Hello all! I thought I'd share some tips on my personal approach to Flaw questions. I've really struggled with them in the past but I've done every single Flaw question from PT 1-35 so I think I have a good grasp on how they function. Some of this information may have already been stated in the past or covered in the CC but feel free to take what you need from it!

Hone in on the premise/conclusion relationship -- I circle key words in the premise/conclusion and quickly scan the answer choices for obvious eliminators (outside the scope of the argument, descriptively inaccurate, descriptively accurate but not the flaw, refers to contextual or other people's argument).

This process usually leaves me with two attractive answer choices, where I usually got stuck. I started to pick the one that I COULD NOT definitively prove wrong. The correct flaw answer choices are so abstract sometimes that I can't necessarily parse out what each part refers to during the timed test. So I just go for process of elimination. During BR, I definitively prove why it's right but trying to do so on the test can trap you into a time sink. Often, just moving on despite not being able to fully articulate in my head why it's the flaw precisely has been helpful. On the flip side, articulating why the second attractive answer choice is wrong (i.e. pointing to the specific word/phrase that's incorrect or cannot be definitively proven) has guided my POE process with more confidence.

Another thing that's really helped me is not to be locked in on my prephase before heading into the answer choices. In other words, just keeping an open mind. Even if you commit all of the 19 common flaws to memory (which I have), there isn't enough time during timed tests to actually think through all 19 and prephase. Instead, I ask myself an open-ended question that addresses the GAP in the reasoning --- i.e. What if X causes Y, and not the other way around? Wait what, how is X even relevant to Y? This helps me keep the general gap in my mind but not be so stubborn about my idealized answer choice. The LSAT can take that gap and do with it what it wants -- so it's harder to anticipate what they might try to get at. Instead, just having a general idea of where the hole is helps to stay focused when going through answer choices.

I think Flaw may arguably be one of the hardest question types, because it's so broad in scope. They can literally ask you anything because the flaws are so open-ended with so many variations. When you start developing a tunnel vision for the premise and conclusion relationship and STOP WASTING TIME on deliberating wrong answer choices, these can turn into that low-hanging coconut on the tree.

Hope this is somewhat helpful!

I am Completely stumped on this question. I am not sure if I am correctly negating the statement nor understanding the some relationship here

Stimulus Statement: "No laws has No Crimes", Because no laws can be broken.

Makes sense to me. However, I am confused with the Negate necessary rule being applied here since we are given two "No" Indicators.

How I would do this: Laws - Crime

Why? Since we are given a double negative. However,

How this is correctly diagramed is: /Laws - /Crimes

Why? Can some one explain that to me?

Also What do we do when we are given double (negate necessary or negate Sufficient conditions)

Now the negation aspect of this question. Since we are given a no statement and this is a must be true then,

How I would negate this no Statement is: A society has some laws and some crime.

However this is not correct, this is what answer choice (C) says "A society that has many laws has many crimes"

But my Second question then is WHY IS (D) Correct?? " A society has some crimes and some laws"

Thank you so much to anyone that can help

I had a quick question - based on the 7sage lessons on weakening, you never directly attack a premise or conclusion; rather, you take support away from the premise(s). So, a lot of trap answer choices will seem like they're attacking a premise when they're not.

However, is there ever a case where an answer choice DOES directly attack the premise? And if so, is it right?

I ask because I think I remember JY saying in a video (and i can't remember which - I was BR'ing an exam): "When answer choices seem to attack a premise, 9 times out of 10 they're not actually attacking the premise, it just looks like they are. For the 1 time out of 10 though, it's a great way to weaken an argument."

So, if it does actually attack the premise, it would be right, but it's highly unlikely that they would do that, so they're probably just trapping you?

Thanks guys!

I would like to know where 7Sagers usually take PrepTests. I read somewhere that it is better to get used to distractions so I usually take in a public library. But do you think it's ok to do PTs at home?

I'm asking this because I want to record myself doing PTs, and today I stacked a bunch of large books on a library desk and put iPhone on top of it to record myself (I was definitely the weirdest person in the library), but the battery went out after 1.5 hours of recording....! (Next time I'll bring a portable battery charger....and I also ordered an iPhone clip holder stand so that I don't have to stack books....still going to be the weirdest person in the library though)

Sorry for a stupid question!

