hmmm. isn't D diagrammed backwards. ie. All students can participate in recess after the bell has rung.

Bell doesn't ring, they can't go to recess.

~ring -----> ~recess

Recess ----> Ring

All employees can participate after they have been with the company for 1 year.

Not 1 year service then can't participate

~1 year ----> ~participate

Participate -----> 1 year +

Video instead says 1 year + ----------> participate?

Gavin is 3 years instead of 1. And then they conclude that he must participate from a can premise. That is why it doesn't match. I think there is error in the video.

Main Point question, I agonize between B and E. B is wrong because they never said it was not the only factor? But isn't E wrong as well because the conclusion was about unlikely that a prediction will occur where as E said probably will not? Isn't E kind of too definitive?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-4-question-21/

Between a/c B and C. Firstly I have issues with how the Conclusion is about labor savng technology tends to undermine values--- being interpreted as a conditional statement. We do not know it is guaranted because it is just a TENDENCY. So if when I golf it tends to rain, you cannot make that a conditional statement. Because if it doesn't rain that doesn't mean I cannot golf. I can golf and it not rain. That is why C doesn't make sense to me. You have to view the last sentence as a C.S. for it to. B is a better answer. No type of tech will fail to undermine the values of a social system = a type of tech will undermine the values in a social system. Yes that type of tech is labour saving tech. so it seems correct.

Ie. you wrote test 61 4 months ago and forgot it or didn't score that well and didn't review it and got a 158 but re-write it now and get a 166?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-40-section-3-question-18/

Between Answer Choice A and B. I am having some issues.

I am looking at this question thinking ok, Historians do not take the playwrights serious because they exaggerate how bad their own socieities are compared to other societies. So Shakespeare will say English society is evil and french society is meh or good.

This makes A look attractive but B too.

A is a good answer because if playwrights are more critical of their own society than others then they are being inaccurate of their portrayls and it would explain why Historians do not want to use them.

B is good because he is saying playwrights exaggerate the bad for dramatic reasons. The reason I eliminated B was because we do not really know that they exaggerate the "Weakness" of a society or that it is even viewed as a weakness. It does resolve the discrpenancy kind of but I felt A was way way stronger answer.

A says explicitly why historians don't take it serious and it resolves both issues. Historians don't take it serious because the playwrights are just more critical and the playwrights want you to empathisize so they are more critical of their own society.

I really struggle with these types, analyticals told me so and I knew it to be true, the art passages are the worse, they tend to be full of alot of fluff words that I don't know the meaning of, I look them up so it has improved somewhat, but I don't know where I could find more passages written like this. For instance, I initially struggled with science passages but then started reading physics articles and peer reviewed physics articles and watching physics videos on stuff like dark matter so now I am fairly ok with them. I was wondering what would be the equivalent for art/literature type passages. Think like the Cameron art passage or the dostoyevsky type literature passage. Where are these articles drawn from and where can I read more of them so I can become more familiar with these types of concepts.

I have a question on how the video comes to the contrapositive of the answer choice.

"there are many records of major meteor impacts that do not seem to have been followed by mass extinction"

in the stimulus

becomes

""...then all major meteor impacts would be followed by mass extinction"

I understand we need

P ---> -CCL

or

CCL---->-p

And that this is to be P3. But how is all the contrapositive of many? Many could potentially be All. Shouldn't the right answer here be not many aka none, no, etc?

I am having a little difficulty eliminating answer choice C here. I understand that the single guest is analogous to the standard antibiotic, which leaves me with a and c. I don't understand why it is not the pleasure part though? Ie. the stimulus says one meal that will please a single guest. So to me C looked "righter" because it matches the pleasure concept as well.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-43-section-3-question-21/

I am not sure if this is the right place to post question. But the video explanation was missing something to me.

So you have

Spring Cleanup

|---------------------------------|---------------------------------|

Certificate

(-----------------------------------------------------------)

Not Active in the art circle (some but some can mean all as well)

(------------)

Now there may be some kind of implicit assumption that Spring cleanup too place at the same time as the art fair. And some people at the spring cleanup are not active in town's artistics circles. So the assumption here is that if you did not go to the art fair, then you are not active in the town's artistic circles. And if you are active in artistic circles, you did go to the art's fair. It is also (seems) to be assuming that art fair and spring cleanup are mutually exclusive. We aren't really sure.

