I was aiming for 164 this go around and ended up with a 159 which was about my average on my diagnostics. I'm aiming for a scholarship to Florida State University Law. Is a 164 a high enough goal? Any suggestions for how to study in order to improve my score? RC is always my worst section.

Hi all. Does anyone have any tips on how to "broaden" our knowledge in a short couple of months in general knowledge of science, law etc...to improve better understanding in RC? I remember JY saying in a comment that having "broad" knowledge definitely helps. I know I can't suddenly become an expert, but does anyone have any experience to share? I literally thought about reading something like "Science of Dummies" or "100 things you should know about basic of law" - OK i made those up but you get my drift. THANKS!!!

Hi guys,

I was wondering how and when I should review the exam that we just got back. I scored below my average and I'm definitely thinking of retaking. Should I just retake the June 2016 exam as a practice test again into the future before actually doing blind review? Or should I just break down my score by question types on the LR and RC? Kinda confused on how to go about this.

I have been doing Blind Review and I understand it helps to figure out the correct answers on your own before looking at the answers but why is it helpful in general? My actual scores vs my blind review scores are so different. My BR falls in the 167 range while my actual score is in the 150s. BR is not an accurate view of what you can accomplish on the LSAT is it?

Not all X are Y. Is this translated as X some (not)Y? Also, is Not all X are Y equivalent to X some Y? For the latter question, I know in English in certain contexts, the statement "not all" of something implies "some are."

Tell me that I'm not the only one who hears JY's voice saying "So What!" in my head when working through LR questions.

Does question difficulty increase by the order of questions or they just randomly spread out?

Hello all,

So I finally got through the curriculum and finished my first PT since my diagnostic (+16 pts wahoo!!) But still got a long wait to go..I was just wondering how everyone was going about this phase of studying..I just finished BR'ing and am wondering what the next best thing to do would be ..Should I:

A. Go back to the question types I need most work on and review the course lessons, then take on problem sets timed/untimed?

B. Review the BR questions that I got wrong twice?

C. Stimulate test conditions on select sections I need work on?(for example sticking 4 RC passages together and doing it timed)

D. Continue simulating PT under test conditions?

I'm pretty sure I should be doing some combination of all 4, but given that I have 3 months left of full time study before the LSAT, I was wondering what regimen would be the best way to get the most gains in that time frame. I'm very tempted to just keep PT'ing and and plow thru 2-3 a week and rely on repetition under timed conditions instead of dedicating time to sections of the course to review.. Any thoughts and suggestions are appreciated. Thank you!!

When do schools usually publish their class profile of the new class on their website?

Hello guys,

really need some help here. I stopped doing lsat (for 2 weeks) because I was studying for my exams. Before I was able to have like 2-3 wrong for LR (BR score) and 1-2 for LG no BR and like 4-5 for RC (BR) and I was improving too..and now I just don't want to mention how much I get wrong even with BR :( Feeling stressed. Is it going to get better once I get back to the flow by doing more practice questions?

A lot of people don’t realize that “Won’t Get Fooled Again” is actually about proper Blind Review technique.

If the LSAT has ever fooled you, come to Group BR and don’t get fooled again.

Wednesday, June 29th at 8PM ET: PT 57

Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219480381

Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.

United States +1 (571) 317-3112

Access Code: 219-480-381

And if you’d like to see the full schedule, here it is: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=7sage.com_ft05lsm54j4ec1s6kj1d1bbpv0%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/Chicago

Note:

Hi 7Sagers,

On Wednesday, June 29, at 9 p.m. EST, I’ll give you a bird’s-eye view of the admissions process. We’ll touch on almost every component of your application:

• Personal statementsDiversity statementsCharacter and fitness addendaExtenuating circumstances addenda“Why school X?” essaysRésumésLetters of recommendation

I’ll will take questions at the end.

To join, just follow this link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/849030373

Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP). A headset is recommended. You can also call in using your telephone:

We’ll use Citrix GoToMeeting. The meeting ID is 849-030-373.

