@petvma Actually, we do have a similar-ish format throughout 7sage! Later questions outside of the foundations module have guided video lessons with an associated text format that read similarly to this question. In those lessons, typically, the goal is to understand how to apply the strategy for that given question type more so than taking a stab at it yourself. If you prefer, you can definitely attempt them yourself! Though, following along with the video/transcript has given me more out of those lessons than attempting to answer it myself; we have plenty of opportunities for that, after all, so we should take advantage of guided lessons from our 7sage 180-scoring overlords (I say this complimentarily)!

Best of luck in your studies, my friend! You got this!

@SofiyaBerman Assuming you haven't already taken your LSAT or figured this out, I personally would just cross out the answers in the same way we did in this lesson, but while using LawHub's cross out feature. Then, I'd make a mental note that in dual-perspective comparative passages, any remaining answers that I haven't crossed out in this way are still in the running and ready for me to answer, after I've read passage B.

This falls more on test-taking strategy and little ways in which you, yourself, set up chess pieces for you to answer questions. Like you said, I would definitely find it not only time consuming but also confusing, disorganized, and unreliable to physically write down which answer options are in the running for me.

Hopefully, again, none of this is too late and hopefully none of it sounds condescending or rude in any capacity; I genuinely just wish to share what works for my own brain, in the case that it works for yours, too! You got this, go get your 180!

I know exactly what you mean; this change felt weird when I first saw it. I cross out answers like my life depends on it, and that extra click - plus the fact that it sets you into a crossing out mode that you have to toggle out of in order to actually select your answer - means an extra step for my brain to process and definitely throws me off my rhythm. All the same, supposedly, this is the new LawHub format, so we definitely know who to blame!

Best of luck, you got this! Let's hope the new format is a quick adjustment for all of us.

@LiaWang Yes, it seems like these end-of-chapter drills are treated just like drills that we can generate. I've noticed people referencing certain questions and their text only to find that my question is entirely different. I didn't know for the longest time, either!

We had a 30-page essay for the first paragraph and an Instagram-caption-length second paragraph. I thought my page only loaded halfway when I saw how short this para was in contrast to the first 😭

@180forLSAT190forbf Yes, I've started doing the very same! Actually, it's been so useful for me that it's almost felt like cheating, so I Googled if we're allowed to use Ctrl + F on the official LSAT. As it turns out, the Ctrl + F built into our browsers are actually disabled during the test; instead, we're expected to use the search built into the LSAT test page. As far as I can tell, it works and even highlights the exact same as Chrome's Ctrl + F, so it doesn't feel any different. So, make sure you're practicing using the built-in search, so you can emulate the exact test-taking experience!

@LiaWang It's an exaggeration of the statistic that about half of the US is functionally illiterate, paired with the -- unfortunate -- seemingly downward trend of overall US reading comprehension. I'm definitely not quoting an exact statistic, thankfully!

Percentiles and statistics are good for motivation for my own brain -- that is, learning that an LSAT score is within the 90th percentile of all test takers, for instance -- so I thought it'd do us a little good to introduce some social commentary as well as provide some encouragement.

How's that 180 coming along :)?

@LiaWang You got this, best of luck! Let's hope our BRs get a few more statistics soon.🙂‍↕️

@LiaWang I know exactly what you mean! Surely, that BR would be in the 170s, and it'd be SO great for your confidence if that went through. The amount of times I've scored in the 16highs and the BR brought me up in the 170s...

While I know preptests tell you the BR score exactly, I only have the mental stamina for so many of them! 😭

Well done, by the way! What score are you aiming for on the official LSAT?

@Chlob YOU GOT THIS, you will see progress so soon! I foresee a 150% in your near future!!

Seconded! This is something I've been hoping to see implemented for a minute now. While you can guesstimate BR scores via the chart in your analytics -> drills tab, it'd be nice to simply have this score displayed discretely.

Also, nice 100%! Best of luck in your studies!

You got this, have faith in yourself! If you’re studying reading comprehension, you’re already ahead of likely 90% of the entire USA. 90th percentile is a pretty good starting point!

