- Joined
- Jun 2026
- Subscription
- Core
The LSAT is a sham
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
@InderpalSingh Ik late respone to this one, but B is correct purely because he never found evidence that guranteed his conclusion.
Its all about what a hypothesis is. A hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis, a theory. Sure he found "Nearly every subject" had an opinion that supports his hypothesis, but it doesnt mean its true because most people acted like he hypothesized.
Its wonky, but basically a hypothesis with support doesnt = guranteed answer. A hypothesis needs tons of support, testing, and so forth until it can support a conclusion.
Dude in this one just said he found some support for his hypothesis, "definitely found results" and makes a very generalized answer/conclusion from it.
Fellas I got this one right immediately lets go! Anyway to help others who were confused, I will give this advice.
Think simple stupid.
That is to say, LSAT writers are evil and want you to overthink an answer. To come to this answer immediately, while reading the stimulus mentally mark down the hard facts, see the flaw/issue, then just go to the answer that says that.
These other answers get... How to put it, too difficult or too into it? I've found that many questions that are like this want the easiest answer. The simple one.
Joyous question. I love it when I have been taught not to assume things outside of the stimulus for months now, and then I come across a question that asks the opposite.
Yeah B's whole thing that got me is the "guarantee attendance" part. I realized later on that while its a major assumption that the pool is 100% "open before noon," it also doesnt mean that everyone will attend.
Hahaha! This is a good one! I like this, I see why answer choice A is correct. I never saw ANY OTHER LSAT question do this before. Using such a major superset to cause people to overlook it as part of the argument!
I HATE THE LSAT RAAAH THIS IS THE BIGGEST WASTE OF TIME TEST IN THE WORLD
Solid advice, thanks! Now I need to figure out how to apply this more often to passages that are intentionally loaded/dense. Ill have to work on it, but its good to note that reading for the "Frame" is more important than detail.
Lol I am in the same boat as you twin, LR is good but RC is fighting back. Ive been drilling like crazy and found that occassionaly some sections or PTs will just have RC passages significantly more difficult than others. If you can apply skills such as skimming strategically to RC I would try that, or like building a "skeleton" of the passage, but some passages you cant do that at all. For those I got nothin to help you with.
So I'm taking the LSAT in October and November, and I have noticed that Reading Comp is starting to fight back.
I haven't really struggled too much in RC, but I also havent put too much focus into the unique types of RC questions that are on the test (think the skills 7sage taught are more important than styles of qs). TBH Logic has been the main focus of my study journey. Timing is certainly an issue, not all the time, but it is present in a few of the PTs.
What im wondering though is if anyone has advice on how to apply the skills 7sage has taught for RC, specifically the skim reading, labeling paragraphs, and making a "skeleton" of the passage.
Ive noticed some RC sections from PT's write the passages so you legit can't apply those skills, where a question will ask you about a specific sentence from a paragraph, or about a hypothetical view on one part of the passage. At that point the passage basically forces you to read word by word what its about, or forces you to reread a question a half dozen times to find its answer.
None of the lessons really say what to do when everything is a passage is relevant/important, or when you need to read a passage for one specific hypothetical argument out of a dozen. Any advice on what some of you have done in RC, skill wise, would be so helpful 🙏
Ahh yeah. My best advice is to say if you have ADHD try to get accommodations for January. Helps a lot with timing pressures. If not, then I'd say to solve the LR conditional and causal all you can really do is practice.
There are patterns, but for conditional and causal it really is down to two things. Timing which will pressure you to ignore parts of the chain, and just straight up understanding. Only way to get over it is to drill like crazy, watch video explanations on each question, read student comments.
RC for inference im going to be straight up, don't even worry about RC problem types. Everything 7sage teaches on RC is valuable, but what is capable of easily being applied is like the first part of RC curriculum and last part. AKA how to skim/categorize paragraphs.
If you can do that for RC you are set. Gl on november, just remember if you do poorly you got time to fix it if you take it in Jan.
