^Exactly. Probably just watch a couple of the videos in the writing section of the core curriculum and practice one or two and you'll be set.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/does-lsat-writing-matter-and-other-questions-v1/

If I am understanding you correctly, I think you are pretty much right here. Like you say, if your second premise was N-m->/A instead of N—>/A then you could not conclude G –m→ /A because it would then be a "some" relationship between G and /A rather than a most relationship.

There are two parts I did not understand if you can explain further:

For the first list you make (granted, I might be misunderstanding it), why do you have the two G/A's? Those then make a total of 4 out of 6 G's that have /A with it. So that would mean G-m->/A is true and I thought you were trying to show how it does not work with this list, right?

For the second list (again, I might be misunderstanding it), it looks like you are illustrating the SA premise of N—>/A, and if so, you need "/A" with the first two "GN"s. That is because for every N, you must have a /A, so you cannot have a GN without a GN/A.

If it's truly your dream, grind until you achieve it. Listen to the 7Sage podcasts to know what it is going to take for 170+. Best of luck!

Just want to emphasize one point that @valensoares848 said, spend time on the concepts that aren't clicking. I was so focused on keeping up with the study schedule 7Sage gave me that I did not do my due diligence and take time to fully comprehend concepts before moving on. Now, I am going back through doing that, so save yourself time up front!

Exactly, did it for every question type. It was actually @shihfrancis114 who said this method worked best for him, so I'm just stealing it. Short answer to your question: yes, every question type, with a special focus on the questions I got wrong.

Long answer:

The way I did this was I did 3 drills for each question type from the CC. The first drill consisted of 10 questions (3x level 5 difficulty question, 3x level 4 questions, 3x level 3 questions, and 1x level 2 or 1 question) and was strictly from the CC PTs (1-36). After doing this drill and BRing it, I then would look at the questions I got wrong and understand why I got it wrong and how the LSAT got me to pick the wrong AC. Then, for all the questions, would write in the wrong answer journal why the correct answer was right and why the others were wrong. This was especially helpful for the tough questions (even if you get it correct because a lot of people chose another AC for a reason so try to understand why they did and how the LSAT was trying to get you to pick that wrong AC). My notes about the questions mostly consisted of "trap AC's might ____" and that could be they "might pull words verbatim from the stimulus to trick you." Some questions have particular traps, but for the most part a lot of the traps the LSAT uses repeat themselves across question types. But also some notes about how the test tries to hide correct AC's is helpful as well. Like for parallel flaw, I wrote "correct answers might switch up the order of the flaw compared to the stimulus, but still have the same flaw." After doing the first drill of 10 questions, I would then do 5 questions from PTs 36-58 (2x level 5 difficulty, 2x level 4 difficulty, and 1x level 3 difficulty). Then would go through and do all the notes like with drill 1. Then, for the last drill, I would do 5 questions from PTs 59-93 (2x level 5 difficulty, 2x level 4 difficulty, and 1x level 3 difficulty). Then, do all the notes.

For the drills, I picked a PT from each series (i.e PT 71 from the 70s, 44 from the 40s) to use solely for drilling. This will also be helpful when drilling LG and RC because you will have certain tests to use for drilling and then purely fresh tests for your PT's.

I also recommend reaching out to @victoriakbeede316 about reverse engineering LR Q types because he is a genius with LR.

Hopefully this all makes sense and saves you time! Please tell me if some of this does not make sense.

"The solution to any environmental problem that is not the result of gov't mismanagement" = A. "Lie in major changes in consumer habits" = B. "Economically enticing" = C.

Premises = A→B→C.

Conclusion: "Few serious ecological problems will be solved unless the solutions are made economically enticing" = /Few→C.

We need /Few to be sufficient for A or B to make the conclusion/argument valid. AC A gives us the contrapositive of /Few→A by saying /A→Few, so it is right.

Wow, this is a really good question and I hope someone smarter than me answers it because it has been throwing me for a loop while thinking about it. When searching on the forums, I found a related explanation to your question (here's the link: https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/27407) and basically it was saying that some and most statements are not the same as conditional statements. So there is a distinction to be made, however, when it comes to negating we still have to negate sentences like the one that is in the link and it has a combination of a some statement and a conditional statement.

