Premise: no unusual increase in bank account

Conclusion: actual spending undiminished

Assumption: you’re assuming that if there are no unusual increases in bank account, that actual spending must be undiminished. The contrapositive is easier to understand here. The assumption is that: If spending had increased, there would be increases in your bank account.

But we know that’s BS. Spending could’ve increased, but we also could be sending a lot of money home to our relatives, in which case our bank account wouldn’t increase. This counterexample proves that increased spending is insufficient to entail that there are increases in bank account. Since this is a necessary assumption question, such counter examples CAN’T be happening.

Answer choice A does this perfectly. If people with debts and jobs were paying off their debts at an accelerated rate, this would suffice to show that an increase in bank account funds doesn’t always follow from increased spending. Why? Because most of that money is going to debt relief. This counterexample proves the assumption faulty, and would destroy the argument were it to be true. Thus, it’s the correct answer.

To answer this question, you need to remember not to lose the forest for the trees. This argument, while seemingly complex, really breaks down into a basic logical structure.

We have 2 groups: Coldest Brown Dwarfs (CBD) and All Other Stars (AOS). Now, we know that if you’re in group AOS, you have the ability to destroy lithium completely (DLC). This is represented like such: AOS —> DLC.

The conclusion is saying that if you have no lithium, you must be in group AOS. In essence, this boils down to them saying: DLC —> AOS.

But hold on. This is a classic illegal reversal. The mere fact that AOS entails DLC does not warrant us in concluding that if you have DLC you must be AOS. A cold brown dwarf could conceivably have zero lithium (perhaps over time lithium depletes). If that is the case, then the argument is destroyed. If two groups (A&B) share a common characteristic, we can’t conclude from the fact that we find a star with some characteristic that it belongs in group B and not A.

This is why answer choice A is correct. If some stars in group CBD have been hot enough to destroy lithium, then the characteristic of having zero lithium could belong to both groups CBD and AOS. If that’s true, then knowing that a given star has zero lithium wouldn’t allow us to conclude that it’s in group AOS and not group CBD. The conclusion would therefore be destroyed.

The important thing to keep in mind is that you may be putting too much pressure on yourself. The test is important, yes, but it's not the end-all-be-all. You don't have to score a 170+ on your first try. A lot of people take literal years to re-take. Heck, I've even seen some people wait a year after getting a 171 to retake for 175+. Understanding that re-takes neither look bad on your application nor are indicative of your general intelligence goes a long way

@

No problem. Yeah, I think it's a good idea. You want to make sure though that you're foolproofing games not only from that bundle, but also from every PT you do. I highly suggest at least purchasing a starter student acct on 7Sage. Foolproofing the games in the Core Curriculum by type before going into doing them by PT is a good idea. You don't know whether the random sample of 15 games you've chosen to include contain all the games represented on the LG portion. There are certain pattern type games, for instance, that only occur once in a blue moon, but that absolutely wrecked some people on the Nov Exam.

I don't want to be that guy, but you really shouldn't have applied early to NYU if you weren't 100% dead set on attending. You made a commitment to the school, and the fact that you're so eager to drop out of that commitment because another better offer may come your way shows that you applied early solely for the purposes of boosting your odds at admission. This character trait - not honoring your commitments - will likely not look good to Yale, especially considering that NYU probably shared information about your ED acceptance to them. If you do apply, you'll have to forgo your NYU acceptance, and it is likely that you'll walk away with rejections from both schools. Yale because they'll know from NYU that you reneged on an early admissions acceptance, and NYU because you broke a contract. I wouldn't risk it.

The necessary assumption TAKES CARE of the flaw in the reasoning. So let's say that our argument is this. Rattlesnakes grow sections on their tales each time they molt. Therefore, I can know the age of a rattlesnake by counting its sections.

What's the flaw here? Well, we're assuming that rattlesnakes molt at an even pace. But this might not be the case. It could be the case that rattlesnakes molting patterns are extremely variable. If that's true, then we can by no means count the age of a rattlesnake just by counting its sections.

If this argument is valid, then it must be the case that that flaw isn't happening. That is, it must be the case that rattlesnakes' molting patterns are NOT variable. That's the necessary assumption. On this particular question, the correct answer is: rattlesnakes molt as often when food is scarce as they do when food is plentiful. Or, in other words, rattlesnakes do not vary their molting patterns according to food scarcity.

