Hey Alex! Welcome to the club!
I feel like first and foremost, really hone in the difference between sufficiency and necessity. That is a must!
Then, memorize the 4 groups of indicators (sufficient, necessary, negated sufficient, negated necessary)
Then, get really comfy with De Morgan's Law, conjunctions and disjunctions
Finally, quantifiers! And their indicators. Words like "some, most, usually, few, etc."
I left quite a bit of comments in other questions throughout the CC, refer to those if you are interested in my brain-rot explanations of 7sage material!
Yes! Your understanding is spot on in your example of Apple -> Fruit.
The next step would be contrapositives. Just like the example that @jwn1060 gave:
/fruit -> /apple
The next-next step then would be to memorize and understand the sufficiency-necessary indicators in the Core Curriculum. Specifically, there's a list of the 4 Groups of indicators (Sufficient, necessary, negate sufficient, negate necessary.) I am a FIRM believer in memorizing those indicators, just to save a couple seconds in taking questions.
The next-next-next step would be adding conjunctions and disjunctions (and & or) into both the sufficient and/or necessary conditions:
"If you work hard AND have a wrinkly brain, then you will get a good LSAT score"
[WH and WB -> LSAT]
"If you work hard OR have a wrinkly brain, you will get a good LSAT score"
[WH or WB -> LSAT]
"In order to get a good LSAT score, you must work hard AND have a wrinkly brain"
[LSAT -> WH and WB]
"In order to get a good LSAT score, you must work hard OR have a wrinkly brain"
[LSAT -> WH or WB]
The next-next-next-next step would be to learn De Morgan's, which is the contrapositives of conjunctions and disjunctions, where you basically reverse the arrows, negate, and switch the and/or:
"If you work hard AND have a wrinkly brain, you will get a good score"
[WH and WB -> LSAT]
--after applying De Morgan's--
"If you don't have a good score, you must not have worked hard OR you don't have a wrinkly brain" (just an example!)
[/LSAT -> WH or WB]
After all these, congrats! You are more-or-less done a quarter of the LR! Which is like 1/8th of the LSAT!
Do I sound pessimistic? Maybe! A little tired? Definitely! But it's a grind! And that's the fun part!
You got this! Sorry for the long message but I hope it helps!
First, welcome to LSAT! We've all been where you've been, and personally, I'd like to welcome you to the club! I hope you're ready to get your mind blown and your brain to get more wrinkles!
Regarding your timing, tackling a question in one week is really brave! I didn't have the guts or the brainpower to hit the questions until much deeper into the Core Curriculum. I graduated from UBC with a BA in Political Science, and even some of the LSAT questions gave me chills!
I agree that some of the video explanations for certain questions are tough to grasp at first, but to really understand them, you have to finish the core curriculum.
Aside from that, I'd recommend enrolling in live classes if you still find that you need some guidance. The first time I took the LSAT i did it alone, the second time I had a tutor. This third time, I feel like classes have definitely been more helpful! There are also recorded lectures!
Hi Sebastian! Let me just welcome you to 7sage and LSAT learning! I hope you're ready to get your brain boggled in ways you can't imagine! But I promise every day there is a small victory!
Regarding point one, if you started about a month ago, there really is no rush! I usually leave about 5-6 months to study for the LSAT (I'm taking my third in June), and usually one or two months is enough for the Core Curriculum. So I'd suggest first to really goin through the core curriculum as just a guideline for how to think and approach questions.
You also mentioned that 2-4 minutes per question was your average time. I'd recommend that you cut that down to almost a minute a question.
When I approach an LR question, the first thing I do is read the question stem, just so that I know what the question type is or what logic is needed.
Then, I go to the stimulus and look ONLY for the conclusion. Most times, the answer choices will be reacting to the conclusion in the stimulus, so while the question type is still fresh in my head, I like to relate it ASAP to the conclusion in the stimulus.
After the conclusion, I look for the premises. Almost like my inner dialogue is saying "This is what the author is saying, but why does he say that?"
Next, I try to identify the argument structure. Really, I try not to draw diagrams or write it down, since that eats up time. If I find myself that I need to draw it out I usually flag it and move on. Link assumption questions in my opinion take a while and are pretty time consuming, so if I don't understand the structure of the argument easily I usually skip it and revisit later. A second strategy that I do is negation test, but I usually only do that for necessary assumption questions (eg. Which one of the following, if assumed, is required by the argument).
With this approach, I usually finish LR sections with an average of 1 minute per question, with at least 5 minutes of extra time to spare.
