For this question I picked A, and then B for final. I now know that A is the right answer, but I want to be sure that I understand why I had gotten this wrong.

For a short recap, Oscar's conclusion is "Thus a country's economic well-being will not be a function of its geographical position but just a matter of its relative success in incorporating those new technologies". Here I am thinking okay cool well-being is determined:

Geographical Position --> Incorporating those new technologies

Now for Sylvia, they counter this because they say that it is due to the poor country (the south as mentioned by Oscar), is not able to acquire the $$$ to incorporate the tech. They conclude by saying that it will only "widen the existing economic gap between north (rich) and south (poor)".

So going into the questions, I chose B because I thought that since the poor countries didn't have $$$ for implementation that it would cause the gap. However, I see that A was right because widening the gap meant that the rich prolly wouldn't know how rich they were unless the poor were some amount of poor? However, what does "natural resources" in A mean? Could it mean economic? Oil? I believe that was a part of what tripped me up, but I believe another was the assumption that I made which didn't allow for me to truly grasp Sylvia's conclusion.

Anyone have any suggestions when going into these questions? Or ways that I can improve in NA?

Hey! I am taking the January LSAT and I have been struggling with RC. When I do untimed passages, regardless of difficulty (whether its 1 or 5) I will usually miss like 2-3 questions on like 6 or 7 passages, but when I do a timed section ill miss anywhere from 6 to 9. If anyone is willing to share any tips or tricks they use for RC I would truly appreciate it. I am trying to bring down my RC to around a -4. If you're struggling with LG, I have gotten that down to a consistent -0 and I'll be able to share some tips as well. Please let me know, thank you!

Hey everyone,

I am planning on taking the January 2024 LSAT. I have been studying for quite a while now, and am scoring in the range of 152-155. I recently just decided to purchase 7sage due to the overall positive results it has produced for students. I have been PT'ing using 7sage as well scoring within that range, however, I have been scoring between 166-168 on my blind reviews. Here are my averages for each section:

LG: -6/-7 (-1/0 BR)

LR: -9 (-5/-6 BR)

RC: -10 (-5/-6 BR)

One of my overarching issues is pacing. I can't seem to quite get to where I want to be given the time constraint. This usually forces me to skip a LG section, and forces me to miss a fair amount of questions on both RC and LR. Sometimes, depending of difficulty, I may skip a LG section while being about 50% on each answer for another.

From all of this, I would just like to know what I should do going forward with studying. Should I go through 7sage's modules and work each section out? I work about 30 hours per week, and since my graduate classes are completed for the semester, that is really my only obligation as of now. My goal score is to get around a 160. Thank you so much!

Working a LG in the LSAT trainer (p.210), and I need further explanation on why this is the correct answer choice. Specifically Q2. I am including Q1 for context.

Seven coffees - F, G, and H from Brazil, and L, M, N, and O from Colombia - will be showcased on three different displays. One coffee will be displayed by itself on stand 1, and the other six coffees will be evenly split between stands 2 and 3. The following conditions apply:

F is displayed on stand 2

One of the displays will have exactly two Brazilian coffees

L and M must be displayed together

F and H cannot be displayed together

Q1) If O is displayed on stand 2, which of the following must be true?

(A) H goes on stand 1

(B) H goes on stand 3

(C) G goes on stand 2

(D) N goes on stand 1

(E) N goes on stand 2

ANSWER: (C) G goes on stand 2

If Oc is on stand 2, the only place Lc/Mc can go is stand 3. This forces Gb on stand 2, since there needs to be a bb combo, and Hb can't go with Fb.

1: Hb or Nc

2: Fb, Oc, Gb

3: Lc, Mc, Hb or Nc

Q2) Which of the following must be false?

(A) A Brazilian coffee is displayed by itself

(B) A Colombian coffee is displayed by itself

(C) One stand displays only Colombian coffees

(D) Two stands each display both Brazilian and Colombian coffees

(E) No stands displays only Colombian coffees

ANSWER: (E) No stands displays only Colombian coffees

For (E) to be true, each stand must have at least one Brazilian coffee. However, this cannot be true. Therefore, (E) must be false.

My thinking... If I take the diagram I used to answer Q1, which is

1: Hb or Nc

2: Fb, Oc, Gb

3: Lc, Mc, Hb or Nc

and I assume Hb is on stand 1 and Nc is on stand 3, I get

1: Hb

2: Fb, Oc, Gb

3: Lc, Mc, Nc

which follows all the rules, and has a stand that displays only Colombian coffees. So how is the answer choice, "No stands displays only Colombian coffees" - MUST BE FALSE?

