@ said:

Thank you for your input, @ ! Agree that if there is a long chain of reasoning, I'll also start out w/ a diagram too.

If you don't mind my asking (and if you've taken this PT), would you have gone w/ method 1 or 2 for PT64.S3.Q26 (LR2)? Here's a question link: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-3-question-26/

Happy studies!

I would not diagram on this one because I think the here trap is that the conditional rule triggers when consumers do not "expect" the benefit outweigh the cost&difficulty. If I diagram this, chances are I will short the expect into some letters and it is likely for me to ignore this information, thus choosing C instead of E. Therefore, I would just go with my intuition on this one.

I'm no 170s scorer but personally I would go for 1 when the stimulus is convoluted just to ensure I don't miss anything while trust my intuition when the conditional chain is short/the missing link is obvious

My study pace is basically the same as yours, which is 6 days on and 1 day off.

During the day off, I usually avoid studying LR and RC completely and spend about 30-40 minutes foolproofing games because I feel like doing games is not that exhausting compared with learning LR and RC. But this is probably due to the fact that English is not my first language and studying wordy sections is mentally more challenging for me.

Therefore, at the end of the day it depends on whether studying LG is hard for you. I think studying 6 days in a row is enough for you to improve your skill, assuming that you have been studying efficiently. Since you decide to do at least some studying during your "relax day" to keep yourself familiar with it while avoiding burnout, I would suggest make it the part you find the most easy to tackle with. If LG is your comfort zone, then do it. But if you find doing LG is exhausting, I think you should avoid it during that day because adding this burden won't necessarily improve your skill. It could only add up the chance of burning yourself out.

#help

I'm not comfortable with AC(E).

I think for AC(E) to work, we must assume that the consultants' advice is actually useful. What if it is a bad advice? I think the problem with this AC is just the same as it with the AC(E) for Q26 in the exact same section.

Any thoughts?

#help

I eliminated AC(A) because I thought the the temperature drop due to the heat loss had already been included in the overall temperature comparison. But AC(A) seems to suggest that the heat loss causes extra temperature loss. Why should we assume that?

#help

Why the phrase"as a result" must refer to "the abandon of growing GM crop" ?

I chose D on this one. I thought the result was a combination of "abandoning the crop" and "using the fertilizer", therefore, we can't decide which one actually damaged the soil structure. What if the fertilizer didn't cause any harm to the soil structure, then why couldn't we just use both of the fertilizer and the crop?

Would the AC(D) make more sense if it were rephrased as "It fails to take into account the possibility that there is an alternative explanation for the presence of pesticides on the farm land"? I think in this way it points out that the argument only addresses one of the possibilities that the pesticide could end up in the runoff water.

#help

My understanding to this question is that when we do a strengthen question that has a long causation chain, what we need to do is to reinforce the relationship between two adjoin parts. Namely, we cannot jump from one end to another. Because if we do, then we leave the gap where there could be other causes outside of this chain that lead to the conclusion.

The causation chain: Winter temperature rises → More precipitation as rain → Snowpack melts more rapidly and earlier → (Conclusion)Greater spring flooding and less storable water to meet summer demands.

That being said, if there were an AC that reinforces the connection between "More precipitation as rain → Snowpack melts more rapidly and earlier", would that be a correct one?

#help

According to JY, in order for the AC(C) to be right, we have to use the conditional logic to link bankruptcy and the nuclear accident. However, if we cannot assume what the government claimed as true, then why should we accept that the conditional chain mentioned by the government is true?

Or should I interpret the bankruptcy as "the bankruptcy that results from the nuclear accident", based on the context?

According to the beam-car analogy in CC, aren't we supposed to strengthen the link between the premise and the conclusion instead of an independent strengthening AC?

#help

I chose AC(C) and I am still not comfortable with AC(E).

The constitution requires the government to sell the state owned entity "for the highest price it can command". This requirement seems equivocal to me because of the "it can command" here. I crossed out AC(E) precisely because I thought "reducing the price the government receives" doesn't necessarily mean that the government cannot sell it at the highest price it can command. What if the highest price the government can command is based on the price that government can receive due to various extraneous forces(such as the regulation)?

As for AC(C), if the government can't even determine whether the citizens will get majority ownership, how does it ensure them to have the majority ownership?

Am I missing anything?

#help (Added by Admin)

#help Could someone help to explain why AC (C) is wrong? I think it is safe to assume that if the seeds were plowed "just before" the sunrise, then it would be exposed to the sunlight after the sunrise, whereas if they were plowed after the sunset, there would be no sunlight. How is (C) any different than (A)?

#help

I slightly disagree with JY about why AC(D) is wrong. I think D is wrong because the conclusion is about"overall achievement", not "the achievement of a particular student". Therefore, this AC is not necessary for the argument to be valid.

However, I am thinking that if we tweak AC(D) as "Hiring more teachers would not improve the overall achievement of students if most or all of the teachers hired were unqualified", this AC might be correct since it bridges the gap between hiring unqualified teachers and the overall achievement of students.

What do you guys think about this one?