For your second point, I'd recommend memorizing the 4 Groups of indicator words for link assumption. Those words like All, Only, Unless, and None. Honestly, just memorizing and understanding that section alone saves me so much time in Link Assumption questions (for more details, you can look at my other comments, there was one where I went into the 4 groups more in-depth regarding a question)
I'd additionally recommend having contrapositives and De Morgan's law memorized like the back of your hand. It's underrated IMO, and honestly I think it's key since a lot of 4-5 star difficulty questions revolves around using contrapositives or tricky traps.
Finally, I'd recommend that you come up with your own concepts and quick tips! One of mine is that if I see a sentence that goes "No X, unless Y", I just read that as X -> Y. Having that rule reduces all that time I would have needed to say "Okay No X, means group 4, unless Y means group 3... so that's /Y -> /X... and then the contrapositive is X->Y."
And third and maybe unrelated? Don't be afraid to flag questions and skip them to return to them later. It saves so much time and brain juice.
TLDR: Welcome to the LSAT! I hope you stay for as long as you need to lol, we're all in this together! If you have any questions, you can just respond here, or even shoot me a DM! (Just figured that out a couple days ago). I'd be glad to maybe go over some LR questions with you to kind of give some live talk through about my message!
I think a helpful tip for myself is to really focus on how the conclusion follows from the premises in the stimulus. After reading the question stem, the first thing I do is think "Okay, what is the author trying to say?" After that, I look for the premises.
For example:
"Okay, what is the author trying to say"
"If your dog is healthy, it is dangerous"
"Why is the author saying all healthy dogs are dangerous?"
"Because 'my neighbors dog sometimes bites when I put my hand in his mouth'"
Flaw then becomes clear: It's a unrepresentative sample. The conclusion talks about "healthy dogs", but then gives the example of a dog with rabies.
Another flaw COULD be that correlation-causation: that just because ONE dog (which is unrepresentative) is dangerous, that doesn't mean that ALL (healthy) dogs are dangerous!
So maybe that's where you might be saying that you get tripped up between "multiple flaws." But as long as you stick to the stimulus and really hug the premise and conclusion, you should be fine.
For example, if one of the answer choices for my flawed dog question above was: "confuses sufficiency for necessity"
Then you know right away that answer is wrong. By going over the argument's relationship between premise and conclusion, you know that there is one MAIN flaw (unrepresentative sample), one MAYBE/QUESTIONABLE flaw (correlation-causation), and a sufficiency-necessity flaw (although common in the LSAT) is neither of the flaws.
TLDR: my best advice is to really be like white-on-rice, clingy, critical, and sherlock holmes-esque on the conclusion and premises. Once you find the relationship out, I feel like you're already halfway there to solving the answer!
IMO, regarding one, I actually read the question stem first to identify the question, just like you do. But then I just hone in on the conclusion first and look to highlight it before I read anything else. I really just either do a quick skim/hunt for conclusion indicators before heading into the actual stimulus and looking for flaws/gaps.
I kind of read it backwards. Like "Okay this is the author's conclusion, why does he think that?" That way, I see the argument a little more clearer in my head without getting lost in the sauce of the stimulus pasta.
For your second point, honestly, don't rush! Just the fact that you got past the CC is something to be proud of! It's totally normal to feel disappointed in your first PT post CC because you it's a totally different monster!
First, I'd like to hint that starting question 10 is where they start to sprinkle harder questions. So what I find helpful is that when I pass question 9 I mentally brace myself and get ready to flag questions.
Second, I'd HIGHLY recommend flagging questions. Generally, I like to keep my timing just around a minute per question. If I look at the timer and it's been more then a minute, I flag it and just move on. Chances are, that's a hard question, and it isn't worth draining all your brain juices for one question. Remember: Each LSAT question is 1 point, regardless of difficulty.
Third, just stick with drilling! Do some drills where you set the time to unlimited, to get your process down. Do some drills where you are timed to fix your speed. Its a grind from here on, but I'm sure you got this!
OH I can attest that writing down does help! For background information, I average about 165 for PTs, with my peak being 170. However, in the past I would only do Low-Res summaries in my head. Additionally, I thought that I was good at reading and kind of neglected RC prep. However, when I started to actually write down the Low-Res summaries, I noticed that just by writing down I get a 1-2 point increase.
I feel like writing Low-Res summaries helps me unload thoughts onto the page so I have more brain juice to work keep a critical mind of what I'm reading. On top of that, it is more helpful to do a recap of the Low-Res written down before jumping into the questions, at least in my opinion, than to just do a recap of the passage in your head by looking at the passage and your highlights.
I'd strongly encourage you to write your Low-Res down! It feels weird at first, but once you see the score increase you won't care how you look as long as you get your points!
This question I feel like isn't tough if we stick to the details, but I got it wrong because I made the assumption that "creative and resourceful" was the same as "children's cognitive development". BUT that exact assumption is what is the flaw, and is in E.
Dang this question was hard af during the test. Maybe I just had a foggy brain, but looking at it now I should've gotten it right.
