I think it's an excellent move to add these. Every LR question that we do depends on at least some of the underlying skills that these games are based on, and for that reason they seem to me like a promising way to systematically train these skills in isolation, which is something that you, I believe, cannot do as efficiently by just reviewing LR questions themselves. Also, they seem like an excellent way to warm up before doing sections, drills, or even PTs, without using actual LSAT questions. Overall, I feel like this is a very strong use of gamification for learning purposes!

For feedback,

when it comes to LOGIC BLITZ, it would be great if all of the conditional statements were included (I didn't see a lot of "unless", "until", "cannot", "not both", etc). That would make it better for translation skill building. When it comes to LOGIC LINKS, I think it's too easy, even at the hardest difficulty, so perhaps making it more challenging would be great.

Very smart question

fantastic

It's an interesting question, and I very much agree with JY that re-framing it as an MSS question would make this much easier and sort of consistent with everything we've been taught in the 7Sage curriculum. I chose E originally because I went with the logic that a main conclusion question must be something explicitly stated in the argument. I was torn between A and E and then used this logic to eliminate A, seeing how it is clearly not explicitly stated in the stimulus. And yet there's another rule that I did not originally take into consideration and that is that the MAIN CONCLUSION of any argument cannot ever be something that supports another conclusion in the argument. By that logic, E clearly fails, since we can clearly use E to support A (meaning that E is just a premise, not the conclusion). In other words, People in a democracy should not neglect to vote BECAUSE Large-scale dishonesty and neglect of public duty will be destructive of democratic and other societies. Following this, it clearly doesn't make any sense to state that Large-scale dishonesty and neglect of public duty will be destructive of democratic and other societies BECAUSE People in a democracy should not neglect to vote. So, this made me update my logic: the main conclusion doesn't necessarily have to be stated explicitly in the stimulus, but it MUST BE something that cannot support anything else further in the passage. In other words, it has to be the logical terminus of the entire argument.

The curve on the T is crooked just like you are case dismissed

I've never heard the word "rebate" in my life

Now here's a great example of a question where translating abstract stimulus language into concrete and familiar examples is so important to understand the argument and its underlying logic (assumption). Like JY said, LSAT writers intentionally use abstract and overcomplicated language to obscure the logic, and one of the ways in which you can counter that is by simply translating vague principles and descriptions into simple, intuitive, and easily digestible examples that you can then work with. Now that I think of it, it's one of the most valuable LSAT skills in general and I see JY using it all the time when he is dissecting questions in LR.

What

Ah yes, if it ain't the good ole' OLDEST MISTAKE IN THE BOOK.

What a perfect example of an answer choice which seems so obviously correct that you're hesitant to choose it solely because of this reason and end up wasting valuable time on double and triple confirming whether other answer choices are incorrect. LSAT test makers are some sneaky mfs

Got it right but damn Who tf are you Pat to just walk all over the rules and just YOINK the coupon like that

It would be terrific if 7Sage could introduce a separate drill-based assignment—perhaps daily or weekly—that focuses exclusively on translating statements into Lawgic and drawing valid inferences. Essentially, this would function like the Core Curriculum Skill Builder exercises, but in a recurring format that continually provides new translation drills for practice.

@KhushyMandania The difference is just about whether you are negating the conditional relationship (stating that it is not the case that A is sufficient for B) or negating the "all" statement (stating that it is not the case that ALL members of set A belong to set B). If we take the example of sentence "All dogs are cute" to illustrate this point, if we want to negate the conditional relationship in this sentence, that is to state that it's not sufficient to be a dog in order to be a cute being, we therefore write in Lawgic that we have D conjunction ~C (D and ~C) . It's like saying: "Hey, here's a set in which I have a dog, and look, it's not cute.) Alternatively, if we want to negate the quantifier ALL, meaning that we want to state that NOT ALL dogs are cute, we are therefore saying that some dogs are not cute, which we express in Lawgic by writing D < -- s -- > ~C. So, for all practical purposes, whether we are going to use one kind of negation or the other depends purely on what instructions are we given in English.

The new curriculum / UX looks amazing