Discussions

mgscaptura46

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

LSAT · Comprehensive strategy for Strengthen Principle questions (PSY)

mgscaptura46

Tuesday, Nov 30 2021

I'm not sure how much this will help, but based on the language you're using its possible you're approaching them merely as Strengthen questions, not PSA/SA questions. A strengthen AC doesn't need to make the conclusion logically follow (be 100% accurate), just satisfy one of potentially infinite necessary assumptions. In other words, make it at least a little more believable, not necessarily prove it.

A PSA/SA will prove the conclusion 100%. If you see two answer choices and one "sort of works" and the other completely works, go with the latter.

To your actual question, the amount of "strength" required depends on the stimulus. The argument may already be pretty good, and then only need a little help to get all the way there. It also could be terrible and need a very strong PSA to be proven. But regardless, if it's a PSA question, it must be proven by the correct AC. Hope this helps!

General

•

Friday, May 28 2021

mgscaptura46

High 160's looking for advice!

Hi everyone!

For context: I have been prepping for about a year and am now PT averaging in the high 160's (167-168). I work full time, and various personal delays have made this a very long process. I have limited time to study during the week, and am looking to maximize my efficiency as I study for the June exam. I started with a goal of 165, so ultimately I'm happy with my score, but I didn't get this far by being a quitter and I'd love to crack the 170 barrier if I can!

I have been using 7sage to take Flex simulations and currently I'm averaging about -3-4 in each section, with some variance depending on the PT. The spooky part is that I always get 11 questions wrong (seriously, it's weird to the point of absurdity).

Other than the random curve-breaker, 180 only, questions, the only LR question types I get wrong are flaw, parallel, and parallel flaws. I am currently drilling each of them but I worry that isn't the best use of my remaining time.

JY saved my life with the logic games, but I've still had trouble going to a consistent -0.

I have never done any serious formal RC prep; I have always been an incredibly strong reader and my Economist subscription helped me up my score even further. I realized I was confusing main point/primary purpose questions, and that's because I didn't actually recognize the difference in what these two were asking. I haven't taken another RC section since learning this, but based on my previous sections I think I should see a 1-2 point improvement per section.

With all this in mind, is continuing LR prep still a good use of time? The LSAT is a skills test and I worry that I've crossed the threshold on this section's skill development, and that two weeks isn't enough to improve any further.

-Should I redirect my efforts and try to close the LG gap? Like everyone else I have seen the most dramatic score improvement in LG, but I've heard those gains tend to level off as you whittle away each last point.

-Alternatively, should I focus on RC fundamentals and try to make improvements there?

If I'm able to get five more questions right, that would put my score at or around a 172. I think that if I drill enough LG, combined with a single point RC and LR gain in each section, I can make up that gap.

Is this realistic in two weeks? Should I be working harder to cement my average? I'd rather not, but is it worth it to postpone to August? I'm personally sick of this test and I don't want to deal with a fourth section, so this is a nuclear option, but if the consensus is that I can seriously improve by then I may just do that.

I'm sorry for the long post, but any and all advice is greatly appreciated!

LSAT · PT92.S1.Q9 - Practical intelligence

mgscaptura46

Monday, Nov 22 2021

This a formal logic SA question, so you're looking for an answer that connects the concepts together. AC B is the only thing that does that.

Practical intelligence is a skill that won't develop on its own, and therefore if something has everything it wants and never needs anything ever, you can't develop practical intelligence.

So we're looking for something that proves that someone who has anything they want or need can't develop this skill. AC B literally says skills can only develop if they're needed. SO, [if not needed, then not develop], and thus our conclusion is proven true.

Here is a breakdown of the other ACs:

A - That's fine but it doesn't help the conclusion. Based on the information, it is entirely possible that with the help of others one could have everything they ever wanted and still develop practical intelligence.

B- Correct

C- You should count anything that starts out as "best way" as a red flag. It doesn't matter what the "best way" to do anything is, so long as there is a way to do it. Same as AC A, it is entirely possible that one could have everything they ever wanted and still develop practical intelligence.

D- This is what happens after someone already has practical intelligence, and therefore irrelevant. If they've developed this skill, then it doesn't matter anymore that they're getting everything they want. We only care about what is necessary to get practical intelligence in the first place.