The answer choice makes no sense, we actually know nothing about people who ARE ACTIVE in the art circles. Which makes D impossible as an answer choice. You simply cannot conclude NOTHING about it. It Could Be True, but this is a MUST be true question.

I am having a problem seeing how a/c C WEAKENS. To me it looks like it is strengthening the argument.

Maybe I am just misunderstanding how the argument is designed, I don't know, please help. The explanation video didn't help me.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-45-section-1-question-12/

Premise

~Nobility -----> ~ Tragedy

(~ = negative)

Conclusion

~Fate -------> ~ Tragedy

It is obvious we must link the concept of Nobility and Fate. Making D right.

My question isn't D backwards? We need an answer choice going from premise to conclusion

~nobility ------> ~ fate

Fate ------>Nobility

Instead D says

~Fate ------> ~Nobility.

Nobility -----> Fate.

Technically wouldn't this be unnecessary since it is a reversal? I know some people might say o just ignore this or look at the contrapositive, but I've seen a few questions where the contrapositive usage of it was considered wrong over the actual way. Ie. the way D had it was wrong when another answer choice said fate > nobility.

The video explanation was a bit murky here. I'm not so sure why the answer choice is C. I have a good theory on why people likely mistakenly pick C even though it is the right a/c. There are some issues I have with it.

1. its trying to say that if the number of science and engineering students in university programs has increased in the last 5 years then that is somehow proof or strengthening the idea of there being no shortage of scientist and engineers. This is a problematic shift, it requires us to assume they stay in that program, graduate it, AND work in that field. There is no evidence that these people have even graduated never mind ward off an IMMINENT and CATASTROPHIC shortage. Imminent means about to happen, how can people who entered university 3 years ago and are not even employed ward off and IMMINENT shortage? we don't even know when in the last 5 years this increase happened. We just know generally

2. It is also using a raw number to address a question about a total proportion. In otherwords, the correct answer choice here, C, is a percents and numbers FLAW! It would be like saying ok you have a shortage of 90% of workers. C is saying but you have a significant increase in the NUMBER of science grads, so what, you went from 10,000 to 50,000, that doesn't ward of the IMMINENT AND CATASTROPHIC shortage of 400,000 science grads needed. This matters because shortage means proportion it is a ratio not a raw number. It is the amount of jobs to job seeker ratio. You cannot solve this question with a total number.

3. I try to see how C could at least be right, but I have a real problem with it. I suspect most people don't recognize it as a ratio issue and just say yeah more students ----> more grads -----> -more job seekers ----->avert shortage and therefore Strengthen conclusion. There is a problem at literally everyone of these jumps but the worse one is you can have a significant increase of students, grads, job seekers, and still not avert an IMMINENT and catastrophic shortage. Maybe I am just not seeing where he is trying to strengthen correctly.

4. So which a/c would I have chosen? Probably D? Why, it is the only question who addresses the issue in the argument and thus has the POTENTIAL to strengthen. If certain science fields have an oversupply and others have a shortage. That indicates 2 thins. 1) For the oversupply field clearly there is no imminent and catastrophic shortage, supporting the conclusion. 2) For the shortage field there is also no imminent and catastrophic shortage, it is a shortage but its not described as imminent or catastrophic, so it indeed also supports the conclusion.

I know we are suppose to go back and do them, but for scoring purposes in the analytical tools, do we leave them as blanks or do we put our guess answer choice? Ie. my guess answer choice for questions is D. So for question 25, do I put in D, or should I leave it blank, so that in the odd chance it is right I don't get a false sense of knowing something I do not?

I actually understand C and how it is the answer, I am more confused around making sense of its meaning in a practical way, as it stands I need a way to understand how it was put it into practical understandable language (ie positive form) I watch the video and the answer choice was translated as : an ideal bureaucracy will always (never elminated) have (without eliminated) complaints about a problem that are not covered by regulation.

I'm just not sure what rules he was using to get here. Like when I come across these type of statements in the future, I need some method for dealing with them. Because I would have likely eliminated all the nots in the statement and I know it is wrong. Why did never become always instead of some times, and why did he elminate both without and never?

Would the negation test for this be:

an ideal bureaucracy will never have (without eliminated) complaints about a problem that are not covered by regulation.

or

an ideal bureaucracy will always/sometimes [not sure which one] (never elminated) have permanently without complaints about a problem that are not covered by regulation.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-1-question-18/

I am having trouble with these main point questions in general. It seems I always fall for the trap answer which is usually some kind of point just not the main one. In this one I picked C. I understand E matches that part of the passage after However, I just don't understand why it is the main point. The video explanation just kind of took it for granted that it was more clear that the first statement wasn't the conclusion. But it seemed to me that is what he was trying to convince me of and what the entire argument was structured around. The however part seemed more like it was supporting the first sentence.

