Could a kind 7sager double-check my logic? After reading the argument, I thought it was well-supported. If it is in fact a poor argument, could someone point out why?

And does D weaken the argument because it provides a potential reason why leaving the asbestos alone in the buildings (not removing all of it) can be problematic? If it is true that building renovations of demolitions will 100% of the time cause the asbestos to be disturbed (and thereby cause a health risk) then if either of these things were to happen, then the government might as well remove it since not doing so only delays the inevitable

One lingering question I have: does deliberately removing the asbestos count as a renovation? And does E strengthen the argument since it provides a reason why the gov't should not remove the asbestos (the removed asbestos can still pose a health risk if it is disturbed)

Context: Asbestos... poses health risk only if it is disturbed and fibers released into environment

(Causal: disturbed asbestos causes health risk) Does this mean leaving it undisturbed renders the building asbestos harmless?

Premise: Removing asbestos from buildings disturbs it

Conclusion: Government shouldn't require removal of asbestos insulation.

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

I'm having a little trouble understanding why the answer to this question is C). If the author explicitly states at the end of the passage that, "the survey data do not establish that financial problems are the major problem in contemporary marriages," how could the answer be, C) "The conclusion drawn in Raghnall's article is inadequately justified," if the author states previously that, "Raghnall's conclusion from the survey data is that financial problems are the major problem in their marriages and an important factor contributing to the high divorce rate." My answer was A)

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

I am not sure if there is some psychological phenomenon that underlies this problem, but I seemingly get more of the easier questions incorrect than the most difficult ones. For background, I have managed to generally get my LR down to -2 to -4. Of those, the majority or all of the missed questions are the "medium" strength ones -- think 3rd level of difficulty. I think this might be more of an issue with attempting to speed through the initial part of the test, which tends to be fine, but carrying that speed over into the middle portion of the test where difficulty begins to rise. I think it might have to do with the delay in my mind adapting to the difficulty that causes me to miss those medium strength questions. If anyone has faced this specific problem as well, please let me know!

Hi,

I am just curious is the June 2021 disclosed? I remember hearing all flex exams are nondisclosed exam except the May 2020 one. But just wanted to double check!

Thanks!

Hello,

I hope everyone's prep is going great. I'm now scoring -0 on LG. It has been a bumpy ride but I've learned a lot from the CC and other 7sagers that I'd love to share. I am free to do 1 hour slots where we can discuss LG drilling, notations, and form. We can even do questions. Below are my availabilities. Please comment below or message me if you'd like to join in. I'm open to do a group session too.

Monday 7am-8am EST

Tuesday 7am-8am EST

Wednesday 7am-8am EST

Does anyone know if you are allowed to talk out loud to yourself during lsat writing, or is this forbidden like it is on the regular MC LSAT? #help

I need help with this.

First of all, the conclusion. There are no conclusion indicators and I was confused between 2 statements to select for the conclusion. Secondly, answer choice (A) and (C), aren't they basically both saying the same thing? When there are answer choices that similar (close) in meaning, how do you determine the correct answer? Furthermore, for generalization, is there a formula for selecting answer choices? It seems that whenever I select an answer choice (narrow or broad), the correct answer is always opposite of what I pick.

Thank you.

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Hey guys, I'm going into my senior year at UT and I was planning to apply to law schools around November, so probably take the test in October. Well my cold diagnostic was a 134, but I really took it out of no where and in the middle of the night so a week or two later, without studying I took it again in better condition and got a 148. That made me feel a little better so I decided to get the basics on 7Sage. I've been studying for this past week (I know it's not a lot) I started on Sequence LG and I just can't seem to get them. I've printed out maybe 2 or 3 copies of every practice sets and my mind just blanks sometimes or I just don't get it. If I do good it'll be maybe 7/13ish. I really just feel pretty crappy and I would love some feedback from your experience. Thank you!

[I am posting on behalf of a 7Sage user. Please feel free to leave your comments below. Thank you for your help!]

Hello, Prior to to beginning my LSAT study journey on 7Sage, i completed 7 LSAT exams on the LSAC Test Prep Plus. Specifically they were exams 75-77, 79-80. I completed 3/4 parts using assimilated flex. I also completed 1 LR section of Preptest 74. I aim to take exams 37-89. What advise would you have on these exams. Do i re-do the exams or skip them and complete the exams i have not taken?