Note that this isn't a sufficient assumption. Knowing this does not allow us to conclude that we can know the age of a rattlesnake by counting its sections, because it could still be the case that rattlesnakes vary their molting patterns according to something else, like weather. That being said, it's a necessary assumption. It must be correct if the argument is valid. We know this because if we negate it, then we get: rattlesnakes vary their molting patterns according to food scarcity. If that's true, then the conclusion is destroyed.

To sum, necessary assumptions most definitely have to do with flaws in reasoning. If you know what's wrong with an argument (the flaw), and you're asked to find the necessary assumption, then a correct answer would be one that blocks that flaw from happening. The flaw must not be happening if the argument is valid. That is a necessary consequence of an argument being valid, that a particular flaw isn't happening, and that's why we call those necessary assumptions.

So I got -0 on LG in November, and also currently average -0 on LG sections of PTs, usually finishing within 27 minutes or so. That being said, take what I say with a grain of salt, as it could be purely speculative on my part.

IMO, the thing that separates -0 LG people from -3/-5 LG people is foolproofing past the point of getting under the time limit. For example. When you consistently foolproof, you start to develop methods of lessening your work load, since you don’t want to go through the process of writing out hypotheticals for easy games all the time. You start to be able to just see, in your mind’s eye, how different hypotheticals play out. You also start developing a greater intuition for checking answers on brute force questions that are 75% of the time the correct answer, even though they’re answer E or some shit.

Keep pushing, and you’ll reap the rewards

Unfortunately, with your undergraduate gpa, figuring out which law schools to apply to will be determinant on what your LSAT score is. Law schools don’t really factor in graduate school GPA as anything other than a good soft [carries abt the same weight as a glowing recommendation]. As other people on here noted, to have a shot at T14 you’re going to need 170+. And to have a shot at schools like Fordham, Boston College, etc., you’re going to want to be at the 75% LSAT or higher, which for them is about a 164 for BC and a 166 for Fordham. A good rule of thumb is that if you’re below the 25th percentile UGPA for that school’s last entering class, you should strive to be at or above their 75th percentile LSAT score to stand a chance. Of course, this metric changes if you’re an URM

Speed comes from accuracy, so focus on accuracy and foolproofing. Remember, accuracy doesn’t just mean getting questions correct. It also means getting questions done in a time efficient and game efficient manner. Focusing on accuracy in this second respect will improve your time.

Boards are a tool, and only a tool. You should use whatever is most intuitive for you. If using a particular game board is hindering, rather than helping, your ability to comprehend and solve a game, then don’t use it.

I’d say yes. I didn’t absolutely love the 7Sage LR explanations, as I feel you learn LR better by reading through and truly thinking about the material than you do hearing someone else’s thought process. I utilize the LR portions on the Core Curriculum mostly for review, and for checking to see how J.Y.’s thought process differs/compares to my own.

I hit a breakthrough with this when I stopped trying to immediately assign a game board to a specific question and started to actually understand how the game operates. Often times, especially for hybrid grouping/sequencing, you can use a variety of different game boards to solve the problem. Aside from the immediately obvious sequencing games, in/out games, etc., on the upper end of the spectrum, it's more about what allows you to best represent the rules of the game than it is what board is correct for game X or Y.

I suggest you do a bunch of hybrid grouping games to get a feel for this. I'm assuming you don't have problems with identifying basic sequencing/grouping/etc, but are having issue with the more complex ones. If you are having trouble identifying basic sequencing, etc., then return to the core curriculum.

@ You can find that information in any LR Book, or on 7Sage. The material is going to be more broad than specific plans, so you'll have to develop a simple process for each question type yourself based on trial and error. What it really boils down to is: for each question type, how do you solve that type of question?

As for LR, I'll just say this much. Improvement on LR isn't going to come from reading another book again. It's going to come from doing a lot of practice questions, and thoroughly reviewing why right answers are correct and wrong answers are wrong.

You need to have a quick and intuitive thought process for each type of LR question that you may come across on test day. You need to have a plan for each type of question, whether it be strengthen/weaken/necc assumption/resolve reconcile explain, etc. The reason it's important to develop a process for these types of questions is to avoid going solely on gut feeling. Gut feeling will lead you to the wrong answer choice. Process will show you the way.

Second, you need to be drilling question types you get wrong. So if you find yourself missing a lot of strengthen/weaken questions, drill those for a while. Do questions of just that type over and over until you refine your thought process for those questions, as well as understand trap answers that you catch yourself falling for.