Hi all,

2 questions.

I likely will only have 3 full days off before the June LSAT I am planning to take. Is this enough time? (I.e., I will work on Thursday and take the test on Monday) Or should I try and swing for more days?

Any advice appreciated, especially from people that have already taken the test before!

Damn... I was doing PT23 S2 Q9, and have no idea to connect and translate the words.

If I were to look in the question bank, how do I separate the conditional logic LR questions from the other ones. I can't seem to find it in the categories.

It's hard for me to explain what my problem is, but I hope someone understands. It's not the logic I am having problems with, it's translating logic from words!!! After looking at the process and answer, I found that some words and statements were the different in the argument, and I treated them as same variables!

PLEASE BEAR WITH ME, here is the logic translation text in order, with quotations, and answer process of question PT23 S2 Q9 :

ARGUMENT: Every action has consequences, and among the consequences of any action are other actions. And knowing whether an action is good requires knowing whether its consequences are good, but we cannot know the future, so good actions are impossible.

every action has a consequences

Action --> consequence (okay I got that part)

And among the consequences of any action are other actions

consequences --> action (what? How is "other actions" the same as "every action," it doesn't like they are talking about a different category)

And knowing whether an action is good requires knowing whether its consequences are good

Know if action good --> know if consequences are good (okay, got that part)

but we cannot know the future, so good actions are impossible

NOT knowing the future consequences good --> good actions are NOT possible (Okay, I see how this we done)

Now the answer I was reading goes and chains the rest of the answer like this:

NOT know if future consequences good --> NOT know if good --> good actions are NOT possible

MY PROBLEM #1: I can't see how a contrapositive of Know if action good --> know if consequences are good can turn into NOT know if future consequences good --> NOT know if good (this was done to chain up the statements, and I don't the how the heck these statements are the same).

MY PROBLEM #2: the answer chains up conclusion with a chain of three, and I don't understand how:

NOT know if future consequences good --> NOT know if good --> good actions are NOT possible

To me, that to me cuts into the other conditional statements.

How do these two statements below combine into one conditional chain? What rule allows this!?

NOT know if future consequences good --> NOT know if good

NOT know if future consequences good --> good actions are NOT possible

According to the answer, both statements above combine to this:

NOT know if future consequences good --> NOT know if good --> good actions are NOT possible?

Hey guys,

Had a 7Sager email me with a question that I thought you guys could help out with. Here it is:

I was wondering if you could tell me what the phrase "or else" means in logic sequencing games? For example, a rule given is "H is assembled on line 1 or else line 7"

There is a really tough and confused question I have: IS No effective law(A) is unenforceable(B) = All enforceable laws(-B) are effective(-A) RIGHT?

Due to the first sentence is a double negative one, should I reverses it directly like -B→-A? Then it becomes like that: Enforceable is effective law and it is the same as the sentence in my question.

However, if I change the double negative sentence to an affirmative one, then it becomes: Effective law is enforceable. Then reverses it: Unenforceable is not effective law, which is not the same as the sentence in my question.

I have no idea which one is correct, should I change the double negative sentence first? Or should I reverse the double negative sentence directly?

In general, I got 2 wrong for each passage. In total, 8-10 wrong. I need some suggestions on how review the RC passage efficiently.

Hi everyone, is there a study/blind review group for those prepping to take the test in September or December? If not, can we start one? The support of a study group is invaluable during this tough time!

@"Dillon A. Wright" Can you please check my account? Yesterday my unlocked content was at 100% and now it is not. I don't know what changed. I am an Ultimate+.

Thanks in advance,

S.S

so Einstein has this riddle i'll paste it here .. basically he said 98% of people dont get it right.. not sure if thats true or not, but once i saw it i realized .. ITS A LOGIC GAME !!! its not evena full game its the sitting up of a game give it a try and i'll tell you the answer ...

Einstein's riddle

The situation

There are 5 houses in five different colors.

In each house lives a person with a different nationality.

These five owners drink a certain type of beverage, smoke a certain brand of cigar and keep a certain pet.

No owners have the same pet, smoke the same brand of cigar or drink the same beverage.

The question is: Who owns the fish?