Reviewing seems to be where your money is made. If that amount of time seems to be working for you and helping you improve, stick with it!

Second what pnwrunner says about waiting to take PTs until completing the CC. Will also recommend that when you get to the PTs you take it slow and really review each PT in depth. Don't try to burn through one a day to get them done. The improvements are made in the reviews.

Also recommend really paying attention to trap wrong AC's as you go through the curriculum (try to find the patterns in the test from LSAT writers). This could save you a lot of time as I ended up essentially going back through the curriculum to do this for every question type post-CC because I tried to get through the CC as fast as possible first time through.

PT 61, Sec. 2, Q. 24. Ran into this problem yesterday and made a note to go back to it and try to find questions like it because the conditional logic is unconventional, at least to me.

I made the same mistake. You're right though, B is telling us magnets intensify transmission, but that is it. We have to assume that this would directly cause people to have less pain, but for all we know it could also directly cause the people without relief to have more pain.

The conclusion is that the magnets will probably work on arthritic dogs too. We need an AC that strengthens the support between this conclusion and the premises. AC B does not really add anything new to the argument. On the other hand, AC E strengthens the argument by strengthening the results of the study, which proved the magnets worked since the placebo was not effective.

Hope this helps!

Echoing everything Matt said and just want to add that something that has helped me when mapping and trying to find the parallel AC is to map the stimulus using the general A, B and C ("if A, then B") rather than making the mapping particular to the stimulus. This makes it easier when you are trying to find an AC because you can just plug the AC's into your A/B/C map.

This is a good point you bring up. The author's flaw is that they assume that if you have high levels of education, then you make informed lifestyle choices (HE→ILSC). We know this is the flaw because the author first tells us we have a correlation between HE and GH. Then concludes that ILSC causes GH. In the conclusion, ILSC replaces HE, so the author's assumption rests on some link between the two. We can see that the author assumes HE is the sufficient condition for ILSC, which is the flaw. In reality, there could be something (like wealth, for example) that causes BOTH high education and making informed lifestyle choices. I hope this helps.

Pearson,

You are right in that it is very specific/narrow, more specific/narrow than the author argues. As you mention, the author never presumes that ONLY highly educated people make informed lifestyle choices. There could be people in the world who are not highly educated, but still make informed lifestyle choices and it would still be consistent with the author's argument. Therefore, A cannot be describing the flaw.

Also, this is one of those questions where LSAC gets themselves out of trouble by asking which question "most accurately" represents the issue. Even though the stimulus never mentions being "qualified" we can still see A as the most accurate representation of the 4 AC's. This tripped me up still though.

What is wrong with A? #help

This is awesome, thanks for sharing!

#help

I mapped out the conclusion as: if living microbes carried from Mars on meteorite → life on Earth. Did this because of group 1 term "when" that precedes "if living microbes carried..."

Why is it switched?

#help

For E, if the ride to a rental firm is the same price as the ride to a dealership, and a dealership is cheaper, then this makes me think a local resident would be more likely to rent from the dealership since they would save money overall. They would of course choose the dealership because the dealership is cheaper to rent from and it costs no more to get there than it would to go to a rental firm.

What am I doing wrong here?

#help

How is the assumption that you make with AC C less than the assumption you make with AC E? With C, we assume that because they had a more efficient technique to make lamps means that they would then probably make more lamps. With E, we assume that because they made more types of lamps, then they probably made more lamps overall. I see how E is the correct answer because it does not directly address quantity but why would C be fine instead of E?

#help

For non-traditional conditional statements like AC's B and D, how do you figure out how to write out the lawgic? For B, I wrote it down as LB→JB, rather than JY's JB→LB. For D, I was totally unsure if it was supposed to be L→M or M→L.

Also, is it ok to get rid of AC C simply because of the "most" statement? I did that before doing any of the lawgic because our stimulus had no most statements.

Thank you for the help!

"Which one of the following is an assumption made by the argument?" Is a Necessary Assumption, why is this? #help

This sounds awesome! Thank you all for offering this. Unfortunately, I will not be able to make it during that time, is there any chance you all will be able to record it and post the video on your site? Thank you!

Can someone please help explain what is wrong with AC E a little more? Thank you! #help