Hello!

The modules that are best suited for this purpose are the following:

Foundation:

Conditional and Set Logic

Logic of Intersecting Sets

3.Formal Logic Flaws

Logical Reasoning:

Inference and Must Be True Questions

Sufficient Assumption Questions

Nessecary Assumption Questions

As for the latter set, some practice questions use causal logic so you will have to browse through them to find the ones that use conditional logic.

In the "Drills" section you can select the "Conditional Reasoning" tag to drill questions that use Conditional logic. Select the "Hardest" question setting to increase the likelihood you get the questions that require extensive formal logic mapping.

Good luck with your studies!

Hey ehoffner25!

I was in the same spot as you a few months ago and I wondered the same thing. Now that I am in the stage of doing drills and PTs my advice is to go through the core cirriculum including the LR and RC sections and do the practice questions as you encounter them. Going into full drills right away is counterintuitive since you would not have had the time to encounter the question types and learn from the explanations JY provides. You do in fact get a chance to drill the question type after each sub-section in the LR and the new RC modules. So don't worry about doing practice questions arbitrarily throughout the core cirriculum, it is designed very well and it will provide you with plently opportunities to practice. Good luck with your studies!

#feedback

I think the best way to train yourself to not get lost in passages is to interact with the passage as you go. Do the steps that Kevin outlined: identify different prespectives, create mental summaries, evaluate the style of the passage. You will find that these skills allow you to gain a bird's eye view of the passage without understanding the nitty gritty of the text. I find this often to be sufficient for answering most of the questions, and I will occasionally refer back to the text if questions ask about certain excerpts or terms used and for some "implied" questions.

In terms of speed, I'd just start reading more. Start with interesting topics on news articles, maybe then progress to a scientific journal. Becoming familiar with different writing styles can help you absorb the main ideas without getting lost in grammatical nuances. I find the tricks that Kevin taught such as skipping text between dashes to read the completion of a sentence to be extremely valuable. Refer back to the grammar foundation lessons and revisit hashing out modifiers to get to the core of the sentence. RC is difficult but with practice comes improvement. Good luck with your studies and I wish you the best!

#feedback This does seem to be a common theme where the embeded video does not always show the markers/options. This is sometimes fixed by refreshing the page a few times or going back to a previous lesson where the options are available. The video configurations are consistent amongst all videos.

Adding to this however, I do see value in skipping parts of videos for the sake of time if I understand the concepts. Regardless, we all have different circumstances and what works for me may not work for everyone. Good luck! :)

I watch all videos regardless of if I got them right or not because you benefit the most from learning why the wrong answers are wrong. Just like JY pointed out a few lessons ago you need to recognize patterns in the correct and incorrect answers to be able to discriminate between them. When questions become more difficult, this pattern recognition helps clarify a hazy situation where answers feel very similar to each other.

You can think of it that way, and it works for this question but since we are using causal logic instead of formal logic , this way of thought is not exactly the same. This is because the stimulus didn't set out a rule rather it showcased a phenomenon and presented a hypothesis about it. The hypothesis sets out a causal link and not a formal logic rule which means that there is no sufficiency-necessity relationship. What answer D does here is that it lays out a testable prediction that confirms the causal relationship if it turns out to be true. I haven't encountered a situation where the LSAT writers try to penalize you for conflating the two since the answer choices are presented as true statements instead of an if...then relationship but I still think it is good to be aware of the difference. Though keep in mind I haven't done many questions yet and therefore there may be a question that indeed does penalize for this conflation. I'd just say it is good to be sharp with the foundations to be on the side of caution.

Same haha

Think back to the All Before Most argument:

All violinists at the New York Philharmonic know how to play the violin. Most people who know how to play the violin are not exceptionally good at playing the violin. Therefore, some violinists at the New York Philharmonic are not exceptionally good at playing the violin.

Here the Lawgic was:

A → B —m→ C

A ←s→ C

The explanation given here is think of the possibility where the A subset is far smaller than B. Using the aforementioned paragraph, the subset "A" of violinists in the New York Philharmonic only includes 30 individuals whereas the set "B" of all violinists includes a million. When you scoop out most of set "B" is it highly unlikely that you will be able to take some of the 30 individuals since their number pales in comparison to the million violinists in set "B". Therefore, it is not a valid argument that some of set "A" made it into set C with the most set "B" scoop.

Contrast this with an example for the Most Before Most argument:

Most violinists at the New York Philharmonic know how to play the violin. Most people who know how to play the violin are not exceptionally good at playing the violin. Therefore, some violinists at the New York Philharmonic are not exceptionally good at playing the violin

Here the Lawgic is:

A —m→ B —m→ C

A ←s→ C

Similar to the All Before Most argument it is highly unlikely that you'd be able to scoop some members from the "A" set and then have them transferred over to the "C" set through a most scoop out of set "B". The "All" term implies "Most" which implies "Some". So the logic carries forward.

I hope this helps! :D