A SA question will turn your argument into a valid argument(100%). As in there should be 0 errors with your conclusion assuming the premises are true.

A strengthening question will not always ask you to validate the argument. It can, and in that case that is the right answer. But the core of a strengthening question is to make the argument stronger than how it was presented in the stimulus.

So let's say you're given a stimulus that is 0% correct, as in your given premises disprove your conclusion. To strengthen the question you would need to turn that argument that is always incorrect into an argument that might be correct(might be as in anywhere from 1-100% correct)

You can unintentionally misrepresent something

If you negate a necessary answer choice, the argument should be completely destroyed(assuming it's the right answer).

If the original conclusion didn't give a definitive stance on a position but instead chose to say that a certain outcome is merely likely to happen, then the negation of a necessary assumption might simply be proving that the outcome is less likely than stated. I can see arguments with causation errors doing this

Another reason is choosing B is wrong is that it implies that the flaw(saying the surest way to increase the correctness of your beliefs must not hinder survival without providing any justification) is okay

If I'm traveling for let's say 1000 km. That "slightly" adds up

To me "As plausable as this may sound" implies that the stimulus is about to form a counter to whatever "this" refers to.

I can see it being used as a conclusion indicator. But I can just as easily see it not being used as one.

Ex: Some say monkeys are omnivores. As plausable as this may sound, we dont know if monkeys even exist. Therefore we don't know if monkeys are omnivores.

The reason why 7Sage choose the indicator words they did is because those words commonly come up on the LSAT. I don't know if "as plausable it may sound" should be considered a indicator

How many kinds of different colored pens are allowed?

@fincobb497 said:

sufficient assumption questions all have if in them. Necessary assumption questions will have words like required, depends, or relies.

SA questions don't always present "if". An assumption question with "if" is sufficient to show it represents a SA question but it isn't necessary

@jhaldy10325 said:

I retook my 170, and improving it was essentially the same process as improving from my earlier 160s scores. That process plays out very differently at that range, but it’s still the same thing: diagnose your weaknesses, develop a plan to address them, execute the plan, and monitor consistency moving forward. What’s so hard about the 170’s range is that your weaknesses will tend to be more nuanced than something like question type or game type. You have to dig deeper into the substance and get more specific: overlapping sets with subsets, opposition relationships with thresholds, scenario procedure for miscellaneous games, etc. You’ve got to better with your diagnostics. I also can’t stress enough the importance of strategy and procedure at this stage of the game. You may not need to increase your knowledge at all. You may just need to learn how to test more efficiently.

Hi I'm curious to know what you mean by "overlapping sets with subsets, opposition relationships with thresholds", since this is the first time I've heard about it. I'm a ~165 average scorer, with LG being my weakest section

Good luck to everyone taking the LSAT again, it's a hard test and I respect you all for just going through the process of studying for it

7Sage is great for LR imo.

For RC... Honestly the actual lessons aren't very good, for me at least. It feels like the RC section is just a bunch of passage analysis shoehorned together. With that said, after completing a PT or RC section from a problem set I like checking the explanation video for the passage to compare JY's breakdown with my own understanding of the passage. I get more out of RC passages that way

Not when you're dealing with strengthening and weakening questions. Since you're trying to put the weaken the argument anywhere from 1-100%, pointing out a coralation counts as weakening the argument. It's just not a 100% destruction of the argument

If you want the surprise factor, roll a dice to decide your experimental just before doing that extra section. 1 and 2=LR, 3 and 4=RC, 5 and 6= LG

What were you scoring in PTs before you went in? I keep seeing people who say they're scoring 170+ saying they get 10-30 points lower on the actual LSAT. It's terrifying honestly

Personally when I read the RC passage I read for the main point. Sometimes, the passage is spelled out for you other times you have to dig. But the passage is always centered around the MP from what I've noticed.

Reading for the main point kinda let's you zoom out and see the argument structure of the passage, which is something you should always read for.

What type of questions are you struggling on the most?

How confident are you in conditional reasoning?

How confident are you in existential reasoning?

How many problems/PTs have you done?

Ahhhhhhh I just got the trick for 26. I initially went in assuming that since the author didn't mention the theory being exclusively of academic interest, E can't be correct. But the author, by virtue of mentioning that the theory is useful in courts IMPLIES that the author thinks this theory should be applied in court, since the "court" is something that is "beyond exclusive academic interest"

Interested. Taking the LSAT next Oct or later

I've seen your comments around the discussion forum and thought you were really helpful. I'm sorry about all that ridiculousness you have had to deal with since I genuinely think you're someone who has the ability to do really well on the test and I'm sure you'll do great in November, if LSAC can keep their shit together. Forward is the only direction to go from here. Best of luck

It depends. If you have 5 mins left and 8 questions to go through, skimming might be useful, if you can do it properly. Though it is a risk since the answer choices often punish skimming, especially the deeper you get into the LR section. If you asked me a week ago I would have said "you can skim when you know for sure you got the correct answer" but Preptest C section 3 questions 18 happened and I immediately thought I got the right answer and skimmed and moved on. Turned out I was missing a key inference in the question that I would have gotten right had I just read all the answers.

Tl;dr: Skimming is a high risk high reward technique, I'm not the biggest fan of it but it has its benefits

I think what they were going for is that if hazardous waste isn't transformed into anything, it's still harmful.

Therefore if the mussles don't act as something that converts the waste into something else, the waste is technically still there and the mussles act as a pocket of waste.

It makes sense since obviously the net amount of waste isn't removed. But it requires us to know that just by the virtue of the mussles eating the waste, the waste isn't nullified. Like let's say hypothetically these mussles are made of some material that prevents radiation from leaking out and anyone can just pick one up and dispose of it. Then by no means are we "treating it like like hazardous waste".

That's probably not true and mussles are made of material that doesn't perfectly isolate waste. But I also don't know anything about mussles, so to me it would be an assumption I need to make to make the correct answer.

The LSAT occasionally pops out a question like that, so it's not new, it's just annoying

Wait I thought we weren't allowed to work while at Law School. Can we work and attend law school part time?