So lets say that this was a strength question, and you were looking to show why we should use OPV, would answer choice C be a good strengthen?

Sorry! just trying to understand. Do we complete an old full practice test timed, lets say PT31, and then we go over the answers together, like a blind review?

this is one tricky ass question!! would it be considered a curve breaker?

what type of flaw could we say this is? does it fit into the 19 flaws we discussed?

For question number 19) i was able to eliminate any answer choice that used NGF, for all of these hypotheses lead to her discovering NGF

Do you recommend us generally skipping the hardest passage and doing the last passage that tends to have more questions? I went 4/5 on this, but honestly this passage was so difficult, i had no time for the last set of the game.

what kind of flaw would this be? Could we say the flaw is general lack of relevant evidence for the conclusion (errors in the use of evidence)?

The context states: Increased fuel efficiency reduces air pollution and dependence on imported oil, which has led some people to suggest that automobile manufacturers should make cars smaller to increase their fuel efficiency.

The premises (1) but smaller cars are more likely to be in seriously damaged in collisions and provide less protection for their occupants (2) greater fuel efficiency is not worth the added risk to human lives

So, conclusion: therefore, we should not seek to increase fuel efficiency.

The evidence provided is not relevant to the overall conclusion of not needing to increase fuel efficiency. The premises are discussing small cars and their level of safety. How does this evidence warrant our conclusion?

Any feedback would be nice, I'm trying to go through flaw questions and figure out what type of the flaw it is. I am looking for patterns within flaw questions (they are one of my weakest question types)

At first when doing SA questions, I was spending alot of time trying to perfect the Lawgic, whenever I answer these questions off intuition, i tend to get them correct. When i start to diagram, which I usually end up botching I get them incorrect.

Any advice, is going on my intution good enough? It seems to be leading me into the right direction

@ said:

@ said:

Hi everyone,

I have already written the LSAT once, scoring a 151 in December 2016. I realized on my first go, I did not master logical reasoning as for when it came to test date (even after I completed the 7sage curriculum) I got completely tripped up and tanked by LR sections. From May to now I have been testing individual LR sections UNTIMED from 1-30 ( I am on PT number 16 now, I have had to take some breaks from studying due to graduation and other personal affairs), and continue to practice my LG sections (1-30) (timed, which is my strongest section). I refuse to begin timing myself until I have the fundamentals of LR mastered, which means I am consistently going 90-100% on these questions in untimed practice. Where before I was going - 10, to even -8, now I have shorted the gap to -5 to even -3 untimed. But still, this varies. What I have noticed though, that I consistently get curve breaking and tough Necessary assumption and flaw question that have a long and convoluted stimulus wrong. How can I ensure that these types don't trip me up? I have reviewed the grammar and fundamental lessons, I have gone over these sections, and I have even used the LR powerscore bible.

My test is September 16th, and I want to begin timing myself with full length tests from the newer lsats 60-80 as soon as possible in order to adjust to the newer lsat format.

What can I do to greatly increase my LR in that time ( I am blind reviewing)? Should I postpone to December?

Also with reading comprehension that is a hit and miss, sometimes I can score great or bad, depends on the toughness of the passages (ones that tend to science and economic based are absolutely brutal for me). But with working and volunteering (I have to keep my volunteering for it absolutely necessary with my canadian law school applications). I have made the decision that reading comp will be the section I devote the least amount of prep for, due to the fact logical reasoning is 2 sections and makes up for 50% of the test.

Any suggestions would be wonderful. Thankyou for reading this long message

Sincerely, a struggling LSAT student

If you haven't begun timing yourself and are still having these types of issues get some of your money back and postpone.

Also, Try using The LSAT Trainer or Manhattan LR is the CC isn't doing it for you. It worked great for me, but sometimes a new perspective helps.

You won't have enough time to properly address these problems listed above and do 20 tests with proper BR. I also think not timing yourself at this point is going to begin to hurt you. It's just my opinion, but ultimately this is a test we need to get good at taking timed. It's like saying you're going to use the bumpers in bowling until you're consistently bowling a 300. Well, that's not really going to help when you take the bumpers off much. I think untimed learning has it's place, but if you're only missing 3-5 per section, you can take timed sections. BR is where you want to work on your untimed worked.

Try figuring out what is giving you a hard time about flaw and NA questions? They're not hard once you understand necessity vs sufficiency and you can always use the negate test whereby you can negate an answer for a NA question, and if the argument fall apart, that is the correct answer. Ideally do this once you've eliminated all but 1-2. As far as flaws, those can be tricky. Memorizing and understand the list JY provided in the CC helped a lot. As did the LSAT Trainer. You'll start to see there's only so many flaws they can throw at you and it's just a matter of making sure you're focusing in on the main one and not being trapped by an second flaw that isn't the main flaw.