This is an NA question, so first thing that we need to remember is that the negation test is the final step.
Second, we see that argument goes "analogy -> conclusion", and in the argument the author states the vibes that it would be ridiculous if someone couldn't have an idea about what the fruit is until learning its name.
Right away, we see that the analogy is the only support for the conclusion, therefore the NA must have to do with that analogy. On top of that, if the analogy is like "oh it would be ridiculous", then the NA is that yes it would be!
D gives credence to the analogy by saying that it people do know the fruit even before knowing the name. If negated, people wouldn't know the fruit unless it knew its name, and then the analogy in the stimulus doesn't seem so far fetched, and then the only support for the conclusion crumbles.
I think these are all great topics! Personally, I had a lot of opportunities to list the things that I found important in every application I submitted. So I don't think you should be worried about choosing one over the other: I'd write them all!
On top of that, the 7sage cc says, and I agree, that its important to have relevant details, but even more important to have things in your application that set you apart from everyone else!
@SadieIgoe Yes! In comparing the number of injuries in 1980 and 1950, the winner is 1980s.
Yeah! I had a previous post about this! J.Y. said that it's just cuz there's a lot of people trying to get answers from tutors now cuz of the high number of people taking the January LSAT. Just sit tight! Hopefully they respond soon!
@ShantiJean-Louis Hi! No they don't say the same thing, and that's because of one work. "If".
A says If overall profitability decreases, the bean price will increase
Lawgic: P dec -> B inc
C changes the position of "if"
Overall profitability will decrease IF beans increase
Lawgic: B inc -> P dec
So while they have the same conditions, what matters is the indicator word "if".
If this question gave you trouble, I'd highly recommend reviewing the Core Curriculum lesson on indicator words. Additionally, I'd recommend getting used to being SUPER sensitive to sufficiency and necessity. A lot of questions in the LSAT are going to have sufficient-necessary confusion involved.
She gave this last class, it was a link to a coda. Not sure if this is what you want but here you go!
https://coda.io/d/Study-Plan-Workshop_dFHIcq8F0tO/When-to-take-PTs_sudFrivW#_luBoedQa
Hi Reice! I just took the online LSAT last November. Definitely the proctor wouldn't allow an external monitor.
I took the LSAT in my father's office with my laptop, and the room had an external monitor, some books, a computer, 3 large printers, and a out-of-commission flat-screen. TLDR after a lot of phone calls with Prometric I had to cover and unplug all the printers and the monitor, and carry the books and flat-screen outside of the room even though it was unplugged.
Keep in mind that everything depends on your day-of proctor. I'd suggest you keep some extra towels/blankets nearby in case you need to cover anything. Aside from that, you can refer to the Prometric website and it has a list of items that are allowed to be in the room with you during testing, although there are some discrepancies (for example, I had to cover and unplug the printers even though the website says that they just need to be turned off, and the website also says that books can stay in the room as long as they are not accessed during the test, but my proctor told me to remove them.)
If you have any questions, I'd highly recommend calling Prometric as well. The quality of the person on the other end varies, but usually you get all of your questions answered within 1-2 calls.
I hope this helps!
@J.Y. Ping Thank you! I had a question about PT136.S3.P2.Q10 :)
I have a Live subscription, and I bought it so that I could get tutor responses. However, I asked a question weeks ago and still haven't heard back from my email. Just wondering what is the usual response time for a question.
I got question 6 wrong (Based on the passage, the author most likely holds which one of the following views toward Spanish poetry's relationship to the Spanish cultural past?)
I initially chose C because I thought that central theme was quite reflective of the relationship between Spanish poetry and Spanish cultural history. After all, the passage did talk a lot about the cultural conservatism and basically how important Spanish history is to its poetry.
BUT looking at the answer again, I realized that C is too strong to be correct. The relationship itself is not THE central theme of much Spanish poetry. There is nothing in the stimulus that gives any detail about "much Spanish poetry." So we can't come to the conclusion that the relationship is THE central theme.
D is correct, because it says that the relationship infuses Spanish poetry with reluctance to embrace modernity, which is mentioned in the final paragraph.
Again, in questions that ask for inference, try and give a little bit more attention to facts that we know for certain. That way, we can draw inferences from them.
Sure! Hmu with a message sometime! Maybe a particular lesson/concept that you found to be hard?
In any case, I'm just a 7Sager like you lol, but I feel like I have a pretty good concept on the Lawgic part? I feel like most of my struggling comes from top-tier difficulty LR questions or RC questions.
One thing to remember in this question is that "proof" of something does not mean that the "proof" is a causal mechanism. Remember in the garbage can argument, proof that the cat is licking its paw is not proof that the cat knocked the garbage bin over. We need the assumption that licking the paw only happens when he knocks the can over.
