Hi there,

@hello84939384 Thanks for the feedback. The intention of the 7sage forums, which these comment sections are an extension of, is to provide a space for students to help one another, leave their thoughts/feelings on the LSAT or 7sage, etc. In general, the intent is to help propel self-studying and communal learning.

@ batu.buyukbezci, I think you’re paraphrasing the argument incorrectly. The conclusion of the argument is that the “probability of maintaining good health is increased by avoiding dairy foods”. The argument doesn’t say that the probability may increase, or could increase; it says “is increased”.

To make that claim, we have to be very sure that it (the probability of maintaining good health) absolutely will increase by avoiding dairy foods. What all goes into the calculation of the probability of maintaining good health?

Imagine it like a math problem. Probability of maintaining good health = Numerous factors. For the probability to be higher, “Numerous factors” must increase in the positive direction (e.g. 10 –> 20).

The stimulus says this: By avoiding dairy foods, Numerous factors necessarily increase. With dairy, Numerous Factors is lower than Without Diary.

But that is not necessarily true. Dairy, presumptively, brings benefits as well. For (avoiding dairy foods = numerous factors increasing) to be true, it HAS to be the case that the negatives of eating dairy out way the benefits. Why do we assume that?

Whether or not dairy actually has benefits is irrelevant. The argument has to consider the possibility that it does to make the conclusion that it does, and it fails to do so here.

This question is confusing, so please let me know if you have further questions.

Ryan Lattavo

Tutor at 7sage

ANDYKANE,

One way to track whether or not your translation is correct is to put it back into english. Here, I think you'll see where you went wrong:

D > J says "If you possess extraordinary discipline, you are a jedi". Hm. Probably not, but lets see the other conditional.

/J -> /D says "If you're not a Jedi, you do not possess extraordinary discipline". That's also probably not correct--I know a lot of people who possess extraordinary discipline that definitely are not Jedis.

The necessary condition here is "possesses extraordinary disciple". So if you do not possess extraordinary discipline, you cannot be a jedi: /D > /J.

This also works the other way around: If you are a jedi, you must be extraordinarily disciplined, J > D.

Both of these translations make more sense with the reality of the situation and what we know common sense-wise about jedis. Don't forget to check translations with your intuitions--those don't go away!

Let me know if you have further questions,

Ryan Lattavo

Tutor at 7sage

bigtempehfan,

Let's reason this out. The contrapositive of a simple conditional ( A > B) is not B > not A.

For a Conjunction conditional, think about what we are communicating. I am happy only if it is sunny and warm. If I am happy, it must be the case that it is sunny and warm--so, if one of those necessary conditions doesn't exist, then I cannot be happy.

So, if one of the necessary conditions is false, the sufficient condition (me being happy) is also false. It also does not matter which necessary condition needs to be false--it being cold, or it being not sunny, are both good enough to fail our previous conditional.

So, the contrapositive is not N OR not O > not M.

Let me know if you have further questions,

Ryan Lattavo

bigtempehfan,

This works great! If you see a conjunction, "openly and notoriously for three months", you can assume each conjunct (each side of the and) also has that quality. "Tom and Maria are tall" breaks down into "Tom is tall" and "Maria is Tall".

Do not take the inverse of this rule to be also true, however. It is NOT ALWAYS true that if two things share a quality, the conjunction of those two things also shares that quality.

Let me know if you have further questions,

Ryan Lattavo

Studyingval,

The ↔ indicator, of course, is "If and Only If". Using the group indicators, you know that "If" indicates a sufficient condition, and "Only If" indicates a necessary condition. Therefore, if a sentence communicates both "If and Only If", it must be communicating both a sufficient condition and a necessary condition.

So if I say, "I will go to the store if and only if it is sunny outside", that's notated as S (store) ↔ Sunny

If it's sunny, then I'm going to the store (If...it is sunny outside, I will go to the store), and If I am at the store, it must be sunny (I will go to the store...only if it is sunny outside).

