In the new version of the core curriculum, the way JY teaches Argument Part questions, he tells us to beware of answer choices that use language like "assumption" or "implies" etc. because if the question states an idea explicitly mentioned in the stimulus, it by definition cannot be an assumption or implicit. This made a lot of sense to me and still does! However, PT39, S2, Q16 makes me struggle a bit. As the right answer calls the explicitly referenced idea "an assumption."

Attractive Wrong Answer: C - "It is offered as evidence for the contention that human beings must be descended from either lungfish or coelacanths."

Correct Answer: D - "It is an assumption that both parties to the dispute use as a starting point for their arguments about human evolution."

The question says "which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the dispute above by the proposition that frogs are definitely related to the species of fish from which human beings evolved"

The stimulus says "Since biologists agree that frogs are definitely related to the species of fish from which human beings evolved..."

How could that idea possibly play an "assumption" role in the argument if it is explicitly stated?

I know the LSAT makes it pretty hard to hold any absolute truths about the test, but I really thought it would be hard to ever have a correct Argument Part answer choice reference an assumption. Am I totally off-base here? Thanks!

Hi, I have finished all the general and specific theory relating to LR. I know the next step to complete is guided application, but I am kind of at a stand-still on the most efficient way to practice. I know that drills can help, but I wasn't sure if I should just start practice using these and possibly end up wasting them, or not using them as efficiently as they're meant to be. Does anyone have any tips or next steps on how to get the ball rolling again? Thanks!

I am having trouble understanding how to approach MSS question types. Any tips on how to approach them?

Could anyone provide an example of a stimulus or anything that fits into the answer C? It doesn't actually have to be matching the content in C, just the form of "confusing x with y".

Thank you very much.

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

I was a little confused on why C is the right answer.

The stimulus says:

If an external force intervenes to give members of a community political self-determination, then that political community will almost surely fail to be truly free, since it is during the people's struggle to become free by their own efforts that the political virtues necessary for maintaining freedom have the best chance of arising.

The correct AC for PSAr is:

A community cannot remain free without first having developed certain political virtues.

But doesn't this just restate the premise? The premise already says "the political virtues necessary for maintaining freedom", and the AC is free -> political virtues. So I was wondering how this principle helped.

Thanks.

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

I understand that A is right because it counters a possible objection that Han purple and white glass were produced independently of each other, in different places.

But I thought that C also nullified a possible objection, so I'm having trouble understanding why it's ultimately wrong. I chose C because I thought it countered the reverse explanation: that white glass was the accidental effect of Han purple production. If only very few people knew how to make Han purple and then created white glass later (by accident or not), then how would white glass have become so common, like the stimulus says? I don't think it's a huge jump to say that if very few people knew a technique for making Han purple/white glass, then both were probably not very common. So this shows that an alternative explanation would not be consistent with the fact that white glass was common. Doesn't C, like A, also counter an alternative explanation?

Is it different from A because when we negate it, and say that a lot of people knew how to make Han purple, that negation doesn't clearly weaken the argument?

Any further clarification on why C isn't really doing the same thing as A (weakening an alternative explanation) would be very helpful!

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

After revisiting this question, I got the answer right but really struggled with it. Does anyone have any tips on how to quickly assess this question.

Most vulnerable to criticism

Q-In a certain nation, stringent regulations prevent private landowners from building on their land if any endangered species is present on it. These regulations make the presence of endangered species a severe financial liability for many landowners and thereby discourage the landowners from protecting the endangered species on their land. Therefore, endangered species would very likely not be harmed by removal of the regulations on land development.

Correct Answer- (C) It unjustifiably overlooks the possibility that even if certain factors tend to produce a given effect, they may be likely to produce stronger countervailing effects as well

I picked A, but how can something "produce stronger countervailing effects" if countervailing literally means "offsetting an effect by countering it with something of equal force"? How can something produce a stronger equal effect?

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

I don't understand the difference between answer choices D and E, they both seem to be saying the same thing.

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

What do we do when there are two conditional indicators? For example:

No student is chosen for Gryffindor unless they exhibit bravery. Therefore, if a student exhibits bravery, they will be sorted to Gryffindor. Lawgic:

A → B

B → A

The argument is invalid.

How come it is not /chosen->/exhibit bravery? indicator “no” and indicator “unless” make negate sufficient condition and negate necessary condition. If we create the contrapositive it makes brave-> chosen which matches the second sentence.

I've read if you want to master logic games, best practice is to model your logical process after JY's by watching the videos to build the same mental processes he employs.

So normally when I get stumped on a game I head to the video explanation. But on a particular game (PT33, game 3) I was able to do it without video, but it took me 30+ minutes. Is there value in struggling through a game like that? Or is it better to cut right to the video? I'm to the point where I rarely have to rely on the videos, so I was feeling stubborn and knew I could do it. Wdyt?

