I got this question correct, but I marked it for BR because I like analyzing parallel questions for practice. During BR, I am having a ton of trouble eliminating B.

Specifically, the flaw in the argument is your typical invalid argument form: A-->B. B. Therefore A. The argument invalidly uses the converse of the premise as the conclusion.

Answer choice A clearly does that, and this is the correct answer. However, doesn't answer choice B technically do this as well?

Here is my breakdown of B:

Discover something new-->Examined all possible solutions. Fran -Discover something new. Therefore, -Examine all possible solutions. This answer choice invalidly uses the inverse of the premise. Nevertheless, if you take the contrapositive of the conclusion, Examine all possible solutions-->Discover something new, isn't this logically identical to the flaw in the passage? In other words, am I misreading something in this answer choice, or is the "form" better than the "substance?"

Thanks.

Hello, on all of my preptests, even after reviewing all the lessons and explanations I still miss Flaw and MSS questions, is there something I missed in the lessons, or some concept I haven't understood that is common with these two types

TONIGHT! PT71 BR | 7pm ET

Did anyone else pick up on the fact that that one RC passage was TOTALLY about World of Warcraft/Diablo II, etc. ??????

Derp-a-derp.

Note on all groups

This reminds me of taking college algebra three times untill i finally got it ..... ahhhh I am so discouraged.

How's it going. One of the people that I plan to ask for a letter from does not have his PhD. He's taught two of my classes; he's a grad student where I go to undergrad. But I feel that he could write me a good letter of rec. Should I ask him, or should I only ask people that have graduated from grad school, like legitimate professors? The other person I'm asking is a legitimate professor. Thanks guys

I was just wondering if anyone knew if there was a way to access the video explanations for the last upper half of the LSAT without having to upgrade to Ultimate (currently I have Premium). I wouldn't really need anything else with the upgrade and just for the explanations and $200 seems very steep for just that. Does anyone know if there's a way to purchase part of a lesson plan? Or maybe another resource/site that they could recommend I use? Any help or info is greatly appreciated!

I got burned out and said eff the LSAT for two weeks... Now it's time to refocus and get back the momentum before gameday. The moral to the story is burnout is real. The End.

I bought the intro course about a week ago and I'm scheduled to take the LSAT in October. I took a practice test today and scored a 152, and after applying the blind review method a 157. My goal is to get in the 160s range. Should I postpone taking the test in December?

Does anyone know from experience if it's possible to get in the 160 range within two weeks?

If anyone has been able to do this please share your recommendations to get there! My toughest section is LR.

Much appreciated guys!

Wondering what your strategy is regarding RC review and JYs video that breaks down the passage. I understand the passage, but usually dont watch his video that reads through the passage. RC is my worst section and I wonder if I'm missing out by not watching the video. Thanks!

Premise

~Nobility -----> ~ Tragedy

(~ = negative)

Conclusion

~Fate -------> ~ Tragedy

It is obvious we must link the concept of Nobility and Fate. Making D right.

My question isn't D backwards? We need an answer choice going from premise to conclusion

~nobility ------> ~ fate

Fate ------>Nobility

Instead D says

~Fate ------> ~Nobility.

Nobility -----> Fate.

Technically wouldn't this be unnecessary since it is a reversal? I know some people might say o just ignore this or look at the contrapositive, but I've seen a few questions where the contrapositive usage of it was considered wrong over the actual way. Ie. the way D had it was wrong when another answer choice said fate > nobility.

All groups now meeting at 7pm ET. Folks with schedule restraints—please just join when you can. You won't miss much. Any serious objections, please PM me. Schedules can be changed but only if you let me know!!

Questions about upcoming weeks' schedules? Look at this. http://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/3490/october-15-group-br-calendar-now-available

BR Groups, Week of September 15th: THURSDAY (PT72), Sat (PT73)

Ok. Ok. Ok. You still with me? ARE YOU STILL WITH ME, FUTURE SAGES???

