Is that true that there will be at least one unusually game in each game section?

I'm having a tough time learning logic games.

I started with 7Sage sequencing and moved to LSAT Demon around the time I got to grouping. JY's explanations are methodical and he seems to go rule by rule, although sometimes I find his methods hard to follow. LSAT Demon has a tendency to solve them by completing all worlds and combining rules logically/intuitively. Overall, the approaches are fairly different. I'm not even sure which methods make the most sense to me.

I understand logic games are known for being the most foreign yet most learnable, but I'm feeling a bit paralyzed. I almost feel more confused as time goes by. I really need to get a grip on these before the LSAT in June.

Does anyone here have suggestions or methods that worked for learning logic games?

Anyone have experience with both 7Sage and LSAT Demon logic games?

I would be especially grateful of advice from anyone who previously struggled with logic games and vastly improved.

Which is the lesson where JY explains splitting the arrows when having "and" in the necessary? Need to review it! Thank you .

How does JY run the contrapositive on chains so quickly/accurately in his head? what is the best way to get good at it?

I keep need to telling myself Necessary Failed so rule triggers and so on... any advice would be great. Thanks

I understand why answer D is correct, but why is E incorrect? If T was slower than S, wouldn't that hurt the argument, especially as we're focused on treating the effects of heart attacks as soon as possible?

If a logic game has a logical and global question combined. How do I go about it with the rules? Let's say we have 6 kinds of food... k,l,m,o,t,z. Each is added once on a scale of 1-6.

IF the M is 3rd then the L is last

IF Z is 1st then L is added before the O

Neither T nor K is 5

M before T or K but not before both.

One question said-- If the lentils are added last, then which one of the following must be true?

but we see the if the L is last then M is 3rd?

idk im confused

Help

I am very confused as to what the flaw in the argument is. Could someone explain?

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

Can someone help me understand why E is the answer to this? I understand why B (my answer is wrong), but I don't understand why E is correct.

Should I be going by the target time JY says in the video or the target time under the game (for LG)? Thanks, let me know!

Is the idea that this is a one premise argument where answer choice (A) just contraposes to the desired conclusion? That is, are we to assume that "All rich farmers are dishonest" and "Every honest farmer is poor" are logically equivalent, and that "Every honest farmer is poor" thus serves as a sufficient assumption for "All rich farmers are dishonest?"

This is a Must be false question.

I have a difficult time making two different diagrams about the conditions.

[ Chelas and Stelma are required to leave their respective stations immediately to pursue any prisoner who attempts to escape from their sector. Furthermore, unless they are pursuing such a prisoner, Chelas and Stelma are forbiddened to leave their stations until their replacements have arrived. ]

My thought is 1. pursue any prisoner who attempts to escape -> C and S leave their sectors

2. ~forbbidened to leave stations until their replacements have arrived -> pursue prisoner

Can you help me to make right diagrams?

Why is (E) the right answer choice here, as opposed to (B)?

Stabilizers: Cheap, preserve consistency, but bad for flavor

Low temperatures: Expensive, preserve consistency, better for flavor

(B) suggests: To save money, we should omit the very low temperatures; just use stabilizers to preserve consistency and don't worry about the flavor

Is the idea that the stimulus just remains neutral on flavor, contrary to what (B) suggests?

The stimulus certainly seems to entail the suggestion that cost considerations would encourage ice cream producers to accept higher temperatures, but the stimulus does not also seem to entail an unequivocal recommendation concerning stabilizer use: Contrary to what (B) suggests, ice cream producers might not use very low temperatures (thus reducing costs) AND also not use stabilizers, thus sacrificing consistency for the sake of flavor.

I assume this must be it: The cost considerations mentioned in the stimulus certainly incentivize higher temperatures, but the stimulus does not also entail an unequivocal recommendation concerning stabilizer use. (B) thus does not follow, unlike (E).

I was stuck between answer choices B and C. I eventually settled down for B but I'm still struggling to figure out why B is the more optimal answer compared to C. The question makes the assumption that the study is representative of the entire population of the United States, and fails to account for any discrepancies between the study subjects and the American population, thus making C an attractive answer.

