Couldn't we make the inference that only R and Z can be in slot 1? I was going to split the board on those but realized I didn't have enough info. I quickly eliminated A on question 1 without second thought because I scanned to eliminate any AC that didn't start with R or Z. JY didn't mention it and no one mentioned it in the comments. Am I missing something?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-2-game-1/

Just curious. I would like to take the September LSAT, so I don't intend on needing it more than 4.5 - 5 months. However the two most expensive courses list extra levels of difficulty in the "problem sets." Do you all think the extra money is worth it for those problem sets, or will the fundamental teachings and practice tests be enough?

Hi!

I noticed that if I miss a Q in RC, then the Q missed is an Infer Perspective type Q - Inferring either Author's opinion/attitude or that of others. This is kinda odd, because I do well with LR MSS type questions.

I must be doing something wrong with these RC inferring questions. Does anyone have a good strategy/methodology in approaching inferring perspectives type Qs?

Much appreciated!

.

This is a really unusual question and took a long time to come up with this reasoning. Any feedback on my reasoning would be appreciated.

Context: There is a new law which will take effect soon and gives the patients legal rights to see their medical records. Doctor’s opines as the following:

Doctor’s Conclusion: patients should not have a legal right to see their medical records.

Reason 1: it will significantly reduce the amount of time that staff can spend on more important duties thus it is time wasting.

Reason 2: No patients will ask for it anyway, based on his experience so far.

Now, reason 1 is not even necessary to mention because reason 2 cancels out; if no patient will ask for it, whether it takes time to retrieve and return files doesn’t matter. They will not be time spent on that task anyway. Now the task is to find one answer choice that will make reason 2 not cancel out the reason 1. In other words, find a scenario in which even if no one asks for the files, it will still be a waste of time as a result of the new law.

(A) Correct. If the new law will require the doctors to be ready to produce records immediately each time they see patients, then reason 1 matters, even if no one asks for it. So with this new law, the reason 2 does not cancel out reason 1.

(B) Wrong. Even if the task of retrieving and returning files fall to the lowest-paid member of the office, if no one will be asking for it, it doesn’t matter how much time it takes to handle the files. Reason 1 is cancelled out by reason 2.

(C) Wrong. Even if this is true that patients will require more time for explanation of their records, reason 1 is still not a good reason if no one will ask for the records. Thus reason 1 is cancelled out by reason 2.

(D) Wrong. If they can get extra payment for the staff to handle the records, it will not be a waste of time so in this scenario, reason 1 is cancelled out even more so.

(E) Wrong. This is no different from what stimulus suggests. If no one asks for the records, reason 1 doesn’t matter. Reason 1 is cancelled out by reason 2.

Hey everyone. So I've been going at it with this test for more than a year now. I used to solely rely on the memory method and no notations, but now for the past few months I've been doing Nicole's notation strategy with a small kick of just writing like 1 or 2 words next to each paragraph (e.g. background info, evidence, and so on).

I haven't seen improvement the way I would like to, and RC is the only section holding me back from getting into the 170's. I'm like a machine on LR and LG, but RC just doesn't seem to want to work with me. I miss mostly detail and inference questions, and I usually can always get the bigger picture questions right such as MP and function of a paragraph ones.

I'm starting to get frustrated as even when I do passage untimed, I still cannot go perfect on them and sometimes miss an embarrassing amount. I read for structure, tone, etc. and all of that good stuff but nothing!

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

I wanted to share a strategy that's been working for me.

When I do BR, my question isn't "am I comfortable with this question?". My question is rather, "did I tackle this question in the most efficient way possible?" Because in a lot of cases, I might be comfortable with a question, have gotten it right, but have spent way more time than needed. Also, there's usually a reason why I spent more time than needed: I might be lacking some crucial skills.

I time myself not just the overall time spent on a section, but the time I took for each question. If I thought a question was easy, but spent over 1:25+, I didn't solve that question as efficiently as possible. If the reason, for example, is because I didn't identify the conclusion in the most precise way and had to go back to the stimulus, that tells me that I still need to work on identifying the conclusion precisely. I need to improve on that skill.

So here's what I do.

Repeat

I think this helps me to

GRANTED, there are still some questions that I have absolutely NO IDEA about even after BR.

Those require the most analysis.

But usually my actual and BR scores are pretty similar.

FYI tho, this strategy takes A LONG TIME in the beginning. Sometimes I take 3~4 hours BRing a single section. But I think it's worth it.

I've heard a lot of people recommend the Manhattan RC book to supplement your RC curriculum. Has anyone gone through the Blueprint RC book? I already have a copy of that laying around so it would be easy to go through it, but I am curious if it would be more beneficial to skip it and go straight to Manhattan's book instead.

