Subscription pricing
I have the Cambridge games packet. What would be the best way for me to use them for a month of logic games only. Should I just go through them one by one or should I mix them. Let me know what you think.
PT Questions
karamjit92413
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
karamjit92413
Monday, Jul 31 2017
karamjit92413
Monday, Jul 31 2017
> @ said:
> How are we supposed to know in this case that A is "good enough"
>
> By saying "drivers....should be sent to jail," the statement is interpreted as /all/ "drivers....should be sent to jail," when the passage clearly states that it's "/almost/ impossible" for the circumstances that wouldn't lead to jailing to happen.
>
> I don't see this as a case of "good enough" support; I'm struggling to understand why this isn't deliberately wrong.
>
> Take this parallel argument:
> _________________________________________________________________________
> 1) Dogs with long hair should be either shampooed or shaved.
>
> 2) Only if such dogs are capable of blocking UV rays with their skin should they be shaved.
>
> 3) Unfortunately, it's almost impossible for long haired dogs to block UV rays with their skin.
>
> 4) ALL long haired dogs should be shampooed.
> __________________________________________________________________________
>
> 1) Long Hair (L) ------> either Shampoo (P) or Shave (V)
>
> 2) (V) -------> Can Block UV (B)
>
> 3) Some (S) ------> (B)
>
> How can you get to 4) (L) -----> (P) from the formal logic above? And, more importantly, how do you know when this kind of lukewarm logic is okay, and when the aforementioned differences are important?
>
> *edit*: so my guess is that the formal logic translation of step 3 will be criticized, but if so, I ask you how one can concretely know the other way is correct? I don't see "almost impossible" popping up on the LSAT as a term with an iron clad logical equivalent, and I think my interpretation is just as valid as any other given the lack of precedence for the phrasing.
>
Hi Jordon I looked at this question again, remember this is an MSS question, so four answers will have definitive and clear reasons for elimination. The right answer just has to be MSS by the text and need not follow with 100% certainty. So if you didn't get the answer by seeing a right answer, you should have eliminated 4 wrong answers.
In this question LDP + SDO -> Sent to jail or Drivers education -> Drivers ed leads to more responsible driver
However another statement tells us that persons with a large amount of demerit point (LDP) are unlikely to be made into more responsible drivers so that eliminates drivers education and means that we should send them to jail since that is the other option.
karamjit92413
Sunday, Apr 30 2017
LSAT logic and reasoning was so foreign to me the first time around, I hadn't seen anything like it. So, I started over and the second time around concepts are actually making sense.
Edit: Why are they not categorized by type?
Hi guys, Im wondering if I have the concept of "or" down. So first it can be used as a group 3 indicator to split the sentence into a conditional statement (negate necessary). Secondly we can use it to split the sufficient condition of a conditional statement. And third we can use it to create a bi-conditional through or but not both. Do I have it down right?
How is the group 3 or inclusive?? Doesn't negating one element make it exclusive?
For example Jon or Tommy will go to lunch is translated as:
/J -> T
/T -> J
Doesn't that make it so we can only choose one at the expense of the other making it exclusive?
karamjit92413
Wednesday, Oct 25 2017
@ said:
Great work! and thanks for sharing. LG is my worst section and I am on it now in the CC ... Did you start fool proofing during the CC or did you want until you were done. I was going to foolproof now but I realized I want to fool proof each and every game so should probably finish the CC first then work on honing the LG section through fool proofing. How did you tackle it?
Just do the CC games first. That is a lot of games.
karamjit92413
Friday, Aug 25 2017
Speed comes with familiarity with the subject matter and repetition. You will speed up as you start taking PT's.
Hi guys, so I have decided to put off my LSAT date until next september so I can focus on my last semesters of school. However, I want to continue to do logic games so that I wont have to restart studying when I finish my degree (April). I have the cambridge packets and was wondering if it would be a good idea to spread them out between January - April. There are 152 games games which would mean that I do around 10 games a week. Would this be an efficient way to study? Maybe do 3 games, redo them the next day and repeat?
Hi guys i'm wondering if I could get some advice. I started casually studying for the LSAT about two months ago and i'm through 60% of the curriculum. In the fall ill be taking about 9 credit hours of classes so not too bad. In your guys opinion do I have enough time to squeeze in drilling through the cambridge packets for LR and LG then get in enough PT's for the December exam? I hear that some people just do logic games for a month..I would like to do that but it would take too much time away from scheduled PT's. Another option could be February but I will be taking 16 credit hours so I don't think ill have enough time...However the February exam is in the first week of so I could squeeze it in before the pressure of midterms. The next time I could take the test would then be December 2017 probably. I think my first diagnostic after I'm done the curriculum may give me a lot of info too..If I score around 152-152 I may just go ahead and write in December as my goal score is only 160...what do you guys think.
Thanks.