E- This also isn't relevant. Our conclusion is only talking about what happens when someone gets everything they want, not when they never get anything that they want. It's a polar opposite given to try and trick you into thinking it's a logical opposite. So topically this might be relevant but it doesn't help the conditional logic. I think it's a good trap answer choice, but it's still a trap.

Hope this helps!

LSAT · What made LR click for you? struggling.

mgscaptura46

Wednesday, Oct 20 2021

@ said:

This is all great advice. Something that helped me that hasn't been mentioned yet is memorizing the 21 common flaws. Know what they're called, what it means, and most importantly: WHY it makes the argument flawed. The vast majority of LR questions deals with understanding what's wrong with an argument whether it's flaw, strengthen, weaken, NA, SA, PSA. If you can read an argument and know immediately what's wrong with it your prephrase game will be unstoppable. Was consistently getting down to -0/-1 this way.

This is an interesting suggestion, can any other people confirm if memorizing the 21 flaws is worth it for improvement? I might follow this if it has proved to work for multiple people

Yes, it definitely helped me, if nothing else than at least for speed. If you look at a weaken question, for example, and you can instantly say "ah this makes a necessary/sufficient switch" (or whatever the case may be), then finding an answer choice that exploits that is so much quicker. You still need to be able to understand what kind of assumption/content you need, but now you've got a powerful tool to shave a few precious seconds off your average question. Plus, the more ways you can analyze those really difficult questions in their pure form, the easier time you'll have breaking them apart and getting the correct answer.

I used to be anywhere from -9 to -15 and now usually score -1 to -3, so my own advice for the general quesiton is:

Learn the argument flaws

Really dig your heels in to learn necessary/sufficiency, and some/most relationships (this also will help you in LG)

Spend some time looking for what the actual conclusion is, not the general context of the passage. You can't weaken/strengthen a conclusion if you don't know what the conclusion even is.

Practice translating the passages. Loophole really advocates for this and JY mentions it too, but IMO, this is the best way to improve your ability to quickly understand a passage, which is paramount to getting it correct.

Throw in some untimed excercises while you master the above. Spend as much time as you need getting the answers right, rather than just answering them on time. I think it's easier to improve by getting them all right and then speeding up, instead than going quickly and continuing to miss questions unnecesarily.

B.L.I.N.D R.E.V.I.E.W

I want to elaborate on the conclusion aspect, especially because other people in this thread touch on it too - let's say in a given stimulus, the general context is medicine, and the conclusion is that a certain drug doesn't work. The LSAT makers are demons so it's very cleverly hidden and not clearly visible on a quick read through. They will throw trap answers at you with the general topic of medicine, but that aren't actually relevant to the conclusion. Those are very attractive if you don't have a strong understanding of what the conclusion is. BUT, when you're able to pick out the conclusion, those trap answers become much less attractive because it's easier to see that their only relevance is to the topic as a whole, and not specifically to the conclusion. Hope this helps.

General · Is it worth adding an experimental section?

mgscaptura46

Monday, Oct 18 2021

Yes, absoultely. One of the factors that makes this test difficult is stamina. It can only benefit you to start completing four full sections at once. I know you claim stamina won't be an issue, and of course I'm not sure what your study method is like, but personally I think that timed sections require more direct focus for me than my "study time." If you're anything like me you might want to consider adding 33% more to your practice tests. If nothing else than to make your habait of staying in "test mode" four sections rather than three. Plus, if you say you do 5-8 hours at a time, whats the harm of diverting 35 minutes to another timed exercise?

LSAT · PTB.S1.Q25: How to approach RRE

mgscaptura46

Thursday, Nov 18 2021

@ I think this came down to the details. In the stimulus, the "inspectors" only applied to the "unsalable" items; they did not not inspect the "recycled" items. So even if they over report defective items, it doesn't matter because they are independent of the recycled items. Remember, 7%=unsalable; 9%=recycled.

Also, let's say they did over-report the unsalable category - mathematically, wouldn't that mean the actual recycled % should be lower than 7%?

If it were say, recycle=5%, then AC C would be good because it would say "Oh the inspectors are over reporting how much is unsalable, and we can see that by how much actually gets recycled."