Invisible man passage.

I;m sorry I read the explanation, it still makes no sense to me how A has anything to do with the lines referred to. To me C look like the best answer because it is giving tribute to the ancestors and it involves political concept and critics thought it needed politics. Answer choice A doesn't address this. It requires a huge leap, how are we suppose to guess positive effect on social conditions mean the specific social conditions (which I assume it means political action) addressed in the passage? And how is political action a social condition? that seems very odd. I am not seeing the connection between the lines cited and the answer choice here as in how they are supported.

I started with a very low initial LSAT score 4 years ago (131). I studied it on and off for a few years but never took it seriously, it was just a side interest until about this year february. During those 4 years despite doing very little work I manage to raise my score to a low 150. Then I had a pretty good job but I now am taking a formal course in person in addition to 7sage. When I started my in person course in June I got a diagnostic and scored a 158 (pt 61), which was the same as my June Lsat Sore. Yesterday I wrote preptest 62 and got a 161, today I wrote pt 63 and got a 154, I found the LG and reading comp way harder on 63. That being said about 2 weeks ago I wrote pt 40 and got a 168. But to be fair, I had literally seen LR/argument on it except maybe 4/5 in the whole section. And I also seen every game in it and done it before plus the reading comps, some of them I kind of remembered too. I didn't really remember much of pt 62 or 63. As in I actually had to go through the process and would debate the answers like a real test.

I'm not trying to brag or anything, but I did score very highly in regular school graduating in the top 5% of my high school and my undergrad program which was a very competitive business program (think Ivy League). Most of my friends from high school and university are either bankers, doctors, lawyers, etc.

At this point I am wondering what I can do to improve my score more. I just found it very weird how it seems everyone else is so easily able to improve their score on the lsat going from 140s and 150s to high 160s, and I have to struggle studying much harder to get a far worse score.

Alot of the LR I get wrong comes from the fact that I don't understand the wording in the answer choice like when they are using double negations. Another set of it can come from when I don't understand the passage although, I am trying to fix that too by not going to the answer choice in practice until I understand the passage. When I do this untimed, I can pretty much get most of the questions, as in over 90% accuracy although some areas are less, just 75-80% maybe. And those wrong ones all have to do with tricky wording, or grammar tricks, or things that seem unclear as in could be argued either way, just depending on what the test writer wanted it to be.

I'm not sure if I should start trying to study logic or reading those weird non-fiction "Women's books" to try to understand the LSAT better. There is something strange that is throwing me off but it is hard for me to put the finger on it. I have a pretty good grasp of the methods to get the right answers.

I have a question on negation. On prep test 58 section 1 question 25. the line Handmade foundations are never found on wigs that do not use human hair. Is diagrammed as HF------>HH. Shouldn't it be ~HF ------> HH. It is group 4. So you pick an idea ~HH, you negate it ~HH --->HH AND MAKe it necessary. The other idea is the sufficient. So how do we end up with HF INSTEAD OF -HF?

Shouldn't it be

~HF ---> HH?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-58-section-1-question-25/

http://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/2737/logic-games-attack-strategy

I found this useful for games, is there some post or thing similar for reading comprehension?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-4-question-14/

The conclusion is that reducing speed limits neither saves

lives nor protects the environment. The evidence is that the more slowly a car moves the

more time it spends on the road spewing exhaust and running the risk of collision.

My question is why is A wrong. The author assumes people follow the limits. If they ignore the limits then guess what, it doesn't matter if they reduce them. But more importantly, how is it we are suppose to see that the author is trying to assume that the more slowly a car is driven, the more time it spends on the road spewing [more] exhaust into the air.

You see the part in brackets is what you have to ASSUME the author to be saying, otherwise the question makes no sense. You read it and think it is a perfect argument. I don't understand how we are suppose to infer this. Otherwise it just looks like he is saying, well yeah, you drive slower, you spend more time on the road spewing exhaust but there is actually no indicator that the author thinks the exhaust expelled from the vehicle will be larger or more just from driving slower. Is this some kind of grammar trick?

Had it said drive slower, spend more time on the road, and shoot out more exhaust, then D would be perfectly logical. But that last part isn't there, so how do we infer it?