Hi! Recently started learning about formal logic and it's kicking my butt to be honest. I'm still a little confused on how you even identify a conditional statement (I was going through some of the exercises and was like seriously, this is a conditional statement?).

More importantly, I'm still a little confused about how to deduce sufficient vs necessary conditions. I don't want to rely solely on indicators as LSAT is a test about understanding. If you guys could share your tips/explain, I would appreciate that so much, thanks!!

How did everyone feel about the Retest?

I had RC, LR, LR, LG.

RC (Ormes Comic Strip – Torcy Comics (civil rights movement)

Comparative Passage: Micro Finance in the Bangladeshy Banking Systems.

Theories of Property Ownership

Einestein and Dark Matter and the Expanding Universe(had the most trouble on this passage)

LR#1

grandfather drinking and you know lived a long time

morally virtuous and honesty people

Mites in a cave

health in there I think

LR#2

Periwinkle’s

Bat pups

sleeping platypus or platypi

Claims PH

LG:

1)Traveling to different cities Houston, Seattle, Toronto, Montreal.

2)China cabinet: gold, silver, vases, tea cups.

3) 4 Summer Camp Activities for 12 consecutive weeks

4) 3 interviews: reasources, personel, training for 1, 2 or 3 weeks.

Did anyone else have the same content as me, or something different? I’ve heard some people had different than me but I thought a retest was suppose to be the same content just different question and section orders so I don’t know but curious to see how everyone felt about it compared to first test and type of test

Pseudo-PSA

Political self-determination from external force -> /truly free

Maintaining freedom -> political virtues earned during the struggle for freedom

The bridge here is about linking political self-determination from external force + virtues necessary for freedom

A. Not true, its the opposite

B. Who cares what other virtues they achieve

C. Free -> develop political virtues… maybe

D. Remain truly free -> political self-determination, but this is missing the virtue part.

E. Imposed?

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

i dont understand why this is E

Hello there! I am nearly done with my AA and going to be starting my BA soon (Note: I'm in my 30s, I work fulltime and go to school, so I'm going through my college journey later than most). I know I want to take the LSATs in my junior year during my BA, so will likely not be taking it for 2 to 2 and half years from now, but I am a horrible test taker so I feel more comfortable studying long term and as a result I would like to find/make a study group for those who want to long term study as well. At the moment I am reading/self-studying The LSAT Trainer (3rd edition), with the 10 Actuals Vol VI. I'm looking for either an etablished community, or to establish a community of people to study with for the next few years.

I am very new to practicing for the writing sample, so I have some questions that might seem like common sense to other people. I'm sorry.

I notice sometimes that when I'm arguing for a particular choice I catch myself wanting to fill in gaps with stated assumptions that are necessary for my point to logically follow. However, sometimes these include outside information or things that are not stated in the prompt. For example, one of the writing sample prompts from an older prep test stated two options for filling in the gaps in a shop owner's inventory: either adding a line of metalwork items from a regional artists consortium, or becoming the sole representative for the artwork in the estate of a deceased painter. This painter lived most of his life in the area but the majority of his works were painted elsewhere. One of the criteria is that the shop owner wants to specialize in locally produced artwork. I was wondering as I wrote if the line of metalwork from the regional artists consortium meant artwork made by regional artists producing in the region. In other words, as I was writing, I was assuming that the line of metalwork was made locally. In these occasions, even if I do not know for sure, should I clarify that that they were made locally?

Another question that I have is about including not just the facts in the prompt, but also considerations to support my arguments. Of course, I know I have to use the facts, but in addition to the facts, can I also write about considerations? For example, in the same practice essay I was writing about how the choice of adding the line of metalwork would help the shop owner fulfill her goal of attracting new customers, since sustainable art is in trend among environmentally conscious art collectors, but such a consideration is not a fact. I am assuming the truth that materials such as metal are more ecologically friendly compared to oil and paper, for example. But, then again, I am making the assumption that the paintings were not watercolors... Then I caught myself thinking that I'm also making the assumption here that the scraps of metal were responsibly disposed of and no mercury or other toxic metals were used. My common sense says most probably not or the artists would also be dead, but anyway, these thoughts still intrude as I write. I need some guidance, or maybe someone to smack me over the head.

Conservative: Socialists study history, and they do so to identify trends that inevitably lead to a socialist future. However, this undertaking is certain to fail, because it is only retroactively that historical trends appear inevitable.

Socialist: Socialists do indeed study history, but the purpose of this is practical rather than theoretical: Instead of trying to identify historical trends that themselves bring about socialism, socialists try to identify trends that inform the kind of work that socialists need to do to bring socialism about. Socialism thus is not the inevitable outcome of historical trends, it instead must be worked towards and deliberately brought about.

Under timed conditions this Point at Issue / Disagreement question had me genuinely confused: The conservative and the socialist agree in maintaining that socialists study historical trends, but they disagree about the purpose that these studies are supposed to serve: According to the conservative, these studies are a purely theoretical undertaking, the socialist deems them practical. This thus would have been the issue to anticipate.