Since we know the reverse is true, it can't be that they're over reporting. I think that if it said "under reporting" instead, this would be a solid AC.

Translation drills really helped me get better at focusing on the details and which objects applied to which parts of the stimulus, and more importantly, knowing what wasn't actually in the stimulus (a.k.a. my own assumptions). Knowing more confidently whats in the passage helps you prevent these outside assumptions from obscuring your logic.

LSAT · PTB.S1.Q25: How to approach RRE

mgscaptura46

Thursday, Nov 18 2021

Paraphrasing is a great tool sometimes, and a time sink other times. For me, I decided that the right answer would probably highlight a difference in the two groups (7% vs 9%), but I also know that trying to think of all the possible ways they could be different would burn through my time. So I moved on to the questions. I'd count this as going in blind because virtually all RRE answers are based on a difference between the two variables. It's not special that I "figured that out" here.

Eliminate the obvious no's, then do a deeper dive on the remaining.

AC A - This might have worked if the recycled % was less than the inspected %, but it isn't, Eliminate.

AC B - Who cares why they get returned? This doesn't differentiate the groups. It still fits neatly into the conditions of "unsalable."Eliminate.

AC C - This would only apply to the 7%, as we don't know that the inspectors have any hand in the recycled garments, only in the "unsalable." I think this is a compelling trap answer because the assumption is pretty easy to make. Still eliminate.

AC D - Again, who cares? How many garments produced year to year doesn't affect what percent are getting returned, so this is an obvious eliminate. By the time any of us takes an LSAT, we should be experienced enough the be immediately skeptical of this answer choice on any question.

AC E - Perfect. The two categories are just measured differently, thats all! An obvious difference between the two, but it would have been a huge waste of time to come up with this on my own.

LSAT · Is a "premise booster" or "restated premise" answer ever correct?

mgscaptura46

Wednesday, Dec 15 2021

There are always exceptions, but, in general, no. How would restating the premise actually help the argument? We are already to assume that every premise in the stimulus is true, so restating it won't bridge any existing logic gaps. It's essentially useless. Strengthen AC's should confirm a necessary assumption, but if it's already stated then you don't need to "assume" it at all.

There is a difference between restating a premise and an AC that validates a premise. I think this is used by the LSAT in curve-breaker level questions. For example, an AC that shows that a premise is relevant to the conclusion might look like its restating it from a cursory glance and is a little easier to overlook. I don't think it's ever a good idea to make hard rules for how you approach LSAT questions, unless it's a logical fact.

Hope this helps!

Study Groups · Study partners for Nov - shooting for mid 170s

mgscaptura46

Friday, Oct 15 2021

Same boat, high 160's, low 170's. Super high BR scores that I'd like to make my actual score!

LSAT · LR Help

mgscaptura46

Thursday, Oct 14 2021

Hopefully it's not too late! With such a big fluctuation in your average scores, it sounds like you might not always understand the stimulus/conclusion?

I had this problem too when I started, and a thing that helped me is that you should really focus on identifying the exact conclusion. If you can't say exactly what the argument is trying to prove, then you can't weaken it, strengthen it, figure out NA's or SA's, etc. A lot of the trap answers exploit confusing conclusions by giving you an answer thats relevant to the content of the passage but just not completely to the conclusion. Go through a LR section or two treating each question as a "main point" question. Determine the conclusion, then, for some extra practice and without looking at any of the AC's, think of a way you could strengthen it and a way you could weaken it.

I've found that the better I have understood the conclusion, the better I have been able to answer them and the more likely it is I will get the answer right.

LSAT · Tips for flaw questions?

mgscaptura46

Thursday, Oct 14 2021

Tagging on to all the great advice in this thread - something that helped me improve was going through any question (untimed) containing an argument and trying to identify the flaw without looking at any ACs. Nearly all questions in LR with an argument/conclusion have some kind of shoddy reasoning and using some of the easier freebies can be a good launching point for recognizing flaws organically. LSAT makers can reuse stimuli from undisclosed tests because they can make a bunch of different question types on the same passage. Create a flaw, then what would strengthen it? Close the flaw! Practice recognizing these on easier ones, then scale up to more difficult questions.