So, you can tell a biconditional is at play if you have both a sufficient and necessary condition. Let me know if you have further questions.

Ryan Lattavo

Tutor at 7sage

cr1038,

I think the usage of "They" in the explanation may have caused some confusion. "They" always has a referent, and in this case, that referent is "Most large nurseries". You know this because of the conjunction and being used within the stimulus.

So, really, the sentence says "Most large nurseries sell only plants that are guaranteed to be disease". Thus, the Most relationship stands out. A further hint that this is correct is that within Answer Choice E is the word "probably", and as our explanation indicates, we can only derive probabilistic relationships from our two predicates.

Let me know if you have further questions,

Ryan Lattavo

Tutor at 7sage

Precisely! This is a good way to describe the problem.

Hey tina.marie,

Sometimes it helps to bring back your plain English understanding of terms. If I say to you, “You are required to go to the store to purchase bananas”, or “If you want to buy bananas, you are required to go to the store”, how is the word ‘required’ functioning in these sentences?

In essence, it’s telling you something you have to do. I could quite easily replace “required” with “need” and the sentence would say the same thing.

As a general principle, if something is required, needed, or must be done, it is a necessary condition. Why is that? Well, if I don’t do the required/needed/or obligatory thing, then I can’t get the sufficient condition (this is the contrapositive). So if I’m not at the store, I can’t get bananas. This means being at the store is a necessity for purchasing bananas.

Now, you would look at me weirdly if I said “Being at the store is enough to guarantee that you will buy bananas”. Why would you be forced to purchase bananas when walking into a store? You wouldn’t, but if you’re going to buy bananas, you need to be in one.

Let me know if you have further questions!

Ryan Lattavo

Hey mhaj0522,

I'm Ryan, a tutor here at 7sage. While we don't have a lesson on prescriptive vs. descriptive, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about the topic! Overall, it's a relatively easy distinction to follow:

If you're told to do something (One should never chew with their mouth open) you're looking at a prescriptive statement. To me, 'prescriptive' sounds like 'prescription', and 'prescriptions' instruct pharmacists on what to give me. You may also hear this word being called 'normative'.

If you're told the way something is, (The sky is blue, the kids are rowdy) you're looking at a descriptive statement. 'Descriptive' is derived from 'description', so it's pretty easy to remember. You can never move from descriptive to prescriptive without a justifying conditional (If someone is rowdy, then they should not be).

Let me know if you have further questions!

Ryan

Hi faithdallo301,

While we don't have a specific lesson on proportionality, I'm a tutor at 7sage and super happy to help answer any questions you may have about the topic! Let me know if there is something you're lost on.

Ryan

theo1106,

We differentiate between SA and PSA because there does seem to be some difference between the question types, but I think its a marginal one at best. Here is how I go about differentiating:

SA requires you to bridge some gap. Always. You will always be filling in some blank in the argument to make the premises support the conclusion.

PSA can ask you to do two things, depending on whether it is an Application question (PSAa) or a Rule question (PSAr)

a. If it is an Application question, you'll typically be given some Principle, and sometimes a corresponding application, sometimes not. For the easier questions in this category, you'll just utilize the Principle to form an Application. Suppose the principle is "If a number is even, it is divisible by two". Then, the question will ask you "Which scenario best conforms to the principle", "Which is best demonstrated by the principle" etc, for which you'd then give some even number (in my little scenario here). Or, if they already give you an application, something about the application will be incomplete. Just like in SA, then, you'll have to bridge the gap between Principle and Application by modifying the principle.

b. If it is a Rule question, I'd treat it almost exactly a SA question type. Usually, some conclusion will seem unjustified, and the question will ask you to give some principle that fills in the gap. This is, of course, exactly like the SA question type, except the principle tends to be some broad thing that is applicable to many scenarios, whereas SA's tend to stay local with what is happening in the question type.