Hi, everyone. I was wondering if anyone has tips on how to shave time off for grouping games with unrestricted or undefined variables, ie the bird game that you see under the lessons on grouping. I'm especially interested on how to cut back on time made during the initial setup with inferences. Thanks!

For whatever reason, logical reasoning sections are the bane of my existence in terms of LSAT prep. Dare I say, I sometimes actually enjoy working through logic games and reading comprehension sections? Perhaps. Depending on the passage and game, they seem to make me feel excited, interested, with a sense of fun. I don't feel like i'm doing work and my perception of time slows down. On the other hand, LR feels like a horrid chore that makes me feel sad, mundane, and sick to my stomach. Any tips?

For conclusions that are along the lines of "this theory/explanation is wrong", I have a tough time keeping the entire idea in my head. For most questions, I will highlight just the conclusion. However, when I just highlight "this is wrong", I cannot reference the idea quickly enough. Are there any helpful tips to overcome this issue?

Just curious how people felt about the Feb LSAT? I had LR-RC-LG-RC, did anyone else? I left like the LR was hard, both RCs were pretty easy except the last passage was a bit iffy & LG was normal.

Prep Test 7 - Section 1- Question 15

I got this answer wrong and was unsure of my answer. Is the correct AC A right because it strengthens the premises to fill in a gap where the deer population increase after the hunting ban could still exist even without the hunting ban? Like for example, a change in the ecosystem in which a predator of deer migrates etc.

I choose B because the key words relating to accidents and public saftey. I felt skeptical about this choice because the AC was reiterating what was already in the stimulus

Can anyone offer any advice on how to more easily eliminate B and choose A when answering this question?

Incredibly excited after getting the results back from my February 2023 test. Lots of curveballs, but everything I learned through 7Sage after these past 4-5 months of study really came through for me. Much love, and peace out :)

where Can I go to see the explanation to this question ? I only see the "discuss" button but not the "explanation". I see the "explanation" for the questions that I got right.

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

Is marking up a stimulus on LR to highlight and underline the conclusion and premises considered a waste of time generally?

So far I’ve been working down the syllabus starting with the foundations, then LR, which I am currently on, followed by LG, and lastly RC.

I’ve been using the drill feature for MC/MP questions, but I’m not sure if I should be doing a lot of these drills directly after the lesson, as i’ve been doing, or if it would be better if I held off on the drills until I start taking timed PTs , so I could then have clean questions to practice with after identifying my weaknesses.

For some reason, I am having a lot of trouble for weakening questions in LR. For me, it is just intuitively hard to wrap my head around and go through the steps of finding unwarranted assumptions and harping on that rather than the argument itself. Therefore, I can get them right if I spend a lot of time on them, but end up half-assing answers when I am timed... Any tips to get over this issue?

I found many Level 5 questions from PT 1-35 not only difficult but annoyingly silly. Also, looks like many do not even have an explanation video on this forum?

Weakening Question

I identified 3 premises here:

Conclusion: Polls during the week leading up to an election should be banned.

Goal: Find answers that show why one of the premises isn´t true, or why we shouldn´t believe the conclusion to be true.

Answers:

A. Few people are influenced by polls in the 2 weeks leading up to elections. THIS INCLUDES 1 WEEK LEADING UP TO THE POLL!!! I completely skipped over that obvious implication originally, but see now why it makes sense.

B. Uneven - too specific. What about close elections?

C. Remove motivation actually strengthens.

D. Gains in popularity - who cares? Irrelevant.

E. Informed citizens is a stretch to unaffected citizens. Also the comparison is weak - this is ONE country, and we don´t know anything about it.

My takeaway: Don´t read over answer choices too quickly. Maybe try to visualize even abstract answers and concepts like time - in this case, picture a timelines with a dot representing election. Scribbled out right before it is the 1 week without elections. Answer A says 2 weeks right before, there is no influence. I KNEW I could be looking for an answer showing polls don´t affect citizens, so think about how a bigger line right before your election dot would overlap with the part scribbled out, and see how A is actually giving you about a strong point about the 1 week before.