Hi, Kevin! I'm Kevin. It's nice to meet a fellow Kev!

they’re talking about Victor Wembanyama here, actually

@legallysaz This question is asking us to find which claim simply MUST be false, meaning, which claim explicitly contradicts the stimulus. The stimulus says that Samantha likes both oolong and green tea, but none of her friends like both; it also says that all of her friends like black tea. So, the answer choice we're looking for must be explicitly in contradiction with these claims!

All of the incorrect answers in this question seem to simply be not possible to prove or disprove from the information we have. For example, answer C. says that all of Samantha's friends like the same tea as one another, but we don't know if this is true or untrue because the stimulus doesn't explicitly tell us either way. We see the same issue with A., for instance; we don't have any proof that Samantha does or does not like black tea, so we can't say that answer A. must be false. The answer we're looking for is one that we can undeniably point to and say, "hey, wait, that's completely untrue!"

By this criteria, the right answer then has to be E., because the information in E. is in direct contradiction with the stimulus. E. says that one of Samantha's friends likes the same kinds of tea that Samantha likes, but wait, our stimulus says that none of her friends like the same kinds of teas as her! This answer is directly contradicting our stimulus. And since we're looking for an answer that holds a contradiction - a must be false answer option - answer E. is our pick.

Hopefully this makes sense and isn't condescending or anything of the sort!! You got this, best of luck in your studies! :)

@KhushyMandania Correct! We're always looking for answer options that address something both interlocutors mentioned, so you're right on the money!

@ashlynangell Also, for what it's worth, on this specific exercise, we were told to take our time to fully comprehend every question and every answer! This was an exercise in comprehension, answer elimination, and answer selection confidence.

To answer your question, though, Mister gave a really good suggestion: drill! And while drilling, search for patterns. Over time, you'll be able to identify main conclusions much more quickly. LSAT questions are formulaic, so focus on identifying these formulas and understanding how to derive the correct answer from them. Drilling gives you firsthand experience in this!

Best of luck in your studies, you got this!

Jesse, we have to get 180s on the LSAT!

Fat Cat isn't a socialist? I think we have to put him onto Marx and Mao!

Poseidon auramogged the dolphins

@LamontNarcisse Luka 60 ball last night!!

@CarlosHernandez03 I'm not entirely certain that that is correct, as our goal in this negation is to deny the conditional relationship; that is, we're trying to say, "We can be A without being B." I believe your statement is saying, "You don't have to be A in order to be B."

The statement, "It is not necessary to be a Jedi to use the force," does not deny the conditional relationship as it is saying, "It is not necessary to be a Jedi to use the force, but you can still be a Jedi and use the force." Therefore, it is not outright denying this conditional relationship, as we're aiming for in negation.

The phrase, "It's not the case that to be a Jedi, one must be able to use the Force," does deny this conditional relationship because it's outright shutting down the idea that there's any causation between Jediship and Force use. "It is not necessary to be a Jedi to use the force," is instead drawing a line in the sand amongst Force users while not denying this causation. Negation is aiming to deny this causation; it's aiming to deny this conditional relationship.

I hope this makes even a lick of sense; logic is incredibly hard to express in English, and I sincerely hope this doesn't come across condescending or overly-corrective in any way! Please give any feedback or thoughts you have!! Have a wonderful day and good luck on your studies!!

To negate "All dogs are friendly," we'd be focusing on the word "all" and disproving that specific word by saying, "It is not true that all dogs are friendly." This negated statement logically states that, at the very least, there exists at least one dog that is not friendly; hence, the existence of at least one unfriendly dog means that it's impossible for every single dog in existence to be friendly.

Going back a few lessons, we also know that "some" entails a numerical baseline of at least one. Therefore, this negated statement could also be written as, "Some dogs are not friendly." That's why the negation of "All dogs are friendly," is "Some dogs are not friendly!"

Good luck in your studies! Trust your gut and intuition, and reward yourself for every little bit of progress you make!!

#feedback

This lesson is excellent. To have our studies applied directly to an LSAT-style question in a lower-pressure environment like this is INCREDIBLE for us as students. My confidence is very solid because of this.

We'd appreciate more low-pressure fake questions just like this throughout our lessons as practice for practical application of our lessons!

You're doing incredible, and you have made SO much progress! You have all of us on 7sage behind you, so keep it up and believe in yourself as much as we believe in you!