I'm new to the site, but I've been familiarizing myself with the LSAT for a while. I'm aiming for a score 172+, and from the PTs I've done, I know that my most glaring weakness is Logic Games. I'm generally going -2/-3 in RC and LR, but in LG, the best I've done is -9. So, here's my question: could it be wise to jump straight into the LG section of the 7sage curriculum, and ignore the foundations of LR and RC? How much do these topics build on each other, and what am I risking if I skip some of these more "foundational" lessons?
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
I disagree with JY's reasoning on a few points.
First, regarding answer choice B -
JY is assuming the following information about pilot flight reports -
1) Flight reports are non-objective (For all we know, a pilot's flight report is just the pilot recording a set of objective figures from the data they observe in the cockpit)
2) Flight reports can be manipulated (Pilot's reports might be reviewed by supervisors, written and signed by multiple pilots per commercial flight, or simply entered in such a way that lying is impractical)
3) Pilots have a motivation to manipulate reports (What if deviating off course is most often a reflection of the airstrip, weather, or equipment conditions? A pilot would be motivated to make correct reports. What if it is broadly understood that deviation off-course is not due to pilot error?)
Only by making some of the above assumptions can you make AC B fit. It makes the AC far less attractive.
Regarding AC D
JY says at 5:36 that the argument doesn't presume that the air traffic control tape data is inaccurate. I disagree.
When it comes to such low percentages of risk, you're basically debating between which data source is more accurate - maybe 16 million pilot reports were reviewed and only 8 reports flagged as straying off course. And maybe 80,000 tapes were reviewed and 4 were flagged.
Both pieces of evidence are making a very specific numerical / percentage claim about risk. To accept the claim of lower risk (1/2,000,000) and reject the higher (1/20,000) necessarily asserts the inaccuracy of the latter claim.
AC E
For the above reasons, AC E also becomes more attractive. The author rejects the claim of the tape data due to "insufficient evidence," which could mean, "less total reports than the 16 million we've reviewed." The Admin is rejecting the tape data in favor of their pilot report data, and that rejection is undue, making it a flaw in the argument.
Would it be feasible to enlarge the display scaling to something like 175% within MacOS, and then zoom in and out even further within your web browser?
These are helpful comments, thank you both!
In addition to the other comments, which are excellent, I would add that your physical health has some importance here as well. Professional chess players often reflect that they need to be in top physical shape to play at the top of their chess game as well. It might be worth thinking about building in some healthy workout habits as a part of your study planning.
I'm working 40+ hours weekly and studying, usually between 1-2 hours a day. I'll need to increase that daily study time, but honestly, I have found it fairly manageable with a well planned schedule. I decided that I was going to put a priority on the LSAT, so I deleted all the social media accounts off of my phone, and blocked them on my PC. You'd be surprised how much extra time you have once those things are gone.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you can use any pens you like during the live exam if you're doing it virtually. I started using Micron #03 to get fine, precise lines. I love them!
I’d love to join if you’re still accepting members!