What is the difference in process & identification between these two question types? I feel like in parallel method you identify the flaw as a means of finding its match - so i dont really see how they are different. Can someone help me understand?

Hi, I noticed that I am unable to see the difficulty level on the logic games I had done on PT. Is there a way I can figure out the difficulty levels?

Hi all! What is your thought process/explanation as to why A is wrong?

Admin Note: Edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description of stimulus]

Hello all. This is from the trees game in prep test B. When applying the rules for embedded conditionals from the core curriculum, I come up with the following:

/Y → (L↔/O) = /Y and L ↔/O This could also be read as: /Y and O ↔/L

Contrapositive: O↔/L or Y Is this correct? It doesn't seem to make sense in the context of the game.

However, in the explanation of the game, the contrapositive is treated as a forever together biconditional

(L ↔ O) → Y or (/L↔/O) → Y

What am I missing here?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-b-section-2-game-2/

"A is good if it satisfies B." How would you guys translate this? B --> A? or A--> B?

I feel like without translating it as A-->B, it's impossible to get the right answer.

Admin note: edited title

So I have an LSAT date for June 9th. I studied for a month prior to this on my own but ofc I am not ready. I signed up for this 2 days ago and I realize how I am getting improved and I love it. Should I cancel the test and study ton and take in October? I know I am not going to be ready but I was thinking since the year cycle is ending might as well go and see what it feels like, and then I will have three more options again since the cycle reopens in July, but I know I will not be ready for it. So cancel or not? If I do it today, I will get partial refund at least.

Here was my original notes:

this argument feels wrong ... like... it tells us that land life began NOT 0.5 billion years ago but probably like 1.2 billion years ago (implying this) due to some rocks with carbon 14... and these carbon 14 CAN be made from plants taking stuff from the atmosphere blah blah, which obviously implies (plants are living things presumably on land, unless answer choices talk about some underwater plant taking atmosphere??) there was life on land 1.2 billion years ago.

Find the choice that does NOT strengthen.

(a) finding fossils that are dated more than 0.5billion years old does help the conclusion that land did somehow begin 0.5 billion years ago.

(b) has a statement about how it was extremely difficult for life to begin in olden time oceans... This seems to strengthen, because our conclusion is trying to REFUTE the fact of life beginning in the ocean. However, just because life would be difficult back in the ancient days, doesn't mean it can't/wouldn't happen?... I don't see how this would strengthen the premise which states, namely: "oh my gosh, we found these rocks with carbon 14, and we know carbon 14 can be from plants, and these plants were 1.2 billion whatever, therefore land existed during that time"

But then again, I can't ELIMINATE this answer choice YET. I will read on, and if the remaining options, suck I'll pick this.

(c) basically tells us that this rock had the possibility that 1) it had contact with water and 2) that it also had parts that did NOT have water

I initially thought this was weird. Like why would this matter? But then if you think about it... the premises never talked about the origin of the carbon 14 of rocks. We just know that its there. The carbon could have came from like fish or something in the water. The premise only talked about plants, but it doesn't eliminate the chance of other things. So this statement strengthens.

(d) the answer choice says that the carbon 14 on rocks came not from plants but from soil and stuff. This directly supports my above point.

(e) if uranium testing shows that the rocks are ACTUALLY 1.2 billion and not some ERRONEOUS number then we are good.

Upon reviewing... reading my explanation for (d) is funny because its the SHORTEST most COP-OUT explanation known in existence.

Like now, I'm re-reading, and I feel stupid . If these carbon 14 thingies didn't come from plants (a living thing) but came from soil (obviously not living)... wouldn't it weaken my argument? Because this would show that rocks with carbon didn't come from living things, but from a non-living thing.

I think what happened was I said "like my above point" (pointing at the fish and stuff), but somehow was totally engrossed in the origins of the carbon 14 as opposed to whether the "origins" had any LIFE in them.