Any feedback is welcome. FWIW, I definitely struggle the most on RC. I just want to make sure I spend my time learning it in the most efficient manor, and not having to test 3/4 different methods before finding one that sticks.

I also plan on using @TheoryandPractice 's RC summary s/he posted a few days back; I just would like to get a better baseline before jumping into the application of their methodology.

X (-) ~Y

X -> ~Y

Could someone please clear up for me? Thanks!

When will it be released?

Has anyone ever used sudoku (or any other numbers puzzle) in their free time to get better at LG or increased their reading of complicated articles to help with LR? If so, have they seen any positive results?

Break time!

Pesach Sameach! Happy Easter!

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

I have been trying to master my lawgic to English translations and need some help here.

Working on: /F --> /E

I want to say: No friendly person is not exciting.

But when I read this, it does not sound correct. If I try using a group 4 translation to bring it back to logic, it doesn't seem like it would work out. Any idea if I'm on the right track here? Thanks in advance!!!

I have been thinking about drilling from old PTs. I know it will help, but I was wondering how difficult are the LR questions in the new PTs vs. the old PTs? Should I drill from the new ones instead (60+)? Or should I stick with the old ones (18-)? I want to save the new PTs for full timed tests.

This post is inspired by some of the really great conversation I saw after @"Alex Divine" posted a thread for full time LSAT prep folks. I'm kind of in the opposite situation, I have not one, but two careers, one that regularly takes over 45 hours a week of my time. I squeeze in prep all over my day (an hour at lunch at work, in the evening after work, in the morning before I leave, and a lot on the weekends I don't work) and somedays unfortunately I can't do more than a single problem set or read the discussion boards. I imagine there are a fair number of 7Sagers in the same boat, either because of their career or because of family commitments or both.

So what has helped part timers prepare for the LSAT and be successful? Anyone who has previously taken the LSAT and/or been admitted to law school have any advice? Any suggestions on how to maintain motivation even when a problem set and blind review means going to bed an hour later? Where does our strategy diverge from folks who commit a more steady set of hours each day to studying? Would love to hear thoughts or other folks questions!

Ok, I might be exaggerating when I say "punish prephrases," but I noticed that the prephrases, especially for the flaw/ assumption type questions, don't work as well in the recent PTs ( 70s up) compared to the older ones (the ones we used for CC). Also, prephrases make me to be a bit inflexible in considering answer choices (I am too quick to eliminate those that do not fit my prephrase), which hurts me as a result.

Most of the prephrases I used for older PT flaw Qs/ assumption Qs were right on, so I just picked the right answer quickly and moved on. With the newer PTs, I see that my prephrases attract me to trap answers. It seems better to leave the AC that matches my prephrase well as a contender (as opposed to choosing it and moving on) and REALLY carefully consider every other answer choice. I found that I do better in the recent PTs when I don't prephrase at all. Rather, I focus on EXACTLY what the conclusion is and stay open minded. Then, I see if the answer choice weakens/ negates the conclusion (in case if the Q type is flaw/ weaken for example).

Maybe prephrasing isn't to fault at all; maybe the recent PTs just punish those who are inflexible and expect the answer choice to have a certain form. Or maybe I don't have a solid prephrasing skill, but wasn't punished at all in older PTs, but am in newer ones.

Either way, does anyone else perceive a similar trend? What do you think about the utility of prephrasing in general?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-2-question-14/

I answered this question correctly under timed conditions but switched my answer during BR. Then I noticed lots of others experienced the same difficulty. Neither AC, B nor C, seems better than the other. JY describes B by saying that it independently explains each phenomena in the stimulus but doesn't resolve the tension between the two. I agree that B doesn't resolve the tension without the help of assumptions, but I don't think the assumptions required for B to be correct are any more egregious than that of C.

Here are my BR notes. There are two sets, one for B as the correct AC and one for C.

C correct

"B: I can see why this AC may be tempting to some people. It's by no mistake that it is placed just before (what I believe in BR) is the correct answer. This is tempting because it says demand increased. That part is pretty relevant to the stimulus, but it doesn't resolve the paradox because it doesn't address how the industry could meet this higher demand with 15% less workforce. Eliminate.

C: I breezed passed this the first time, but it does seem to do the best job of explaining this paradox. The stimulus says that Ravonia laid off jobs in logging and WOOD PROCESSING. So why is the amount of wood being taken at Ravonia increasing? Because their not playing around with processing -- just cut it and ship it raw. This isn't a great AC because we need to assume that the increase in exports is enough to drive the 10% increase in wood harvesting mentioned in the stimulus. We also need to assume that there are enough loggers to supply this 10% increase. Least bad AC. Correct POE."

B correct

"B: Oh man. This is definitely right but I totally missed it and nearly missed it under BR. The acres are lower, so they need fewer workers. The demand is up, so they're cutting more trees. Correct.

