Subscription pricing
I am currently wondering if Lsat hacks is worth the investment and whether or not it's similar to 7sage explanations. Have you gained anything from LSAT hacks that you did not gain from other prep material?
0
I am currently wondering if Lsat hacks is worth the investment and whether or not it's similar to 7sage explanations. Have you gained anything from LSAT hacks that you did not gain from other prep material?
17 comments
@sorooshianh185 Heh, sorry for dredging up an old discussion. I found this thread while googling my own site, and wanted to address the out of scope thing. Are you located in Toronto? That's where I held the original course. Might do one again, it was fun last year.
@stepharizona288 Thanks! I appreciate that. My reply wasn't really personal, just wanted to amend this for anyone reading this thread. I figure some people come across this while googling LSAT Hacks, since I did.
Hey Graeme, while 7sage is still my main prep resource, I do feel like I need to clarify my previous post a bit. On the "out of scope" note, I actually wasn't referring to your site, I was first "agreeing" with some stipulation about those AC explanations from other sites in general. (It may not reflect as such now since it's been edited out by users but I'll leave my record up) And then after that in response to the O.P.'s inquiry, I expressed my opinion "at that time", but that was "a year ago" when I just started the prep not long. I wasn't used to your writing style at that time for whatever reason, but that no longer is the case. I actually now get on LSATHACK frequently as a secondary source (along with Manhattan), and I do find many of your explanations very helpful, i guess it just took some time to get used to different ways of approaching things, so my apologies for the confusion.
Definitely joining your "hating out of scope club" tho! lol
> @akikookmt881 said:
> > @sorooshianh185 said:
> > > @beyondsudi482 said:
> > > Thanks @gregoryalexanderdevine723 @alejoroarios925 and @graemeblake-64560 i am particularly asking because he's having a 2 day (16 hour) classroom crash course over the weekend for around $300 USD
> >
> > Hey can you link to this, I can't find it and want to take a look . Thanks!
>
> I think he was having it last year. This is an year-old thread.
WHAT THE HECK
thanks hahhaha loooool
> @sorooshianh185 said:
> > @beyondsudi482 said:
> > Thanks @gregoryalexanderdevine723 @alejoroarios925 and @graemeblake-64560 i am particularly asking because he's having a 2 day (16 hour) classroom crash course over the weekend for around $300 USD
>
> Hey can you link to this, I can't find it and want to take a look . Thanks!
I think he was having it last year. This is an year-old thread.
> @beyondsudi482 said:
> Thanks @gregoryalexanderdevine723 @alejoroarios925 and @graemeblake-64560 i am particularly asking because he's having a 2 day (16 hour) classroom crash course over the weekend for around $300 USD
Hey can you link to this, I can't find it and want to take a look . Thanks!
Hey, found this thread in google and thought I'd comment on the out of scope issue. Briefly....I'm puzzled. I personally _hate_ that phrase, and have never used it. I actually did a search of my site to check. In the ~2600 explanations I posted to date, I wrote it exactly once, to warn against using it. I've _never_ used it in an answer choice.
(You can search this in google to check: site:lsathacks.com "out of scope"
It showed up three other times, when students asked if something was out of scope, in the comments)
So, I'm really confused why people thought I said out of scope all the time. I'm wondering if maybe they're mixing up my site with some other set of explanations? Obviously, it's fine to not like my site: some people like concise explanations, some don't. I just wouldn't want anyone reading this thread to think I rely on "out of scope". It's the exact opposite case!
That's all, just wanted to correct the record on this point. Good luck on the LSAT!
**p.s: why I hate "out of scope"**
Why do I hate that phrase? Because "out of scope" just means "doesn't affect anything". Determining that an answer has no effect is often the whole challenge of eliminating it! So saying something is "out of scope" isn't a reason for elimination. It's a _conclusion_ you make about an answer. And therefore, it's useless as an analytical tool to think about answers. Furthermore, I've seen people use "out of scope" thinking and incorrectly eliminate the correct answer, because it seems "out of left field". But something can be right, as long as it has an impact. It doesn't matter if it wasn't mentioned, or seems bizarre.
Yeah, I was under that impression too. Can't remember where I heard it. I've seen him post once, so I know he's got an account at least.
@7sagestudentservices I think they meant that he was a part of the original 7Sage team I read that somewhere too not that long ago, but I forget where.
I think Graeme writes great explanations!
@beyondsudi482 I wouldn't do it. I don't know anything more than what you've said here but there's just too much info for 16 hrs. Is it focused on a few things? 16 hrs sounds like a lot of "tricks" being thrown out. I could be wrong though because I don't know his teaching style. I too use the site for LR explanations and just as posted above, some of the explanations aren't really explanations. "Out of scope" doesn't always cut it. There are other times that I benefit more for a one or two liner so it has its positives and negatives for me. I just wouldn't want the course to leaner more to the "Out of Scope" next question side. It sounds like a cramming sessions for people signed up for December. Although I don't see this as a bad thing if you know you're fundamentals well. Just see how much info you can gain about what the course is offering before registering, if possible.
I agree @gregoryalexanderdevine723 those "out of scope" explanations from other sites truly pisses me off. I was like, are you fu$king kidding me? I KNOW it's out of the scope, but HOW?? lol I didn't really get into LSAT Hacks, if have to pick a secondary source just for some alternative perspectives, Manhattan LR forum isn't too bad. I've seen some explanations there passed my scrutiny. But stick with 7sage first before anything else, for you get much more in depth analysis here in videos than any written format on other sites. Plus the content is just objectively superior.
Here are two great links to read what @7sagestudentservices has posted recently about where to go for more info when looking for explanations that might help your decision. I appreciate all of Graeme's posts but personally start with 7Sage:)
https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/comment/52777
https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/comment/53486
I don't think Graeme has been a 7Sage member before! He may have a free account though. He's a good guy.
Thanks @gregoryalexanderdevine723 @alejoroarios925 and @graemeblake-64560 i am particularly asking because he's having a 2 day (16 hour) classroom crash course over the weekend for around $300 USD
I think it depends on your learning style. Graeme is a great guy and wondeful tutor! I'm sure his class is probably great too!
@alejoroarios925
Sorry to jump in but I heard he was part of 7sage member before...is it true?
OP:
I read some of his explanations. They are pretty good. I think sometimes they have similar explanations and sometimes not.
But the reasoning behind is the same after all so...no wonder?
LSAC hacks is great. Highly recommended - especially for those hard questions than need additional explanation. Graeme breaks up RC passages very nicely as well. I didn't use the games explanations.