I've been studying on my own for some time. When I do PTs I notice that I am getting an average of 5 wrong per LR section. All of them are either assumption or paralel/parallel flaw questions. Everything else is right. I've been looking online and most of the suggestions involve diagramming. I don't know how to do that. Diagramming confuses me. Right now my results are -0 for games, -5 for reading ( which I am improving by getting used to reading more. ) but for my LR sections, I am stuck. Any suggestions or advice? Is learning how to diagram mandatory?

PT73 S2 LR - I *really* need some help with explanations on a couple LR questions on this test

Question 9 (weaken) - Answer is C, i picked A

Question 18 (flaw) - Answer is E, i picked A

Question 19 (weaken) - Answer is B, i picked E

Question 21 (mbt) - Answer is E, i picked B

Question 22 (strengthen) - Answer is A, i picked B

*REALLLLYY* need help as I am taking the December exam. Huge thanks to anyone who will help!

I can't seem to be able to find the answer key to the questions on the Question Bank! Is there a way? Thanks in advance.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/on-friday-the-first-thing-we-do-lets-love-all-the-lawyers-1446774232

It's today!

All Librarians enjoy spending time organizing books. Since Susan enjoys spending time organizing books, I imagine she's a librarian.

It is well known know that Yahoo Corporation has slashed the amount it pays in salaries by 6 percent this year. Since Jeff works at Yahoo, his salary was reduced by 6 percent.

Are these different flaws or the same?

In a recent poll conducted among readers of popular surfing magazines, surfing was ranked as the most popular sport and beach volleyball was ranked third. Therefore, it cannot be true that tennis is more popular than both surfing and beach volleyball. Part of me feel like this is a biased sampling simply because the readers are clearly supporters of surfing; so of course they would rank it more high. On the other hand, I feel it is also an overgeneation because it bases its conclusion off of those reader's opinion, and never specified if those polled were representative of the population.

Will there ever be a flaw question containing an overgenerzation and biased poll answer choice? because if both appeared as an answer, I wouldn't know which one to choose and why

hi,

for those of you (like me) who might have started in the late 140s and have been stuck in the 50s for a while...

how do you convince yourself that it CAN BE DONE? I had 161 as my best score and 160 and then dropped back down. I can feel that part of me doesn't even believe that it even is possible, to get into the higher 160s much less in the 170s. i know at this point i need to convince myself of the actual possibility of this happening, or my scores won't budge. do you meditate on a specific number? Use a vision board? zone in on where improvement has actually happened? I was just curious if anyone had any advice. I read the "don't give up post" (thanks!) but can still feel this weight...

UPDATE: Hey folks—just in case anyone has trouble joining or the Webinar fills up, there WILL be a recording and a PowerPoint—and I'll give out my email address during the session.

Due to popular demand, we will be holding this webinar using GoToWebinar. Please continue to use the sign-up link below. You will receive an email prior to the webinar with instructions.

NEW! 7sage Webinar (RC) | Saturday, October 24th 6pm–8pm ET

Hey y'all. A few of us Mentors are going to be hosting webinars on a variety of topics. These are free and open to the public (and to folks at all levels of LSAT mastery).

RC with Nicole: It's Hammer Time

In this webinar, I'll share my notation strategy and talk about how to effectively turn the passage into a toolbox with which you'll eliminate 4 wrong answer choices for each question. This strategy is for beginners, strugglers, and experts looking to refine their own method.

We'll also talk about what makes a good RC answer choice, and how to sniff out the bad ones.

If you'd like to join (we will be using GoToWebinar), fill out this super simple form.

http://goo.gl/forms/poB0E5eSez

If you're unable to attend, don't worry—we'll cycle through the list of topics periodically, and a recording will be available.

Note: no special materials or preparation necessary!

Hi I know that there are books that group the logical reasoning into question types but does anyone know of a book or other study material that has lsat questions grouped specifically by the type of flaw

EX.) the flaw: Absence of evidence-describes the flaw and then lists flawed lsat questions that are this flaw

do this for each type of flaw

(I feel this would really help me see how each type of flaw is used in a lsat question) -Thanks

m

Hi y'all, I'm studying for the upcoming Dec LSAT and am currently scoring in the low 160's. I'm interested in working with someone(s) to do PT'S/BR/Drill etc. Shoot my inbox and let's set something up to crush the LSAT. It's almost time!

Just curious if being significantly older than most students applying to law school (lets say hypothetically speaking 20+ years) would qualify you as being URM? Not that I would actually know anyone who was of course :)

.

What lessons are the best to review for mapping out logic? Perhaps maybe a couple rule of thumbs to always go back to would be great! I use to do very well on SA questions and now I see myself getting more than half of them wrong, I know these type of questions usually play leave on mapping out the logic.

I'm trying to figure out the best way to make use of the 7Sage Core curriculum, the LSAT Trainer, and a bunch of grouped LR questions based on question-type (going up to PT 30) which I'm using before I go into the whole PT/ BR phase in preparation for the June 2016 test. If you've used both 7Sage and the Trainer how did you approach your studies? Is it generally advisable to go through the course and then read the Trainer or vice-versa? Would you make use of the grouped question-types at the end of each lecture on that specific type or use them later for review? I'm considering starting the whole PT/BR regimen at the end of January at the latest which would give me at least a solid 4 months before the test. I really need to structure my studies so any advice/ comments going forward would be great.

The Trainer wants me to use PT62-71 for drills and full exams. Can I use PT40-50 instead? I don't want to use newer tests until I'm somewhat ready.

.