Of course you are.

THURSDAY (NOTE DAY CHANGE, this week only), September 17th at 7PM ET: PT72

Join @pujals and Matt N. for this evening of delights.

LSATurday, September 19th at 7PM ET: PT73

Second to last LSATurday. *tear*

Note on all groups

just a heads up so that y'all have extra time to PT (lookin at you @pujals ). BR group for PT71 will be TUESDAY at 7pm ET as opposed to the usual Wednesday.

HI Folks!

I am looking for the previous post(s) that had a compilation of the hardest passages.

I am especially looking for hardest RC and LR.

Thanks a lot!

On a morning so close to test day with a PT to take and BR to follow, this is what I say to myself: "I'm alive, alert, awake, joyous and enthusiastic about life! I fairly sizzle with zeal and enthusiasm to do that which is mine to do today!" GiddyUp!

Why is the answer e?? I thought the best was a. I don't understand why sulfur 33 is rarely found. I thought what they had found were HIGHER THAN NORMAL concentration. Meaning today's diamond could still have s33 but less of it.

Halp.

hi everyone,

for those of you using the trainer and 7sage together, i was wondering what you thought of learning/using the "complex or rules drill" (pg 196)? I don't really remember having learned something like this in the 7sage curriculum (correct me if I'm wrong) and I'm kind of feeling that it might just confuse me. Is the alternative making more sub gameboards?

Help would be much appreciated. Thanks! Trying to pick out of this book what works/doesn't work with 7sage, and I've found the LR to be pretty good.

I am aiming for a 170 on the October LSAT, but for at least the past month, my score has consistently been 161-163, despite taking the time to go over answers I was unsure about and/or got incorrect and practicing those types of questions.

I have been self-studying for the LSAT since May, I had a tutor work intensively with me on logic games from May-July, and I have been in a TestMasters class since July. I only use the official PrepTests and books with official questions (PowerScore bibles, The LSAT Trainer). I have taken about 10 practice tests in total under timed, realistic conditions.

It seems on every practice exam I either have a major problem with RC (-7) and one of the logic games (while getting 100% on the other 3 games) but only get 4 wrong per LR section or the RC and logic games sections are fine (-2 or -3 each) but then I get about 9 wrong per LR section. Basically, I either have a problem with one half of the exam or the other. Recently, I did one practice exam where I gave myself 10 minute breaks in between sections and got a 172. I know this doesn't mean much, but it does show that I do have the necessary skills and strategies.

This is very frustrating, especially since in my practice I feel confident about the questions I am working on. I study about 3 hours per day, sometimes more, and based on the above, feel my studying is of good quality. I have a 3.95 GPA from a top 15 undergrad and don't see why for the amount and quality of studying I have done I shouldn't be able to get a 170.

Any advice for how to overcome this? Is it even realistic to expect this big of a jump in my score with only 3 weeks left? I know the obvious answer would be to just keep in mind retaking the exam in December, but I really don't want to resort to that if I don't absolutely have to.

Has anyone taken the never-before-disclosed PT from Superprep 2?

I am planning to take the Oct. test and using this month to work on endurance. I find it difficult to stay focus for the duration of the test which I am sure effects my overall score. I read somewhere that to help endurance you take two PT back to back. I have been taking two PT back to back with 15 minute breaks between them but at the end of the first PT and at points during the second I get unfocused or tired. For example today the first PT I got a 153 (personal best) and the second I got a 144 (personal worst). I don't know if this way is working and I don't want to waste a good PT on the second test so was thinking about using a new PT for only first best and old PT for second test. How do you guys stay focused and increase endurance?

I have been studying since March. Up until lately I have felt very confident in my ability for taking the October LSAT. However, I have not been taking very many PT. I am starting to really struggle with LR and am concerned I may not be ready to take the October test. How can I make a firm decision whether I am just over analyzing or if it would actually be a better idea to postpone until the December test?