It all concerns the basic form of:

A->B (if you have a rocket, you can kill a cockroach)

Immediately, based on this form, I can think of potential OPs.

It is a mistake to assume that there are no other ways to kill a cockroach. So an argument like the one below would be an error because even though A->B, it could be that C->B as well, or Z->B.

"if you have a rocket, you can kill a cockroach.

Therefore, since you want to kill a cockroach, you must use a rocket"

[A->B, therefore B->A [mistaken reversal)]. This overlooks the possibility that you can use other sufficient means to kill a rocket, and that a rocket is not necessarily necessary to kill a cockroach. It could be, but doesn't have to.

Then there another form of OP derived from the same A->B idea

And that is

A->B ; not A-> not B [mistaken negation]

"if you have a rocket, you can kill a cockroach

Since you don't have a rocket, therefore you can't kill a cockroach."

This overlooks the possibility that without a rocket, you can still do other things. Like kill terrorists. But that is out of the scope relative to the conclusion. But moreover, it is not necessarily necessary that you need a rocket to kill a cockroach, for "A->B; not A->not B" = "A->B; B->A".

In other words, it seems like the overlooked possibilities derived from the A->B form are the same.

(And that is assuming that there are no other sufficient conditions. Conclusions that follow a premise of A->B and concludes in the form of not A -> not B and B->A are making the same flaw and that is missing OPs.

What are your thoughts on this?

What are some implications that I have missed?

Background

Just a little background for a moment, I am about to enter my third year of undergrad at a school with an 85% acceptance rate ( D: ). I have a 3.95 and I am planning on taking the June 2017 LSAT. During these 5.5 months leading up to the test, I will be taking only 3 credits at school, with no job or rent over my head. It seems a bit lazy, but last semester I took 21 credits and worked 25 hours a week as well. I realize that this test will determine the rest of my life so I am treating it as such. Harvard is my dream goal and I will be applying September 2017. I am a soon-to-be ultimate member on 7sage and will self-study, I feel as if I could push myself more that way.

No Idea

My problem right now is that I will have a decent amount of time to study (I realize this is a double edge sword). Nevertheless I am absolutely lost when it comes down to where to start and how to schedule a very efficient planner in order to really kill this test.

I hear many say that 5.5 months is too long, but I know myself, and I I've taught myself how to grind out work for hours. I think I will be ready, I just need a plan of attack.

Mindset?

I was reading a great article about burning out and everything else that comes with the LSAT struggle, but I really believe that article (so mad I didn't save it) changed me. My goal is a 180 but I am not going try for perfection at first, or maybe at all, rather, I will strive to learn as much as I can from my mistakes and work on fixing my thinking. I hope this thinking is the right mindset, what do y'all think? Any advice on what a realistic mindset would be entering into this phase of studying?

Books? Order of Reading? Schedule?... AHHHHH

With this being said, I feel like I am mentally prepared to have the best experience I can while studying, I am just fearful of not knowing how to plan it. I read all these guides about what books to read, mixed options on what is better and what is not. But after reading them, I felt more confused than I did before I read them!

So.. really, where is the best place to start? Should I buy books now and start reading, or should I be reading in this 5.5 months I would be studying? How many hours each day is good? days a week? planned PT's each week?

Do I start learning all the sections at the same time of focus on one at a time?

Sorry for all of the questions, I just feel like a little clownfish fish in a vast LSAT ocean (Finding Nemo reference).

Thanks for reading and I'm excited to start this journey with everyone here.

Also, if there are any NEED to read articles or posts, I'd love to read your favorites!!

Hey guys! Something I've started to realize is how important eating correctly (and not drinking too much coffee) is important for these tests. Since this test is around 3 hours, and you'll be using every ounce of energy in your brain throughout, the energy you put in is an underrated part of taking this test. At first, I felt that as long as I was full, I could move on through the test without any issues. But the more tests I took, the more I realized that eating a properly balanced meal (one that includes a lean protein, some whole grains and vegetables) allowed me to stay focused throughout. As far as coffee goes, I've personally found that drinking over 2 cups of coffee before a test makes me twitchy and more prone to a crash during the test. I'd love to hear what you guys think about this!

