On my first attempt of this question I quickly began to translate everything into lawgic and found myself mighty confused because I was not thinking outside of the confines of my restricted lawgic language and could not find a single answer choice that matched the format of the stimulus "R -> DT and /DT -> /R." So I circled B frustratedly and moved on. However, on my blind review I did not translate into lawgic and quickly saw that A was the right answer because the mere sale of sports cars does not pose a direct threat to others and therefore would not be restricted by a just government, but allowing them to race on public highways would pose a direct that should be prohibited under a just government. What I learned from this is that sometimes converting quickly to lawgic and locking myself into the confines of the logic language can make it harder to compute some questions that intuition would much more quickly and easily solve. How often do others compute LR questions into logic and what ways do you get a feel for when to do so? #help

In the video, why do we know answer E refers to a nonfiction work if it fails both conditions in P ->A or RW? #help

I was confused by this question because I didn't see what Kathy was analogizing. Are there other similiar LR questions someone could refer me to so I can get practice with recognizing how these analogy questions work? #help

Damn, great example haha.

@ said:

Did anyone find the first game hard on their LG - it was a double sequencing game, I was missing an inference I think, went back to it and still couldn't figure it out

I did feel the first game was strangely hard for a double sequencing game. I got stuck, wasted almost 10 minutes, then had to skip and come back to it. My second time around I figured it out, but then had no time for the last game. I think many are in the same boat so let's hope for a good LG curve my friend.

I'm late to this thread but wanted to share my feedback. 2nd LSAT flex for me here-- RC was normal difficulty, felt decent; LR felt easy but went too slow at the end so had to guess in 20 seconds on the last section (but LR is normally my best section so I feel confident on the others); and LG was brutal for me. I got stuck in the first game and then realized I had to skip to salvage points. Games 2 and 3 went decently with an 85-90% confidence level, came back to game 1, figured it out on second glance and solved it, but had literally almost no time left for game 4, educated guess on conditional rules question and frantic guessing the last few answers. I'm hoping the LR and RC scores will work in my favor and that I at least got the points I salvaged on LG. Seems a lot of people ran low on times on LG this time (I finished my August LG section and did better then).

Also, I waited 80 MINUTES for a proctor to show, so that sucked. Had to talk to two tech support agents and they kept resetting my queue in the line for a proctor which just made things worse. I am a Christian and I felt my faith brought me a lot of peace as I sat there waiting 80 minutes doing nothing, the Lord brought passages of peace to mind.

Isaiah 26:3 ESV.

"You keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on you, because he trusts in you."

Thank you for creating this! If we do not have a tablet, how should we practice using this? Should we still use blank physical papers to write down our diagrams and just enter in our answers on the computer?

@ I know I'm 3 years late, but excellent post. I did have one question though. When you finish the fourth time through a logic game (taking it a week later), and you are still 1-2 minutes behind your target time, then what would you recommend we do to keep progressing and getting faster? Do you just drill it until you reach the target time on that same day one week later or do you repeat the process all over again from the start? Thanks.

Do you guys find it helpful to draw diagrams on the side to visualize the question stem like JY does? Is that something that you would do in the test or is JY just doing it to help explain the reasoning more clearly? #help

Damn you, Mr. T. This question sucked.

While I can see in hindsight that AC E makes the most sense, AC D threw me off in my timed run because I saw that one example (premise) only mentions a high intake of fruits and vegetables being related to low cancer rates, and the other example (premise) only mentions that a high intake of cereals (not necessarily fruits and vegetables) are related to low cancer rates. Because of this, the possibility of overlooking the fact that cereals, fruits, and vegetables all have different cancer-fighting properties kind of appealed to me. Can someone help me clarify why this is wrong? #help