#help, any thoughts welcome. I'm coming back to these lessons in V1, as I don't like how they're presented in V2. I am still struggling with Assumptions on the PTs. I'm not a movie person but trying to understand his example. I've seen Titanic but never Avatar. He stated "for the sake of proper argument" we concede the referenced scene was in Avatar, but despite that being a totally unreasonable concession, the conclusion doesn't follow. If we concede a conclusion based off of incorrect premises, then why doesn't the conclusion follow?

Conclusion: "Avatar is the most touching movie ever." He said we concede this point. Therefore, if we concede this conclusion shouldn't we concede the premises (which are actually from Titanic)? Or is the goal, by attacking "support" to prove that while Avatar is most touching movie ever, the premises to support are from Titanic?

What I understand in this lesson, weak arguments attack the premise or attack the conclusion. So how would I attack the support, particularly if I am conceding on a point, I know is false (using titanic scene to conclude about avatar?) My thought is by showing the premises are from Titanic, I'd be attacking the premise. So I'm trying to figure out the little Goku beam between the Titanic scenes and the Avatar conclusion.

I wish J.Y. would've shown how to attack the support in his example, while conceding the conclusion.

Thank you. I am curious how we should approach PTs now if we are not planning to test until after August 2024? Or is 7Sage going to remove LG from old PTs so that we're on not testing on those sections?

I am not going to belabor the point on #6, as it looks like it's been touched on quite a bit below. This was my first RC drill, so I have a lot to clean up. However, on #6, I thought I could safely eliminate "the ability to anticipate later artists." I am trying to learn something though, and I suppose my error was perhaps not paying close enough attention to the question stem.

@ said:

I think there is so much law school stigma about having to have the BEST score and having to go to a T14 school or otherwise just don't bother at all. In the end I think that's all gatekeeping. You can become an incredible lawyer with any score. It's one element of the process.

Thank you for your comment. Agreed. I initially decided to forego law school because I was caught up in the "get into the best school" conversation and as a young college kid with only a GPA and an LSAT score, what else did I know. Now, my desire is to get into one of the 3 law schools within commuting distance, they're all ranked in the 100s and beyond, but at this point it doesn't matter to me. I joke that I feel sorry for the T15 school every year. They've been arbitrarily kicked out of the club through no fault of their own. At the end of the day, I've now felt confident that given my work and life history, all I needed was a score to get in. I guess as a retiree, I was hoping to get a score to qualify for scholarships to help fund some of the cost. Then again, the law schools I am looking at are little more than the cost of a high-end SUV these days. I appreciate your professor's wisdom; I will take it to heart.

@ said:

It is a learnable test ... I wouldn't give up especially given your background.

Thank you for your thoughts. Yes, you are correct, it is like everything one pursues, in that they always have to learn something new. The whole of a law enforcement career was new, different thinking and after 25 years I can only wonder where the time went it has been so much fun but highly challenging at the same time.

@ said:

I also read "The Loophole" by Ellen Cassidy and "Reading with the Right Brain: Read Faster by Reading Ideas Instead of Just Words" by David Butler.

Great post and thank you for your perspective and comments. Looks like I found two new books to read. I wish you the best at your pursuit. With the kind of motivation and determination you've displayed, you will make a fantastic attorney in whatever path you choose.

I do not have the option for CCv1 and CCv2? What am I missing, or need to do?

I do not have the option for CCv1 and CCv2? What am I missing, or need to do?

I bomb every and any flavor of scientific question. My favorite is when I pick an answer and remain confident of that choice on blind review and then when I watch the video and J.Y. gets to the answer I'm sure of and his comments are something to the effect of, "how is this going to help, this isn't close to correct." ~ Awesome.

The question stem stated the stimulus had flawed reasoning and then asked to find the answer with similar flawed reasoning. I did not process the question stem stating the stimulus had flawed reasoning and thus did not read the stimulus telling myself that what I was reading was "flawed." Wow did I struggle trying to find an answer choice. It was right in front of my face listening to J.Y. and I hate when I miss/overlook simple clues like that.

J.Y., "They have this trap answer choice D here, which is the last sentence, which surprisingly not many people choose." Except for this guy right here. Count me in for the trap on a regular basis. Well, I guess it's why we practice.

#help. I need help with the "but," though I think I struggle in general with "but" "although" and "however." These, especially "but" indicate a switch to the conclusion? This question caused me to go way back to lesson 8 in the intro to see if I missed something. I sensed "but" was indicating the switch from context to conclusion here. I think my issue was the stimulus contained two "buts" and therefore I mistook sentence one for context and felt further down I was looking at the conclusions of the author. I see now why C was the wrong choice, but I noticed in the drill recommended target time for this question is 1:04, and I took too much time (and also got it wrong.)

I made a critical error on BR, which I'll be sure never to do again. I had C. Then on BR, while taking my time, I also sorted out the contrapositives of answer choices D and E, and discovered I could somehow make E right .... WRONG. I'm finding BR is an opportune time for me to second guess myself, the bane of any test taker.