LSAT · PT3.S4.Q24 -It has been claimed that an action is morally good

mgscaptura46

Thursday, Oct 14 2021

The map out of the conditionality is "If harm was intended or forethought could have prevented harm, then an action is morally bad." BUT, we only know that this applies if there actually is harm. We don't know if an action intended to harm but doesn't is also morally bad. AC A specifies that the intended harm hard the opposite effect, and so, since no harm occurred, we can't prove that it was morally bad and therefore AC A must be wrong. It's very compelling, but it doesn't trigger the conditionality of the principle listed. Hope this helps.

LSAT · PT89.S4.Q10 - Jumping Spider

mgscaptura46

Tuesday, Oct 12 2021

I know you may be joking, but remember this is a Strengthen question, not a Sufficient Assumption question. The correct answer doesn't need to prove the conclusion, just help it more than any of the other AC's.

In this specific question the other AC's are utterly useless to the conclusion, and, if its true that there was a significant increase in the population of these plants after introduction of these spiders, the correct AC would be a little bit more evidence in its favor. Not a lot, but certainly some.

Oddly enough, your "parallel reasoning" actually does, as ridiculous as it sounds, technically strenghthen your argument. "My phsychic powers reduced cancer in Miami" would be strengthened (veeeeerry slightly) by a premise "the reduction happened after I moved to Miami." This is not now a good argument, just slightly better than it was before, because you've confirmed one of the necessary assumptions to your conclusion.

LSAT · How do you get through all RC sections?

mgscaptura46

Friday, Nov 12 2021

Could be anecdotal, but personally I find that reading the passage for the joy of learning something new helps me retain the content better while still reading it quickly.

Every time I've tried to read it for structure (like I read LR), I end up confusing myself and taking much longer than I need to.

LSAT · Should I take one more PT?

mgscaptura46

Friday, Nov 12 2021

Like everyone here, definitely not! It won't help you improve your abilities, but it might break your confidence for tomorrow if you don't do great on it. Only potential benefit is it might boost your confidence if you crush it, but IMO, Risk v. Reward on this one is not worth it.

As everyone said, relax, watch a movie, whatever you need to get yourself rested and clearheaded.

Personally, I'm going to make myself a nice dinner then watch trash TV with my best friend.

Good luck this weekend all my November takers!

LSAT · PT92.S1.Q16 - Why can this not be answer choice B?

mgscaptura46

Thursday, Nov 11 2021

Assuming you mean PT92.S1.Q16? If yes, then this is a PSA question, so the answer needs to prove the conclusion.

You're making a bunch of assumptions above - is it really implied that people shouldn't be getting tickets? No, that is the conclusion of the argument that we need to prove. AC A gives us this important link.

Without AC A proving that people shouldn't be fined for laws they aren't aware of, what is the point of widely publicizing the new regulation (AC B )? Good faith, I guess? But it isn't necessary - it is still a law, and people are still violating it. Them not knowing about it is their problem. AC A gives a direct principle that says "hold on, no, we shouldn't be giving fines to people for laws that they don't know about."

Maybe its bad department administration, but it certainly proves the conclusion.

AC B is basically a restatement of the "until we have made a real effort...." premise, but it doesn't really touch the conclusion.

I see your point, and this is tricky so hopefully this helps. Let me know if you need clarification.

General · Which PT's should I take?

mgscaptura46

Friday, Feb 11 2022

When is your test? Older tests are still valuable for some content and structure but aren't representative of what you'll probably see on your real LSAT. You should prioritize new tests if you have limited time and/or as it gets closer to your actual test date, but IMO if you have the time to study, older tests can still be useful. If nothing else, maybe they can help you get used to answering questions quicker.

General · PT scores going down?

mgscaptura46

Tuesday, Nov 09 2021

Based on your work and study schedule, and that you went to a funeral very recently (an emotionally traumatic event) it wouldn't surprise me if you were burnt out. I was in a similar boat this past June, right before the test I took. Here is my advice:

1- Take a break. A real one. Do something fun for yourself, or lay in bed and watch TV all day. This is a skills test, not a cram and you aren't benefitted by doubling down right now.