I just bought this course today.

The question I have, therefore, is... JY tells us that we use blind review to improve and ensure you don't make the same mistakes in the future.

I'm just confused about what exactly I'm supposed to be taking away from this analysis. It feels like I just merely "misread" or "focused on the wrong detail"

These ^ feel like stuff that I can't just "take away" and apply to other problems?

I got this question correct but have no idea why C is the correct answer. Can someone explain?

Admin note: edited title

I just finished going through my main point and most strongly supported lessons, and still feel like I dont have a complete grasp on either of them, and that while I understand how to eventually get to the answer, I am not consistent with it and struggle BIG TIME with timing.

I am getting a bit discouraged as I feel it should make sense before I move on..

I was wondering if I should have it all figured out by now after completing these units and not move on until they make sense? Or if they are just a preview of information, and as I continue to progress through the lessons, they will make more sense with time?

Thank you so much for any help in advance!

Can someone please explain why C is right? What is the type of theft? #help

PT5 S1 Q09

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

I am having hell of a hard time figuring this one out; I have 3 issues here:

If the press were not profit making the only alternative is subsidy and with it outside control

1)I was thinking: NOT profit making------> Subsidy and Outside control

but then I remembered "the only" is group 1 indicator and I changed my diagram to:

Subsidy and Outside control--------> NOT profit making

and of course this does not lead to the right answer choice...

2) what's up with that AND? which one is right?

Not Profit Making--------> Subsidy & outsideControl

or

NOT profit making--------> Subsidy--------> Outside control

and then link either with Subsidy -------->NOT honest Journalism

3) Am I making this harder that what it actually is? I keep diagraming LR questions...

I am struggling to understand how this answer is supported by the stimulus. To run through my thoughts:

A: irrelevant, there is nothing about clams in the passage

B: irrelevant, we are not discussing the mussels spreading to the Mississippi or the effects on the pear industry

C: we don't have any information about removing the mussels from the areas they clog

D: This is the one I picked though I went back and forth between D and E. I picked D because it seemed to be the most related to the stimulus. The stimulus talks about how the mussels clog the intake pipes at the beginning and then transitions to talking about how bags of mussels suspended in discharge streams help clean water. I assumed without proof that the algae would just clog intake pipes as well.

E: This one seems like a logical conclusion, but I didn't think there was enough direct support in the stimulus to justify this conclusion. It seems like quite a jump to me to assume that the mussels will need to be discarded as hazardous waste.

Any advice or help on making the assumptions that need to be made in MSS problems? #help

Admin Note: Edited title. 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

For the past 10 months I've been studying part time for the LSAT. Out of all the sections, RC has consistently given me the most trouble and has been the most difficult section for me to improve on. From my diagnostic test to now, I've only been able to manage going from -15 to -10 (sometimes -8/-9 on a good day). I'm at a loss and I'm not sure what else I can do to improve. This section has been holding me back big time and is part of the reason why score fluctuates so greatly. If anyone has any tips on how I can improve, study, and review this section better, please let me know. I think my biggest issue is not having a strategy when going into RC and immediately feeling intimated/nervous about completing the section. Any advice or words of encouragement would be appreciated.

Hi Friends!

I'm wondering when I should use the lawgic notation vs when not to use it.. sometimes it's less challenging for me to rely on intuition + general understanding than to draw the relationships.. and the thing is that often times by the time I figure out that I need to use lawgic - it's already too late and I need to pass over to the next question..

any thoughts??

Thanks!!