I appreciate the help. I promise I am joining 7Sage after I finish the LSAT trainer. Thank you!!

[I am posting on behalf of a 7Sage user. Please feel free to leave your comments below. Thank you for your help!]

Hi, could someone please explain this question to me? I didn't understand the video.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-32-section-1-question-16/

I know there’s a lot of similar posts on here, but I was able to increase my score from a 155 on my initial diagnostic to a 171 on my first LSAT with 2.5 months of 7sage, so I thought I’d share which strategies helped me the most. Figure this will be most useful for anyone else out there who speeds through tests and reading, as that was my biggest Achilles heel.

History – I decided to apply to law school over the summer, in early July, so I was already very under the gun in terms of timing. I mapped out the studying and application process and decided that I would need to take the October and November tests, and could maybe take the January test to help get off a waitlist. That left me exactly 3 months until the October test. The first thing I did was order the Kaplan LSAR Prep book and then take a diagnostic test – which was a 155. Like many people, Logic Games was my kryptonite – I think I truly finished the first 9 questions before time ran out and guessed on the rest. I started studying via Kaplan, and started to pick up on the games a bit, it sort of helped, but not enough. I took a second PT via lawhub and got another 155, and was not feeling great about the progress so far. Then I spoke to someone who recommended 7Sage. I’d already been thinking something interactive and digital would be more helpful, specifically for explanation videos and being able to pay attention to what I did wrong, and so the timing lined up perfectly. With 2.5 months to go, I started on the 7sage learning paths and started triaging what of the syllabus I would be able to cover in that time frame. I was studying about 20-30 hours per week, and so I figured I could do most of LG (since that was my weak point), pick and choose my way through LR, and do the RC one if necessary (ended up being very necessary, which I’ll get to later).

I started with, and probably spent the most time on, LG. I think with LG, it really just comes down to reps. You can’t shortcut that. The more games you do, the more you start to memorize the inferences you have to make, and I could literally catch myself remembering an inference from a similar type of game mid-section. However, I definitely have a bias for speeding through things – a theme throughout my LSAT studying. I had to learn to slow down – practice doesn’t make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect. For me, that meant that I needed to stop and review each game (seems obvious but like I said I speed through things) and TRULY understand each inference, and make sure I understood each question (why the correct answer was right, and why the wrong answers were wrong). One thing I started doing towards the end was printing out 5 copies of each game I got a wrong answer on, and then completing them and reviewing each one in depth afterwards. This really helped, and if I could go back and do it again I would absolutely have done this from the beginning. I’d probably just start out printing out 1 star games early, move to 2 star games, 3 star, etc – and use this to supplement the syllabus work. This process allowed me to get to the point where I was consistently around -0, -1, 2. I truly learned to enjoy the LG section, and as weird as it sounds I think I’ll miss not doing those games every day. Sort of sad to see them go too.

Initially, I felt very solid around RC. It’s just reading right? But, like I said I have a tendency to speed through things. I eventually realized my scores were not improving, and I was anywhere from -6 to -9 on most PTs. That was when I dove into the RC syllabus, which absolutely helped change the way I looked at RC. But the biggest mindset shift for me was just slowing the hell down while I was reading. Shifting from finishing the passages in 1:30 to finishing in 3:30-5 minutes is what really helped. It felt like I was wasting valuable time that I could be spending returning to the passages to hunt for details and to rule out incorrect answers, but the scores just spoke for themselves. This way I was consistently able to get around -3, and there was just no arguing with results. I was better able to remember those details and where they could be found, and understand different perspectives and tones throughout. JY’s syllabus material about the low-res summaries helped a lot too – for me, when I first heard this, I started focusing too much on the detail of the passage in the low-res summaries, before shifting to focus on the argument format. Focusing on how the argument was structured helped me answer the questions around the main point and structure of the argument, and slowing down already helped a ton with finding the specific details. I also limited how much highlighting/underlining I was doing – I read somewhere online that sometimes we use marking up passages as a method of saying “I”ll come back to this later,” but when you’re reading a timed passage like this, you don’t have the time to do this. So I tried to focus on just reading, the only other thing I let myself do was write down the 1-2 word low-res summary. Also, RC is another area where reps matter a ton. I absolutely hated doing them everyday, but doing a few passages a day paid off. Doing entire sections at a time was too stressful to do daily for me, so I started doing one passage at a time (timed), and then 2 at a time, then 3 at a time. This got me much more comfortable with the timing (I would also time how long I spent on each passage just reading), and the volume helped me start to pick up on trends across passages. By the end, I was much more naturally acknowledging, as I read, changes in tone or who’s argument this paragraph’s is. I also think re-doing passages from PTs was a worthwhile exercise. I don’t think you can truly understand where you went wrong on an individual question unless you re-do the whole passage. Time consuming, but worth it.