2- Consider postponing your applications. Personally, I would still take the test. You might get your target score and then you can be done with it, but in case you bomb, it's OKAY! I'm not sure your age and life circumstances, but statistically speaking you're probably below 30, and one more year is not going to be as detrimental to your law career as sending in applications before you're ready. We've all got this idea that we need to do stuff right now or it can't ever happen, and that is simply just not true. You're probably tired, and you clearly just lost someone in your life, so take some time to heal if you need to.

3- If the thought of absolutely not studying at all is not possible for you, try some more passive methods. Maybe make some flashcards with the argument flaws, or try reading some more difficult articles or books (for pleasure, really try to learn the content). Do some sudoku puzzles, etc.

Admissions · Any Advice on Negotiating Scholarships

mgscaptura46

Thursday, Dec 09 2021

A proper admissions consultant could help you more, but mentioning your scholarship at the state school might be a good idea.

Letting them know you are very interested in this out of state school (i.e., I would really like to go here, your program aligns with my career interests, etc.), but given how expensive law school can be and how it is no longer a guaranteed career, it is a substantial financial risk to take on more debt than you need. Then ask them for more money, like "If you can match scholarship at the other, I will go to your school", or something to that effect. Worst thing they do is say no, and then you're right where you are now.

I don't know how this strategy applies to law schools (hence recommendation for a proper consultant) but I have friends who have used it to get full rides to other types of masters programs.

LSAT · PT92.S1.Q17 - Plumbing grads

mgscaptura46

Tuesday, Nov 09 2021

I also picked A originally, but got that feeling that I knew something was wrong with it. Once it showed me AC C as being correct, it clicked and I thought"oh right, what if the instruction has always been bad?"

The only thing that the evidence actually proves is that the rate right now is below average, not that the quality of education has decreased at any point. Maybe the rate was always below average, so it's still possible that the rate of people passing has actually improved since the implementation of this new curriculum. The conclusion that the implementation has decreased quality is unsupported and thus C is correct.

LSAT · Law Articles for Reading Comp

mgscaptura46

Monday, Nov 08 2021

If you're able to connect with the main point of a law article but not the individual evidence, then you might not be reading each paragraph thoughtfully enough. You clearly understand the article as a whole, but not the individual pieces of evidence being used to support the main point. Try reading through the passage and try to pick out exactly how each paragraph supports this main point.

For practice, maybe try treating each paragraph as an individual LR passage, then after you read the whole thing see how each one supports the who theme and conclusion of the passage.

I think law articles can be the toughest because the lingo is often the least familiar compared to other types. Science is usually difficult for people for the same reason; navigating these new things can be a challenge, even though technically they aren't necessary to know.

LSAT · PT89.S3.Q16 (P3) - Main Point Question, I am unsatisfied with the 7sage explanation

mgscaptura46

Tuesday, Oct 05 2021

Answer choice B pins advancements in speed and efficiency on the outcome of current research projects (one of which may be the peptide project). This doesn't work for two reasons:

(1) It assumes that transistor size is the only way to increase speed and efficiency. If this had specified "advancements in transistor size may depend..", it might be correct, but, what if transistor size isn't the only way to increase speed and efficiency? We know that it could be one way, but it's not said that it's the only way. Classic confusion of a necessary and sufficient assumption.

(2) Even if it is necessary to decrease transistor size to increase speed and efficiency, the research project that finally cracks the code might not even exist yet. The passage says there has been progress in the peptide project, but it doesn't say that it's complete and will definitely work. What if it has reached its maximum potential right now, and the project that solves it won't be started until 2011 (1 year after the deadline in AC B )? It's just not proven by the passage.

AC C just says that one way future transistors might be made smaller is via the peptide research - an answer that is very provable by context of the article.

Hope this helped at all. I definitely had B down first as well, until I noticed the above.

LSAT · LR Q Stem Confusion (MBT, MSS, PSA, SA, NA, etc)

mgscaptura46

Thursday, Nov 04 2021

@ It sounds like you're relying only on Q stem keywords, so think the habit you need to develop is working "flow of information" and "Q stem keywords" in tandem. You still need to take the content and keywords of the Q stem into account, but you need to marry that to the flow of information concept. We already went through several examples of "keywords are the same but the ACs should still be very different", but the same works in reverse too. Strengthen and Weaken questions obey the same flow of information but obviously the right answers should look very different.

