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

Hi guys - would you recommend reading the stimulus first or the question stem (question type only) in the LR sections? Thanks for your answer.

Anyone have an idea as to why the correct answer is B or how to approach this question in general? The only reason I can think of is that it specifies "immediately" which aligns with the stimulus. However, I don't understand why D is incorrect as it also seems applicable given the stimulus.

When taking a PT, should we take the exam as 4 sections or "simulate modern" and only test ourselves using 3 sections so we can get an accurate score? I know that the actual exam will consist of 4 sections - 3 real sections and 1 experimental. What would be the best way to prepare?

What part of the passage indicates that translucent bands grown in the winter will only be half as long as the opaque bands in the summer?

Admin note: edited title for formatting

I have a hard time recognize bi condition rules... Any idea plz?

Hi, I’ve been taking practice exams for the past 2 months now once a week. At first, I was missing 7-8 on LR, but now all of a sudden I’m missing 9-13 and I’m not sure why. I’m not sure if the LR sections are progressively getting harder with each exam ( I started with prep test 70, just completed test 83) or if I’m experiencing burnout or something else. I’ve been drilling question types I struggle with and usually get some improvement but it seems to not show under testing conditions recently. I am registered for the October exam and I’m getting a little nervous that I might not be as ready as I thought. I still have 5 planned tests before the actual exam. Any advice to improve LR in the meantime?

Also, is the actual LSAT done like the program we use on 7sage when drilling/prep testing? Where we can highlight, underline, "X" out wrong answers, etc?

I'm looking for a strategy of writing/making notes because I cannot remember the whole passage on one go...

Hi guys, I'm looking for some advice, I think I'm doing quite well in general with getting the answers right but during my PTs I usually end up with 5-8 unanswered questions on the LG because I just didn't even have the time to look at them. If any of you went through the same thing and found a way to solve it please leave me your tips or strategies.

Thanks:)

Definitely my fault as I didn't realize the time difference but I missed the deadline by 40 minutes. Do you guys think they'll let me register? I sent them an email right away

Lately I have been looking ahead at the games and start by doing the ones with the most questions tied to them. Is this a decent method? Should I instead start with the ones that look easiest to me? Just not sure the best way to approach the logic games sections.

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone had any tips or extra resources for law reading comp. I am struggling a lot with Law RC, and drilling them isn't helping a ton. Any tips or info would be greatly appreciated :)

This is an inference question and I put the answer as A.

Can anyone explain to me why A is incorrect and why D is correct?

Hi! I’m looking to form a study group or find study buddies for the October LSAT. Mainly to hold each other accountable and even go on FaceTime/video call to study together. My availability varies, but I am usually deee evenings into the night as I work full-time. Let me know!

One of my main law school choices is UCLA. But the deadline to submit the application to UCLA is February 1, 2023, which is also the date which January 2023 LSAT results will be released. Is it possible to apply on exactly February 1?

Is there a way to request results on the LSAT to be released early?

Explanation (2 mins): https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-40-section-1-question-21/

Question 21 on PrepTest 40 Section 1:

Pizzerias are the only restaurants that routinely record the names, addresses, and menu selections of their customers. Simply by organizing these data, they can easily identify regular, average, and infrequent customers. Therefore, pizzerias utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively than do other restaurants.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the argument's conclusion to be properly inferred?

The answer: Answer choice E

Restaurants that routinely record names, addresses, and menu selections of their customers always utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively than do any other restaurants.

What? How are we able to conclude such a strong statement?

From my understanding, the argument structure is very simple. The second sentence in this question is complete fluff. The first sentence provides the premise and the third sentence is the conclusion.

Let's use variables to diagram the logic:

A = Restaurants that routinely record

B = Pizzerias

C = Utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively

First sentence gives: A -> B (Restaurants that record -> Pizzerias)

Answer choice E provides: A -> C (Restaurants that record -> utilize direct-mail)

Conclusion says: B -> C (Pizzerias -> utilize direct-mail)

But using the premise in the first sentence and the assumption provided by the answer, we only get B some C. We can conclude that SOME pizzerias utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively than other restaurants. The conclusion is a general blanket statement that would include all pizzerias (I think).

What am I misunderstanding here? This question has been giving me a lot of headache, thanks to those who took the time to discuss in advance!