I found this comment posted on the PT explanation page And I was wondering if anyone could answer what this person has to say because I'm in the same exact position as this them. If you could watch the pt explanation video or look at the question than look at the copied and pasted comment below: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-52-section-1-question-22/ (Explanation link)
linmat09
I have no issue identifying what part of an answer choice is a conclusion and which part(s) is/are a premise. However, I’m not always sure how to translate a prem or conclusion into which is necessary and which is sufficient.
For ex., we only have the necessary conditions for something that is wholly truthful. BUT when I read A, (and for the sake of this question lets assume that he was actually abducted so that it meets the “true” component of the necessary), I can’t tell what becomes sufficient and necessary.
So assuming it really was true and it wasn’t intended to deceive, how do I know that these are sufficient and not necessary IN the answer choice?
Is there really a way at all to conclude something in an answer choice THAT IS GIVEN TO US AS A SUFFICIENT in the stim? I could only think of something like “The only wholly truthful statement ted made to the investigator was true and he was not trying to deceive the investigator….”
But clearly, that doesn’t make very much sense. lol
OR, could they give you an answer choice that said something like “Ted made a wholly truthful statement, therefore, his claim about (and go off on a long confusing description) was both truthful and made without the intention to deceive”
Im trying to find out how hard Section 1 of PT 58 was. For me it wasn't really hard, but I missed a couple more than I would like.
karamjit92413
Thursday, Nov 23 2017
You're never going to get as many right timed vs. untimed. Keep blind reviewing to find patterns and to close the gap between actual vs br score.
What is the overlap between these two concepts? It seems like answer choices need to be on a certain side of the arrow to be correct.
karamjit92413
Sunday, Aug 20 2017
Do later games in PT's, learn fundamentals from earlier tests
karamjit92413
Monday, Nov 20 2017
I mean if you can't do the question without writing it go for it. I personally wouldn't.
Hi guys had a question regarding or. To determine whether or not it is the "inclusive" or "and" interpretation we use context. For exclusive interpretation we are to use a a biconditional indicator to show one or the other?
Correct me if I am wrong.
Hi guys, I am having a lot of difficulty with tough conditional logic questions. When it comes to translating these from english to lawgic I just mess everything up. What can I do??
Hi guys, I have a question about and/or in this Q. Example the first sentence is A gift is not generous, unless benefits recipient & is worth more than expected
So when I apply the unless translation do I change the AND to an OR no matter what side i translate it to or do I keep the AND then switch when taking the contrapositive? Im confused...reading too many prep materials lol...
For example would this be correct?
~ benefit the recipient AND is ~ worth more than expected -> ~ generous
CP: Generous -> Benefit recipient or Worth more than expected
Hi guys. I am having trouble with an LR question.
PT 23 S3 Q14
Premises: If tax adopted -> Discontinue story hours -> parents inconvenienced
Conclusion: Tax reduction package not adopted
So in my mind to get to this we would have to know either that parents are not inconvenienced or story hours are not discontinued
so: ~(Parents incon) -> ~(discontinue story) -> ~(tax adopted)
Maybe I am not translating correctly, but I don't see how the correct answer D leads to this.
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-3-question-14/
Hi guys, I havent gone through the LR curriculum in over a year. I am wondering which lessons cover some, most, few statements, and LR diagramming. I think MBT questions and SA had some?
/
Are the drill packets grouped by type yet?
Hi guys, I was helping my friend out with conditional logic today because I thought I had a grasp on the material but it turns out I dont....
So there was a statement from one of his textbooks he asked me to help him out with and I got it wrong.
Dmitry might play volleyball or squash, but he cant play both.
(edit meant to say might play not, might can)
So I thought great this is a bi-conditional because I see or but not both.
So I made it into: (~V (---) S) & (V (---) ~S),
But it turns out in his textbook the answer was (S -> ~V) & (V -> ~S).
So is this a different way of showing the same relationship, if so do you prefer one method over the other?
karamjit92413
Tuesday, Nov 14 2017
Put the work in and your scores will reflect. No shortcuts.
Title^
karamjit92413
Monday, Sep 11 2017
Thats not an LSAT problem. Thats a problem with society. Also for the vast majority of test takers, it doesn't take a year to study, that is just a select few test-takers.
@ said:
@ said:
However, it is sufficient to weed out those who don't have the skills.
It also weeds out those who don't have the money and/or time to spend a year or more studying for this test. I have been more fortunate than some because my job offers flexibility, but less fortunate than other students who don't have to work because their parents support them during school and during their LSAT studies.
karamjit92413
Thursday, May 11 2017
@ said:
20 days.
Thanks, looking forward to it.
Hi guys, I was wondering if you could input a section into lsat analytics instead of the whole preptest. I wanted to take an LR section and see my breakdown.
karamjit92413
Thursday, May 11 2017
@ said:
The LG drill packets (PTs 1-35) are available with the Ultimate plus package, they are right at the bottom of the syllabus.