Some of the comments seem to suggest the stimulus makes B the obvious answer choice in such an easy fashion, and JY does the same with his explanation, but I did not see B being the obvious answer even during a slow reading in BR. We know the Singhalese gold was 92% and required no refining and apparently went straight to minting. In the last sentence, the stimulus states, the mints could refine gold and produce other types of gold with much purer content, but the Singhalese gold was never refined. The stimulus never said 92% was the purest at which gold could go straight to mint, or never set 92% as a standard of anything, other than the mines from which Singhalese gold came, being at 92%, did not require refining. Therefore, what if the mint took gold that was 93% and refined it out to 95%? Because "92%" was never set as a standard of the purity of gold not needing refining to be minted, it seems a stretch to assume the mint received "other coins" below 92% and refined them out to content "much purer", i.e. >92%.

This is why I said no to "B." In my estimation, it is an assumption that some of the gold minted was less than 92%. 92% is only set as the standard of what was found in the Singhalese mines. I felt B requires one to actually know the ins and outs of the mining process to get to the correct answer. To get to a content above 92%, utilizing refining, the coin would first have to be below 92% for a mint to decide to refine it.

I chose D, simply because 92% was what we have coming from the Singhalese mines, but from the other "purer" gold content coins the mints could produce, I felt those must've come from other mines, and could thus be as I stated, perhaps 93% refined out to 95% or 96%.

I'll swallow my teaspoon of Drano on this one, but I don't like it.

Do not give up, because the LSAT is good at challenging our weaknesses. Some things will come naturally, as with LG for you. In other areas where you are weak, it is more about learning the tactics of approaching and solving the problem. I took the LSAT 27 years ago and I bombed LG. Coming back to the LSAT 27 years later, guess where I am still the weakest? LG! I knew coming into this, it would be my biggest hurdle. However, J.Y. has given me some real tools to learn to perform better on LG, but for someone like me it does not come naturally. I have to work continually on the skills.

When it comes to RC, I do best when it is a passage related to government or law (or similar interests), because I can normally digest the entire flow. Throw scientific passages at me, and because of my lack of interest in those topics, it is very difficult for me to focus long enough. Exactly what the LSAT writers want! As to your question, some LG questions test "if/then" and those are the ones you have to be sure to nail because that appears to be your strength. For me, I tend to do the strongest on strengthening Qs. They just make sense to me. I am the weakest at weaking LR Qs. Lately I found I am really struggling with "some and most" LR Qs. These may be a struggle for you too, so perhaps focus on your weakest points most. It seems you are able to trust your intuition in LG and it may help to do this with LR. J.Y. talks about "trusting your intuition" in the RC section, but that really helped me to be better in general at not running out of time (though I am still struggling with timing in LG.)

I fully admit biology was my worst subject all through high school, and as a later adult learner my eyes still glaze over when I start to read about mammals, and brains and posture and neural connections. Needless to say, I got this wrong, wrong on BR and the explanation did not help either. If I could have a nightmare LSAT, it would be 4 sections loaded with all biology scenarios.

Thanks for suggestion. I did the blind review on the LR and RC. I just bombed the LG so bad; my thought was that I will not do another prep test until I've had a chance to review some or most of the LG material and then will start working on them. I was planning to delay the baseline exam a few more months, but then decided I wanted to get the feel now rather than later.

#help. Is there any reason that our answers are not saved on these skill builders? Is there something in the 7Sage program would make this too cumbersome?

It is a lot of work, and when clicking next, everything is gone. Wasn't a big deal in CCV1 when many skill builders were 5 questions or so, but I've noticed them much more extensive in CCV2. I can never refer back to anything I've done in the past on these.

Despite all the comedy in this question, I do need some #help on this one, because I am struggling with B as the right choice. On both the test and BR, I was certain of D being correct. I felt B actually strengthened the argument and D weakened it for the following reasons.

The argument is that a force is pulling Uranus away from the sun and inner planets and that it must be another undiscovered planet. I felt that while B introduced it being a force of comets, the thrust of choice B builds up and strengthens the assertion Uranus is in fact being tugged and pulled away.

Thus, with D, because the stimulus was making the assertion that a force is pulling Uranus away, it is really due to the fact that the sun exerts less force on Uranus than the inner planets and it is not some undiscovered planet yet to be discovered.

J.Y. didn't even spend that much time on this one, for which the answer choice just seemed so obvious. I do not know where I went wrong on this one and how to avoid it in the future.

I chose D and was happy to see on review I was correct. My struggle is that it took me nearly 5 minutes on this question, which I know is unacceptable! I flagged this one and these types of questions still cause me issues, which I am going to have to figure out how to attack in a timely fashion.

I like to think about the subsets and supersets in terms of the NFL, especially let's just say QB, as it is often the most criticized position. There are an amazing number of players in high school around the U.S. and most of them never end up playing in college. There are an amazing number of college players (even at just the D1 level) who never make it to the NFL. In the NFL, you have an amazing number of personnel who do not make rosters, or who do make a roster, but do not play. Then of this small subset of football players, an even tinier fraction are QBs and starting QBs at that.

So, when someone criticizes a particular NFL QB by saying they are "not very good" it is not a valid argument. Good in relation to what? So just like the NY Phil argument, the likelihood someone is even in the NFL, truly makes them a needle in a haystack, let alone to be a starting QB at the NFL level is quite amazing when compared to all the people who play football at any level around the country, particularly QB at any level around the U.S.

#help "Confusing sufficiency (subsets) for necessity (supersets) is the most common trap on the LSAT." For example? Maybe a PT test question or something that illustrates this more clearly?

I got trapped by C. C and E both mentioned good literature, but I realized upon explanation that C was comparing her work to today's standard whereas E kept the comparison upon H's previous works.

Very Helpful, thank you.