I interpret the post above mine to be a clear affirmative of the necessity (see what I did there?) of such an understanding of sufficiency and necessity

Thanks so much for posting. Sometimes I need to be reminded how a lawyer can do good for people, and personally, this exemplifies a broken justice system... one that our generation better fix.

Also thanks for the links to the blogs above! @ if you have any other links to blogs/interesting legal news, I'd really appreciate a DM or reply

It was worth a try...

I used both - that is, I paid for both (and know of at least other person who used both) and we agreed that overall the course structure of 7sage is preferable to Velocity, especially with the aid of powerscore bibles and some other books.

My experience was that Dave Hall's explanations of LR problems can easily be lost on someone without a strong foundation. His LG material worked well for me, but I took to LG without much issue so I'm not sure if that is attributable to him.

One often overlooked thing to consider is that Velocity doesn't use just pre-PT36 material so if you use Cambridge packets it can be an issue if you expose yourself to too many later prep tests and rely on those later ones to be pristine.

For me, velocity was very pricey compared to 7sage as well. My friend scored a 169 on his first test, and I'm PTing around there at the moment and hope to break into the 170s in two weeks. Good luck

What if I had a paid account, which expired at the end of November, that I still use for analytics/LGs? Will I get a month of access or will i have to already be a subscriber?

Don't mean to direct the attention of the thread, but I've got a question about what resources to use for LR questions that are giving me a bit of trouble.

Having now tested from a diagnostic of 152, now scoring BR consistently in the mid to high 170s and my most recent is PT 164 timed / BR 175. My goal is as far above 170 as possible.

I lose most my points in LR, and while I almost never get certain question types wrong (Necessary Assumption, for example), Flaw questions and PSA questions seem to be the worst (in terms of about 70% accuracy for those, timed.

Specifically with flaw type, is there any way to get better at understanding the answer choices without getting caught up in the wording? Is prephrasing a necessary component to solving these with 100% accuracy?

Otherwise, I usually score LG perfectly under time, RC is coming along well, but I feel like LR is still leading to me needing to rush a bit to finish them all.

In a lot of LR review, I've learned a few things that I can tell you that may help you quickly - that is to say, other than just practicing.

Make sure you're 100% able to ID the conclusion and support given for it. And as you read, try to put the argument into more simple terms... the test will absolutely try to tie you up with bad grammar.

For me, it takes about 5-15 seconds to eliminate 3, if not 4 answer choices. Depending on the question type... reasons re: why change. For example, for an inference question, look for "some" or weaker language in the correct answer. Not always, but at least sometimes...

Do not be afraid to sit and read a question you just don't "get" over and over, out loud, as if teaching it, etc, whatever works! Literally - if it takes 30 minutes for it to click in your mind, you're all set. Best 30 minutes of prep possible.

It looks like you've already decided you can't do LR that well, and each post appears to justify why you can't or what you'll do. The test will be here sooner than we think. If you're serious about law as a career, get going!

And seriously, POE is just a necessary component to doing well in LR. No way around it. It doesn't take longer - and if it did, it nets more correct answers for sure. Just accept that and move on. Good luck

^^^ If you have PDF files, you may print them out for personal use and that is it - it is the distribution and selling of LSATS in PDF format that is prohibited.

The idea is to keep the information/questions on each PT as property of LSAC, and my assumption is that they feared with Cambridge bundles and pdf files of all the PTs, that the year-to-year turnover of the files would go from student to student, thereby losing business/revenue for LSAC.

I can't blame them, but personally, I feel as though there are wiser ways to approach the issue. That's another discussion anyway.

hmmm the nature of your question is a bit confusing, but perhaps I just don't understand.

Any stimulus that is followed by "this argument is flawed because it takes for granted" is a Flaw question, which are referred to as Flaw/Descriptive Weakening questions. They are looking for an articulation of the flaw that the argument fallaciously uses to reach its conclusion.

