I did a drill set and under the "explanation" Drop down it just said discuss. Any suggestions on how to view explanations for drill questions?

Hello,

I am having trouble wrapping my head around question 25 of LR section 2 of the November 2019 LSAT. The question states:

"The generalization expressed below most helps to justify the reasoning in which one of the following arguments:

An arrangement of objects tends to be aesthetically pleasing to the extent that it gives the impression that the person who arranged the objects succeeded at what he or she was attempting to do."

I tried to diagram this since that is how I think about questions like this, but am confused after watching the answer key video. Does anyone know if this should be, "Aesthetically pleasing -> Impression of Success" (Aesthetically pleasing requires the impression of success) or "Impression of Success -> Aesthetically Pleasing" (if there is an impression of success, then we know it is aesthetically pleasing)? I think it is AP -> IS but am not 100%.

I am finding mixed responses when trying to search this question online, if anyone can help figure this out. I also am not sure why answer choice B of this question is wrong. Answer choice B says:

"The wooden panels in the art installation probably are not arranged in the way that the artist wanted them arranged, for the installation is less aesthetically pleasing than other installations."

Does that tell is ~AP -> ~IS? (given it is not pleasing -> did not succeed?)

Any help appreciated, thanks!

Hey everyone, looking for someone to do daily study sessions of a minimum 1 hour (up to 4 hours), mostly consisting of LR. Please only message if you can commit to this/are dedicated to their studying please :) Thanks!

A is incorrect because those authors could be Black regardless of whether they're originally from the U.S. or Latin America. Jackson uses personal identification with Blackness and personal experience with Blackness for his critical judgement of African Hispanic literature. If novels Jackson presents as reflections of the Black Latin American experience were written by Black Americans living in Latin America, this wouldn't undermine his use of ethnicity at all.

B is incorrect because the fact that some African Hispanic poets happened to plagiarize their work doesn't contradict Jackson's assertion that African Hispanic literature needs to be written by Black people in order to be authentic.

C is incorrect because it doesn't undermine Jackson's use of ethnicity for evaluating African Hispanic literature. If anything, the fact that African Hispanic authors were imitating other Black authors would perfectly coincide with his use of ethnicity.

D is incorrect because this information is irrelevant. We don't even know whether these writers are Black. Even if they were, Jackson already accounted for the fact that the majority of African Hispanic writers espouse integration.

E is correct because this revelation would directly contradict Jackson's assertion that African Hispanic literature needs to be written by Black people in order to be authentic.

I got this wrong, which made me lock in to figure why E is correct while the others aren't, but I'm just a student like the rest of you, so please let me know if any of my explanations are inaccurate or inadequate. Good luck with your studies!

I get most of my LSAT LR drills correct (usually except for the hardest difficulty) and I find myself overthinking those really hard questions because I am trying to practice a methodology and skill instead of relying on my intuition, that gets the easier/medium/hard questions right. I'm just wondering what my approach should be.

I have heard people say that using the "and" and "but" strategy for weaken/strengthen questions really helps them arrive at the right answer. The strategy is basically that when you are asked to strengthen the argument, you say "and" at the beginning of each AC, and when you are asked to weaken the argument, you say "but" at the beginning of each AC. People say this has been a "life changing" strategy for them, but I'm still confused on how this helps people discern which answer is correct. If you use this strategy, could you please elaborate on how you use it (perhaps with an example)?

Is there no explanation for this vide? I'm confused why it shows discussion only... :(

Hi, I noticed in my analytics I was struggling with Math questions. It seems to be a new subject on 7Sage as I noticed the option was added in drills recently. I have tried drilling these, but I haven't noticed any similarities between the questions that could constitute this concept. I was hoping someone could give me insight on what Math questions are.

I'm signed up for August, planning to kick it to September.

Anyone know what the difference is between (1) paying to sign-up for September today, and withdrawing for August, and (2) letting the September deadline pass today, and changing my August test date before exam day? It seems like you pay the same amount regardless. I'm wondering if you get a 'Candidate Cancel/Withdrawn' on your record in one scenario vs. the other?

Here's the test change policy: https://www.lsac.org/LSATdates/what-do-if-youre-unable-take-lsat/test-date-changes

Really struggling to improve my RC section. I've been stuck at getting around 10 questions wrong each time. Any suggestions to break through this?

Can anyone help me to understand why D is not right?

I really struggled trying to make a motto prediction for this one and was between C and D.

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

to drill LR in full sections

I registered for the August LSAT. I receive a pen and paper accommodation but the deadline passed on July 23 to register. They didn't send an email until today that I need to register after the deadline has passed. Since I couldn't register the other option is to opt out of the accommodation which also passed. Does anyone know what are my other option other than wait till the October LSAT?