Just curious if anyone keeps a spreadsheet or anything of the questions they get wrong on the PTs? Or do you all just track it in LSAT Analytics? If you do log the questions you are are getting wrong in a spreadsheet, do you actually write out the questions, answer choices etc. and make notes of why you got it wrong? Or do you just write the test number section, & question & type of question. Just trying to figure out if it would be helpful for me to do this or if it would just be wasting valuable time I could be spending more productively. I'm already doing a BR. Although I think I'm going to change the way I have been doing that. I am going to start doing an untimed BR of the complete exam instead of just reviewing the ones I circled in addition to the ones I actually got wrong. Any tips or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

This question is difficult because once you spot the flaw, it is hard to put it into words, which is why I missed it. I couldn't figure out how any of the answer choices paraphrased the flaw, so I had to pick an answer and move on. I don't really see how C is the flaw and how A is worse than C.

Bike riders don't follow the rules of the road, and this is a causal factor in 25% of traffic accidents involving bikes. The lack of bike saftey equipment is also a causal factor in 25% of those accidents. Thus, bikes are partly responsible for more than half of the traffic accidents involving bikes.

What I am looking for: I think the flaw is a math error. The conclusion says that 50+%, but we are given information about a causal factor being 25% and of those accidents a causal factor is 25%. Instead of additive, the relationship should be multiplicative. The conclusion should only talk about the percentage of bike accidents that included inadequate bike saftey equipment.

Answer A: This was the answer I chose, and I don't see how this doesn't adequately point out the flaw. Sure, you need to make an assumption that motorists are a factor in traffic accidents, but how is that not a reasonable assumption that the author overlooked? Additionally, since we conclude that 50+%, this is implying that less than 50% ("less than half") have some other cause. But, since we can't conclude anything about 50+%, this presumption is not justified. I don't see what is wrong with this one.

Answer B: No. We are to take the causal premises as truth.

Answer C: How is this the correct answer choice? Doesn't the conclusion say "at least partially responsible?" Thus, the argument DOES consider the possibility that more than one factor may contribute to a given accident? Additionally, the argument isn't talking about "all/given accidents;" it is limited to accidents involving bikes. How can the flaw be about "given" accidents?

Answer D: We don't need a source.

Answer E: Who cares about the severity of injury?

I'm trying to significantly improve on logic games. If I study every day for an entire month for so many hours, what are the chances of me seeing major improvement?

May I ask: what is the trainer?

I've looked at about 3 different courses with explanations for this question and none of them really make an sense to me... I still see answer choice (B) as an attractive answer choice... Can someone please explain why all the answers are incorrect and perhaps a better way to approach PSA questions for next time? GREATLY APPRECIATED!

Hey 7Sagers, had someone email me with a question and I thought you guys could help out! Here it is:

I have a question or comment regarding LSAT 46, game 3, section 4, question 12. The game ask for the order.

In accordance to the rules P=3 and L and N are before J. The rules don't state that L or N is immediately next to J. Thereby the explained set up is:

L N P J O or L/O N P L/O J. As with the rules, I agree and can understand this except for N = 2. With L = 4, that places L immediately next to J for LJ.

That is my problem. If LJ then why not LN. For set up with J=5; L = 1, 2, 4; N =1,2, 4, and O = 1,2,4,5

For order choices question 12

L N P J O O N P L J N L P J O

O N P L J N O P L J L O P N J and so forth.

The answer choice

L N P O J - Answer A deemed correct answer choice.

L O P N J - Answer B deemed incorrect answer choice. However, both L and N are before J with P =3

N L P J O - Answer D deemed incorrect answer choice. However, both L and N are before J with P = 3

Please explain. Hail and rain is not a factor to answer this question. In addition, the rules and the scenario do not include N = 2.

Thank you.

Hey all, Al here.

Throughout my long (and I mean LONG) journey with the LSAT, I've come across this specific issue more times than I can count! I'd like to give my own personal thoughts on this topic.

Fellow LSAT students (non-7sage included) have reached out to me time and time again about this recurring topic: advice. I think it's safe to say that many (if not most) people think advice is inherently good. It is after all rooted in the premise that advice helps to inform and guides those that are lacking in certain information that can help others in the long run. And in many respects, the right advice can provide an enormous positive impact on the person receiving it.

But what's rarely talked about are the devastating effects of bad advice. Bad advice can lead us to do things that we normally wouldn't consider and the negating effect can be as substantial as any good advice. Not only does it deviate a person from one's initial trajectory, but it can undo a lot of the progress they have made on their own.

But what really is the distinction between good and bad advice? Here's what I think are the major distinctions:

1. Advice is inherently subjective. What may be great advice for one person maybe horrible advice for another.

2. Good advice has specificity, whereas bad advice is openly vague. The LSAT is a great example of this. So many of the nuances embedded within concepts can be very hard to absorb and the advice provided has to not only be logically congruent within the parameters of the LSAT...it also has to make absolute sense to the person receiving it. I've seen many people (including myself many times) THINK they have an understanding of a certain tidbit of advice but really have no understanding at the core of it.

3. Good advice more often than not takes time, whereas bad advice is usually impulsive. I've noticed this for myself when I've been asked for advice. When I have the time to really think about a problem, I more often than not have something worth telling the person asking for advice.

I have been the benefactor of both great and bad advice. All three of these tenets that I've mentioned applied to me. Yes, it does suck when we get bad advice. But the onus cannot be entirely on the person providing the advice...the onus is on the one receiving it. At the end of the day, it's all about personal responsibility and knowing what truly works and what doesn't work for you.

Just food for thought.

What are some of the best ways to improve LR section?