Hints

the Brit lives in the red house

the Swede keeps dogs as pets

the Dane drinks tea

the green house is on the left of the white house

the green house's owner drinks coffee

the person who smokes Pall Mall rears birds

the owner of the yellow house smokes Dunhill

the man living in the center house drinks milk

the Norwegian lives in the first house

the man who smokes blends lives next to the one who keeps cats

the man who keeps horses lives next to the man who smokes Dunhill

the owner who smokes BlueMaster drinks beer

the German smokes Prince

the Norwegian lives next to the blue house

the man who smokes blend has a neighbor who drinks water

Einstein wrote this riddle this century. He said that 98% of the world could not solve it.

I sensed a burn out/ slump and took off last Thursday afternoon and the entire weekend. Before taking the time off, I think I was getting emotionally involved with the exam. I was getting anxious just by seeing the questions. I was focusing on getting all the details right and was not in the right mindset to see structures. I think when I get anxious, I tend to want to control everything and understand everything perfectly, which is detrimental to succeeding on the LSAT (and anything in life in general...). Now I am in quite a happy place again. Here's a note to a future self (and also to my current self to ingrain these insights) and to anyone who wants to prevent/ overcome a slump. Please feel free to add any more insights.

Anyways, I think the weekend off helped me to really experience all of the 3 above (these are all quite common wisdom, but really believing in them and acting in accordance with them is a different issue). I'm going to keep this in mind going forward.

Please add any more insights to this if you have them!!

I just received the news that I have been accepted to University of Ottawa!!! One year ago today, I never thought that this would be possible. I must say, thank you to the 7sage community for making this happen. The video explanations helped me tremendously as well as all the discussion boards.

To all those applying, never give up! I know the battle is long and treacherous but trust me, hard work really does pay off. If it takes you 6 months of studying or1 year or even 2 years... who cares. The only dreams that are unreachable are the ones you don't reach for.

Thanks again (3(/p)

Hi 7sagers... I've noticed that in my recent PT's I have finished the LR sections with approximately 5 - 7 minutes left at which time I will go back to the questions I circled because I was not completely confident with my answer. When I go back through the section to these questions, I get worried about time and tend to spend no more than 45 seconds on them before usually confirming my first answer and going on to the next circled one. I am missing an average of 5 questions per LR section and mostly on these circled (curve breaker) questions.

How do you approach your second time through a section? Would it be better for me to hone in on 2 or 3 circled questions and absolutely get them right at the expense of not double checking all of the circled questions? Any light you can shed would be greatly appreciated.

Hi all,

I just began the RC section of the curriculum, and I'm finding it sort of pointless to study along with the videos without having the passage in front of me. I've heard legends of a time when pdfs were available, but now that that's not a thing, I was hoping some of you had suggestions on how best to get my hands on study materials. How do you ensure you're not "wasting" material from PTs while just trying to learn/perfect the study methods?

(I'm sure this has been asked before....sorry for the repetition)

THANKS!

Since I make markings on my test, and I don't want to get new blank copies to BR, is it acceptable if I just use the question bank for the BR? I was thinking since the time element does not matter, using electronic questions wouldn't really hurt anything. But, of course, if it is detrimental to my progress, I can just get new copies. What do you guys think?

haha sorry guys just found out, wife said dont tell anyone yet, so i figured.. well i'll tell my 7sage friends they wont tell anyone she knows lol. so now im doing this for me and my family !! extra motivated now !!

Anyone think 10 points can be gained in the next two months of LSAT prep? I am at 159 right now after 2nd PT and hoped to reach close to 169 by June test. I'm missing over half on Games right now & simple mistakes on LR, so I plan on drilling that a lot between now and test day. Thoughts or previous experiences with this are much appreciated!

I hope you had a good break. Now it's time to get back to work. PT 73's up!

PT 73 Review on Saturday, April 22nd at 5PM ET

Try this first---- https://www.gotomeeting.com/ and then enter the code 617-377-325

Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/617377325

Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.