Dear there,

How do you read these articles? Especially the last one: Science Magazine.

The article most often, if not all, are subjects that I have no knowledge of and most often, every sentence contain a term, undefined, and require in depth background knowledge. For example, in this issue, Title "Biochemical and genomic data elucidate how fungal enzyme attacks polysaccharides", and my brain can only understand, "Data+verb, don't know what it means+how enzyme attacks+this object"

And it gets even crazier when you go down into the actual passage.

I made a similar post in TLS where the community recommends me just focus at the underlying logic and take undefined terms by its first letter (Like math, assume X is this junk)...

Any lights on how you will do it?

[I find these article great practice on RC and LR just because it is always wrote in a commanding voice on something that I have no idea about]

I attended a community college in my hometown during the summer of my sophomore year as a transient student. Do I need to send the transcript from that college to LSAC or will that be included on my University's transcript?

Thank you.

Hello 7Sage world!

Need some advice. So, I have taken 10 PTs up to this point. Scores are all over the place, but I am definitely seeing progress. I am wondering, how does one become consistent with their scoring?

My scores are as follows:

Actual/BR

Pre-7Sage

142/No BR

148/158

Post-7Sage Curriculum

146/159

142/158

143/155

147/162

150/160

146/156

159/175

and then today's score of 148/170....

On days I score well I definitely feel like things click, but on other days when it's not going well, I feel like I am trying to transcribe Portuguese in Chinese.

I am a full time student, so I have only been studying when schedule permits, usually around 10-20 hours per week. I have been going at this for about six months. I just felt so shitty after today's result. I feel like I have a hard time staying in the LSAT "zone".

Has anyone else ever had issues similar to mine? I really need some motivation, today felt like a swift kick right where the sun doesn't shine. ='(

I believe so?!? Or am I merely hopeful?

Does anyone have a hint, clue, inkling, feeling and/or knowledge of when grey/gray day will commence?

[Admin title edit: Don't want folks to get the wrong idea about what this thread is about. We will make an official announcement as soon as we know.]

Hi Everyone!

I've been doing a lot of work recently with memorizing valid inferences that can be made from conditional and inter-sectional statements. I find that when I have a few extra minutes during blind review, I have no issue drawing the correct inferences. Unfortunately, during my practice tests I am unable to do the same. Guessing this means I need more timed practice. I was wondering if anyone had gathered a practice set of questions similar to PT 43, Section 3, Question 9, beginning "Most lecturers"? I've noticed mapping isn't strictly limited to most strongly supported questions/inference questions. Perhaps there is a filter I didn't know about in the question bank that would help me isolate more questions like these (specifically ones that incorporate diagramming).

Would greatly appreciate any/all advice or help.

Okay am I the only one that thinks this no mechanical pencils rule is a load of bs? I literally have blisters on my hands from sharpening pencils. And how am I supposed to do logic games with these blunt things?!?! Seriously lol. Has anyone found any techniques to deal with this?

[Admin edit: please refrain from using all-caps in titles :) ]

When will law school applications be made available for us to work on?

Just a quick question for you veteran PT takers out there... the LG sections of my PTs (all of the older ones, at least) are not formatted as they are on the modern LSAT -- meaning, each game is on a single page with little space at the bottom.

How do you guys go about replicating the real thing? Should I just make do with the little space at the bottom, or do you guys use scrap paper on the side?

I always get confused between the NA answers that states A most B and a subtle conditional (the correct answer). During the BR, I am able to correct myself by stating A most B strengthens but isn't required. But during the actual test, I find it quite difficult to choose between the two.

Therefore, I made a rule to myself: if the answer deals with "most," skip it.

Would that be a safe rule to apply for the NA questions?

I know that other existential quantifiers, such as some, can still be a valid NA answer, because negated some statement is absolute (None).

Thank you for your help.