i personally think 7Sage’s lessons on logic games, sufficient/necessary assumptions, and introductory conditional reasoning are essential. i’ve been with 7Sage since the very beginning of my studies, so I may be biased. i found that over the months of studying, logic kind of became a second nature; the wording and nuances of the LSAT are often the hardest, not the underlying logic itself. once you drill conditional reasoning, the questions become easier and easier, because you can focus on the finer details.

surprisingly (but thankfully), no technical issues, and proctor was brief and helpful. overall more difficult exam compared to other recent preptests from 2020 (May, and others on LawHub) in my opinion. also had 2 RC back to back :/

In my opinion, I would take it. My LSAT is Sunday and I just took a preptest to tighten up loose ends. It could provide relevant last-minute insight into questions you get wrong, so you can remind yourself what you need to focus on for test day! Hope this helps :)

if a question like this shows up on my exam...good luck Charlie

@baecorine524 said:

https://www.macworld.co.uk/how-to/free-memory-ram-mac-3681038/

I used this link and made some changes through my activity monitor. The problem was solved afterwards.

thank you so much!

@baecorine524 said:

yeah I had a similar issue. it was showing the same thing for me on my mac. Clean my mac didn't free up enough RAM. I ended up using a different computer.... just for peace of mind. Were you using Chrome as your browser? Chrome uses a lot of ram. So maybe test with a different browser?

i originally was using Safari, but then ProctorU’s site said Chrome was needed for the test, so I switched to that. I believe both used relatively the same amount of RAM (i think there was probably 300 MB left for each which is so bad lol). glad to know that i’m not the only one with this issue! maybe i’ll download Firefox and try that since that’s the other browser ProctorU supports?

@jpens004872 said:

From what I always hear and personal experience, that doesnt really matter, I took two LSATs with it showing as high ram as well. Either way it doesnt hurt to make sure you have every other program thats running closed

okay thank you! that’s definitely a relief. i guess i’ll do as much as I can to control it but if it isn’t at the exact capacity hopefully there won’t be any problems!

I was SO lost with what the argument was even trying to say in this question. all I saw were two different viewpoints and sets of facts. in order to get this question right, you have to realize the referential phrasing in the conclusion, "clearly IT has already created many jobs...": it referencing the bill. The author is saying the bill created many jobs, and the reasoning is that Plastonica opened a factory and hired lots of people.

it's because you're looking at a different type of flaw! the flaw in the stimulus and in the correct AC (E) is affirming the necessary and concluding the reversal, which is invalid.

AC (A) does an illegal negation instead. it looks like this:

Premise: Tropical storm→ Hurricane

Premise: /Tropical storm

Conclusion: /Hurricane

You cannot do this! This is denying the sufficient condition. This makes the argument invalid, but not invalid in the way the stimulus is.

On the other hand, AC (E) does this:

Premise: Local outbreak of disease→Detection of high infection rates

Premise: We've detected a high infection rate

Conclusion: There will be a local outbreak of disease.

See? It affirms the necessary condition, then makes an invalid conclusion by reversing the direction of the arrow.

A couple things that helped me outside of 7Sage for strengthen and flaw questions are:

Eliminate premise booster AC's for Strengthen Q's.

I was repeatedly getting strengthen questions wrong for a while because I would choose answers that popped out in such an obvious way. They're disguised as attractive AC's, but they do nothing to the argument itself. The gap is the key, and the AC MUST address it by either showing a supportive example, that absence of the cause-->absence of the effect, that there are no additional factors that could alter the results, or that the sample was large and free of bias.

Make identifying flaws like second nature.

In order to increase your accuracy and timing on flaw questions, knowing every single type of flaw is soooo crucial. As far as nailing the 4/5 rated difficulty flaw questions, it narrows down to the language. Take the extra time you need to read carefully, since one phrase can distinguish the incorrect from the correct answer choice. Never compare the AC's with each other, only compare them to the stimulus. Very similar to reading comp: always refer to what you're given, and make minimal, if not no assumptions.

Hope this helps, wishing you the best of luck :)

another tip for this question is never interpret "MANY" to mean a lot! many just means several, making it weak as a strengthener. AC (E.) is weak in respect to the possibilities of corroborating the hypothesis, but it is sooo strong compared to the other answer choices.

oof. really struggled with this one. after further review it reminds me of a past RC passage about "negative evidence". while on flaw questions this is absolutely a leap in logic and we should be skeptical of the "unproven vs. untrue" fallacy, this is a SA question. can't be skeptical about what we're given. the author is basically telling us that there are two possible worlds: Selena is telling the truth and has psychic powers, and Selena is not telling the truth and she lacks psychic powers. the "whether" is a HUGE LANGUAGE CUE in this question. it ultimately means that whatever the case, we can determine for sure the possibility of anyone having psychic powers. like J.Y. says, we're given a red herring statement about Selena "claiming" to have psychic powers. the core of the argument lies in the conditional statement itself; this is all you need to determine the missing SA.

SELENA DOES HAVE PSYCHIC POWERS (true)→ POSSIBLE TO HAVE PSYCHIC POWERS

now the other half...

SELENA DOES NOT HAVE PSYCHIC POWERS (untrue)→ NOT POSSIBLE TO HAVE PSYCHIC POWERS

take the contrapositive of this ^ (classic LSAC making the AC the reverse of what you mapped) and you get (B)! If it is possible to have psychic powers, then Selena does have psychic powers.

technically no, it would not be a necessary indicator! the "after" part is actually indicating that IN ORDER to qualify for the retirement plan, you need 1+ years. this is sufficiency. the way the sentence is written is intentionally confusing so that you mix up the sufficient and necessary conditions.

reading it like this helps: "All employees of Global Airlines that have been with the company a year or more can participate in the retirement plan"

Employed with GA for 1+ years→ Participate in Plan

grammatically, the part "that have been with..." is actually a modifier of employees, because if you removed it the sentence would still have its subject and predicate. just because the sentence says "can participate"doesn't exclude this from being necessary. for example:

"All Jedi that have completed their lightsaber training can use the force."

Jedi completed lightsaber training→Use the force

"that have completed their lightsaber training" is the modifier here! just as the modifier from (D). :)

I got tripped up like everyone else...I completely missed where the possessive apostrophe was placed. CodefendantS'!!! She wants to question each codefendant with their OWN COUNSEL individually. the problem is that she can't isolate them there are 3 lawyers, each assigned. there's the overlap.

my biggest takeaway from this problem is that MOST = HALF PLUS ONE. If in the country it's easy to raise cacti and oranges, then it's MOSTLY NOT humid and NOT cold, then that would mean that IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE COUNTRY TO BE HALF HUMID AND COLD. which is our ans. choice A. diagramming confuses me on this question, and by this point in the test, time is incredibly limited. if I had just remembered during the test that most means >50%, I would have realized that A has to be false.