United States: +1 (872) 240-3212

Access Code: 617-377-325

The Full Schedule

And if you’d like to see the full schedule for upcoming sessions, here it is:

https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=aWw1aWEzYTRkbWdoaDZsa3U3YjBsaDBlZDBAZ3JvdXAuY2FsZW5kYXIuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbQ

Note:

Where exactly can we print the PTs that are available to print? I'm trying to print every LG 1-40 after going through the LG CC again. I have PDFs, but they are older and have the LGs on one page...I would like to be practicing with two-page LGs.

hey all,

just wanted to share a bit of my experience... after completing the core curriculum i was eager to jump into prep-tests. at first i would focus well during my actual prep-test, but when it came time to blind review i was so excited to see my score that i quickly agreed with myself and did not spend enough time with each question. my score plateaued in the low 160's.

then, while reviewing the material in the curriculum and the webinars (shout out to the LSAT Prep for 170+ webinar) i learned three important things about the blind review:

focus on your blind review score. your actual score tends to be about 10 points lower than your blind review score. thus, if i could get my blind review close to 180, then i could get my actual score above 170. my entire focus shifted from the prep-test to the blind review. rather than getting discouraged by a low actual score i became excited by a high blind review score.

blind review on a blank copy of the test. thanks to allison for this suggestion in the LSAT Prep for 170+ webinar. without access to my answers from the timed prep-test i stopped arguing with my ego and was able to really dig into the material. my blind review score became a more accurate representation of my knowledge base.

review your blind review score thoroughly. this is discussed in the curriculum, but after finishing a prep-test and blind reviewing it i was usually eager to move on to the next test. i would check a couple of the harder questions, watch jy's explanation and be done. this was not educative. i began to dive into accumulated answers to discover the subjects i struggled with the most. 7Sage's analytics are great for this. i returned to the curriculum to review most strongly supported and parallel flaw questions. reviewing the material helped me re-learn it.

.

.

.

shifting the focus of my emotional well being from the timed prep-test to the blind review helped me get over my frustration and my plateau. i just broke 170 for the first time and it feels great!

i still can't believe kaplan doesn't teach the blind review...

Hey Everyone,

Could anyone give me an example (whether on some test or just an example you could make up) of this valid form:

A --> C

B --> C

~A some ~B

I know it abstractly, but I struggled earlier to give someone a decent example and explanation earlier. So, I feel that means there's a hole in my knowledge.

Hi everyone!

I am studying full-time (was studying part time, 10 hours a week from last Sept to Feb, and began studying full time last month). I really hope to write in June.

I feel pretty comfortable with LR and RC, but NOT LG...

I've never taken a timed diagnostic, but when I took it untimed last September, I was about 4-5 wrong/ LR section, 4-5 wrong / RC, but l didn't even measure my performance on LG because I was just so lost. Many questions I couldn't do even untimed.

Right now I am going about 0-2 on LR and RC, timed. I just need to have LG under my belt to feel ready...

I did start prepping for LG quite late; I began fool-proofing about 4 weeks ago, for about 4 hours a day.

I did the CC and foolproofed the entire CC and have moved onto the PT stage for LG for the first time today.

I missed 8 on LG for PT62, timed.

I know that I should be foolproofing from now till June. My goal is to solve one PT section a day, foolproof it, and review/foolproof the section I did the previous day. So about 8 games (4 new, 4 old) per day. Is this reasonable? Are there any more tips on this stage of the prep?

I don't mind moving taking the LSAT in September, but because I already feel pretty comfortable with RC and LR, and have 2 months full-time just for LG, I am hoping to at least take a shot at the June one.

Many thanks in advance!!!

I got this wrong because while I did see the author was appealing to authority, I thought it was reasonable to assume that if the author says what an authority figure says, then it can be said that the author would say that too.

Answer Choice E basically says that the Meteorologist did not evaluate the merit of example from the Statistician. I thought by citing experts who are saying that no single thing can cause climate the Meteorologist was evaluating the merit of the example from the Statistician. But then I thought about it some more and it occurred to me that you can't necessarily say the Meteorologist evaluated the merits of the example just because he cited experts who cite a general principle that speaks to the counterexample.

I know this is a rough evaluation of the question and answer choice, but what I wanted to get clarity on is what I concluded above:

If an author cites what someone else says without saying it themselves can that author be said to have said the same thing?

This question makes me think the answer is no, but I was hoping someone could verify that.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-2-question-25/