Sorry, meant to say ETA for their organization
Any ETA on the LG drill packets? I really wanna get started on them. Sorry, meant to say ETA on their organization.
Its skipping my mind right now, as I studied it before. But, in grouping games (not in/out) why do we use A -> ~B instead of A (--)~B for rules like A can't be added to the same class as B
karamjit92413
Sunday, Sep 10 2017
However, it is sufficient to weed out those who don't have the skills.
karamjit92413
Friday, Nov 10 2017
Use a chart for grouping games when you can reuse the items that can be placed in groups. For example, if there are 3 shirts (this represents groups) and they can be made up of different colors (Y, G, B ). You would use a chart here.
karamjit92413
Thursday, Nov 09 2017
@ said:
42 days. I did as Alex recommends, one full new game section a day. I also redid that game section the same day after watching the explanation video, did it again the next day, and did it one last time 1 week after the first take.
It's 42 days because it took a week to finish with the 35th game section which I started on day 35.
I'd build in a rest day each week if I had to do it again though.
I also took and blind reviewed PTs during this time, but didn't do any LR or RC prep.
It felt like plenty of work so I wouldn't push it much harder especially if you still are studying for other sections.
Good luck!
Are you close to -0 on sections now?
karamjit92413
Wednesday, Sep 06 2017
@ said:
for double layered sequencing game just make 2 lines and 1 line will be for the first set of entities, the 2nd line will be for the other entities.
such as if you're given this:
4 friends: A B C and D
4 colors: Green, Red, Yellow, White
you will be given rules about them and on line 1 you can put the 4 friends, that will be their line. the 2nd line will be for the colors that go with each friend (which you will associated them based on rules/inferences)
But yeah, knowing a game that is giving you trouble would be helpful!
For example PT 66 section 3 game 4. That throws me off.
Hi guys, after advanced logic I ended up skipping the logic games lessons because I wanted to focus on just lr. I am now going to start the logic games part of the curriculum (I have just done linear games). I was wondering if I would miss out on anything by just doing the reading comprehension and LR section on the trainer and skipping the logic games (because I want to use 7sage solely for that). What do you think, and are the lessons interlaced in anyway in the trainer?
Hi guys, Im having trouble setting up this type of game. Not sure where to put what elements, what the elements are and what the base is. Does anyone have any tips? Would reading the advanced linear games in PS help with the set up? Im good once I get to the set up.
karamjit92413
Friday, Jan 05 2018
Focus on the other sections. You can have one weak section, not a big deal.
karamjit92413
Thursday, May 04 2017
Edit: Just saw the but not both. They are not the same thing.
Consider these four possibilities in the biconditional: (A) (B) (/A) (/B)
Biconditional (A(-)/B CP: /A(-)B) Remember these are logically equivlent
If A is chosen, B cannot be
If B is chosen, A cannot be
If we don't choose (/A) then, B must be chosen
If we don't choose (/B) then A must be chosen
Consider those same four possibilities in if A not B (A->/B CP: B->/A)
If A is chosen B cannot be
If B is chosen A cannot be
If A is not chosen (/A), now what? Nothing in the sufficient conditions triggers B to be chosen, so it is free to be chosen or not chosen
If B is not chosen (/B), now what? Again, nothing in the sufficient conditions triggers A to be chosen, so it is free to be chosen or not to be Chosen.
karamjit92413
Tuesday, Oct 03 2017
#1 thing for me in strengthening questions is: strengthen according the relationship that exists between the premise and conclusion, other questions may strengthen but not in the way we want. Which answers makes the relationship between the premise and conclusion stronger? Also why is my font so big
**edit
Hi guys, I'm going through the biconditional part of the curriculum. Im wondering, for the Or, but not both biconditional, why don't we just write it out like this A -> /B and B->/A, that way you can link it up as well if a chain comes up?
karamjit92413
Wednesday, Nov 01 2017
@ said:
True, but an important caveat: A sufficient assumption can address the gap by overshooting the mark, that is, it assumes more than what is need to cover the gap. Kinda like killing a bug with a nuclear bomb.
Thanks man!
karamjit92413
Wednesday, Nov 01 2017
I like to think of it this way. If you have a high gpa in your last two years, obviously that means you're a capable student. I think it is worth mentioning that you got your shit together, changed your study habits, and became a successful student.
Just want to throw out there what I think constitutes sufficient assumption questions. Sorry if this doesn't belong here but I like to just write it out.
Sufficient assumption questions: How can we take the premises we are given and make them lead to the conclusion we are given. Obviously there is a gap, the sufficient assumption + the premises will then help lead to the conclusion.
Two main things I know are that you will have to write national accreditation (NCA) exams when you come back to Canada (not sure how many). When looking for an articling position in Canada there will be stigma attached to your Australian law degree. You will be at a clear disadvantage when it comes to finding articling positions in Canada. It's best that you just go to school in Canada if you can get in.