Hey, I have improved my score using the 7Sage platform. But, I need a lot of improvement in my LR section and ive heard great reviews about the Ellen Cassidy book "Loophole in LSAT LR". However, I am an international student and it is not available in my country, is there any online version of the book that I could find somewhere? Would be extremely helpful, thank you 7Sagers!!

Hi everyone!

I'm a consistent high 170's-180 scorer that's been tutoring for around 6 months now. I hope everyone who's currently taking the June test is doing well, and congrats for finishing!

This sesh is more for people who are targeting the August test, and is generally geared towards all skill ranges, but primarily focused on beginners. If you were on the discussion forum a few months ago, you may have seen this post before - the lesson is essentially going to be the same thing, but do stop on by if you want to do any review on formal logic or LR approaches.

I'll be holding the session on Wednesday 6/23 9PM EST. It should go on for around 1.5 hrs, or so, and I'm going to be covering formal logic in the LSAT + a systematic approach of looking at it. This will likely be review for many!

Afterwards, I'll be going through an LR section and talking through my approach, while also taking questions. If you want to follow along, please have PT20 S1 in hand.

Join the following zoom link @9PM EST Wed 6/23

https://middlebury.zoom.us/j/5528647080?pwd=TTJUM0lDV2ZxbEFvTXRjRWVXRVJEdz09

with password 686121

Conf Id 552 864 7080 also works with the same password. Thanks, and see you soon!

If you can't make the time, I'll try my best to schedule a second session, so please let me know.

When making the study schedule would it be unwise to put the end date August 14th (the week the August LSAT is taken)? In other words, should I stop drilling practice exams and reviewing materials a couple days before the August exam?

I grasp the concepts behind both -- or at least I think I do. I am having a problem truly explaining to myself the substantive difference between the two. The way I imagine Sufficient Assumption questions is that they are the invisible connector between the premise and conclusion of an argument. Similarly, MSS questions ask what would most likely be true given the argument made. In a sense, I feel as though a SA would count as a most strongly supported item from an argument. Is there a better way to understand these question types without overlapping their definitions too much?

Link to video expl/quick view: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-39-section-3-passage-3-questions/

My question is about the correct A/C, (A) and an incorrect one, (B).

I interpreted (A) as being far too much of a generalization, since we are only told about thermal radiation, not any other kind (with respect to the passage, we were already made aware that other kinds of radiation exist, as indicated in para. 1: gamma, X-rays, radio, heat, & light).

Had (A) said "radiation reflected by and radiation emitted by an object can be difficult to distinguish from one another," I'd have easily chosen it.

I could also buy that (A) might be a 'necessary assumption' if this were that type of question. Yet I'm struggling with understanding whether or not something that must be assumed to be true in order for certain things to make sense (i.e., why the PHYS had to choose certain types of objects when trying to accurately measure that body's radiation) should therefore be a valid, top-to-bottom inference as well. What allows us to infer something about radiation in general in any object when we are only told information about thermal/blackbody radiation and how blackbody objects relate to that?

I was also actually stuck on (B) for quite a while and hoped to hear some others' thoughts on my analysis. I acknowledge (B)'s relative "strength," compared with (A)--that was surely a red flag.

But I think (B) is ultimately faulted, not because we don't have standards for what is "nearly ideal"--after all, "little or no reflective capability" seems to give us this, but I suppose this could be interpreted as merely 'necessary' and not 'sufficient.' Ultimately, I think (B) is out because there can be an entire range of "dark" that a "dark room" could be, like pitch-black or a room with a thin ray of weak light coming in through the door crack. Since "dark" is not an absolute value, we can't be sure that an object in question in such a room isn't reflecting radiation from other things or surfaces that may be in the "dark room" as well, so we can't assume that object, especially if it weren't itself black, isn't reflecting radiation from elsewhere.

Maybe this is more a question about the passage itself, but I also thought when I was reading para. 2 again that it was reasonable to infer that the author's use of quotation marks at the first mention of "blackbody" radiation was not just use of another terminology we could interchange with "thermal" radiation, but perhaps also indicating to us that an object that could qualify as a blackbody object for an experiment need not itself be black, as long as we could guarantee that it had little-to-no ability to reflect thermal radiation coming from another source. So in other words, I thought the use of the "" could be construed as "so-called," and that it need not be literally a black-colored body in order to be a proper blackbody object, if that makes any sense.