Hey y'all

Writing in here to see if anyone has any advice for making gains on RC - Reading Comp:

I'm taking the November test as my last session before applying, and have not been able to figure out how to improve on RC. On average, I score perfect on Logic Games, and I average 1-3 wrong on LR; which are immense improvements from my original diagnostic range of -4 and -8. For RC however, my gains are not where I would like them to be. I started out in the 8-12 range (terrible I know) and have been able to trim that down to 4-7. Although I have made some solid progress, it just seems like i'm missing something on RC and this is costing me a T-14 score. For LG/LR, when I get a question wrong, it's almost always due to a mistake that I am able to recognize and internalize. I am also able to address the areas that I struggle with, and can address them accordingly. For RC, I realize that there are a couple questions on RC that will simply be too difficult for me to get right. However, my issue is that I continue to miss out on questions that are 50/50, and seem to be making a lot of the same mistakes on the same question types, even after Blind Reviewing for hours. After almost two years of practice, my time spent on passages has barely improved. I average almost 4-5 minutes on the passage, use the highlight functions to a large extent, and occasionally jot down Low-Res summaries for paragraphs.

At this point, i'm not sure if I can say that my issue is a practice thing. I just wish there was some way I could hone in on RC through some supplemental means, resources, courses, books, or exercises that could give me some tips and pointers.

If anyone has any advice that helped them improve on RC, any supplemental resources that they could recommend, or a general diagnosis for my situation, I would appreciate it tremendously.

Best of luck to all of you guys on your Law School journeys, keep grinding!

Why is the answer to this question C and not B?

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

Hey guys, I added the other LR section to my PT this week, and I came across this question. It was a complete confidence error, and I felt pretty strong about the answer I picked. In other words, I don't see how A isn't correct nor how B is correct.

Breakdown of stimulus: Since our calendar system is stupid, certain important holidays don't fall on the same day of the week each year. If the last day of the year and the extra day added at the end of the year every 4 years didn't belong to a week, some of these scheduling problems could be fixed.

What I am looking for: We need an answer choice that shows that a scheduling problem would still exist.

Answer A: What's wrong with this? If you anniversary falls on the day that doesn't have a week or on the last day of the year (12/31), doesn't that create a problem during the years with an extra day? Would the extra day be 12/32 or still considered 12/31?

Answer B: I don't see how this would be a problem. Just don't work every 7th day. How does the new schedule create a problem here?

Answer C: So what? They just have to attend a certain number of days of school.

Answer D: So what? This is completely fixed, I think since holidays will be on the same day every year.

Answer E: Why can't you plan ahead with the new schedule?

I don't get how (a) can strengthen the argument. It says "several species of shellfish and seabirds in the North Sea waters.." but how can being in the North Sea help the conclusion? Isn't it also possible that those shellfish and seabirds died because of the distemper virus, not the pollution?

Hi, so I've been having trouble building a consistent timing strategy for the RC section. Sometimes, I think I'm taking too long on certain passages but after I blind review I see that I am like 3 minutes faster than the suggested time. A lot of times I could have taken longer to have a higher accuracy rate, but I didn't, unfortunately. How do I know on which passages to slow down on? I use my intuition most of the time. I find that I'm just as accurate on blind review as on the actual drill or test practice but I want to get better and finish the section on time. I hope this makes sense. I just want to improve my accuracy rate as much as possible with a good timing strategy. I would appreciate any advice.

Can anyone explain their reasoning for PT 3 Section 4 Question 20 - will never understand it for the life of me.

Does anyone know of a good way to practice dissecting the different parts of an argument in a question stem? For example, J likes to highlight, circle, label P for premise & C for conclusion, call out context & referential phrases, key words like thus, therefore, etc. I feel like I need practice with this. Does anyone have any suggestions? Do you print out a bunch of questions and practice that by hand? Is that a helpful thing to do?

Can someone help me find the conclusion in this passage? Its prep test B section 4 question 25.

Could someone help me understand how AC E counters the city officials response?

On another note, I have a tendency to want to set off either the sufficient condition, or contrapose the necessary for 'if' statements in order to prove that they will work, but is that even required for a weaken question or is the 'if' possibility of an idea taking place enough to weaken an argument?

Thanks!

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

Why is E the better answer when compared to answer choice D? Would really appreciate someone's insight.