The pertinent answer choices are (A) (“[A] socialist society is the inevitable consequence of historical trends that can be identified by an analysis of history”) and (E) (“Socialists analyze history in order to support the view that socialism is inevitable”).

In the case of (E), we do get at a version of the anticipated answer; (E) gets at the conservative’s portraying socialist analyses of history as purely theoretical undertakings, which the socialist rejects.

(A) is more tricky. If (A) said “Socialists believe that a socialist society is the inevitable consequence of historical trends that can be studied,” this arguably would be a right answer choice: The conservative does ascribe this view to socialists, the socialist does not. However, (A) is a claim in itself, not only a belief that socialists may or may not endorse. In this context, the situation is more straightforward: We have no reason to think that the conservative deems the creation of socialist societies inevitable, and the socialist explicitly denies that they are inevitable. So as it stands, the speakers actually seem to agree that (A) is false. This thus can’t be the point at issue.

Takeaways: It is crucial to distinguish clearly between the two viewpoints here, as well as between facts and beliefs. Do not interpret (A) as a belief that the conservative ascribes to socialists; it is rather a claim that the speakers themselves are supposed to endorse or reject.

I personally find this the hardest LR question in PT 14; it is (1) bizarre on the level of content, (2) very long and overloads test takers with information, and (3) at the very end of the fourth section, thus hitting you at a point of the test where you already spent 2+ hours intensively thinking about stuff and are mentally exhausted.

In paraphrased form, the stimulus says:

(1) Phenomenon: In the Peruvian desert, there are different sets of lines in the sand. These lines occur in different layers: On the top layer, there are lines that branch out from a single point. Beneath that, there are lines that form a bird figure.

(2) Hypothesis: An investigator argues for the conclusion that both of these sets of lines were brought about by aliens, who supposedly used the Peruvian desert to land their space ships. To support this conclusion, the investigator evokes the premises that the lines in the sand would have been useless to Incas.

The first thing to do here is to figure out what the stimulus is even about: The phenomenon itself is not immediately clear – it is crucial to note that there are TWO sets of lines, not just one –, and the investigator’s hypothesis is counterintuitive to a degree that it becomes all too easy to disregard the glaring selective attention fallacy in their reasoning (Aliens or Incas, not Incas; therefore aliens). So the first hurdle here is to even figure out what is going on, and to throw out one’s common sense intuitions out of the window (How can you even identify the different layers of ancient lines in the sand? How did the lines stick around for so long? All of these questions become irrelevant).

The next hurdle then is the question stem, which again seems bizarre: Here, the test writers tell us that we seek to establish the conclusion that the lines are supposed to refer to astronomical phenomena, and that we are supposed to block an alternative hypothesis to the effect that the lines are non-astronomical. So at this point this seems to become a sort of strengthen question. The question stem is unusual to an extent that it becomes hard to pre-phrase or anticipate how a right answer might look like. Thus process of elimination seems to be the best approach:

(A) North American natives arranged stones in ways that allow for the measurement of astronomical phenomena. This seems to strengthen a little bit in that it points out a seemingly analogous case (It is not only in South America but also in North America that people used geological means to keep track of astronomical phenomena). However, it seems unclear how this answer choice would also have the blocking effect that the question stem is asking for. Thus keep around as a candidate but expect that one of the other answer choices might well be better.

(B) The straight lines indicate positions at which astronomical events could have been observed ‘at plausible dates,’ and the bird lines could represent a constellation. This gets at both sets of lines and associates both of them with astronomical phenomena. The answer thus is fairly specific. Furthermore, the answer itself postulates its own plausibility (‘plausible dates’), which seems like a massive hint, though again unusual. Like the rest of this question, (B) thus again seems wildly counterintuitive, but in the scenario we are supposed to explain, (B) arguably makes the most sense. In particular, (B) approximates the desired function more than (A). Thus far this thus is the least bad answer choice.

(C) The lines form patterns. This answer choice is worse than (B), due to its lack of specificity and its apparent disconnect from the question stem. Worst answer choice thus far.

(D) Central American Natives used rocks to measure astronomical phenomena. This answer choice seems almost identical to (A) and thus provides good grounds to dismiss both (A) and (D): There can only be one correct answer choice, two virtually identical answer choices thus are likely to both be false.

(E) The bird lines might be older than the straight lines. Again irrelevant; (B) must be right.

Takeaways: This seems to be a question where the LSAT really tries hard to make test takers focus exclusively on reasoning structures, not on common sense intuition or plausibility. In this sense, the question is similar to other early LR questions that seem weird content wise but make syntactical sense on the level of formal logic. Focus on getting a clear understanding of what is going on in the stimulus and the question stem; I spent four minutes on this and still felt overwhelmed. Get a clear grasp of what the phenomenon is, what the explanation attempt from the stimulus is trying to say, and how the two alternative explanatory directions from the question stem relate to another. Then use process of elimination to get through the answers.

