I relate with all four. More so, I have begun to see how illogical I can be as well as how illogical most arguments are (i.e. the ones we are used to hearing on a everyday basis via advertisements, disputes between friends, etc.). Humbling, for sure.

Anyone else get jealous seeing how easy J.Y. makes it look?

Would this be considered one of those "curvebrearker" questions? For one, you have complicated logic, and then, of course, the correct answer is in the contrapositive form.

I got thrown off by the "for this" in the second sentence; I made the mistake of thinking that it referred to the sentence's logic as a whole instead of the NC i.e. "mine the full implications..."

This provides some great motivation and perspective. Thank you. All the best in your first year of law school!

Possible? Absolutely. Will it take great determination, planning, self-discipline, and efficient studying on your part? Most likely more so than ever before in your academic endeavors.

Did anyone else find this passage particularly challenging? Last passage of the section, 7 questions, difficult wording in the ACs.

I think our best hope would be to prephrase when you can and have a good structural grasp of the passage. I know I'm preaching to the choir, here. Perhaps it just shows that fundamentals really are that important when it comes to the LSAT.

I would advise you to avoid seeing causation logic as relevant "only" for strengthening and weakening question types. One of the aspects of 7sage (as well as the LSAT Trainer) that sets it apart from other prep companies is that it emphasizes how all LR questions are fundamentally testing the same concepts just in a slightly different light.

Have you seen this lesson yet at the end of the Point at Issue lessons?

Keep telling yourself that there are four irrelevant ACs and one relevant correct AC. The litmus test will be whether the AC gets "in-between" the premise and the conclusion of the argument.

Have you tried writing out the LR questions you get wrong? That really helps me get in The mind of the test makers.

The crux of LR, as well as all of the LSAT, is confidence in mental discipline. The stimulus and ACs are intentionally written to be confusing. Think of the ACs as a gaunlet (I hate cheesy illustrations, but this will have to do) where the tentmakers are seeing how firm your grasp is of the argument (i.e. premises, conclusion, and perhaps most importantly, assumptions). If you don't have a firm grasp of the stimulus, you'll likely get tossed and turned all over the place by the ACs, since they are expertly crafted to be exceedingly tempting.

Hope that helps!

Go to Harvard, Columbia, school-of-your-choice's law reviews, print out some of their articles, and do the Memory Method with them! This has helped me! Law is also my worst RC subject

What I know about LSAT prep would tell me 10 hours is not enough weekly study time.

But if you decide to still take it in June, focus on the easiest way to increase your score. Which would probably be mastering LGs and aiming for 100% on the first 10-12 questions on the LR sections.

Confidence is key on this exam. What the tentmakers are doing with each AC is that they are trying to startle you. Think of the ACs as a gauntlet you're going through, and the only way to make it through alive is having a firm grasp of the Argument (i.e. LR section of course.

It has helped me a ton to simply write down arguments that I struggle with. Confidence, right? You need to breed yourself to think like the testmakers.

The two embedded "without"s in the premise and conclusion really threw me off while I was trying to diagram. Should I take those "without"s into account? Or am I thinking too hard here?

As I was reading this, three phrases stuck out:

1. "exlusive source of funding"

2. "solely be"

3. "One of the other ... necessary"

Please correct me if I am wrong, but this seems like a biconditional, specifically, the "always apart, never together" type. Because you need at least one (Govt or Corp.) but you cannot have both of them (emphasized by the "exclusive and "solely").

I also want to note how in the "or" lessons, J.Y. spoke of how if the "or" is going to be an "exclusive or", LSAC will make sure to emphasize that it is such; that's precisely what we get with the three phrases listed above.

Once you grasp this, A, B, C, and E all pop out as uncertain,while D is undoubtable.

This question is a good example of how in MBT, and LR in general, you have to see the forest AND the trees. If you were so caught up in trying to diagram from the get-go, you probably missed this observation. Gotta be flexible, yo.

In summary, getting this question correct hinges on a mastery of "or" and recognizing biconditionals.

I really do believe that improving your raw reading ability plays a larger role than we would like to think in terms of improving our RC scores. Don't just start reading dense material, but read to memorize structure and the underlying interaction within the passages viewpoints/evidence/etc. JY's memory method is a great place to start. Make it a habit. Every day!

One thing that has been a huge help for me is thinking in terms of "coloring in" the details of the premise in order to strengthen the support in between the premise and conclusion. Just at face value, all LR arguments are relatively short;(I think the longest question I've seen was seven sentences on an early PT?) hence, there almost has to be other details out there that will give it more support. In a sense, be aware that the situation given is not the entire story. There are still many brave new worlds of premises and background information that await to to be explored and conquered (A vague cheesy way or approaching the ACs; forgive me). ><

Practically speaking, take note of any new words or concepts that appear in the premise or conclusion, which tend to indicate subtle scope shifts that can help you see the "gap" that needs to be strengthened.

'Hope that helps!

This is a great example of how the LSAT requires us to focus on the "How?" as well as the "What?" Looking back, I got this question wrong precisely because I allowed myself to become absorbed in the more trivial semantic issues, rather than concentrating on how each arguer attempts to justify his/ her conclusion.

I like some soft music when reviewing; however, I try to mimic test conditions when doing preptests and practice problems, so I turn off the tunes then. But I will say I have found great benefit in taking PTs in various atmosphere (e.g. coffee shops, planes, libraries). So if I guess used to taking PTs in noisy environments then-as long as an atomic bomb or such doesn't drop in the vicinity of my testing center- I will be more used to the silence during test day. I hope that helps!

Have you checked out J.Y.'s memory method? It's worked great for me.

As an aside point, this section really just tests your short term retention. Hence, which is why some questions are time traps and others you must learn to skip/make an educated guess on.

@.phillip I agree 100% with what you said about reading inactively as being a huge time-sucker. One of the goals I set for myself when reading is trying to discipline myself to reading the stimulus just once and simply referring to it after, if that need be.

I'm also pretty sure that the more you dwell on a question, the more likely you are to get in wrong.

Active reading and blind review, please! Thank you so much for hosting this!

I don't want to be "that guy" who points out spelling, but shouldn't it be "affect" in AC 'A'? "Effect" is a noun, while "affect" is a verb.

If I'm correct, any chances LSAC will spot me 2 or 3 points on test day? Maybe for those parallel flaw questions? (insert sarcasm here)

I go to MSU! But I'm studying abroad in Korea right now...

The testmakers sure do love testing the double negatives...

Two thumbs up to the step-by-step/argument-by-argument.

It really reveals the wrong answer choices for the abominations they are (and how the test makers are trying to get us to falsely equate ideas; hence, the mistake I made with B)

Rather than fool proofing all at once, spread out your practice over an extended period of time (say, a week). And drill similar game types; in they end, they really are essentially the same.