One tip I saw on Reddit that may help is this. Summarize the process for each type of LR question on index cards, with the type of question on one side, and the process you're going to use on the other. Then, constantly quiz yourself. For example, let's say one side of your index card says: Strengthen - Causality. The other side should say: Eliminate alternate cause, show example of cause and effect happening together, show example of no cause no effect. Really absorb these processes so that when you see the question stem on test day, your mind immediately jumps to potential answers.

@

Well, the thing is that the reason you're not getting to the fourth game on time is because you haven't improved your LG skills to the point where that's a possibility. Timing comes with increased ability. So just because you're getting all three games you do correct doesn't mean that you've reached your skill ceiling on LG. If you had, you'd be getting all four games done on time.

It's not about fitting in the last game, but rather about improving your ability on the three games you do complete so that you can do them in a shorter amount of time, thereby freeing you up 9 or 10 minutes to do the last game. Have you been foolproofing?

Let's say you get a game done in -0 in 7 minutes where the recommended time is 7 minutes. Do you usually stop foolproofing there? If so, that's a mistake. It's not about getting the questions done in the recommended time, as much as it's about being able to absolutely tear through easy games in 5 minutes or less.

Next time you do a timed section, try and keep track of how much time you're spending on the easy games. I guarantee you that you're spending one or two extra minutes than you need to be. There are four games, and you probably need around ten minutes to do the last one. This means that you need to shave approximately three minutes off each of the first three games you do to make room for the last. When you foolproof, try and keep foolproofing after you hit the recommended time limit and to shave that time off. Really pick apart your LG process. Ask yourself: What are you spending time doing? And do you need to be spending time doing that?

I started being able to hit the last game when I realized that I was spending too much time up front trying to split the game board. It's time efficient if there are two or three game boards you can make that tease out further inferences. But if you're making six game boards when there are only like seven questions, this is a mistake.

As a side note, at LEAST try and do the first question of the last game. It's an easy point. Maybe do that one question before you do the third game if you know you won't be able to get to it on time.

You get the stimulus and the first question on the first of two pages. The rest of the questions are on the second page, with room below for work.

Learn some skills! Maybe learn to program or use photoshop. You could spend time learning a language you've always wanted to be fluent in. The opportunities are endless. Congrats btw

I delayed law school. The thing is, anyone who tells you that you're not pushing back major events in your life in your 20s is wrong. Of course you're going to be missing out on things that you would otherwise be able to enjoy if you dedicate yourself to law school. The question you have to ask yourself is: Is it worth it?

Taking time off to study for the LSAT is tough. It'll be hard for you to date, it'll be hard for you to spend time with friends, etc. But it's not as if you're going to be losing out on all that. You'll be losing out on maybe one year, two year tops. But you'll be able to do all the things you want to do in your 20s while in law school, and afterwards. You'll also have, hopefully, a 180k+ salary to boot.

You have to think about the next ten, next twenty years. Is hitting the clubs in your 20s really so worth it that you're willing to not be a lawyer? What it really boils down to is how badly you want it. No success comes without sacrifice. You just have to ask yourself if being a lawyer is the version of success you envision for yourself, and how much you're willing to give up to achieve it.

Yes, burnout is real. But you won't know where your limits are until you push them. Make sure to take a break when you're getting burnt out, depressed, tired, etc. I do think that a lot of people think burnout is far more severe than it actually is. You'd be surprised where your actual limits lie. Don't be like me and use burnout as an excuse when you simply just don't want to work. I typically know I'm burning out when I curse at the test as I'm doing it, and dream of literally doing anything else

I mean, if it works for you then do it. Nobody can tell you what methods work best for you. All I can say is that in my experience, the toughest strengthen/weaken questions have been ones where the negation test doesn't work. Specifically, a lot of really tough strengthen/weaken questions will use modifiers like "Some, Most, etc." and the negation test can really F you up on those answer choices if you rely on it too heavily.

But again, it's your test, and ultimately it's your score. If you feel comfortable adding the negation test to your toolkit for strengthen/weaken questions, then do it. But you should do so knowing that it may not work on the toughest strengthen/weaken questions, and is far from foolproof.

LG is easier to improve than LR. If you're only finishing three games on time, then on the actual test, you'll likely get all the questions on the fourth game wrong, and a handful of the questions on games 1-3 wrong.