What I'm about to say is some pretty advanced logical theory, so if it goes over your head, know that its really not essential to getting these questions right. What is essential is generalizing the scenario with some Principle. But in any case, PSAr answers tend to be normative, i.e. they tend to command you to do something (most of the time, with the word should). Thus, when we take the principle given by the answer choice to be true, our conclusion follows from the normative claim. Consider the argument below:

The sky is blue

C: The sky should be blue

That's incomplete, right? No way does it follow. But in a PSAr, the answer choice would say something like "If something is blue, then it should be blue". In an SA, the answer choice would say "If the sky is blue, then the sky should be blue". Nuanced and subtle difference, but there it is!

If you want to talk this further with a tutor, use this link here to schedule a free consult: https://calendly.com/7sage-tutoring/7sage-tutoring-free-consultation?utm_source=FCA_A

If you have more questions, feel free to respond as well!

All the best,

Ryan

Hey Catherine.helle!

My best recommendation is to drill throughout the week as often as possible with your time schedule, and then PT on the weekends. When you drill, you want to focus on a specific section and/or concept that you want to target. For example, you might want to do a drill focusing on only Necessary Assumption questions, if your analytics tell you those questions are a priority. You may also want to drill specific strategies, like trying to complete the first 15 questions in LR in 15 minutes or completing a logic games section without brute forcing each game. Get creative with your drilling!

Most importantly though, you should be reflective with what you do. Never do something for the sake of getting LSAT work done--you want to be critically thinking about the skills you're using. After each PT, review your analytics to see where troublesome sections still exist, and use that to craft your drills throughout the week.

This can be confusing and hard to come up with on your own, so if you wanted to speak to a tutor about the best way to proceed studying, you can schedule a free consultation with one here: https://calendly.com/7sage-tutoring/7sage-tutoring-free-consultation?utm_source=FCA_A

We'd love to help you think better about drilling and practice tests!

All the best,

Ryan

Hi candacestubblefield,

I think your best bet at this time is to utilize the Foolproof method from the Core Curriculum to greatly increase your LG score. At the same time, I would recommend taking one PT to add to your Analytics page, and then focusing on improving on the Priority questions that the Analytics page informs you of. That'll be the best way to quickly increase and improve your score. In addition, continue practicing RC--its always slow to improve in, and there aren't any 'get rich quick' tricks for it like there may be.

In addition, our tutors would love to still get a purview of your analytics and describe to you in better detail than I can the best way to improve, even if you can't afford the tutoring service: https://calendly.com/7sage-tutoring/7sage-tutoring-free-consultation?utm_source=FCA_A

Please, feel free to reach out and schedule a session--its completely free to you!

All the best,

Ryan

Hey SmokyMountainBear,

I don't think there is a wrong way to go through the CC, per se. Going in the order that we present it in works for most folks, but if you're catching onto a concept quickly and feel like going through some sections feels tedious, feel free to skip around a little. After you hit the diagnostic, use what you got wrong in that practice test to hit certain sections of the CC; that'll be the most effective usage of your time. Throughout your studies, odds are you'll use all of it. @jhaldy10325 is also really on the nose about the hard stuff for you--it'll suck, but that is where the most improvement will happen.

Hope this helped,

Ryan

SmokyMountainBear,

You're definitely picking up on the 'old' way LR is done. As you can probably tell, the newer PTs--usually the 40s and beyond--become much more standardized in regard to the question stem and methods of solving questions than the older PTs. Feel free to skip these in your drilling and PTs if you feel that they aren't helpful

However, one thing I will note is that these weird and unusual question stems do test the same things that the newer PTs test. Therefore, if you want a really good place to challenge yourself on the material, the old PTs are a way to do it. If you can get those LR right consistently, you're going to be in a great place for the new LR, which seems more standardized and consistent.

You're also right that we don't have video explanations for these. However, users often post questions about them on this forum, and many tutors and others have written extensive explanations on a lot of them. If there is a specific question you were having difficulty with, let me know and I'll help you answer it!

