Read the passage TWICE. Yes, you heard that right. Read it twice, but before you say that's ridiculous there's no time for that just hear me out.

The first time you read the passage you slowdown your reading highlighting or underlining key words that are significant, especially emphasizing transition periods in the passage. After you finish the passage, immediately read the passage as second time. But, you aren't really going to "read" the passage. what you are going to do is skim through line by line in a rapid pace, skipping detailed wording and summing up in your head what is is that you are rapidly skimming down. This should take you no longer then 30 seconds. What I found by doing this is that it significantly improves my understanding on the passage structure, almost on a subconcious level. The time you "lose" by doing this second reading is gained back when answering the questions. You will find that the correct answers immediately jump out to you more often and you could be averaging 15 seconds a question.

Let me know your thoughts on this strategy. I know it might be necessarily "new," however I'm interested if anyone else does this?

UPDATE

I actually do this in the reverse now. I find that it helps me with structure. I will literally skim the entire passage for like a solid minute, then read the passage, then answer questions. The 4 minutes you use doing this helped me a lot.

Hi everyone! You all may be aware of the negation strategy for required assumption questions in logical reasoning—basically the idea that if you negate an answer choice and the negation weakens the overall argument made, then it is probably the correct answer.

The curriculum explains some specific negations, such as some/none and all/some not. But since these questions are so common and there are so many complex ways to phrase answer choices, I was wondering if anyone had any tips that they use to negate really difficult statements (ie. unless, only if, at least, etc.).

Another part that trips me up with negation is when there are two potential parts of the sentence I could negate. In these cases, which part do you focus on?

Thank you so much!

Hello! I got the answer right for this LR question, but was having a hard time unpacking the last sentence of the prompt. I know starting with "for unless" is a premise but the wording is a bit convoluted.

"Some extremists claim that all uses of language are metaphorical. But this cannot be so, for unless some uses of words are literal, there can be no nonliteral uses of any words.

Will the in-person LSAT offered beginning Aug 2023 be a pencil+paper administration? or does Prometric typically offer laptops to take the test digitally at the test center (point+click)?

Hi, while recently shifting my strategy to study the LSAT from a quantitative method to a qualitative method - by using fewer prep material to maximize the effects of the study - I was thinking that I might need to change how I study the RC section as well from previously only looking at problems that I missed and the passages that I had a struggle with to thoroughly inspecting the whole four passages in an RC section. Is this a valid approach to study the RC section? I would like any thoughts on this methodology.

when you take the lsat-flex, can you see yourself throughout the time with the camera, or are you not able to see yourself?

Hi, just got really confused on a particular LR question and hope I can get some help, thank you. The question I am talking about is the LR question from PT88, Section 4, Question 24

How is answer B correct? I still don’t see it. Because experiencing trauma is the REASON why you develop PTSD, and therefore you can still say that even though the reason you produce more cortisol is because to resist developing PTSD, it is still because that you have experienced past trauma! (works like a conditional logic chain: trauma -> PTSD -> more cortisol), so B doesn’t actually weaken the argument since it is still suggesting that trauma is the ultimate reason. That’s why I eliminated B immediately.

I am not understanding how D is the correct answer. I actually chose D before blind review, mainly as a gut instinct to look back over later. Upon blind review, I changed my answer to B.

I now understand why B is wrong, as all we know is that many municipalities will choose rent controlled ordinances for short term gain, but there is no way of knowing whether or not they will choose to repeal them when the long-term disadvantages set in.

What I don't understand is how D is not subject to the exact same flaw. I understand that we know that many municipalities will choose rent control ordinances, which in theory would eventually lead to a shortage of rental units, but how can we properly infer that each municipality in that group either does or will actually make it to the point of experiencing that long-term disadvantage? Isn't it possible that they will all repeal the ordinances before shortages become a problem?

Maybe the reasoning is because while it is possible that they repeal before the shortages arise, we should assume that, because they are entirely motivated by the short-term gains, they would not repeal the ordinances before the shortages arise?

If there is a better way of reasoning this out please let me know, thanks! I am probably overthinking this one....

I’ve been studying for the LSAT for about 7 months now. I’ve seen pretty significant improvements on LG and LR. Right now I’m usually at around -1 to -3 for LG and -5 to -7 for LR. Studying RC has been very difficult for me. I have repeatedly been getting -12 to -15 on RC sections despite putting a lot of effort into the core curriculum and drills. I know RC is one of the harder sections to improve on, but I really just want to improve so that I’m getting around -8 consistently. Does anyone have any strategies for low scorers on RC to improve by a few points? Is it worth it to try skipping the last passage all together and just focus on the first 3?