I do acknowledge that "soot" and "black velvet" are black blackbody objects, but I saw these as examples of typical or representative blackbody objects, not necessarily as objects bearing a trait (having a black surface) that must therefore exclude something that could be "made" dark in a pitch-black room. So I guess a follow-up to this is, without reference to outside sources, would this have been a reasonable interpretation of "blackbody" radiation, in the way that the author chose to quote this? Based on para. 2, as much as a blackbody object could itself be black, could we have also reasonably interpreted that any object, whether pitch-black itself or red or green when viewed in bright light, could be a blackbody object candidate in a 100% pitch-black room where, in essence, all things are "black" and there is nothing else there in the room to reflect?

Thanks for anyone's #help on this!

How do you diagram answer choices B and C? And can someone explain how and why C is a valid conclusion?

A---> X---->E

S--s--A

A.) S--s--X

B

C)

D) /X--->/A

E.) E--s---S

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

I am not sure what to do about logic games improvement. It is like one week I will know how to do them efficiently and then I just forget. It is extremely frustrating, especially because I have been studying for so long. At thispoint I am honestly close to giving up because I don't understand why I am struggling so much. If I don't focus on logic games I focus on logic reasoning and RC but if I focus on logic games I get worse at the others. If anyone has advice on how to move pass this please help. :(

hey guys! I hope your study sessions are going.

I've been struggling a lot with reading comprehension mainly just understanding the passages and then having a hard time referencing them back. Is there any advice you can give me to improve? I want to improve by 5 points on reading comp in 10-12 days. I was thinking of doing a reading comp everyday and making corrections on it to understand what I did wrong. if you could drop below some techniques that worked for you please let me know.

Dear 7sagers,

Hope everyone is doing well. I was wondering if anyone has had a great experience with a tutor that they can recommend. I am doing pretty well on LG so the 2 sections I really need help on are RC and LR. I average a -5 on LR and I am hoping to bring it down to a consistent -2. For RC my scores I fluctuate pretty dramatically from -8 to -4 so I am looking for a way that can help me get a -4 or less consistently. The RC sections that I do well on tend to be ones where I am very familiar with the content, so my goal is really to find a plan that's "content-proof" which would allow me to get the same score regardless of my familiarity with the content, which I have been told is the key to a -4/-3 on RC.

Any advice or recommendations is truly appreciated.

Thank you!

...here in the discussion forum as well as in the explanation video comments. That means the hard ones you don't wan't to answer. The ones from earlier PTs that don't have videos to check your understanding before posting. The ones about RC you don't want to do because you don't want to read the passage or maybe you're not even sure you understand it.

This is one of the highest value things you can do for your prep. There is no better way to learn and test your understanding of a concept than to try to teach it to someone else. You all should be pouncing on these questions as soon as you see them come up... like they shouldn't last 5 minutes going unanswered. It is beneficial for you, the person asking, and the community as a whole.

Be brave and push yourself. Seek to be proven wrong, don't avoid it. We improve the most at the threshold of failure.

For in/out, there are basic, easy, medium, and hard sets at the bottom of this page https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-4-game-4/

Is there something similar for sequencing games?

I have been going to different forums to understand this question and i'm still having trouble with it. Idk why C is wrong. Wrong timed and in BR. Thanks!

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Paragraph 1:

This mostly relates to #2

The explanation video states that evidence for answer choice E lies in lines 5-8 in the first paragraph, but how I can infer that even musicians didn't know about the London Pianoforte School? Could I infer from the content of the passage that the author is in the field of music?

#4: How could I tell that the question wants me to focus on a causal relationship?

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-4-passage-1-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-4-passage-1-questions/

Does JY formally address how to tackle these types of dual passages on recent LSAT tests?

The question gives you an initial claim as well as a principle to go with it. The stem asks for you to pick an AC that could be appropriately used as a premise for an argument that uses the principle in the stimulus. I see this as more of a pseudo-weakening question because we're trying to supply a premise for a (non-existent) counter to the original claim.

Claim: County X lowered tariff barriers because it was good for foreign companies.

Principle: To confirm that someone advantaged from a change that was made, one must show how their interests played a role in bringing about said change.

I understand why AC 'E' is correct, but in what way does this question fall into the strengthening category?

Does it matter what law school you go to?