Is there a limit to how many times you can buy score preview with the new rules? I used it for the August 2022 test, and I bought it for the October test too. I'm trying to register for November, but it's not showing up in my cart.

I have recently come across a challenging hurdle for me in setting up game boards. I have been splitting boards when i get an X/Y inference but when I watch the explanation video JY doesnt do it, but he will for other games. Is there a clear cut way to know when to split a game board? and if not is there something I can infer off the bat from the rules that would hint whether or not I needed to split it?

I find it very helpful in LR and RC to silently mouth the words while I am reading. It helps me better taken in the information, is this allowed on the test or will my mouth moving get flagged?

I noticed a few posts asking for tips on weaken questions, and was in the middle of writing a response. But I thought this would make more sense as a general post. If you're struggling with level 4 and 5 weaken questions, this might be helpful.

TL;DR = You can also weaken an argument by pointing out an inconsistency in the author's reasoning. It's not just about showing why the conclusion could be false despite the evidence being true. And it's not just about trying to directly counter the assumption.

As a preliminary matter, when weakening an argument, we're primarily trying to weaken the reasoning of the argument. That's something the curriculum emphasizes. But there are actually several ways by which one can weaken the reasoning of an argument.

One way is to directly counter the assumption. So, take this sample argument:

Penguins are chubby.

So, they're cute.

The assumption here is that if something is chubby, then it's cute. So we can weaken the argument by showing that there's at least one thing that's chubby that isn't cute.

(Now, if your instinct is to say, but that doesn't mean penguins aren't cute - they can still be cute. And chubbiness can still be one factor that contributes to their cuteness; it can still be a + on the scale of cuteness. You're right - but we've still weakened the argument by showing that their premise does not automatically prove their conclusion. The author of the argument was assuming that the chubbiness of penguins, by itself, without anything more, would guarantee their cuteness. We've shown that that assumption is wrong, which hurts the argument.)

That way of weakening an argument I think is most natural, and most susceptible to an approach that focuses on "Why could the conclusion be wrong even if the evidence is true?"

But another way to weaken reasoning is by showing that the assumption would lead to an inconsistency in the author's position. And this way of weakening is something that can escape one focused solely on pointing out a "loophole" (to borrow the parlance of the popular book). For example, let's add a bit to the stimulus:

Many animals in the world are not cute. Snakes, skunks, and rhinos, for example.

But, penguins are chubby.

So, penguins are cute.

One assumption of this argument is that if something is chubby, then it's cute. Do you see how we would weaken the argument by pointing out that rhinos are chubby? If we accept the author's assumption, then the author would compelled to think that rhinos are cute - but that contradicts something the author believes. But if we don't accept the assumption, in order to preserve the author's belief that rhinos are not cute, then the author's premise no longer leads to their conclusion about cute penguins. So we've caught the author in a contradiction - their affirmed position on rhinos conflicts with the assumption underlying their argument about penguins. Argument = weakened. Notice how if you go into the answers on this argument thinking "Why could penguins not be cute even if they're chubby?", you won't immediately notice the logic of the answer "Rhinos are chubby."

Now the example above demonstrates what one might call an "indirect" showing that the assumption is false. Rather than directly giving an example of something that's chubby but not cute, we've shown that the author's own beliefs commit them to something that contradicts that assumption - thus, the assumption is false.

Here's another version of "indirectly" showing that the assumption is false by way of inconsistency.

Devi said she'd be in Los Angeles at 9pm.

Thus, we can expect to see her in LA at that time.

We can weaken this argument by pointing out: "She said she'd be in San Francisco at 9pm." This weakens because if we accept the author's assumption that she'll be where she said she'd be, then she'd have to be in both LA and SF at 9pm. Clearly that's impossible, which means the assumption is wrong.

But this idea of inconsistency as a weakener also extends to situations in which we're not actually showing that the assumption is false.

Here's an example:

Sarah says that Paradorn, our new international student, was born in Thailand.

But his accent does not sound like that of someone born there.

Thus, Paradorn was probably born in a different part of Southeast Asia.

Now one way to think about this is to ask, "Why might he actually be from Thailand despite not having an accent that sounds like someone born there?" And if this your question, you'll be naturally disposed to answers that point out that you can be from a country without having an accent associated with speakers of that country. For example, he might have been born in Thailand but moved to a different place when he was young, which would explain his lack of an associated accent.