One month isn't a long way away. I will be as honest as I can be, because I believe that is what a lot of people need. You MUST identify the type of questions you are getting wrong consistently. Identify how well you do timed. Lastly, identify whether you feel comfortable about the LSAT in November, or if taking it later in this cycle/next year would be better.
If you feel comfortable taking the LSAT in November, but you need to get into 160s, know this. You have about 2 weeks left of time to learn new material before it won't help you on the test day. Then, you need a solid 2 weeks of fixing areas you struggle on, or at least learning why you do poorly in them. The final week pre-test I would recommend taking drills or PT's in different environments.
Note (TAKE PTS or DRILLS like crazy!) Only take them though after you make a "break through" to apply what you learned constantly until its instinct.
To break into the 160s from the 150s means you are struggling on certain question types, timing, or both. Best thing you can do at this point is learn why you get a question wrong, dedicate at minimum 2 hours a day to fixing it (if you can then more), and then getting yourself comfortable to take the LSAT.
I cannot emphasize enough however that you should be working like a fire is under you to learn why you are getting questions wrong. Even patching one or two areas you struggle with will see a point increase hopefully into the 160s.
Wow! I sure love when the right answer assumes the pool will be 100% open before noon! For a must be true question that is insane! Especially when there is no evidence at all that it would be open before noon.
This answer is so poorly worded, "Open before noon" well yeah duh because the stimulus says everyone can swim sometime. But the answer straight up words it that "The pool will 100% be open"
What if theres a hurricane? Or they do maintenance before noon? This is one of the worst must be trues that I've seen.
To be honest im practicing timing so I didn't even read this question super carefully yet got it right.
Reviewing why, heres the logic that might help people out here.
Focus on the flow of logic here. This is a logic chain missing its ending, and they gave all of the logic in the start.
Focus on the right answers not wrong ones.
Lastly the word Although is IMPORTANT. Always try to mentally note the authors voice/opinion. Although introduces the fact he believes the opposite.
For those fellas who are stuck on LR before the LSAT or are just going over NA for review, heres some pro-tips. Cross out any answer that feels off.
Some answers that are needlesly complicated are surprisingly the answer, I've noticed that pattern where the writers in NA prefer to make super complicated answer choices.
Pick the one that feels right if you cant immediately find the logic or guess the answer. This is a controversial take here, but if you have 3 answers that do nothing to the argument, and then have two that do, don't like super hyper fixate.
Literally just read the two out loud and be like "Who cares if...." and so forth. What ever one clicks will likely be the answer.
Another pattern is that the answers will usually relate to a theme in the stimulus. Someone else pointed this out, but if the question is feeling weak, then the answer is 9/10 not going to be strong. The answer will feel like it can barely do a thing, and use SUPER complicated wording.
So basically E is wrong because of ambiguity. Great. Love the LSAT man.
Especially love how the explanation for why E is wrong is literally because one part of it works amazingly, but the other part that can be ignored by off of the logic of E makes it wrong.
If the spirit is either indivisible OR imperfect, that means we have a spirit that can't be divied (failing the questions logic) or it can be and is imperfect. We can completely ignore that end bit of E because the conclusion states the spirit isnt a material body.
Sure the odds of E being possibly imperfect is there, but for the logic of this question its pretty gosh darn low. Spirits arent material, all things material are divisble/imperfect. E states its either indivisible, or its the opposite.
It cant be the opposite using the conclusion as a basis?
Gosh this one gets on my nerves as I see why someone would say E is wrong, but im fairly certain it can fit quite well.
So let me get this straight, the number of chem majors hasnt changed over 10 years, but there was a decline over 10 years with people getting a chem degree?
So chem majors dont get a degree? Alright, what ever I guess?
And I guess B doesnt matter because the stimulus said there was no decline of chem majors. Thats awesome, because in my mind B is stating that as a whole theres a great deal less of science degrees, but I guess that wont fit.
Especially because apparently theres the same number of chem majors yet less chem degrees. Amazing.
Honestly this is the type of slop question LSAT writers believe determine if someone is smart and will succeed, but all it shows is their incompetence in making a balanced test.
