- Joined
- May 2026
- Subscription
- Live
sept-oct lsat gang hmu
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
@serap44 Just wanted to say I've been giving this game a go for the past couple days and it's been going much much better. Thanks for the tip!
@Rubyjesuslover Hey, I use the same strategy (also read the LH, lol) but I find it works like a charm on level 1-3 SA questions but it doesn't seem to work that well on abstract level 4-5 questions w harder stims or that require you to make an inference beforehand, recognize context vs premise, lots of conditionals, etc. Does your experience tell you the same or do you actually feel like you consistently can get level 4-5s right w the LH method?
@Bkk374 Yeah the thing about this question type is that I feel so confident about certain ACs and then other times I can't even parse the stim let alone feel confident about any AC. There's also so many strategies involved in finding the missing link to guarantee the conclusion I find it difficult to intuitively know when to use which. I feel like there's a certain patten of more complex stim when it comes to SA questions that I can't seem to recognize.
SA is the question type I fluctuate the most on: 7/7 on the Fast Track drill set and on normal 12 question sets I get anywhere from 6-12/12. There are just so many little nuances in how you approach each different SA question that can affect your reasoning, I'm wondering if anyone has any tips on how to better approach these questions as a whole so I feel less like I'm guessing what the correct answer is.
Also, the stim's for this question type seem to jumble my brain the most: does anyone have any tips for how to better parse them?
There's two really easy ways to get this question right fast without lawgic:
The first way I looked at this was the conclusion supplied us with the SC for the one rule given in the premises (the second sentence of the stim) because we got the fact that they're not acquiring the info and they're behaving rationally. We have to prove this 100% true. We know from the second sentence of the stim and the unless rule that the only way this isn't 100% true is expecting the benefits to outweigh the costs. So all we need to do is find an AC that negates that and that's what E does.
Alternatively, the thing we have to prove 100% true is that consumers who don't bother to find all this info are behaving rationally. From the premises, we can't validly prove this to be true yet because what if there's some other reason they're not bothering to find all the info out? Like they're lazy as hell and not rational at all. We would have to find an AC that fixes this in a really powerful way - something like if you don't bother to find all this info out then you must be behaving rationally. AC E does exactly this but in a less explicit way: its telling us about the people who don't bother to find all this info out and says that they don't expect the benefits will outweigh the costs. What does that mean? It means they're acting rationally!
AC E translation: If you are a consumer who doesn't bother to find all this info out then its because you don't expect the benefits to outweigh the costs. In other words, If you don't bother to find all this info out then you must be behaving rationally. (Our exact prephrase)
SA has been a weak point of mine but Kevin's explanation here does a great job of pointing out that the conclusion brought in new ideas that were not mentioned in the premises of the argument, albeit mentioned in the contextual portion of it. I was always stuck trying to figure out how to relate the conclusion back to the premises AND the context where I should probably have been more cognizant of the fact that that's the whole point of SA: the correct AC is the one bridging that gap, proving the conclusion 100% true based on strictly the reasoning of the argument, not its context. Only 5:47secs into the vid so far Kevin is an LSAT gem.
Also, just discounting an AC for the reason it doesn't discuss the new idea mentioned in the conclusion is a good way to understand that it can't be right because it doesn't prove the conclusion 100% true. How can you prove something is 100% going to happen if you don't even mention that something or anything that entails it?
Don't make the oldest mistake in the book. You need to prove your conclusion 100% true. So you should be starting from the premises to get there. Any construction that starts with "If [conclusion] ... " is clearly incorrect because how can you prove something 100% true if you're acknowledging that it may or may not happen? In this case, we need to prove the salaries are fair, so the statement "if the salaries are fair" does nothing for us, it detracts from our mission of proving that "the salaries are fair" is 100% true because it doesn't have to be the case.
The exception to this ^ is that if the conclusion itself is a conditional and the point you have to prove 100% true is in the SC, then you need an answer that has that in the SC because it activates the conditional and proves it 100% true.
D is a fast elimination for Q4 because our mission remains the same: prove the conclusion 100% true. How can we do that? Well, we only have 1 premise that relates to the term mentioned in the conclusion and its a conditional, so if any AC is taking the NC from that premise and turning it into a SC - negated or not - we know it cannot be the right answer because it would not prove the conclusion 100% true. This is because in either scenario, the AC would convey info we already know or info that is irrelevant to proving the conclusion.
Has anyone figured any strategies for getting better on time? I find myself spending a good amount of time on the stim, but I seem to be spending too much time on the answer choices. Any advice on how to either quickly discount certain choices faster (with less doubt) or how to know when its appropriate to move on without analyzing the other answer choices when you think you have gotten the correct answer?
#feedback there's a typo on one of the "principles" for the written explanation for AC C.