How important is keeping the prep tests sequential? I am only at PT67 (pushing towards the September test). Tempted to knock out 84 tomorrow in order to be a part of this though.

26 and 27 both wrong, mainly by not identifying that crucial sentence as you said.

@leahbeuk911 said:

I'm referring to the method in this lesson:

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/fool-proof-guide-to-perfection-on-logic-games/

Basically the process of repeating a game over and over until you can get it under the target time. You probably need to be focusing more on working on individual games than what your whole section time is for LG.

Thank you, this is helpful.

@leahbeuk911 what do you mean by foolproofing LG? You are probably correct in that the fundamentals (particuarly in terms of inference detection) aren't there yet.

@golfinguru11160 said:

You don't have to do all the questions (that was an obvious point haha). How many do you get right our of the ones you attempt? Also, I would just focus on the little things that could get you more right answers--do you make worlds in LG? If so, how fast can you recognize how and when to split? In LR, do you understand the terminologies in an Argument Part or flaw question, such as confusing a necessary for sufficient condition, or vice versa? I would just focus on getting better in ways that you can, and that's from just recognizing the questions you get wrong in timed conditions and then drilling the fundamentals.

The problem is that I have the fundamentals. Under timed conditions I end up with the last 2-3 LR unanswered + most of the last LG unanswered - this is clearly untenable.

Danville here, I might be down.

I think you are both slightly wrong. I believe C is wrong solely based on the phrase "there IS a causal relationship". The example provided doesn't actually show that there is a causal relation - it merely gives a basis for the requirements of theoretically proving/disproving the theory.

IS vs. REQUIREMENTS are the reason E is correct over C. This precise language detection is what makes a great lawyer though. LSAT gonna LSAT.

Is the diagram for every answer choice really necessary?

#help (Added by Admin)

same same

For argument's sake let's assume that many actually does equal almost everyone. Even if 100 million depressed people become depressed in middle age, what is to say that these same people don't stay depressed until they die? This is supported by the tense used. "depressed people become" implies an intrinsic attribute that is current rather than a fleeting stake of being, right? Like, they could have said "people get depressed in middle age" and one could perhaps attribute this to a fleeting mid-life crisis or whatever. But the test writers didn't do that. Having a good feel for the implied logic of LSAT writers is often more important than determining meanings of words like some, many and most - a more philosophical task. Of course you need to know what they mean, but you have to remember that this is a logic test first and foremost...the english language is simply the medium through which the test is administered. I might be wrong, but I've just seen too many questions much tougher than this over the last few months hinge on subtle assumptions like this. It's annoying but the more you practice the more you pick up on them. Hope that helps.

To get this correct you have to make a ridiculous generalization that "real" and "theoretical" are naturally opposing concepts. This is some real jedi mind fuck shit, where having scientific knowledge of philosophy and/or quantum physics hurts you. Hawking would tell you that something posited on theoretical grounds (i.e. Black Holes) can and should and ARE designated as real. You pretty much have to think as an LSAT writer aka Lawyer and just go along with the generalization.

I had similar troubles (between D and E) with this. When in doubt, more often than not the answer with the fewest assumptions is correct.

this is irrelevant

13/14 were tough for me. The former due to not having enough time to look back at the passage and the latter due to the similarity in answers A and C. Lesson here, pay attention to detail!

This is confusing more because of the structure of the argument than the argument itself in my opinion. It isn't advocating a particular principle as much as it is calling bullshit on a flawed one. B strengthens the flaw in the original argument (explanatory = the only good) hence making the argument weaker and more flawed, when most people (including myself) were probably looking for an answer than makes the theoretical stronger.

Lesson here being pay closest attention to the wording of argument conclusions, as they often give clues about the structure of correct answer choices.

lemme cop sum skillz

I think the LSAT writers reasoning in making trap answer A is that nomadic can be seen as juxtaposing "settlers". To settle in North America would be to relinquish your title as a "nomad". Those who missed this connection turned out to be fortunate, since it was referring to those people CLOSEST to North America. If it was "MORE DISTANT SETTLERS WERE NOMADIC" I could make a very compelling case for it weakening the argument that the further away fellows settled, but It does not and A is therefore correct.