Hope this helps,

Ryan

theo1106,

I really like what @matthewcsorrels859 sorr said about being the 'total jerk' person--approach the question with a skeptical mindset. Look for places to poke holes in the argument, be pedantic, etc. Further, I like to approach weakening questions like this:

Layout the argument. Make sure you're set on what the premises are and where the conclusion is.

Find a relatively unconvincing premises. This premise should feel weak to you, especially from a skeptical mindset. Something about it just seems not strong enough to support your conclusion. This is a good place to begin pre-phrasing

Using that premise that doesn't seem to support a conclusion strongly, head into the answer choices. When I read an answer choice, I think to myself "Does this answer make me less likely to believe the conclusion when taken directly with the other information in the stimulus?" Usually, the right answer in a weaken question will hone in on some weakness of the premises and expand upon it, so having good knowledge of the relationship between the premise and conclusion is a great place to start.

Thats a simple layout of how I go about answering these. Same method applies to strength questions, except they're the opposite of weaken. If you want to talk this further, schedule a tutoring consult and one of our tutors would love to help: https://calendly.com/7sage-tutoring/7sage-tutoring-free-consultation?utm_source=FCA_A

Respond here as well if you have further questions!

Lots of fantastic advice in this thread overall, but I think I also want to add that just having a for-sure idea of what you're looking for going into a specific question will really help! For example, learning what exactly is required of you within a necessary assumption question, versus a strengthen or weaken question, can narrow down what you search for within a stimulus and sharpen your pre-phrase in general. That will always lead to time improvements!

If there were specific questions you had in regard to implementing a timing strategy in any section, then there's no harm in scheduling a free consultation session with a tutor here!: https://calendly.com/7sage-tutoring/7sage-tutoring-free-consultation?utm_source=FCA_A

We'd love to help discuss this further.

Best,

Ryan

PirateParty,

Like others in the comment section of that lesson indicate, you can complete this question the way you've done it here--utilizing Lawgic. I think JY uses the subscript here because its much simpler than drawing the conditional arrows, but in essence it is exactly the same.

As a general principle, whatever is true of a property is generally true of whatever thing contains that property. For example, 'wet' as a property generally means, well, wet, and things that are wet (having that property) are wet.

Here, we know that material bodies are imperfect. So whatever is a material body must also be imperfect. Therefore, you can more simply represent "Spirit" by MBs because it falls into the things that are NOT material bodies; and we know that whatever is a material body is imperfect, so whatever is perfect CANNOT be a material body.

Basically though, he used the subscript to save himself the trouble of reiterating the conditional over again, replacing MB with MB. For all intents and purposes related to the LSAT, Set Logic can be represented using Conditional Logic.

Hope this helped,

Ryan

B_Maximum,

I think the most pertinent piece of advice I'd recommend is definitely to space your PTs out more effectively. Right now, you're just taking tests back to back without reflecting on what is going wrong, what concepts you're still weak on, etc.

It is hard to point you in a direction without knowing specifics on your scoring, but I think in general you still have a lot of core concepts you need to review. In general, a strategy that works is taking a PT --> returning to the Core Curriculum (or Loophole, or whatever you're using to study) and refreshing yourself on why you got the concept wrong. At your score, this should take you a long time, and only by effectively reviewing like this will you make score progress.

I think you would make a fantastic tutoring student, by the way, and benefit a LOT from one on one instruction. Having someone to watch over what's going on and be in your corner during this process can really accelerate gains. A tutor would also create a study plan for you that could help you more effectively study and learn core concepts. If you're interested, schedule a free consultation here: https://calendly.com/7sage-tutoring/7sage-tutoring-free-consultation?utm_source=FCA_A

Best,

Ryan

gahe1999,

I think your strategy for marking up a passage should be directly tailored to whatever keeps you the most engaged, i.e., actively reading, with the passage. I think one essential thing to highlight is always the main point of the paragraph you read. Once you have a low-res summary in mind, try and match your summary to something in the paragraph that you can highlight.

