I read online that Ctrl+F was replaced by a new search feature. Is this true? If so, are there any notable limitations to its replacement, such as character count? What will the new search feature look like? Is there a way I can try it out prior to my official LSAT?

When it comes to LR, I've noticed that I tend to get the higher difficulty questions wrong. I feel as though I have a solid fundamental understanding of the concepts, question types, and methods of thinking, though I still consistently get the more difficult ones wrong. I know it may be a bit ironic since that is the point of higher difficulty questions, though I would like to be able to conquer them before my August LSAT. Any tips?

As I've been taking practice LR sections, I've noticed that my range of wrong answers varies drastically. I don't struggle with any particular question type or difficulty level, so I'm not sure how to improve my score. For example, I will get like 8 questions wrong, each in a different category, ranging from 5/5 difficulty to 2/5 difficulty. Is it just a matter of practice? Please help! :)

Hi everyone! I have completed the 7sage curriculum and have been drilling for a little over 2 weeks, but I am still averaging -9 on all my LR sections. I have been studying for the LSAT since May 1st and the only other resource I have used is The LSAT Trainer. I would like to get my hands on The Loophole by Ellen Cassidy but I cannot find it anywhere online. I plan to take my LSAT in September and my goal score is 165.

In terms of question types, I struggle with MBT, weakening, and necessary assumptions. I believe that I need to review the foundations of conditional logic but the core curriculum lessons aren't really helping. If anyone could briefly explain with an example how conditional logic works that would be greatly appreciated!

It is becoming increasingly frustrating not seeing results and I was wondering if anyone had any external resources or tips on how to finally break through in my studies. I would also appreciate any advice on how to stay focused throughout an entire test without getting sidetracked as I find myself taking substantially longer on questions near the end of a section.

I figured since there is no explanation video on this one, I'd offer my two cents. Please feel free to respond if my explanation is lacking anything or if you have a better one.

So the correct AC is B and here is why. The stimulus tells us that essentially that scientists relying on social reasons like prestige is not actually a bad thing when they are accepting arguments because social reasons are used to influence every human endeavor. The reason why this is the flaw is because it essentially relies on the fact that this justification is used so often as a valid reason to justify this claim. We know this because social reasons are stated to influence every human behavior, highlighting the frequency of use. The principle behind this argument is "if a justification is used frequently then the justification is valid. But obviously this is not true, just because a justification is used frequently it doesn't mean it is at all a valid way of supporting the argument. I mean we can even use real life examples to really highlight how wrong this claim is. Human emotions also influence every human endeavor, does that mean scientists are justified in accepting scientific arguments based on human emotions and is it right that doing so isn't detrimental? Of course not, doing so would lead to so many biases and flawed groundless conclusions.

I'll also disprove C because it seems to be a popular AC. The reason why this is not the correct AC is because it is not the flaw. This AC is saying that the argument does not consider the fact that these scientists in addition to relying on social reasons also consider relevant evidence when accepting these claims. This actually sounds like it is strengthening the argument. Now we have evidence that these scientists are not just blindly accepting arguments based on social reasons and that there is actually some actual definitive evidence behind these justifications.

This is how I explained this question to myself, I'm curious to know your thoughts.

Hello!

Could anyone explain to me why answer choice B doesn't mimic the flaw in the stimulus like answer choice C does? I watched the video and spent some time with it on my own, but I am still lost! This is the question on artificial sweetener and aspartame

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

Has anyone used the LR Loophole as a study resource in addition to 7Sage? So far I am finding it helpful but I was curious how other 7Sage users have used this in combination with 7Sage.

For example if in the stimulus the conditional statement is A->B can the right answer be /B->/A? or does it need to take the original form?

I am registered for the August LSAT and I was wondering, for those who took the June test, how people's at-home testing experience was. I personally am leaning towards taking it at the crib, but I want to hear what other people are doing.

Admin note: Edited title. Please do not post threads or comments in all caps. This is against the Forum Rules. Thanks!

What one on one tutors have people worked with and found to be effective? I feel like I have maximized everything and I just don't feel like I'm progressing. I'm nervous I won't hit 175 by August exam. Pls help.

I swear I remember learning in one of the lessons that the lawgic if A then B and C can be rewritten as if A and B then C and vise versa but I can't find that lesson anywhere and am not sure if I just made that rule up in my head. Is this lawgic logical?

Hello everyone,

For those that have had reasonably good results on their PT’s, I’d like to know how you go about annotating each question stem/prompt. No matter the stem in LR, do you always identify the premises, minor-conclusions and major conclusions with its supporting evidence?

I have problems identifying if some prompts contain only premises or context sentences, like type-2 MC question stems.

Maybe I don’t have the muscle memory to quickly figure out if something from 4 sentences ago supports a sentence I am currently reading. Any insight into this topic will definitely help me!