Anyone ever done this? I'm taking the October test here in Okinawa on a military base. The good part is I think i'm the only taker, so it will just be me and the proctor. I'm just hoping the test isn't crazy. From what i've read on other forums it sounds like I'll probably be taking a nondisclosed test from a prior year. Curious as to the process afterwards for anyone that's done this. Do the scores get released at the same time for those taking overseas and nondisclosed?

Thanks!

Well I've finished all of the 7sage curriculum and started PT 6 days ago. I've been doing one PT a day, and thanks for my job, I had pretty much time at work to BR.

But disappointedly and scary is that my PT plateau kept unchange around 154. Usually I got about 90% on LG, 60% on LR, which sometimes the passages and too rocket science to me to apply memory method. And 70% on LR. Recent PTs showed I am pretty confident for those questions with 3-star difficulty or less. But those hard questions are still huge challenging time-consuming monster to me. I will take my entire next week off and will fully devote my self to PT.

Any suggetions? Thanks.

I know we are suppose to go back and do them, but for scoring purposes in the analytical tools, do we leave them as blanks or do we put our guess answer choice? Ie. my guess answer choice for questions is D. So for question 25, do I put in D, or should I leave it blank, so that in the odd chance it is right I don't get a false sense of knowing something I do not?

The video explanation was a bit murky here. I'm not so sure why the answer choice is C. I have a good theory on why people likely mistakenly pick C even though it is the right a/c. There are some issues I have with it.

1. its trying to say that if the number of science and engineering students in university programs has increased in the last 5 years then that is somehow proof or strengthening the idea of there being no shortage of scientist and engineers. This is a problematic shift, it requires us to assume they stay in that program, graduate it, AND work in that field. There is no evidence that these people have even graduated never mind ward off an IMMINENT and CATASTROPHIC shortage. Imminent means about to happen, how can people who entered university 3 years ago and are not even employed ward off and IMMINENT shortage? we don't even know when in the last 5 years this increase happened. We just know generally

2. It is also using a raw number to address a question about a total proportion. In otherwords, the correct answer choice here, C, is a percents and numbers FLAW! It would be like saying ok you have a shortage of 90% of workers. C is saying but you have a significant increase in the NUMBER of science grads, so what, you went from 10,000 to 50,000, that doesn't ward of the IMMINENT AND CATASTROPHIC shortage of 400,000 science grads needed. This matters because shortage means proportion it is a ratio not a raw number. It is the amount of jobs to job seeker ratio. You cannot solve this question with a total number.

3. I try to see how C could at least be right, but I have a real problem with it. I suspect most people don't recognize it as a ratio issue and just say yeah more students ----> more grads -----> -more job seekers ----->avert shortage and therefore Strengthen conclusion. There is a problem at literally everyone of these jumps but the worse one is you can have a significant increase of students, grads, job seekers, and still not avert an IMMINENT and catastrophic shortage. Maybe I am just not seeing where he is trying to strengthen correctly.

4. So which a/c would I have chosen? Probably D? Why, it is the only question who addresses the issue in the argument and thus has the POTENTIAL to strengthen. If certain science fields have an oversupply and others have a shortage. That indicates 2 thins. 1) For the oversupply field clearly there is no imminent and catastrophic shortage, supporting the conclusion. 2) For the shortage field there is also no imminent and catastrophic shortage, it is a shortage but its not described as imminent or catastrophic, so it indeed also supports the conclusion.

PT12 S1 Q24- I Have no idea how the writers of the test came up with this answer. I lack understanding of why C is wrong. (I purposely left out the answer just in case someone wanted to do it on their own first.)

PT14 S4 Q9- I Just plain out do not understand how to approach this question. can someone explain?

PT9 S2 Q22- Does the answer to this question rely on the distinction between the term "city-wide" and "city residents" or is there something I am not seeing?

PT11 S4 Q19- I got the answer to this question right, but only because of POE, but I want to know why this answer is right. Can someone please assist me in articulating why this answer is right?