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/

I started 7sage back in September 2016, with the intention to take the September 2017 LSAT (which I pushed back to December). After doing the core, and doing five prep tests, I have yet to score above 150, which I've achieved twice. My average is 147.8.

After PT 39, I have felt defeated and crushed. It's not the worst I have ever done, but it's also a dip back down to my starting point. I feel like I'm doing something wrong, but I don't know what it is. As I can only dedicate 15 to 20 hours a week to studying for this test (which is mostly done at night when I'm burned out from work), my time is precious.

My process for the last five prep tests has been as follows - take the test, blind review the test, and then do a comprehensive review of each section of the test. Why the right answers are right. Why the wrong answers are wrong. Why I picked the wrong answers when I did. Drill the games. Drill the reading comp. This has been the advice of multiple people, and I don't feel like I've gotten the gains I'm supposed to. In fact, I feel as though I haven't gained anything.

Doing what I'm doing now isn't working, so there must be something I'm missing. I feel as though my worst section is logic games, but it's only edging out slightly compared to every other section. Should I just focus on drilling? Do I need to just dedicate my hours of studying to just logical reasoning until I'm answering 20 in 20 correctly? Alternatively, is this just a problem with the older tests being a lot harder than the newer ones?

@"J.Y.Ping" or anyone who really understands this and can explain: PT20 S1 Q6 and PT23 S3 Q6

I have listened to the explanation and on the Q6 from PT 23, I understand that E is incorrect, which I knew that going into the answers, but was frustrated, because it seemed to break all of the rules we are told to go by with avoiding "absolutes". The purse with the gold coins HAD been Brought to the ancient city by a pilgrim on route between M & M". The absolute assertion that it was not just "likely" brought, or even "most likely" bothered me and therefore made me feel it couldn't be correct. On the flip side, I knew all of the others were also wrong. E looked like it could have been very close if not for the use of the word "interacted". I could hear JY in my head saying, how do we know if they actually interacted, does that mean speaking, eating together?...So I ruled it out also, but all others looked so wrong as well. Why can the absolute assertion be ok sometimes, but we should stay away from it (in MSS) in almost all other scenarios?

**The Q12 from PT 20 is my BIGGEST issue. I hated this question and I am still arguing that the LSAC people are wrong. They are supposed to provide all you need in the stimulus and I do not feel as though they do. I do not own wood ducks or know anything about building their boxes etc. The majority of the Stim discusses how a female will lay an egg in another nest if they see the other female leaving, but that is so rare in nature bc the nests are so well hidden. Then the stem completely shifts its line of thinking, it goes into the "However, when people put up nesting box to help the ducks breed, they actually undercut the ducks' reproductive efforts. The nesting boxes become so CROWDED..."

So when I am looking at the answers, C looks immediately more correct. The boxes do have less "space" for the eggs than natural nesting sites, IF by space it is understood that when something is "overcrowded" there isn't enough space, or there is reduced space. Eg: There are 30 4th graders in my 2 bedroom apartment for my daughter's birthday and it is very crowded" I clearly have less "space" than I do when the 30 kids are not there. The missing 30 kids would be "my" natural environment.

The part I so whole heartedly disagreed with was the correct answer wording. D tells that, "The nesting boxes would be more effective in helping wood ducks breed if they were less visible to other wood ducks than they CURRENTLY ARE". My main problem choosing this answer was the "Currently Are"; how do I know if they are currently being used? Maybe it was something people used to do or tried in a lab or are talking about in theory. The writers never exactly say they are still in use and not to mention, the stim spends more of the time actually leading to the opposite...that the ducks are more productive in natural nesting sites. If I knew that nesting boxes were being used, and that the issue with this being successful wasn't that they were overcrowded because of "space" but that they were being placed in nature too visibly then I would have seen what they wanted me to pick. I get it that its supposed to be hard, but this seems not accurate. This question seemed to leave far too much to inference and it seems like the CC reminds up that we may have to make some inference but not huge stretches. I just felt that I had to assume too much to make D work. I saw that many students struggled with this.

Can someone please help explain why these stim types are either exceptions, or what is the trick/wording I missed that would have given it away? I wanted to ask @"J.Y.Ping" this during one of those sessions but I didn't make the lottery. Maybe since this seemed to be a really debated question, you could do a deeper explanation for everyone.? Or how to avoid traps like this one.

Thanks in advance!

Hi everyone,

I'm applying for accommodations for the June exam and was just wondering if someone who has applied before could provide some guidance. I have the "qualified professional" statement ready to go, but is it necessary to also send my own statement ("Candidate Statement of Need") as well? If so, any tips for how to write a decent candidate statement? Many thanks!

https://media.giphy.com/media/Wz0M2HHF7EKwU/giphy.gif

Thursday, April 20th at 7PM ET: PT 73

Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/794287189

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 (571) 317-3112

Access Code: 794-287-189

The Full Schedule

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

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

Note:

Query failed: connection to 172.31.3.4:9312 failed (errno=111, msg=Connection refused).

Seeing this when I search the forum. Cleared cache. Rebooted. Turned off VPN.

Anyone?