LR was probably the section I spent the least amount of time on, to be frank. I used the syllabus to cover most of the question types (but didn’t really finish any of them after the first few). The biggest bump on LR for me came as a result of the changes I made in RC. Slowing down, and really engaging with each sentence of a passage made a world of a difference. Your work on RC and LR really aid with the other, so I guess the new LG-less LSAT will be at least a more focused study. I never struggled with time on LR like I did with RC and LG, and I found myself consciously forcing myself to slow down. When I realized how slow I could go, I started picking up on things I wouldn’t have otherwise picked up on, eliminating all 4 wrong answers (previously I’d speed through and eliminate 2-3 wrong answers and rush through, ending up with time remaining at the end). Reps were huge in LR for me too, just re-doing all of the PTs I did made a big difference. Like the rest of the test, there are trends in right answers and wrong answers they like to throw out. You really can’t beat just doing and re-doing hundreds and hundreds of questions.

As far as my testing methodology, I was extremely impatient and struggled with the blind review because I wanted to know my score so badly. Eventually I realized if I just looked at the score to satisfy that urge, I could then go set up each section as a drill and re-do it, and that was totally worth it. So, long way of saying blind review is great and totally works, I just needed to see the number, so I found a work around.

All in all, this is just what worked for me, I realize some of this may not provide much help to others. I think if you’re someone who naturally moves quickly through tests and has a tendency to skim while reading, this is probably more relevant to you than to anyone else. That’s the biggest moral of the story for me, forcing myself to slow down made a crazy big difference. Even if you don’t move too quick, the repetitions of the same games in LG will be helpful, that helped me speed up on some of the tougher games. So anyways, go slow, do a ton of reps, and review each wrong answer very carefully. And 7Sage is awesome. Hope that helps!

One last thing – don’t ignore the mental hurdles you go through. I bombed a PT 9 days before the October test and freaked out, felt like I was having a full blown panic attack. I realized I was studying way too much, specifically timed sections, and was just constantly stressed out. I took the next few days off, and didn’t do any more timed work before the test, and it turned out pretty well. So as much as you absolutely need to work hard and push yourself, when stress is really creeping in, take the time off. Do something fun and de-stress. I pushed myself HARD in those 2.5 months, and wouldn’t necessarily recommend it. My strategies were solid, but they would have been way better over 3-4 months instead.

Could someone please explain this to me more. Thanks!

The only reason why I didn't choose D is because I thought M won't consider the renaissance era disruptive...please #help

I'm having a lot of trouble understanding the stimulus's support for [A] being the correct weaken answer.

I eliminated it because the skeptics never said that it was just the bottom layer that was contaminated; they just say "the samples were contaminated" so I thought that they were referring to the entire collection, which would include the upper layer. The skeptics never differentiated between the uppermost and lower samples for their hypothesis, so AC [A] doesn't seem to weaken their hypothesis at all.

How can I infer that they're excluding the uppermost samples in their hypothesis? Is it because the stimulus says that the uppermost samples are dated to the present and therefore couldn't have been contaminated by the old carbon?

Hi, I've been studying for the LSAT since 5 months and I've recently broken into 150s. I always miss a game in LG, almost a whole passage in RC and 2-3 questions in LR, which is why I score much higher in my BR. I want to work on my timing and break into 160s by the Jan exam. Any advice/tips? #help!!

Good Afternoon everyone!

I have my LR down to -4 on average but am not confident in SA and NA questions no matter how much I practice. Any tips on how to do them without diagramming? I get more confused when I diagram and do not find it helpful in the least.

Thanks!

Hello 7Sagers!

I'm looking for some tips to help improve my reading comprehension score. I am currently scoring around -12 which is of huge concern given I take my second LSAT in January. While practice is, of course, key to improving my RC score, I need to see lots of improvement in a relatively short amount of time. At present, I seem to be struggling the most with my speed. I take too long answering the questions, which indicates to me that I need to spend more time analyzing the passage. Perhaps some tips on low resolution summaries might help? Any insights would be greatly appreciated!