Hi All,

I'm hoping to find the section where J.Y introduces the idea of piecemeal analysis. I kept hearing him talking about it during the flaw section but I can't remember where he introduced the idea of peicemeal analysis. He suggested that he introduced it in Method of Reasoning.

If anyone has the lesson, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you

I was wondering if anyone had any tips on getting better ta finding the assumptions in strengthen an weaken questions?

I’m currently working through the MSS drills in the main curriculum. I’ve been taking my time make sure my accuracy is good, but when should I be concerned about getting the target time? I’m so worried about waisting questions. Is it okay to take 2+ minutes per question while drilling or do I need to pick up the pace?

If anyone is interested in finding a community of others to study LSAT with, check out this discord server! https://discord.gg/KsVnXeBW

Any data out there about how many people ultimately get a 90th percentile LSAT score + after multiple attempts? If I'm understanding the percentile charts correctly, approximately only 10% of folks get a score higher than a 166 in each administration. But not aware of data out there about "ultimate" scores across multiple test attempts.

Hey, fellow law school applicants!

I'm currently in the process of preparing my law school applications, and I have a question regarding submitting multiple letters of recommendation. I have two professors who have graciously agreed to write me specific letters of recommendation for my top school choices. Additionally, they are also willing to write a more generic letter that I can use for all other schools I'm applying to. However, I'm a bit confused about the logistics of submitting multiple letters. I was hoping to get some advice from those who have been through a similar situation. Is it possible for them to submit multiple letters? If so, how should we go about submitting them to assure they don't get mixed up since I will be waiving my right to view the letters?

Thanks in advance!

Is anyone currently using Powerscore? I need access to the recording for the Revisited Crystal Mini Ball for June 2023 and was wondering if someone could please share that. Thank you.

Please share your thought process and how you get the correct answer!

hi, i am taking my lsat in june, and recently my game scores have plummeted for some reason, so i am trying to get my scores back up –– when i was doing ok on them, it was right after i did the games part of 7sage, and i guess i was doing like 2 at a time over and over again, but i am wondering if anyone who has super improved on the games noticed which strategy is better (doing the same game a thousand times in a row or like alternating 3 sections over and over again)?

I had a quick question about a line of reasoning regarding the correct answer to this question. I got the correct answer, E, but for a different reason than what was explained in the explanation video. In the video, the narrator discusses the difference between old people and old people with insomnia and claims that this is where the sample is unrepresentative. However, when I was thinking about this question, I was focused on the phrase "as they age" and the fact that the sample size was those aged 65-81. I thought that it was too difficult to determine that melatonin was produced less as you age because what if it is produced at a lower rate during early years as well, but the sample only included older people? Would this line of reasoning be incorrect? Is this a type of thinking anyone else had?

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

Link to explanation video: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-4-question-18/

For this question, I chose E in the first round but switched to B in the blind review. I thought B would be a safer choice since the word "criticism"/"criticized" is used by both Murray and Jane. If Murray does not think it is wrong for politicians to accept gifts from lobbyists, why would they assume other politicians should have been criticized? Could someone please explain to me why B is not correct?

What LGs, preferably in/out games, are good for practicing embedded conditional statements and dealing with them when they pop up?

I have not seen MP questions that begin with a question at the beginning before this one. I got it incorrect since I put B thinking the conclusion came after the word "Certainly" I am not sure how to get to the conclusion in this stimilus.

I am taking the November LSAT and wanted to form a study group for that time frame if anyone is interested. I'm located in LA or AV area. We can even meet on zoom if that works.

Hi all! I am reviewing PT86.S1.Q21. I understand why we can get rid of answer choices a,c and e as well as the general flaw in the argument being that the spread of organic farming is only a problem for having enough food if all farmers switch to organic farming. However, I am having trouble with what differentiates answers b and d. I know it has something to do with the logical meaning of some and all, and their opposites not some and not all. The explanation video for this question leaves it up to us to think about at the end, but I'm hitting a wall so all help appreciated! Thanks!

Just want to share my thoughts and notes:

This formula right here: independence -> progress doesn’t warrant that more independence = more progress, so E is incorrect.

Cultures -> needs independence to replace dependence (natives replace outside imposition) -> progress.

A. anticipated answer choice

B. Staff and students are digging too deep, we’re only looking at cultures as a whole

C. Tailor is too details, not needed

D. Must is g2 so Advance -> prevent outsiders, not really align with the lawgic above.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

I thought this question was rather difficult but there is no explanation video, so just dropping my thought process/notes here. Please feel free to share yours!

P says ok eventually all mental stuffs can be explained in neurological terms

Explain mental stuffs in neuro terms -> knowledge (neurons and function, interaction, delineation of psycho faculties).

A. It supports the physicalist actually by trying to prove they are right.

B. It does describe

C. Not really, it didn’t use the 2 interchangeably

D. Why do we care about the purpose of this

E. Hmh that’s true, it talks about knowledge (which there are 3 but it only touches on 2).