Ultimately you should be able to glance at a Q stem and know instantly what it's asking for. It takes practice and conscious thought, but it will click then you'll be able to say "this is a BLAH question so now proceed like the BLAH question requires" instantly.

This is a great spot to make flashcards; they really helped me master this!

LSAT · How to distinguish minor flaws from major/main flaws?

mgscaptura46

Thursday, Nov 04 2021

I'm not is a spot to watch the video, but based only on your question:

IMO calling them minor flaws/major flaws sounds like its more rhetorical than actually useful, so it may help to consider them "relevant flaws" vs. "irrelevant flaws"

You could imagine that a major flaw is a gap in reasoning when you assume all the premises to be true. We won't contest that more accidents are caused by right handed people, but as AC B points out, that might not matter. It's a flaw with the logic that is presented, not because you didn't consider every single other hypothetical possibility under the Sun.

A minor flaw might be "no, more accidents are caused be left-handed people." Sure, that might decimate the conclusion, but it isn't a flaw in the reasoning - just some bad evidence.

In almost every LSAT question with a conclusion, there are essentially infinite hypothetical "did not consider this" sort of flaws, even if they aren't relevant. Did you consider that possibility people might not even exist? What if we're in a simulation and everything is predetermined? If that's true then then what does the argument become? It's, technically speaking, a flaw in the whole piece, but it certainly isn't the flaw in the reasoning inside the stimulus.

Hope any of this helps!

General · What is the best tactic for 153?

mgscaptura46

Thursday, Nov 04 2021

Like everyone else here, I'll say that logic games will give you the best return so spend most of your drilling improving on that section.

But, you'll need to break it up a bit so you don't go crazy in which case I would add a bit of LR training as well. My recommendation would be to look at all of the 7Sage conditional and causal reasoning videos and exercises. Basically anything that is about formal logic, rather than LSAT specific drills. If you have some more time, go through some of the necessary assumption videos and drills too since I think understanding necessary assumptions is integral to mastering the LR section.

I'm taking the November test too, good luck!

LSAT · LR Q Stem Confusion (MBT, MSS, PSA, SA, NA, etc)

mgscaptura46

Thursday, Nov 04 2021

I think that you actually have it backwards! Understanding the Q stems won't make it easier to see the direction to flow of information, but understanding the flow of information will make it easier to understand the Q stem. Go through some examples and ask yourself the question "should the stimulus affect the answer choice or should the answer choice affect the stimulus?"

For example:

Strengthen vs. MSS: The answer choices in a Strengthen Q will affect the Stimulus by making it more believable, but it will be the other way around for a MSS. A strengthen question needs to have a conclusion (otherwise what are you strengthening?), while an MSS question needs a conclusion. The right AC can function as adding a conclusion to the stimulus on MSS.

Principle vs. PSA: This is a little trickier, but in general, a PSA will be an abstract principle that affects the stimulus. In regular principle questions, the stimulus itself will be an abstract principle that will affect the answer choices.

SA vs PSA: These are the same type of answer; they both affect the stimulus to make it true. Think of it like the ultimate strengthen. It might come in the form of an abstract concept (PSA) or a more topical answer (SA), but both do the same thing to the stimulus.

SA/PSA vs NA: Sufficient assumptions will affect the stimulus by making its conclusion absolutely true, but necessary assumptions are the opposite. Necessary Assumptions are affected by the stimulus, and kind of operate like must be true questions. A necessary assumption being the right AC won't really help your argument, but it must be true otherwise the conclusion is wrecked. For me personally, understanding and internalizing the difference in these two was one of my biggest hurdles in LR.

MSS v MBT: These are doing the same thing, except MSS doesn't need to be definitively true. MBT answers have to be true if the stimulus is, while MSS just needs to be probably true. Hence "Must Be True" and "Most Strongly Supported." Personally, I think MSS are harder for this reason because you're looking for the one that's the most likely to be true, even though it could often still technically be false. Either way, in both you're looking to slap on the most likely conclusion answer choice.

Let me know if anything isn't clear, and I hope this helps!