@ said:

And I remember another one in a 25 questions' LR section. Be like 2 people talking about an art gallery or sth like that, and the question asks if both of them are right then which of the following could be inferred. The gallery is probably going to increase its artwork collection. I spent quite some time with it so I remember that. Any one remember this one? Thanks!

I had this one as my 2nd LR section. I remember this question because it just didn't click for me and I had to guess on it. I think this section in general is more difficult than another LR section, which had a garden suppliers MSS question. I hope this section turns out to be the experimental.

@ said:

@ @ I had the same test as you.. I also found RC just weird. The passage was easy to understand but the answer choices threw me off..

LG was easy.

Did y'all have LR with earth and glycene, 70% consumer decisions and trade between two countries sort of Q's?

@ TBH I forgot most of the stimulus in LR. The one I do remember is about Van Gouh and the moon's position in its painting. And it's a NA question.

#help

I am not convinced by JY's explanation for AC (A) on this one. There are a plenty of correct ACs of Flaw questions that call upon the ignored possibility (like "the argument ignores the possibility that ......"). Our job is to render the argument "questionable", not "absolutely false".

Any thoughts?

Maybe I'm just missing something here but how am I supposed to figure out the "If A and B → C" conditional chain? I thought there was only one sufficient condition...

#help (Added by Admin)

@ said:

Did anyone find the RC (Native American art, wolves/dogs, Gaines, monopolies) kind of difficult? It was my first section and I think I was extremely nervous for it, but I think that it also felt harder than the usual RC. Contrarily, LG (piano/violin, mosaics, etc.) was super straightforward for me.

I had the same test as you. It was the last section for me. Somehow I scheduled a bad time to take the test because it was my bed time. (No pun intended) So my brain was literally jammed at that point and yeah, it was hard, if not exceptionally. I think the monopoly and Indian American art one were tougher than others. Had to rushed over last couple of questions. Otherwise the test went smoothly since the relatively easier LR and LG offset the difficulty.

I was having hard time doing this question because I wasn't sure whether "no one disagrees" implies facts. Are we allowed to make such an assumption (something that everyone agrees is a fact) on the LSAT?

#help

Given that there are only 10 days before the test, I don't think it's realistic to have a drastic improvement in your mastery of the content itself. Therefore, having a good strategy is important. If timing is an issue for you (as it was for me when I was stuck in mid to high 150s), try to implement the skipping strategy, which is relatively easier to develop within a short period of time.

You could set up a "target time" for different questions in each section. For example, when it comes to LR, I would give myself 10-11 minutes to finish first 10 questions, then 7 minutes for the next five, and 18 minutes for the last 10 or 11 questions. You don't necessarily have to follow my pace, but the point is, you should not be bogged down by a single question. Since your goal score is a 153, it is reasonable to allow yourself to skip some of the harder questions and spend those time on manageable ones.

It might seem uncomfortable at first as you give up some of the questions. Just stick to it and trust me, eventually you will find out how effective this method is.

Here is a video that would help you understand this strategy:

Can someone please help me clarify what the first sentence mean?

Because of the word "for" here, I initially thought it meant "It is okay to criticize someone based on the reason that the person you criticize was being critical". But here JY seems to interpret it otherwise, which is something like "It is okay to criticeze someone".

If my interpretation was correct, then the first sentence is more like the conclusion of the argument, whereas the third sentence serves as a sub-conclusion supported by the sub-premise that points out the rationale behind the injunction against being judgemental, which seems to me like the reason why it is okay for us to criticize the person who is being critical (i.e. judgemental).

So here was my take on the structure of the argument when I was doing this question:

Conclusion: If someone is being critical, it is okay for us to criticize him/her.

Sub-conclusion & Premise: It is reasonable to punish(criticize) someone for being judgemental.

Sub-premise: To be judgemental is to assess someone negatively without fully understanding him/her. (which is bad)

I know based on the result, my interpretation is wrong, but can anyone tell me why?

Many thanks. #help (Added by Admin)

I looked at the first half of the AC(D) and thought that the conspicuous black-and-white areas provide animals with black-and-white coloration habitats that match their color, thus protecting them from being detected.

I guess I let some random facts about "how black moths living in industrialized areas survive more successfully than their white counterparts"get into my head.

Always remember to stick to what is presented and do not bring in our own knowledge.

#help

I'm not sure about the AC D.

I know typically the reversal of conditional logic is a very cookie-cutter flaw in the LSAT.

I might be overthinking it. But the passage suggests that two sufficient conditions here are binary, which means there are no other possibilities other than "remains are cultivated" or "remains are wild". If so, wouldn't it bind the sufficient condition and necessary condition together, making them bi-conditionals?

@ said:

@ thanks! I had taken most of the 70s and low 80s before March of '19. I ended up retaking them before the June '21 exam b/c I ran out of fresh copies. In all honesty, they still felt like fresh takes b/c (1) over a year had passed and (2) I wasn't BR'ing prior to the March test. BR is really where you do the most learning imo.

Thanks! I'm gonna redo the 70s-80s after going through some older questions. Hope by then I will forget most of the questions in those PTs.

Congrats!

Also how did you practice yourself after burning most of the PTs? Did you redo them?