I am really struggling to improve logic games especially the logic games with a twist are extremely hard and I feel like I am never going to get this section.

So last night when I was in bed I randomly thought of a statement and tried to decipher whether or not it could be translated into logic in a traditional LR question.

The statement is: Excessive yelling and/or screeching tends to deteriorate vocal cords.

Could one translate this as (EY/ES-> DVC)?

I'm wondering if the word "tends" works as a sufficiency indicator or if it's more like a way to introduce an implied (probably flawed) correlation, though not definitely sufficient to bring about the condition discussed.

I think the statement itself would likely serve as a conclusion in any or most questions and it seems like it'd fit better as a flawed reasoning or parallel flaw statement. I have trouble thinking of premises that would lead to an arguer in an LR question coming to a conclusion that uses the word "tends" rather than some stronger indicator unless "tends" really is a sufficiency indicator.

Would love to hear thoughts from others!

Hello,

I am a little confused on why answer choice A is the correct answer.

Why is the answer C and not A?

Admin note: For the community to better assist you, please include PrepTest number, section number and question number in the following format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question"

E.g. PT37.S1.Q12 - Political scientist: Efforts to create a more egalitarian

I put B but am confused to why the answer is A

Can someone please explain this to me: “‘or’ does not, in and of itself, exclude the possibility of ‘both.’ Thus, if a rule states, ‘F or G will be assigned to Y,’ it is entirely possible that both F and G can be assigned to Y.”

How???

When it comes to strengthening causal reasoning, I understand that offering other instances where a cause leads to an effect (cause -> effect) will act to strengthen an argument. In addition, I have read that offering instances where there is no cause there is no effect (no cause -> no effect) acts to strengthen arguments as well. One particular question that shows this logic is PT 66 Section 4 Question 12.

Is it true that (no cause -> no effect) acts to strengthen? I've tried to look into this and have come up with various answers.

Hi Guys,

I achieved a diagnostic score in March of a 130 and in April as well, but my score was still pretty low. I am planning to take the test in October and started studying about May 13th. I really would like to hit the 99th percentile, if possible, but not sure if anyone else has achieved more than 40+ increase. I am studying about 20 hours week and seriously studying, but just concerned. I know anything is possible, but just a little worried that I scored a little lower. Not sure if this is normal. I want to get full-ride scholarships.

Thanks so much! Stay Blessed!

For this NA question I choose B, could someone explain to my why C is correct?

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

Hi what is a good approach for these questions? I been studying for 6 hours and Im still not grasping it? :(

Hi guys, I was wondering if it’s normal for LR scores to fluctuate between -13 to -6. Both are my worst and best score on my recent LR. (I have been studying for some time; I’ve finished CC and been practicing tons of drills.) Let me know if any of you relate and if you have any solution for this!

I was going to take the LSAT in June, but I decided to switch my test date to August, since I got out of habit of studying. Im applying for Fall 2024!

Premise 1: Clark brand name parts are made for cars manufactured in this country.

Premise 2: they satisfy all the government's automotive tests.

Premise 3: for foreign made parts, you never know which one might be cheap look-alike and reliable.

Conclusion: you should prefer Clark brand name parts to foreign made parts.

The question is asking for the necessary assumption of the stimulus. I picked the right answer. But, upon second look, I think even the right answer, strictly speaking, seems to be wrong....

Answer C, the supposedly right answer, states that "parts that satisfy our government standards are not as poorly constructed as the cheap foreign-made parts".

It doesn't seem to me the negation of this answer choice necessarily undermines the original argument. For I read the premise 3 of the stimulus as only implying that, in contrast to foreign made parts, you COULD KNOW which one might be cheap look-alike and reliable in the case of Clark brand name parts, which means Clark brand name parts could contain cheap and unreliable parts just as foreign made ones do. The only difference is you can tell the difference in the case of former, but not the latter. For answer C to be the necessary assumption of the original argument, however, we need to read that premise 3 as implying that Clark brand name parts are INDEED NOT cheap look-alike and reliable, which seems to me a bit too strong an inference to be made.

Furthermore, nothing in the stimulus implies that cheap and unreliable foreign-made parts cannot satisfy the government automotive standards.

Can someone help point out if I miss anything? Am I reading too much into the stimulus?

I didn't get this question but I would love to see anyone's thought process and how you arrive at the conclusion.

I am unable to access the video explanation for PrepTest February 1997 - Section 3 - Question 16

I wanted to ask if anyone had access to the revisited crystal ball for the June 2023 LSAT? I would really appreciate that resource. Thank you.