C and E are wrong because they introduce the Western World, which leads us to assume a connection between free agency and Western philosophy. A and B are incorrect because they both say that the "proof" did something. So D is and must be correct.
For those interested, here's how I approached the question.
First, look at the conclusion of the stimulus, and then match it with a conclusion in the answer choices. We see that the stimulus concludes prescriptively that there is only one option (that people be taxed according to their income). So then I look for the answer choices that have a matching conclusion that says something is the ONLY way of solving a problem. A is the only one that matches.
Diving deeper, we can look at the rest of the stimulus. The structure presents what is "most objective" and draws a conclusive conclusion.
I initially got confused because acceleration doesn't equal speed. In my head, a car can accelerate 0 to 10 in 0.01 seconds, but still have a top speed of 20 miles per hour. Not very fast.
BUT the question asks which one is MOST similar. A beats the rest of the questions by a long shot, even though there is a flaw. If the question read "Which one of the following is analogous to the reasoning in the argument?", then I feel like there wouldn't be a correct answer. BUT because it asks "most similar", I needed to be more lenient with my answer choices.
TLDR: Be extra sensitive to the question stem.
What helped me in this question was the grammar parsing, and stripping down to the kernel of the stimulus
(money measures value) -> fragment
Non-ind-societies = /(money measures value)
---
/fragment
After it took me longer than usual to parse the stimulus, I got the pattern down and realized that the stimulus was just sufficient-necessary confusion. Denying the sufficient (which is money measuring value) does not lead to a valid conclusion about fragmentation.
After I realized this flaw, went looking for the right answer.
A is wrong, since it doesn't deny the sufficient and draw a conclusion
B is wrong, but I left it as a possibility. It was attractive but looking back it doesn't make sense that it was. The stimulus is not a comparative passage, and B actually makes sense (which is maybe why my outside intuition made this look attractive.)
C is wrong, wrong flaw. Remember that if A -> B and A -> C, then only Some B are C. This answer says all B are C, which is invalid.
D is correct. Fits denying the sufficient to draw a denied necessary conclusion.
E is wrong, comparative.
@Akrame26 Hey! It's your favourite brain-rot helper! Let me see if I can simplify this for ya.
Comparatives are just a fancy way of comparing two things on some value/characteristic. The lessons on comparatives are not meant to confuse, but it's just more of a refresher. Let me give you an example:
"Iron Man is stronger than Batman." This sentence (debatable) is comparing two subjects on a value. You have two people (Iron Man vs. Batman), and you have the value (strength).
One thing that I like to keep in mind is to look for the hard R's, the -er behind any adjective: Stronger, richer, taller, faster. Those should signal Hey, something is being compared. And that's all. You may notice that just because a sentence says "Iron Man is stronger than Batman," you don't know exactly HOW much stronger. Therefore, you can only validly (logically) conclude that Iron Man is STRONGER than Batman, but you don't know the specifics.
Let's apply this logic to question 5:
"The right of future generations to have their artistic heritage preserved is of greater importance than the rights of any presently living individual."
Your inner dialogue should look like this:
Eyes: I see the -er! That means that there's a comparative!
Brain: So what does that mean?
Eyes: Uhm, I think that just means that something is greater than something else.
Brain: Hmm. Greater importance. And the two subjects are the right of future generations to keep art against the rights of any presently living hooman.
TLDR: This lesson is just warning you that there are comparative sentences in the LSAT. I'd say that out of the 25+ questions per section, around 6-7 of them contain some comparative. I also make the error of reading a stimulus and my eyes rolling back because I'm mentally drained, so this is my strategy:
Look for the -er (Daft Punk would say: Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger)
Identify the two [or more!] subjects going head-to-head in the ring (Iron Man vs. Batman, etc.)
See who comes out on top!
Whenever I see comparatives, I think Yugi-Oh, and my brain goes:
I originally translated the phrase into
NHH -> SPOPPPH
And then I kicked up NHH up to the domain
Domain: NHH
Now we are left with "it should be provided by an organization whose primary purpose is the promotion of health." What is the rule of this sentence? I read it as "if something is to be provided, it should be from an OPPPH.
So in conclusion,
Domain: Things necessary for human health
Rule: If provided -> Should be from an organization whose primary purpose is the promotion of health.
Hi Aida! For weaken and strengthening, I really just focus on the relationship between the conclusion and the premises in the stimulus. Finding out why the author comes to their conclusion is important. Also, just remembering HOW to weaken an argument (most often being introducing alternative explanations) helps as well. For strengthening, you can identify the "gap" in the author's reasoning (If author thinks dogs are bad because having fur is bad, the statement "all dogs have fur" would strengthen the argument by filling the gap). Strengthen questions can also have the negation or blocking of a weakener as the correct answer!