The key to getting above 160 is to nail down LG to like -2/-3 wrong. You can easily do that in a few weeks of heavy drilling. LR and RC take more time to improve, but aren't impossible. The thing is, if you have limited time, why would you waste your time investing in LR when you'd reach your goal easier if you drilled LG?

You can use the negation test for some strengthen/weaken questions. In fact, strengthen and weaken questions are VERY similar to necessary assumption questions, as both highlight flaws in the stimulus.

That being said, it doesn't work all the time, and the primary highlight of the negation test for necessary assumption questions is that it can be applied, correctly, to ALL necessary assumption answer choices. When you apply it to strengthen/weaken questions, you run the risk of negating an answer choice, finding that it doesn't destroy the conclusion, and not selecting it, when in fact while it doesn't destroy the conclusion, it IS a weakener. This problem gets even more messy when you realize that test writers often put in trap answer choices that ARE correct answer choices for necessary assumption questions, but that aren't the correct answer for strengthen/weaken questions.

For example.

Suppose a strengthen stimulus says: José is good at basketball. Therefore, he must be tall.

Now let's look at two potential answer choices.

(A) Some people who are good at basketball are tall.

(B) Most people who are good at basketball are tall.

If we apply the negation test, we'd pick (A). This is because if no people who are good at basketball are tall, then the conclusion is destroyed.

Yet, this would be the wrong answer for this particular question. This is because, intuitively speaking, most people who are good at basketball being tall certainly seems to strengthen the stimulus more than some people being good at basketball being tall.

However, were we to negate (B), we'd get: Less than 50% of people who are good at basketball are tall. This doesn't destroy our conclusion, because José could be in the other 50% of people who are good at basketball AND are tall. So the negation test doesn't work for (B), while it works for (A), and yet, (B) is the correct answer for this strengthening question.

The key reason we don't want to apply the negation test to strengthen/weaken questions has to do with the subtle logical difference between the two question types. In strengthen/weaken questions, we're dealing with inferential likelihood, while in necessary assumption questions, we're dealing with logical validity. What works for one type of question doesn't always work for another, and during the test, you don't want to employ a weak tool for question types that don't warrant it.

Yep. The key thing to remember in strengthen/weaken questions is that there can be outside information in the stimulus. More specifically, for weaken questions, counter examples are used to highlight and expose the flaw in the stimulus. For strengthen questions, we often say that that counter example isn't happening.

Weekly Recap Time!

Last Week: Took a lot of time off from LSAT prep. In addition to the holidays, I got sick, and had to go through a round of antibiotic treatment. Went back to it today, and managed to get my best score yet on logical reasoning (-1 !!!). I think the thing that has helped me is to see LR questions from a step back, if that makes sense. I'm looking more at argument structure, and am getting better at seeing the ways different arguments are constructed. My LG skills have gotten a bit rusty.

Next Week: Going to do PTs 50, 51, and 62. Going to place an emphasis on cementing my LR skills as well as foolproofing games. In addition, going to start waking up at the same time the actual LSAT is, as well as continue my meditation. Feeling much more confident for January now.

@

So, Blind Reviewing is like this. While you take a PT, circle any questions you're even slightly unsure about. Then, after taking the PT and before you grade it, go back to the circled questions. Really think through the problem with no time limit, and either change your answer or keep the old one. Write out reasons for why you're changing, or why you're keeping, as well as why the other answer choices are wrong. The goal here is to identify the WAY you think about certain questions, rather than leaving it to a subconscious process. Once you do that, you can grade the test. After grading it, look at the questions you got wrong even after you circled and went back. Look at the reason you wrote down for choosing that incorrect answer. Eliminate that reasoning and don't use it in the future, or modify it if needed.

Foolproofing isn't really about completing the game within the suggested amount of time. Obviously that's one component of it, but IMO it's not the most important one. Foolproofing, for me, is just constantly repeating that game. So even if I can finish a 6 minute suggested game in 5 minutes, I'll do it over and over until I can do it in 2 or 3 minutes. The goal isn't to reduce your time. It's to memorize inferences so that they become part of your muscle memory. I foolproof games that I'm already under the time limit for. You want no hesitation, and you want to make things like counting elements in a sequencing game, or keeping elements in your head for a grouping game, to be subconscious things you don't think about doing. You just do them. This allows you to use the precious amount of mental energy you have on the real test thinking about the complex nature of a difficult problem itself, rather than being bogged down thinking through the fundamentals. After you do this, you'll start to see an increase in your time naturally, just by getting better at making inferences.