Hello! Wondering if anyone can offer some insight on where the textual basis is for the correct answer "B." I selected "C" as the answer with the assumption that comments about racism by a Communist Party Organizer would implicitly attack white chauvinism and also denote some sort of involvement in African American issue politics. I was not convinced that this was direct enough evidence, so am open to answer B but am curious where the direct support lies. Is the support the "cautiousness" and desire to appeal to moderates referred to by the author? Thank you for the help!

Does anyone have any tips or pointers that they have found useful for Law passages in RC? I find that when I read slow enough I can get all questions correct, it is when I start increasing speed I am misunderstanding. I know I can't be the only one with this issue LOL so any advice would be super helpful!!

Let me preface this by saying I know I should be using official questions, but I bought this book in a rush for a trip where I wouldn't have great internet (powerscore books haven't arrived yet). My thoughts on the question at the bottom so as to not influence anyone before reading.

Despite five consecutive years in which global consumption of grain has been greater than global production, it is unlikely that the world is facing a near-term crisis in the food supply. The average shortfalls have been mainly due to reduced output from farms in China, which is moving from a policy of central control over agricultural production to a more market-driven model. Therefore, if demand for grain continues to fall short of supply, Chinese production of grain should increase dramatically. Which one of the following principles most helps to justify this reasoning?

A. Global markets respond more slowly than regional markets, so local rates of production usually change more rapidly than the global average.

B. When agricultural production is centrally controlled, it is unable to respond to changing demand by adjusting rates of supply.

C. Average shortfalls are most readily remedied by local increases in production.

D. When agricultural production is market-driven, it is likely to respond to rising demand by increasing production.

E. Centrally controlled agricultural production has been shown to be more inefficient than market-driven models.

.

Answer/Explanation below.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Explanation:

Correct Answer: D

When agricultural production is market-driven, it is likely to respond to rising demand by increasing production.

The speaker concludes that Chinese production will rise if demand requires it based on the premise that Chinese production is now market-driven. Clearly the author connects market-driven methods with matching supply and demand. Choice A isn't right because it isn't actually about the difference between global and regional markets but about China's transformation to a market economy. Choice B doesn't justify the conclusion but explains how things worked under China's older system. Choice C is wrong because the speaker isn't talking about local production. Choice D looks like the right answer. The speaker bases his conclusion on the principle that a market economy will respond to increased demand with increased production. Choice E isn't right. The speaker doesn't mention inefficiency or even compare a market-driven system to a centrally regulated one; he's only interested in the effects of China's transition between the two. Choice D is the best answer.

I think they swapped the words supply and demand in the conclusion and that it should read "Therefore, if supply for grain continues to fall short of demand, Chinese production of grain should increase dramatically." I know questions don't have to reflect reality, but this isn't even internally consistent. Continues should refer to the situation presented in the first sentence, but the first sentence clearly says that consumption (demand) is greater than production (supply). And the first line of the explanation also clearly says "The speaker concludes that Chinese production will rise if demand requires it", and demand would only require it if demand were greater than supply.

Thoughts?

Hello everyone.

Can someone explain to me why the answer that is most strongly supported is E?

I even watched the video and it totally seems like an assumption. In no way does the prompt lead one to believe that artificial fibers are straight in their original state, even if shirts made with artificial fibers do not shrink under hot water.

So I do not see how one could infer that since the process of straightening or shrinking does not happen to polyester, that it was naturally straight. It could be the case that Polyester isn't naturally straight, but that it also does not shrink under hot water.

Any help would be greatly appreciated

Can someone explain why A is correct? Paragraph 2 of the passage seems to indicate that there physicists can distinguish between the emission of thermal radiation and reflection, which is why A is confusing because it says it's hard to distinguish between the two.

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."

Hi all,

i took the June 2024 LSAT and got the EXACT SAME score as my previous January one, a 157. I was REALLY hoping for a 165+ and feel so discouraged and upset. My UGPA was only a 3.81 so it's also not optimal. I'm now debating a third and final test, but I don't know how that will look on applications. I don't have fellowships or anything, but I do have a gap year full of amazing experiences. I think some law schools only take the highest score, some average, but do they see how many times I had to take it? I don't want to hurt my chances any more than I already have. any advice is strongly appreciated. I'm truly so lost and upset I can't stop crying.

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."

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 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?

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.

Can someone explain why D is the correct answer and not A? I feel like the passage suggests that kinglets do not participate in nocturnal behavior to find food.

Can someone explain this? It says "most anthropologists" agreed with Darwin. I may just be blind but I can't seem to find where it says or even suggests that "most" anthropologists. It does suggest that Darwin's theory was the preexisting accepted theory but that doesn't necessarily mean the "most"