Necessary Assumption questions ask "which of the following is something on which the argument depends?" Or sometimes they use the word "requires" instead of "depends". Either way, it's look for an answer choice that must be true in order for the conclusion of the argument to be true. It must be something that is necessary for the argument.

Not sure what you mean by a flaw argument in disguise or anything like that. All LR questions can be classified as 1) arguments or 2) data sets. Nothing is disguised really. All NA questions will have a flaw within the stimulus, but be careful as that is not the same as a question looking for the flaw to be articulated.

Let me know if you've got any other questions. Good luck!

I'm in a similar boat - I felt as though, as Dec approached, my scores were getting much better (reaching a peak of 89 raw score right before the test). I took the test, and although LG was rough, I felt as though LG3 was an easy game built to look scary - I didn't have enough time to finish game #4 completely, so I guessed on 2 or 3 questions.

I am gonna take what I get for this Dec test, and just keep on preparing apps as well as prepping for the LSAT. If I really get a weaker score than I thought (lower 160s), I will be prepared for Feb.

The only issue is that if I get near my goal score (170) but fall short... It'll be hard to know whether a retake is in my best interest. Either way, while we wait for scores to come back, it's probably best to keep at the PTs and BR while there is ample time.

I reread your post and think you changed the order of the sentence before applying the negation. In this sentence, the without is your only logical indicator (depending on whether one wishes to use "not" as such in the necessary condition).

Also: "All but lost" cannot be treated as the same as "not lost". There is a significant difference between these two about which the LSAT will test your understanding.

When you read "Without strength or endurance, the fight is not lost", you should be careful before treating that as "the fight is not lost without Stength or endurance". This can lead to errors in translating them correctly if one isn't careful.

Whatever word or phrase "Without" introduces is what will become your (after being negated) sufficient condition. Same as any "unless" you see.

Okay, so "without strength or endurance, the fight is not lost":

Without indicates the need to negate the sufficient condition, and in this sentence we have 2. Either one condition or another condition can be met for the necessary to follow.

Negate strength:- ~S

Negate endurance: ~E

~S or ~E --> F

Where F = fight is all but lost

S = strength

E = endurance

To contrapose, we would flip and negate: ~F --> S and E

If drawn out, we could split the sufficient condition in the first translation and split the necessary in the contrapositive translation. I'm on my phone, otherwise I'd try to write it as such.

It looks as though you may not understand the nature of "without" as it applies to negating certain conditions. Much like "unless", or "either or", you have to negate the sufficient condition (or conditions). The tricky part here is that two ideas exist in the sufficient condition.

Does that clear it up?

It makes sense to diagram it as JY teaches us. By splitting the necessary condition, it visually indicates by meeting one OR the other sufficient condition, the necessary will be met.

Likewise, when AND exists in the necessary condition, that can be split with arrows as the OP posted. If AND exists in the sufficient, or if OR exists in the necessary, you must write it out.

I have to echo what Nicole said. This kind of statement is best something you read - and just understand intuitively.

Learning conditional logic may be very important to the LSAT, but those who do very very well on the test ultimately learn conditional logic so that they can read complex statements like that one without having to translate it.

Ask yourself if you truly "get" the sentence more if you change it into "if ...then..." form. The above appears way too complex when translated that way.

If you want my advice, you ought to consider what school or schools you want to attend. No offense, but 136-140 is in the lowest range for any school worth the price of admission.

Anyone, yourself included, can score over 150 and probably 160 with lots of effort.

Ask yourself, have I taken every single prep test? (There are 75 + a few more officially released). If so, have you gone over any question you missed or were unsure of until you understood why it was wrong?

Taking in October seems to be a mistake, if you'd like my frank opinion. I'd cancel if I were you because a score in that range can only hurt you.

Also, don't settle for whatever score you get you'll be happy with. Why not aim for a 165? You can do it - the test will test your character, endurance, and discipline.

Specifically for LG, sequencing games (put into order) and grouping games (distribute elements among groups) shouldn't be a primary focus. Understanding rules, how to diagram, conditionality, and how to make inferences is more important for where you're at.

