Hi Guys,
Sorry if this has already been asked and answered! I can't find the answer. I know for logical reasoning questions that you should read all answers to make sure you got the right one, but let's say you have your logic game board and you can see the answer is B, should you just circle it and move on? It would really cut my time down. On the other hand, I know sometimes it could be a confidence error. Some advice would be great.
Thank you!
For question two, I understand how A is wrong, but I don't understand how E is more correct than C. Doesn't the line imply that because the defense lawyer has an obligation to the court and to society, they are more likely to uncover the relevant facts of the case?
That's a very good point. Understanding the passage is the key to the questions.
Okay, that's a good thought. That's pretty much what I've been doing so far, so I'm glad to have your input. Thanks!
Hi Everyone,
I'm sorry if this has already been discussed elsewhere! I looked but couldn't see anything.
My question is, are you restricting your timing when practicing RC questions, or are you just timing yourself to see when you're finished? I have been restricting my time between reading the passage (and summarizing as I go), then restricting the time again to writing a summary for each paragraph and the overall summary, and restricting my time to answering the questions.
J.Y. said to not restrict your time too much when first practicing... maybe 12 minutes for harder passages. But it's hard to set up a timer if you don't know how hard the passage is before you read it. That's why I'm wondering if people have been just marking down how long it took them, but not actually setting a timer.
Thank you for your input! I like reading how other people are practicing.
@simpaticonx543 [^-^d] that's so true.
@simpaticonx543 [^-^d] thank you for your comment. I definitely know I'd rather go to law school than remain on the course I'm on. The question now is, do I have enough money to last me! Thanks for replying :) good luck.
Maybe this is an obvious question, but when I go to checkout and it says the expiry date is in May, does that mean that's my new expiry date for the whole course? Great deal, by the way!! 7Sage is amazing.
Good to know I'm not the only one who's been considering this!
I have a great full-time job, and I don't want to take it for granted by quitting to study full time. Especially since my boss is encouraging me to go for this possible promotion. No one at work knows I'm studying for the LSATs.
The problem is, I'm exhausted when I get home from work! And of course there are other commitments to think of. Studying of course should come first, but you have to find a balance between life and studying, and not burning out! I find I am burned out due to work, especially since I have a large workload so I tend to work overtime.
My contract is up at work at the end of August, but I'm sure they'll ask me if I'd like to renew... A part of me is hoping that it doesn't get renewed because I don't want to take the risk of quitting. But this job isn't my passion in life.
Anybody else have thoughts on this? I'm so glad I'm not the only one in this situation.
Thanks so much for your help, Danielle! It sounds like what I've been doing... If I get a few wrong but I do blind review and understand them after I work through them, I move on to the next. Glad to know I'm on track :)
Great, thanks that helps a lot! Do you (or anyone else) have a certain score on the problem sets you make sure you get before moving on to the next lesson and saving the other problem sets for later? For example, say I got eight out of ten right on problem set three for weakening questions, but six out of ten right on set four?
Hi there,
I don't want to waste the problem sets so I can return to them later, but I want to make sure I'm getting the most out of them. How many problem sets should I do before moving on to the next lesson?
I'm sorry if this was answered elsewhere, but I couldn't see the answer anywhere!
Thanks!
I originally chose B because it seemed as if it was saying that by rerouting the pollutants "offshore", they would go to the ocean, thereby making it pointless because the lobsters in the ocean would be effected and it matters more because those lobsters live longer so the gill disease would effect them. But, this is an unfair assumption to say that "offshore" meant "ocean", and it's unfair to assume that just because the ocean lobsters live longer, the gill disease would effect them more. The point is, the gill disease doesn't matter to a lobster. But, it would matter to the people that eat them.
I'm not sure if there are more detailed lessons on these concepts, and if there are, perhaps you've already reached them. But just for my own understanding, here is an explanation on necessary/sufficient conditions:
A necessary condition is where one thing must occur or must be present in order for something else to be there or to occur. So, in order for the credit to be given when there is a missed copy, it is necessary for the customer to call within 24 hours AND it must be necessary that there is no other replacement copy available.
It would be sufficient to get a credit for a missed copy say if one called within 24 hours and requested a credit, regardless if there was a replacement copy or not.
I think this is why J.Y. was emphasizing that the second "only if" is redundant, because the "and" between the two conditions means that the "only if" applies to a customer receiving a credit if BOTH conditions are met, making it a necessary condition for there to be no replacement copy. For it to be a sufficient condition, I believe the sentence would have been phrased as "a customer can receive the credit when they have a missed copy only if the customer notifies us within 24 hours, whether or not there is a replacement copy or not".
If I'm wrong, could someone please correct me?
I agree, I really struggle with the time limits. Hopefully with enough practice over time, it will get easier. Also, in what very little spare time I have, I'm trying to read more complex articles so I just get used to reading things daily that are outside my comfort zone. Even though I'm a good reader and writer, sometimes it's hard to catch little details or remember multiple details. If anybody has any other suggestions of what has helped them, let me know!
One thing to remember is to pick the best answer to summarize the conclusion. E was a good answer because yes, large scale dishonesty and failure to perform public duties will be destructive to society, but this is a premise because it supports the point which is: people should vote. I actually originally chose D instead of A, but now I realize that was a premise, too.
"However" is the indicator that the speaker is now changing from the context to the argument.
It's true that "price" is stated in the conclusion, but the main point of the conclusion is whether the changes to science are warranted. Sure, changes can be costly, but this doesn't mean they're unwarranted changes. It just means that the price of a change must be considered before changes are made. This is why D is a premise to E, the correct answer.
I hope this makes sense. I chose D before, too, so I'm writing to explain it to myself (since you wrote your question 3 months ago... I'm a little late!).
This answer definitely helped me understand choice B. So, we're not focusing on the premise, which is that the computer experts made the claim. We're disagreeing with the conclusion which is that the hospital exec's decision is based on accepting that the computer experts' claim is correct.
I'm beginning to understand that we need to separate the conclusion from the premise in each argument.
Thanks everyone! That's good advice. I only just got to the LG section so still getting the hang of them. I'm good at working the games out, but it's just the time that kills me.