intuition behind this strategy and have tried applying it, however I notice that I end up taking significantly longer on comparative passages than other reading comp passages, even when the content is more mild in terms of readability. So I was just wondering if other people find that this method doesn't work for them and whether they find more success reverting back to the traditional way of doing RC? I know everyone's different when it comes to rc, but I'm mainly wondering whether maybe this strategy is something more concrete like LR strategies, or if it truly is just preference. Thanks!

For sampling flaw type, when we say the sample is large enough, what is the amount in usual?

For instance, for 100 sample, it's enough.

What about 50? Is there a specific amount that we consider to be enough for the survey to be not biased?

Can we represent this as B->A, as in B(the one possible way) is sufficient to A? For example this would be like 'one way to score 170 on the LSAT is to study well', so [study well] becomes a sufficient condition for [scoring 170].

I kept the specific details out to not spoil anyone, but this was a question from the new drill sets on Lawhub. Someone posted a question about it on reddit but I was wondering if my guess was right.

So I am taking the LSAT in September with the new revised model, so I am skipping the LG sections and focusing hard on LR and RC. I wanted to ask what is the best routine to integrate drills into the study session.

I hear a lot of the drills come from PT, and burning though Drills means come PT time, you have essentially already seen some of the questions prior (do I have this right?).

So I wanted to ask if this is the same for post August PTs aswell, and for those taking it without LR, how are you using your PTs and Drills

Any help is valued. Thanks!

This question doesn't have an explanation, so I wanted to see if anyone could back up my reasoning.

The flaw of the question stem is that it confuses necessary conditions for sufficient ones. Correctly formatting the script as well as having it be submitted by an agent is necessary for the script to not be discarded, but it does not guarantee that it won't be. There could be another reason, such as that it arrived too late, that it would be discarded.

A is not the correct choice because it is a valid argument.

B is not correct because it's a different flaw. It takes for granted that Jon is a good cook. You can also argue that it's flawed in that the necessary condition "delicious" is subjective.

C is correct, although its a bit tricky. It confuses sufficient conditions for necessary ones. Exercising daily or quitting smoking will improve Bob's health, but he doesn't need to do either one to improve his fitness level. He could lose weight by dieting for example. I think this is what makes this question so difficult (5 circles).

D is incorrect because it's a different flaw. It confuses the sufficient conditions for one argument with another. A car not having a permit or having an expired one are sufficient conditions for police being allowed to ticket. The Police being allowed to ticket does not mean they will ticket; They could give you a warning or maybe do nothing.

E is incorrect because its a different flaw. It takes for granted that because a dog can do advanced tricks it will respond correctly to basic commands. It's possible that a dog could do a backflip but would refuse to sit.

let me know if my reasoning is accurate - thanks!

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