Dude what is up with this lesson plan slamming all the level 5 difficulty SA's into me when I am LEARNING them? Literally I have gotten all of the SA's that were under level 5 right, but then an endless train of lvl 5s run me over after I get one right.
Like I hate to say it, because I love challenges, but this just sucks man. The explanations for level 5s are barely helpful too.
Ive gotten a lot of the difficult ones wrong, and building off of Harambe's comment, I believe I see why. Its about pinpointing the MAIN focus of the conclusion. Most of us have good intuition by now, but you cant apply it if the conclusion is confusing or absent.
That is to say, in this question you have a lot of key facts (compartments) that are integral to the argument. However, the conclusion at the end of the day is "We cant confirm aliens are real". All these answers can work if you focus on other compartments, but you only need this.
The best tip and common occurence ive noticed in getting these questions wrong (lvl 5s and 4s) is that they obscure the conclusion and load the question with like 3 premises. Id say pick the answer that doesnt repeat anything already said in the stimulus, unless its part of the conclusion.
@PoeBoiMcGee Yeah they designed it so it trips up people who don't know grammar, or people who know too much grammar. Legit these writers are crazy.
Yippeee I love getting this type of question wrong 3 times in a row because 7sage made the line up of doom and despair!
This one, even after knowing the right answer and watching the video I barely get. Literally all of these answers suck, but fit the framework that we've been taught.
The only difference with D is that it sucks a little bit less. Even then it doesnt fit the conclusion well, especially based off of how the writers worded the conclusion.
Im going to say something I've slowly be realizing about the LSAT, and that is the questions are made to trip up people from all walks of life.
This question, if the reader already internalizes that a worldview is unique to the person, can easily confuse if you even need the interpretation of reality part.
If the reader hyper focuses on the interpretation of reality portion, then they miss the rest.
Really its such a small thing, but I find it fascinating how they purposefuly pick words/definitions that easily blend into other phrases.
For this exact problem, I could honestly see how A could be interpreted as correct but that is only by using logic outside of the question.
In real life, a boss expects to be flattered daily, and deals with brown nosers. It can be assumed he is a bit blinded from this common occurence to really have flattery effect his choice in promoting someone.
A still doesnt answer why this would make flattery fail, as im sure somewhere out there a boss expects flattery and it works. However, if E didn't exist I would probably pick A.
E just answers the question a bit better without needing to take large assumptions. Simple and quick answer choice without jumping through hoops.
Y'know I see why the answer is C, but I'm feeling B could work just as fine. Like the reason why B is wrong is because it focuses on owing an apology?
Idk its weird, like B is basically saying because one person got a sincere apology, then the other person also lied to is owed an apology or neither are.
Heres a tip for anyone struggling with these style of questions, especially ones ranked a 4 or 5 star difficulty.
Difficult questions try to get you caught up in the logic, or give answers that sound better than others. Thing is, most of the time you just need to know what the stimulus wants, and what the question wants.
For this case the stimulus said physicists should fix their system. Sure answer C is nice, but it doesn't fit the stimulus. Stimulus wants a reason for the physicists to start fixing their stuff. So go with A.
A is quite literally saying "fraud bad, make progress bad". Simple fit. Maybe not the most logical, and maybe C sounds better in a sentence, but A is the barebones answer.
For similar questions, ignore the complexity, go straight for the heart of it. You dont even need to understand why your answer fits, just know it fulfills what the stimulus is asking.
I think I see why its not D. I believe the easiest way I found out, after getting it wrong the first time and right on the BR, is that D could still benefit some people.
D in my opinion is a strong answer, follows the same form of a good answer, and makes more sense then E in some ways. However, D's main flaw is that it still benefits consumers.
Theres of course the more difficult process of mapping out the logic of D under the clock, which shows the why its wrong better, but under pressure just seeing that D does help people, while E might help people, is better.
I like how older LSAT questions are worded wonky, like this one had me confused if legislation was the same as a trade deal, so I went with E.
Really puts into perspective how they improve questions every year.