C: I was pretty sure this AC was correct until I started analyzing it in BR. "A growing number" could mean anything. Maybe the amount of unprocessed wood only increased by 1 tree per year. In fact, this says "proportion" which could mean that the total number has remained constant. I latched onto it because I didn't catch the "proportion" error I was making and felt that the reduction in wood processors explained why raw wood exports were increasing. Eliminate."

After browsing several LSAT forums and websites, there seems to some sort of unofficial consensus (though not everywhere) that three months is adequate time to study and prep for the LSAT? The LSAT is a beast of a test and I could not imagine leaning the foundation, taking enough PTs all in three months (without severe burnout), and expecting to do reasonably well. I understand that people can learn at different rates but if the 7sage core curriculum and the 7sage discussion board has taught me is that slow and steady really does win the race. Just wanted to get peoples thoughts on this, I just found it interesting!

I've been studying seriously since February and am worried about my progress. I started with a 134 cold diagnostic and the highest PT ive gotten is a 156. My score has been stagnant for a while. LR was my weakest section so I focused on that for 2 months and haven't gotten much better (still averaging -12 to -8). I'm not sure what to do since Im registered for the June test. A 160 is all i really want. Should I focus on all sections of the test again or stay focused on LR for now?

Thanks

Hi all,

I'm really new to this, just started the Ult+ class on Monday. I'm a little bit confused about the best way to use the curriculum. Should I be completing all of the problem sets during each lesson, or saving some material for later? I am also especially asking about the Intro to Logic section; did people do all the quizzes right away, or save some to circle back to for practicing and studying down the line?

Sorry, I know some variations of this have been asked elsewhere, but I couldn't seem to find an active thread to ask in. I just don't want to miss out on any good techniques!

Thanks!

I have to say that I have been using the Ticonderoga Blacks for the past week and I am really enjoying them. Oddly, I find that my LG diagramming has been MUCH neater since I began using them -- odd. Anyway, I feel more comfortable writing with these pencils and that is enough to convert me.

Obviously, I don't expect any sort of score increase merely form pencil choice, but just like doctors and waiters give thought to their shoe choice, LSAT preppers may consider giving thought to their pencil choice. : )

I'm working on translations to help with my SA understanding and am using the "find the missing link" exercises by taking the logic and translating them into English before I solve.

One of them uses:

/G most W

W some U

My question pertains to the premise. My initial thought was to translate it as: "Most things that are not green are wet." Would this be correct? I tried using "unless" but I'm not confident on that one either. I know that "not" is a group 3 negate sufficient but when I use it, it doesn't seem right. Any thoughts?

Thanks!

This question is strange -- the correct answer is not properly inferrable.

Many child psychologists believe that the childrearing practice leads to lower self-esteem in children, which leads to those children having less confidence as adults. But, "no one disagrees that adults raised under the traditional practice, were, on average, as confident as adults not so raised."

The answer the LSAT calls "properly inferred" from the above is that at least one part of the causal chain asserted by the psychologists is incorrect. But this depends on 2 critical assumptions that are entirely unjustified and could easily have been described as flaws. First, just because "no one disagrees" about a statistic DOES NOT MEAN THAT STATISTIC IS TRUE. Second, EVEN IF THAT STATISTIC WERE TRUE -- that adults raised under the practice are on average as confident as adults not raised under the practice -- the correct answer IGNORES CONFOUNDING VARIABLES! Maybe the kind of child who is subject to the childrearing practice starts off with a higher self esteem than the children not so raised, so even though the practice does decrease self esteem, it doesn't make it lower than the other children on average. THIS IS THE EXACT POTENTIAL VARIABLE THAT FLAW QUESTIONS AND STRENGTHEN/WEAKEN USE ALL THE TIME. It also comes up on "explain the paradox" questions, too. If you've studied for the LSAT, you know what I'm talking about. We'd need to know that the two compared groups -- those raised under the practice and those not so raised -- started off equal in the relevant areas -- self esteem and confidence level when they become adults.

Can someone please explain to me why (E) is considered to be 100% logical, to be "properly inferred" from the above?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-40-section-3-question-11/

Hey guys. About to do my first timed LSAT as a diagnostic as per the syllabus. Since this will be the first test I take as well as being the first time I go through actual questions, is blind reviewing worth it? Since I don’t know the tactics to take on LG and RC (etc) , will blind reviewing be worth the time even if I don’t fully understand how to answer the questions?

A friend and I were discussing PT68, Section4, Game 3. I was trying to articulate why a chart was needed in that particular game and when to use charts in general. And I discovered that I couldn't explain it clearly. And I think that's a problem. In my mind, it indicates a lack of mastery.

So, if someone asked you when it's necessary to use a chart and when not to, how would you respond?

(for those of you who don't know what I mean by "chart", check out the game I mentioned earlier.)