Can someone explain PT13 S2 Q18 to me

Admin note: edited title

I couldn't find a good explanation for this question.

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

God has really blessed me! I took the lsat 5 times and finally got a 150! I know its not much but im so happy! I want to thank 7sage for all their support!!

Based on an examination of three types of rates (small, average size, and large), a recent study found that in rats, SIZE↑ correlates with HEART PROBLEMS↓. In other words, the study found that the greater a rat is, the less likely it is to have heart problems.

RRE EXCEPT. Four of the answer choices must be able to CONTRIBUTE to an explanation of this correlation; one does not. I did not do a pre-phrase here and went straight to the answers.

(A) Compared to large rats, smaller rats are more likely to have fatal diseases that strike earlier than heart problems. Under timed conditions, I took this to suggest: Small rats generally are more likely to die before heart disease strikes, so that heart disease will be overrepresented among the surviving small rats. However, this inference does not follow. If small rats tend to die young, the total NUMBER of surviving small rats that gets heart disease might be smaller, but there is no indication that there would be a corresponding increase in the PROPORTION of small rats that gets heart disease. This answer choice thus does not contribute to an explanation the observed correlation and thus must be right.

(B) Small rats are more likely to have blood vessel issues that causally contribute to heart disease. This helps to explain the correlation.

(C) Larger rats have less stress than smaller ones. If you assume that stress is causally related to heart disease, this contributes to an explanation. Under timed conditions, I thought that this assumption was too big of a jump, but compared to (A) this answer choice still is better. (A) does not contribute to an explanation at all, (C) does so if we make an additional assumption that seems fairly plausible from a common-sense perspective.

(D) The most common cause of heart disease in rats also causes them to be small. This explains the observed correlation by identifying a joint cause of small size and heart disease among rats.

(E) Larger rats do more exercises than smaller rats that causally contribute to heart health. This contributes to an explanation.

(C) is right, (A) is wrong. Under timed conditions, I had taken (A) to lead to a sampling bias making smaller rats not afflicted by heart disease less likely to survive such that heart disease becomes overrepresented among the surviving small rats. However, this inference is false. Just because small rats might be more likely to die for reasons other than heart disease, heart disease does not have to afflict a greater proportion of the surviving rats. I made a mistake here in assessing the implications of this answer choice and then switched to (C) because (C) requires an additional assumption to be explanatory ('Stress causes heart disease').

Takeaways: I originally had chosen the right answer (A) but then switched to (C) after mistakenly making the above-described inference. I likely was overthinking (A). I need to keep an open eye for the distinction between NUMBERS and PROPORTIONs. If unsure, close my eyes for a couple of seconds, do some deep breaths, calm down and reflect. I definitely felt uncomfortable in selecting my answer but could not quite identify what went wrong. NUMBERS vs. PROPORTIONs is a crucial distinction here, similar to e.g. POSSIBILITY vs. ACTUALITY, INATE vs. ACQUIRED, or MENTAL STATE vs. REALITY. Be vigilant, stay alert to these commonly used distinctions.

(P1) According to dinosaur fossils, dinosaurs had an oxygen isotope ratio in their bones that suggests that their CORES had roughly the same temperature as their LIMBS.

(P2) Today, cold-blooded animals have much warmer CORES than LIMBS.

(MC) Therefore, dinosaurs were probably warm-blooded.

Weaken

This argument assumes, among other things, that warm-blooded animals, unlike cold-blooded animals, do NOT have much warmer CORES than LIMBS, or some other temperature distribution that deviates even more from the dinosaurs'. To anticipate the right answer, I thus was expecting a weaking option targeting this assumption.

(A) Unlike cold-blooded animals, warm-blooded animals only have SLIGHTLY warmer CORES than LIMBS. This goes in the direction of my pre-phrase but is not very strong. Crucially, it remains more likely that dinosaurs were warm-blooded than that they were cold-blooded, just as the author claims. So this answer choice does not seem to actually weaken, even though it gets at the assumption that the author makes, and that I had identified as the weak point of their argument.

(B) Dinosaur fossils don't actually allow you to do the temperature inference described in (P1). This answer is very unusual in that it attacks a premise rather than the reasoning in the argument. Nevertheless, this answer choice definitely weakens, since it takes away the data about dinosaurs that the author presupposes. Keep this answer choice around but be vigilant; see if a less premise-focused answer choice is available.

(C) About oxygen generally. Does not seem to pertain to the argument.