Hi everyone,

I'm seeking some advice on studying after the core curriculum. I recently finished the core and took two preptests so far. Both showed weaknesses in causal reasoning and flaw. This seems to suggest that I should start drilling for causal reasoning and flaw type questions, but I also didn't want to burn through a bunch of drills without gaining as much as I could from them. Would a better option be a mix of question-type focused drills + timed LR sections (with thorough BR/review for each)? I thought it might be better to hold back on preptests for now (again because I didn't want to waste them), but I would appreciate any suggestions!

Hi, I am having a lot of problem with this passage. But especially with this first question. I got it wrong during timed and BR and considering I eliminated (E) immediately upon reading, I am convinced that I did not understand this passage, more specifically the main point of it. I selected (D) (after debating for a long time between (B) and (D) because it basically said the same thing, which I realize should have been a red flag) and the reason I did was that I was unsure as to what was more important in the passage: the connection between African American art and African Artisanship or African American art and it's connection with the Western World/history of America. I assumed it was the latter because although Artisanship was primarily the focus of the first 1/2 of the passage, I felt that the second half solely focused on how Porter's work was different from Locke because it put African American art work in the context of American art. This also continued on to the last paragraph where what Porter was working on was African American art's influence on Western Art in general. Where am I going wrong I am genuinely at lost.

Hello!

As I am drilling various question types, I have noticed a pattern in how I'm getting questions wrong. My main strategy with LR is that I drill the questions I need to work on most and slowly increase the difficulty. I was drilling specific flaw/ descriptive reasoning questions and as I'm getting to the 4/5 level difficulty questions I have noticed the AC have become very abstract. Even though I'm getting the assumptions right, and understanding the stimulus and where I have to look I'm still struggling to make sense of what they mean and often times that is why I end up picking the wrong AC.

Does anyone have any ideas where I could practice this specific drill? Or any ideas of how to improve this skill?

Thank you!

I know causal, conditional, analogy, but are there more?

Really struggling with LR inference questions. Any advice?

Hey guys! This is probably a pretty obvious question, but I'm just confirming something. I took the LSAT for the first time last September and completed a writing sample for it, as it shows on my LSAC account. I am taking the test again next week, and on the LSAC website listed above my previous writing sample it says that for this upcoming LSAT, I need to complete the writing sample "as soon as possible." To my knowledge, we only need to have one writing sample on file, so I don't need to complete this one as well, right? I'm just confirming so I don't have any issues next week. Thanks! :D

Hey everyone,

The new LR tags are pretty confusing to me. The basic ones before I found were easy to understand in terms of what I needed to work on. Now it's telling me to work on what seems to be broad types of questions like Value Judgement and I just want to know the specific question types. Can I make it go back to the original analytical tags or is this permanent?

Thanks!

Arianne

Really want to start seeing improvement in my score and curriculum before my October test. Best tutors?

I’ve been studying for the LSAT exam for a little over two years and I’ve made no progress on the logical reasoning. I always get half right and half wrong, consistently, and most of the time I always get down to two answer choices and most of the time I always choose the wrong answer choice. Before anyone says that I ought to approach this with a memory based effort, my mentality is that I would rather approach it with a critical thinking based effort, because that’s what this exam is measuring. I would rather not shoot myself in the foot all because I decided to memorize each grain of sand on the beach and their names and their elements and their relatives and their language style and their blah blah blah. I just want to learn how to do this exam based on the advice I was already given by some lawyer types, who seem well established, who all said some general advice and were adamant that I should approach it with a critical thinking based effort rather than a memory based effort. So is there at all a tip or method or trick or magic whatever that allows me to look at the question, look at the passage, then look to the answer choices and then somehow go a little bit further in helping me select the correct answer choice?

Hello! If anyone could clarify where I’m misunderstanding, I would be so grateful!

So the diagram for this is: (B - banker, A - athlete, L - lawyer)

B —> A

L—> /B (the contrapositive would be B —> /L)

—

So you can conclude A (—s—) /L (some athletes are not lawyers- which I believe is the right answer.)

Taking the contrapositive of the first statement is where I have some issues:

/A —> /B

L —> /B

—

/A (—s—) L

And since some is bidirectional, it seems wrongly to read like B (some non-athletes are lawyers or some lawyers are non- athletes)?

Hi everyone. I recently got approved for accommodations on the LSAT but I'm struggling to improve even with 53 minutes. Anyone have any tips? I plan on taking the October LSAT.

Does anyone have a good way to explain flaw/descriptive weakening questions and how to approach them? I am still confused after reviewing all the lessons and doing the practice problems. I always fail to identify the flaw made in the argument and end up getting the wrong answer. It just seems like there are many ways to point out the flaw and there are diff types of flaws, so can anyone share some tips on how you identify them/what helps you to understand the flaw in the argument?? thank you!