Really, the main issue you're going to have to balance is between highlighting too much and highlighting nothing at all. Its a nuanced thing that takes a lot of time to develop! Play around with a bunch of different strategies until something you like clicks. I like your idea of doing time indicators, but I think you could benefit more by highlighting referential phrasing instead. (This, that, this claim, etc). That'll point you in the same direction as time indicators (i.e., toward an idea transition or shift in perspective) with much more concise highlighting.

If you wanted to dive deeper into this, schedule a free consult with a tutor. We'd love to talk to you more about highlighting in RC: https://calendly.com/7sage-tutoring/7sage-tutoring-free-consultation?utm_source=FCA_A

Hope this helped,

Ryan

paige.k.anderson,

I think its a good idea to use the Core Curriculum to learn some of the fundamentals (which you test your knowledge of by completing the easy sets!). Once you get the easier version of all problems down, I think you're good to move on to drilling sections/PT'ing. Only when certain question types start to bring issues would I go back into the Core Curriculum.

Imagine if you went through every hard question, in order. You'd probably end up wasting your time on questions you didn't really need to study hard for! Therefore, I'd come back to the CC only when you really need a refresher and want to review some of the harder question types. Even if you run out of CC drills, you can always make your own difficult version of question type drills using the drill builder. So in the end, it's also not a critical decision to make--it won't make or break your studying process!

If you want more guidance on how to go about studying, feel free to talk to one of our tutors about your own studying process: https://calendly.com/7sage-tutoring/7sage-tutoring-free-consultation?utm_source=FCA_A

This consult would be completely free, and we'd love to help you out!

Best,

Ryan Lattavo

MTreigys,

I would say so, yes. A 'usual' occurrence is one that occurs normally, frequently, or in some standardized fashion.

For example, a 'usual' response to tripping and hurting your leg might be to say "Ouch!", or utter some explicative or something. Therefore, I think it is fair to say that most occurrences of someone tripping and hurting their leg would be met with 'Ouch!' or some explicative or phrase to indicate discomfort or annoyance.

Basically, that's a roundabout way of saying"Usual = Most".

Best,

Ryan

caitlinmattar,

I'd definitely avoid going through each and every problem set, especially before your first real exam. First, an effective use of each problem set will mean that it should take you a long time to go through all of them. Second, imagine you take your first exam and don't hit your goal score, but you've gone through every problem set possible! You wouldn't really have a way to gauge what section you're still weak in and need more help with.

Go through the Core Curriculum at a pace that is right for you, but also don't worry about finishing all the problem sets. Do 1 or 2 of each type, while also effectively processing each question--that means blind reviewing and watching the video to see where you went wrong. Once you feel relatively comfortable with a problem type, I'd move on to the next. The Core Curriculum is all about introducing concepts to you; you're going to get the most practice through PTs, so don't expend the Core Curriculum doing something you're already set to do after you finish it.

In general though, there is no science as to when you should do specific problems and for how long. It is a very personal decision! If you wanted more help deciding where to go next and after the Core Curriculum, you should schedule a free consult with one of our tutors:

https://calendly.com/7sage-tutoring/7sage-tutoring-free-consultation?utm_source=FCA_A

Any one of us would love to discuss this further with you!

Best,

Ryan Lattavo

Hi Catherine-12,

7sage's admissions team would love to talk through this question further with you! If you'd like to schedule a free consultation to talk with an admissions specialist about your question, here is the link:

https://classic.7sage.com/admissions/pricing/

You can schedule a consult at the bottom of this link.

Best,

Ryan Lattavo

To further the other commentator, insert different logical relations into the translation word and I think eventually it'll click. For example:

Where there is rain, things are wet (R-->W).

The presence of one thing (rain) implies the presence of another (wetness).

Hope this helped,

Ryan