Good luck to you and contact me or anyone else here with any questions you've got!

Well with a diagnostic of157 and a score of 168, you have an incredible amount of potential!

Even if you have taken all PTs, it's worth going through them with BR to identify where you're losing points.

For example, when I blind review, my score is usually over 175, with a timed score approaching 170. Last week I found almost ALL of my missed LR questions are point at issue, and more difficult Pseudo SA, and argument part questions. Odd thing was I aced my SA questions - turns out the stems threw me off and I gained several points from it.

You have a very high ceiling with the improvement done already - proper BR in addition could pull you up to a 175+ but either way, congrats and good luck!

I've always read the stem - but to be fair, that's how I prepared for the test. For most stems, what is being asked of me clicks almost instantly and then I have a tunnel like focus as I read the stimulus. I read MBT questions slightly different than MP, which differs slightly than NA, etc.

I've read most high scorers read the stimulus first but I do much better with the question stem. For reference, I am currently PTing ~88 raw score, which varies but it's usually around 169. Good luck!

my go to when I first started were geographical conditionals...

If you're in Albany, then you are in NY state.

If you're not in NY state, then you're not in Albany.

Or, more like your example:

If you're in Wyoming, then you aren't in San Diego.

If you are in San Diego, you aren't in Wyoming.

good luck!

It sounds like the high GPA is a reason that could potentially explain both the cause and effect in the reasoning, effectively ruining the argument.

I don't have that test in front of me but C sounds like your standard weakening AC for cause/effect

No plant is worth growing unless it bears fruit.

So this unless statement is pretty simple - the sufficient condition (WG) is already negated with "No...", so you end up with the same translation as though you had "If a plant is worth growing, then it bears fruit":

WG -> BF

~BF -> ~WG

You just cannot apply Early Decision. Otherwise, applying with the Dec. LSAT is fine as long as you do what @ recommended. Good luck!

Exactly - the test will throw words at you to try to fool those test takers who might overthink things, but I found it essential to learn about necessary and sufficient conditions so then I could later, while reading, not have to devote my mind to that stuff (except for a logic heavy stimulus here and there.)

While you prep, just make sure to incorporate (with whatever you're studying at the time), a macro-level understanding of what the sentences mean, how they support (or receive support) from one another, and how the argument is intended to be understood. Those things in general are often overlooked, but keep on track, learn the basics and don't give up.

And always ask questions on here if you're having any issues. Good luck!

Okay so these are the kind of sentences you want to have a firm grasp on before moving on - and it will be easier than you think.

I found that relying on my intuition became reliable when I began to read and truly think about what the statement in front of me meant.

For example, “Bravery is essential to overcome adversity”

think about what this is saying. Try to not think explicitly in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions unless you also understand the nature of what it means to be necessary or sufficient.

For bravery to be essential (that's a strong word) for something else, it means for that something else, you'll need bravery.

In other words, to overcome adversity, it is essential (necessary) one has bravery. If Overcome Adversity then

Something being essential for something else is the same, or close to it, as being necessary.

“Beauty is always in the eyes of the beholder”

Instead of overthinking, see that this sentence just says C is D. The word always is likely included to be potentially confusing, but to apply indicator rules to think 'beauty' is necessary is incorrect and is overthinking things. If a sentence says X is Y, it will always translate to if X then Y.

My advice is to keep practicing, memorize indicators but also memorize when you're looking at an indicator word that shows us necessity or sufficiency, as well as when it just appears as part of the necessary condition (like above).

If you never actually BR'd, then may I ask what your diagnostic score was?

BR on the tests you've taken may very well have been the difference between where you scored and a very high potential score.

If you're trying to strengthen a claim about what happens when parents sing to their children (they sound different, while trying to sound the same), it does little to our argument in knowing what happens when no child is present.

Compare that with D, which gives an explanation to the question of how the parents are, in fact, sounding different, thereby strengthening the conclusion.