Edited to add, I got them all correct! Just took awhile.

Often, when doing RC passages, I doubt myself. The answers I select feel like they're half guessing, but I am usually correct. Anybody have any advice on how I can go about having more confidence in my answers?

I heard somewhere that RC drills are based on older PTs to keep the newer ones fresh

I heard somewhere else that older RCs are easier

Are the drills easier than the actual PT?

Is Josh's coming back to teach LG? He was extremely helpful with my understanding as I am prepping for the upcoming test.

Could someone explain to me the difference between how to identify a valid versus a invalid forum. When I physically write out the concepts I do not understand how to identity (when written out or in my head) if it is valid of invalid. For example:

Most runners buy running shoes. R-->S

Most people who buy running shoes don't like to run. S --> /L

Some runners dont like to run.

This is my drawing

S

S (maybe its here too /L)

S/L

S/L

SR (maybe its here too /L)

SR

SR

R

R

My question is how to identity the scope. You can obviously say that there is a chance that there is no runners who do not like to run but there is also a chance that they do. How do I identity when it is in or out of the scope. I would really appreciate and explanation with examples .

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/invalid-argument-form-6-of-7/?ss_completed_lesson=1151

Most of the questions I get wrong on RC are the Inference - Author's Perspective question type. Are there any tips/suggestions on how to approach these questions or things to pay extra attention to when reading through the passage or the ACs? Any insight would be greatly appreciated!

How do you guys do reading comprehension? I can't seem to get any strategies when tackling reading comprehension. I don't know how to get better and if it is even worth practicing since every passage is different? Any advice would be really helpful.

I am currently still so frustrated to deal with NA questions,

and i think i still haven't figured out how to practice negate strategy in POE.

Does anyone know the most helpful videos or any sources to parse it out or just help me make them clear?

Thanks a lot!

I drill each LR question type starting from "easiest". I don't move onto the next level difficulty until I get a perfect score on the drill. Once I get perfect scores on all drills of a given question type from "easiest" to "hardest" it would be really helpful if I could go back and retake all the ones I got wrong to make sure the concepts have been correctly solidified and I've made accurate progress. Would be great to add a feature to the drill filter where you can select "taken" and "got wrong". Thanks for considering! #feedback #request

I have a hard time when it comes down to picking out which piece of the argument is the subset or superset. When I drill I sometimes confuse the necessary for sufficient and vice versa. is there any advice anyone can give me not to do this?

I've been trying to find the substitution equivalence lessons here on 7sage after hearing JY mention it in a new videos, as well as people asking for the lessons in the comments. All the links in response to those comments requesting the video lessons lead me to empty pages without any videos or written explanations. Would someone be able to help me find those lessons? Thank you!

Hey guys!

Since they are getting rid of LG come August 2024, they are completely revamping the logic reasoning questions. They will be much tougher, and some of the questions will have hints of LG in them too. I just took the February 2024 lsat, and much of the Logic reasoning games were way tougher than anything I have ever experienced, in terms of LR. January 2024, and my february 2024 test takers seem to concur with this.

All of that being said, how should we go about studying for these revamped Logic reasoning questions? Does the 7sage V2 already have us covered? Does the V2 already have study materials for this evolved version of LR??

Hey Everyone! I've only been studying for a few weeks and decided to apply what I learned from 7Sage about quantifiers to all/most/some practice problems in the LSAT Trainer. I'm stumped on one question and would very much appreciate it if someone would be able to map it out for me logically.

The passage is: "Most of the dishes at Oldie’s Diner are unhealthy, and most are offered on special during lunchtime. The dishes on special come with the customer’s choice of free fries or a free soda. All of the dishes offered on special are written up on the restaurant’s chalkboard."

The question is whether "Most of the dishes on the chalkboard are on special" can be true.

No matter how I go about the question using formal logic, I only ever arrive at some dishes written on the chalkboard are on special (Written-Chalkboard (--- s ---) On Special). Thanks in advance studious future attorneys!

I need advice. I have only been studying for 2 months now but I am already starting to get worried. I have taken 2 PT's & have not finished LR either time, scoring with -15 on both. While I am not too far into CCV2 (still in foundations), I have not been challenged by something this much before, which I guess is threatening to me. I am unsure if it is the wordiness & my want to just have my eyes glaze over while reading the stimuli or if I truly am just not getting it.

I am currently a high school science teacher & my study schedule isn't what I would want it to be due to everything I have going on. My mental stamina is also low. HELP )':

will lsat be harder after they remove logic games. if so should i do it before they change it?