There will be plenty! There's a small glitch with the labeling of the class difficulty that should be fixed soon.

@Haleh You don't need to solve this in less than 2 minutes! Some questions legitimately just need more time to process and solve. The idea is you get enough time for these by solving more straightforwards ones very efficiently.

@LawrenceCheung88 Main conclusion = overall conclusion. I don't see a difference between these terms.

@anna23 The rest of the module breaks things down in more detail and piece by piece, so I encourage you to work through the whole module.

@LSATDemon Can you explain in what ways they don't follow the instructions?

@BriannaSeckel None yet...but stay tuned.

@MayaVM You're right that more eggs hatching does not guarantee the condor will survive. But that's not what D is saying. D is saying if more eggs don't hatch, they won't survive. That doesn't mean if more eggs do hatch, they will survive.

Basically:

If Not A, then Not B.

is different from

If A, then B.

I encourage you to review the Conditional Logic module in Foundations for more on this point.

Lebron was holding you back. You got this.

If you're relying on Demon for drilling, I suspect that may be part of why you're not seeing the improvement you're after. They explicitly disavow trying to build a more abstract understanding of the test. But that understanding is exactly what helps you carry a lesson from one question to the next. Some people pick that up through osmosis, just from exposure. Not everyone does. I think our explanations do a much better job of tying the specifics of individual questions back to the general logical concepts and approaches behind them. We also have a variety of explanations for each question (written and videos), plus a great AI Coach that can answer your specific questions based on our explanations and lessons.

That said, no matter whose explanations you use, it's critical to stay with a question and not move on until you genuinely feel you understand it. A few questions worth asking yourself each time: What were you thinking that turned out to be wrong? What's the right approach? Are you actually convinced the answer you picked is wrong and the credited answer is right? And can you articulate why the wrong answer is wrong and the right one is right? How is this question similar to others you've done? Does the reasoning involved fall into a broader pattern

It's possible you're moving on from questions because you feel like you're supposed to, like you should be covering more ground, but shortchanging your understanding in the process.

One more thing: I noticed you mentioned considering Demon Live. Can I ask why? I'm biased, of course, but I think our instructors are significantly better. They're better teachers, more charismatic, more engaging, more positive, and with a much deeper understanding of the test. Also, our Live plan has more classes and is more affordable. So I'd strongly encourage you to stick with us and find an instructor who clicks for you. There's no reason to consider Demon.

@RejoiceAdewale You'll want to go through our Lesson Library:https://7sage.com/u/usr_02xU3hBSRMEWCSzH75UIkA/lessons/foundations

If you came to Fast Track because you're on the Minimal study plan, but a lot of what's in the Fast Track lessons aren't really making sense, then that's often a sign you might want to consider studying for a longer period of time so you can complete the Accelerated or Balanced study plan.

@AliLazim Check out https://7sage.com/games/logic-blitz

It's a bit advanced for now, but once you make it through the rest of this module, I think you'll find it challenging and fun.

@haena Logic Blitz kind of does this, but includes evaluating argument validity. It sounds like you're looking for something narrower/different? Maybe purely about translating "only" "the only" "unless" etc. into [sufficient] --> [necessary]?

@NoNamed92 I think it means Logic Blitz for now! There are more games on the horizon.

@SMRegalado Try my video or text explanations for something shorter. And let me know if you have any questions about this problem after the explanations. (Is 7 minutes and 30 seconds too long for this question?)

You can also use the "Ask AI Coach" button at the top right.

@vr2001 The author is the one saying "Studies support X." Unless the author pushes back on those studies, it's fair to say the author thinks X has some support. This doesn't mean she thinks X is proven, just that it has some support.

@McKayB87 I recommend doing the associated drill (you can find the link in the summary). Then after the video try a custom drill selecting for the same question time (here Must Be True).

@MaxB917 Noted. (For now I think you can use left and right arrows on Logic Blitz and Numbers Blitz)

@AnnaliseRamirez Kind of, but keep in mind that the same assumption can be both sufficient to make the argument valid but also necessary to make the argument valid. So it's not that sufficient assumptions are stronger; just that they can be stronger than necessary. Whereas necessary assumptions can't be stronger than the argument needs.

@lnewbold89 Are you referring to this list of flaws? https://7sage.com/lessons/logical-reasoning/flaw-or-descriptive-weakening-questions/argument-flaw-cheat-sheet

Completing and reviewing PTs, sections, and drills is a critical part of improving. In general, the more you do and review, the more you'll improve. So I wouldn't count just reviewing lesson content as a meaningful part of your overall hours if you're trying to tally it against a recommended typical total.

We just added a similar workshop for Sufficiency and Necessity. It's much more basic, but might still be helpful at this stage: https://7sage.com/lessons/foundations/conditional-and-set-logic/skill-builder-sufficiency-and-necessity-workshop