Try to articulate to yourself, or write down, what exactly is giving you trouble with these problem. Once I or one of the others know more, it will be easier to give specific advice.

I think devoting less time to RC is a horrible mistake. It makes up a big part of the test with 28 questions. Might as well skip LG and work on RC with that calculus. If you're giving up before even trying to get it down, please postpone. The LSAT is important, even for Canadian schools, and you owe it to yourself to devote the time you need to do your best.

Thank you very much. I will definintely incorporate your advice into my study plan. Reading comprehension study starts tomorrow!!!

@ said:

Postpone till December. Is there any pressing reason not to?

No there is not, All Canadian law schools accept the LSAT December date. I guess I am just growing extremely frustrated with my progress and just want that 160 score I am dreaming of, I also heard it is bad to study for such a long time on the LSAT!

I also have used 40-56 timed and reviewed quite densely when I prepared for my first go on the LSAT and that is the reasoning why I am skipping them on this second round of studying

.

wow, I found this logical reasoning set very very difficult. Scored very poorly timed.

Thankyou! I will be sure to do that

very high level use of lawgic in this quesiton, I originally chose C off of intuition, then decided to diagram, did the diagramming wrong and picked E ... sigh.

@ said:

Hi Evonne! First off, I just want to say that you've made great improvements so far from where you started! Congrats, and keep up the hard work!

So it seems like you have two questions, which I'll break apart and address separately: First, how do you increase your untimed score? and secondly, how do you increase your speed?

A question to you : Are you missing the extremely tough questions each section? Or are you just struggling on the question types that you mentioned (all difficulty levels)?

In order to excel and start scoring higher than what you are now, you truly have to have all of the basics of this test mastered. If you are struggling on flaw question types, you are likely missing a “piece” of the argument puzzle. Flaw questions really rely heavily on understanding the relationships between the context and premises. And they make up a decent portion of each section. If you struggle on this, you likely have underlying issues with a large majority of the other questions when you get to the extremely difficult “curve-breaker” type questions. Why? Because a large majority of LR questions are all about understanding the argument that the author is presenting you with (which is the building blocks of flaw questions).

I personally, would go back to the argument portion of 7sage’s CC and just make sure you know all of that stuff like the back of your hand. Another recommendation I will make is to check out other content. Maybe use Manhattan’s LR and/or Mike Kim’s Trainer to supplement the Cc in the areas you struggle. They are both highly recommended from a lot of students. I’ve read them both. They teach the material somewhat differently, and naturally cover somewhat different topics. Maybe a different style is what makes it “click” for you. Once you touch up on the basics, I would just start drilling whichever problem types you are having issues with. Once you can answer the questions accurately untimed, then you move on to worrying about timing.

And finally, back to the second point you made; speed. I think you are running slow because there is something that you keep hanging up on. It might be the fundamentals in the arguments that I mentioned in the last few paragraphs. If you truly master the argument structure, and feel comfortable with your aforementioned question types, you will start to see patterns. They (LSAC) can only ask these questions in a limited number of ways. You will start to see that the ways they ask certain questions are regularly repeated, just with different context. This is what makes you go quicker. It will become muscle memory, and outside of the curve breaker questions, you should be able to answer a bulk of the questions without much difficulty. Another way to practice this, is to take somewhat simple questions, and just drill them. Aim for the first 15 questions of your sections to be complete in 15 minutes or less. This is a good pace to leave yourself plenty of time for the difficult questions at the end of every section.

You also made a comment about your BR strategy. I can’t tell how you do it with the limited amount of detail, but make sure you are BRing on a BLANK copy. If you do BR over top of your existing work and answers, you will experience confirmation bias. You will (either consciously or sub consciously) attempt to justify that your first answer was correct. This will likely lead to you selecting the same answer more times than if you were to be doing the problem fresh. Always do a blank copy.

I’ve exhausted my limited amount of experience. I’m sure some others have incredibly useful information as well to share. Good luck!

Thank-you so much for the advice I appreciate it! You are right, I am definitely missing some of the fundamental basics and need to learn how to breakdown an argument like the back of my hand. I generally struggle with those questions in general as well as assumption questions (again breaking down the argument). I am going to go back to the basics of 7sage and I also have Powerscore's logical reasoning bible, so I will be using that as well!

Im just not seeing the gap here, isnt routinely going unpunished the same as NEVER allowing rules to go unpunished? Where does "some" come into play?

Please help!