But what would you think about this answer: "Paradorn's accent does not sound like that of someone born in parts of Southeast Asia outside of Thailand."

This actually does weaken the argument, because the author's underlying assumption is that if one does not have an accent that sounds like that of someone born in a particular area, then that means one was probably not born in that area. By pointing out that his accent is not like that of someone born in SEA, we've caught the author in an inconsistency. According to their own assumption, we'd have to conclude that he probably wasn't born in the non-Thailand parts of SEA, either. But that goes against the author's own conclusion - so either the author's assumption is wrong, or the author's conclusion is wrong. Argument = weakened.

In my experience, this type of answer is a bit difficult to pick up on because most people would be mainly focused on showing why Paradorn actually could be from Thailand despite the lack of an accent. And it's tough to see how this answer gives us some positive reason to think he may have still been born in Thailand.

In addition, the logic of this answer seems to go against our initial instinct to question the relationship between being born in a particular place and having an accent associated with that place. Many of us would think "The lack of an accent doesn't really tell us much about where you were born." And then it would be weird to pick an answer that weakens by seeming to suggest that because he doesn't have an SEA accent, he's not from SEA. But the key is that this answer's logic isn't actually about countering the conclusion of the argument. It's about showing the author's inconsistency - if their assumption is true, then their conclusion doesn't make sense. And if their conclusion is true, then their assumption doesn't make sense. This does weaken the argument even if we have not actually shown that the author's conclusion is false or that their assumption is false. What we've shown is that at least one of them must be false.

This type of weakening logic, I think, is hard to recognize if your approach is limited only to asking "Why could the conclusion be false even if the premises are true?"

I am seeking any tips or strategies to help improve my thought process on Weakening Questions. No matter how many times I rewatch the lessons or do problem sets, I still cannot answer them correctly. I do well with Strengthening Questions, but for some reason my brain is not clicking with Weakening Questions. Help would be greatly appreciated! #help

I typically drill 35 min sections of the sections and have been doing so for late July and August before the August LSAT. I've only ever written 2 full lenght PTs the week of my LSAT. On my 2 PTs I scored a 157 and 158, but on my August LSAT got a 163. The LSAT I wrote on test day felt easier than my PTs, so should I see this a fluke? Does anyone else have any theories as to how this could have happened? Is this uncommon? Thanks

I got a 139 on my first LSAT. I payed for score preview and cancelled my score.

If I want to apply for Fall 2023 what would be the latest I can retake the test? I am thinking of signing up for January

I got my August LSAT score this morning and am very disappointed. On my last 6 PTs I scored 173, 170, 177, 175, 173, 175. I always took them under realistic testing conditions. I really expected to score in the 170s on the actual thing, but I got a 165. The only section I really found challenging was the RC, so I just don't know what happened. I have no idea what to do next, especially because I can't see what I got wrong. I feel very defeated. I signed up for October, and I'm just looking for some tips on how to go about preparing and staying optimistic. :( Has anyone else gone through this?

Just took PT82 and I've looked around on various forums regarding passage 3 'Judicial Candor' but I haven't seen much discussion on a certain issue within it. I struggled during timed and went -5 in RC which is pretty unusual for me (4 errors in that passage). I did manage to blind review all of them correctly given that I found my confusion lied in how I read Passage A. Namely, during my timed run I took passage A to be completely neutral on whether judicial candor should or should not be endorsed. During review, I basically realized that you had to read Passage A as an implicit endorsement. This then allows you to answer the questions with relative ease. I guess my biggest hang up is that this implicit reading seems to go directly against PT52 RC S4, 'Philosophical Anarchism', where I felt rewarded (and vindicated by the credited answers) precisely for not taking the author to be implicitly endorsing the position they are defending. To me it seems reasonable that an author can illustrate and analyze putative defenses of a theory or position, without necessarily committing themselves, in any normative way that is, to the actual theory or position. Does anyone share my concern with this passage here? Or, maybe someone has a reply as to why such a reading is justified here and not in 52? This ambiguity is bugging me because it seems like you're set up for failure in either 52 or in 82 if you employ a consistent approach.

Hello, everyone, I have been studying for the LSAT for about two weeks now, and I'm having a very, very hard time understanding weakening questions, and the highest score I've received on the drills is a 3/5. Does anyone have any suggestions on what I can do to get better at weakening questions? I have a very hard time picking out the wrong answer choices.