(D) Body temperatures in small and large animals other than dinosaurs. Does not seem to connect directly to the argument; especially since the stimulus does not identify dinosaurs as either small or large.

(E) Warm-blooded animals are more active and use more oxygen than cold-blooded animals. This again does not seem to relate directly to the argument under consideration.

(C), (D), and (E) turn out to be largely unrelated to the argument in the stimulus, and (A) does not seem to weaken the inference made by the author. This leaves (B) as the only remaining answer choice, and thus (B) must be right.

Nevertheless, (B) feels very much uncomfortable and is unusual. (B) just straight up contradicts information that we get in the stimulus, rather than attacking the author's reasoning. It also seems unusual to have this sort of unexpected answer choice so early in the section; just expecting straightforward questions in (Q1)-(Q10) is too naive.

I originally chose (A) because I got too focused on my anticipation of how the right answer could look like, and thus I neglected (B). Nevertheless, a more careful examination of what (A) and (B) are actually saying would have allowed me to get this question right. I need to stay alert to the details of individual answers and compare them against each other; a more thorough examination between (A) and (B) would have allowed me to see that (A) does not in fact weaken and that (B)'s unusual character does not prevent it from being the right answer here. Read answer choices carefully, compare them against each other, and choose the one that has the fewest problems.

Hi folks, wanted to get some thoughts from the 7Sage community on Miscellaneous Logic Games.

What are your thoughts/approaches to miscellaneous/non-conventional LGs? I was under the impression that the LSAC was moving away from them but was completely stumped by one on last January's LSAT and am worried we could see more in the future when I retake it.

Which Miscellaneous Logic Games are worth reviewing? Are there any that for sure won't make their way onto a future LSAT?

#help

Trying out PrepTest B - Section 1 - Question 23 (Deep tillage is even more deleterious to the world's top soil supply than previously believed...) I understand why C is the right answer but I just can't seem to explain to myself why A isn't the right answer. Thoughts?

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [first set of words]"

I started studying in September but had to pause mid-September to early November for work. I'm aiming for a 177-178, but I can only manage -1 on LG, -2 or 3 on LR, and -1 or 2 on RC and have been at that level for two weeks with no improvement. Should I just give up on January? I'd like to hear from people that have been able to get past a plateau.

stimulus :

"There can be a known known only if theres a known unknown, but there can never be an unknown unknown without a known unknown. Thus, every unknown unknown which is known is actually a known unknown which is unknown."

the conclusion above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

the content of this question is inspired by the "Rumsfeld Matrix." What would be a sufficient assumption for this question? Is this a hard question or did you find it on the easier end of SA questions?

Hey, I need some guidance.

In January I scored a 145 (self study for 6 month while working full-time) and I just scored 147 (using 7Sage studying for 5 months while working part-time). My desired school has an LSAT median score of 157 and I planed on applying before their February priority deadline. Should I take the LSAT again in January and apply past the priority deadline? In geanral any advice and suggestions is appreciated.

Hey everybody!

I've been thinking about this for a while, and I just re-watched the video on Contrapositive Mistakes, which has cemented my feelings. Do you know in Flaw questions where the answers will say something like, "Takes a necessary condition for an argument's being inadequate to be a sufficient condition for an argument's being inadequate"? Sometimes answer choices in Flaw questions really trip me up, and one thing that always confused me is: what's the difference between confusing sufficient for necessary as opposed to confusing necessary for sufficient? I read a forum on PowerScore about this that claimed that they are not the same, but to me, they are, because they are the contrapositive of each other.

Confusing Sufficient for Necessary

A---->B

A/----->/B

This is making the sufficient necessary because after you fail A you fail B, instead of the rule falling away as it's supposed to.

Confusing Necessary for Sufficient

A----->B

B------>A

Here it's taking the necessary condition and moving it to the sufficient, which is wrong.

But, isn't A/---->/B just the contrapositive of B---->A? And therefore, in Flaw questions that use this incorrect form of logical reasoning, wouldn't either answer choice (confusing necessary for sufficient OR sufficient for necessary) be correct? Has anybody else ever thought about this?

For both questions, the task is the same-look for the option will make the conclusion 100% true?

Today I received my first LSAT score and was very disappointed to learn that I only scored a 150. This is concerning given that my dream school is the University of Florida which has a median LSAT score of 169. I am taking my second LSAT in January, meaning I have 45 days until I take my next test. For the next 45 days I plan to take a practice test almost every day, so I know I will see a great improvement in my score. Given this information, should I cancel or keep my current LSAT score?