LG is by far my weakest section and I intend to write the Nov LSAT. I've done all the LGs from 10-75 but I was ignorant and casual about studying in the past (wasn't sure about pursuing law school). I'd do them, watch an explanation video and never revisited them to ensure my understanding. There'd also be large breaks / gaps between games sometimes. I did another circuit from 40-75 again in that time as well. Needless to say, my improvements have only been modest, my confidence in LG is low, and I remain prone to catastrophic breakdowns.

I've only now purchased 7sage and have backfilled all my past papertest results into the system to generate an analysis. I can see where my weak spots are. What should I do now? Do I drill my weak areas by type & difficulty progressively? Or take full 35 min sections of LG from diff PTs and foolproof them?

Anyone that can suggest a focused regimen for me would be greatly appreciated. I find myself ruing my decision not to sit for the old LSATs back in 2017, 2018 etc. where this only represented a quarter of my grade...

I got it correct by POE, but I was enticed by A and even after getting it right I still don't 100% understand. 7Sage doesn't have explanations for this test. Thanks in advance!

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

A valid conclusions is a conclusions that's already 100% proven by it's premises. Can these questions ever be strengthened or weakened? Or do strengthening and weakening questions always have a stimulus with some error

Hi everyone. This is my first time using the discussion board so I apologize if it's a big longer than the typical posts. If you do decide to read it through though, I so so appreciate you.

This post is about PT5 S5 Q15 and really any other questions that have the same problem. My problem is that the question can have two meanings. Here is the question: "Q's response serves to counter any use by M of the evidence about 85-90 year-olds in support of which one of the following hypotheses?"

The first interpretation of the question can be paraphrased like this: "Which of the following is a hypothesis that Q's response supports and also counters the evidence presented by M?" The second interpretations can be paraphrased as such: "Which of the following is a hypothesis that M's evidence supports that can also be countered by Q. The difference is that in the first interpretation, the clause [in support of which one of the following hypotheses] is completely separate from the others. In the second interpretation, the clause [in support of which one of the following hypotheses] is embedded within the clause [any use by M of the evidence about 85-90 year-olds in support of which one of the following hypotheses].

(In syntactic language, interpretation one has a structure in which the PP [in support of which one of the following hypotheses] is the daughter of the main VP, while interpretation two has a structure in which the same PP is the daughter of the main DP.)

The difference between the two structures is pretty critical because it determines which person the answer choice must support, Q or M. The problem is since both structures are equally valid, both interpretations are correct. So, my question is, how are we the test takers supposed to know which interpretation to assume, when both meanings are grammatically correct?

Hi all, in this passage, is the conclusion the first sentence?

I am consistently missing - 6 on LR and RC, how do I close the Gap? I am retaking in November but I am worried that my score won't improve much if I can't close that gap.

When it comes to these harder disagreement type questions, are we supposed to look for what the two speakers explicitly disagree about or is it supposed to be implied? The video explanation seemed to indicate that it was the latter, but I feel that answer choice C points out something the two speakers were disagreeing about explicitly.

Is Answer choice B incorrect because it talks about the possibility of creating art that "people enjoy and support?" I felt that neither of the two authors gave any answer for that.

As for answer choice E, I read it as saying "express" rather than "achieve." If it had said "express," would this have been the correct answer? JY points out a bunch of assumptions you'd have to make for this to be the correct answer in the video, but are those correct assumptions? He never confirms whether they are or not and then the video ends.

I've also read other explanations that state the reason why this choice is wrong is because it talks about what is "wise" while the speakers only talk about what "should be" but how are those two things mutually exclusive? I felt that if someone were to ask either speaker whether it was wise to have public art that helped "express consensus," Laurie would say yes because it's something that public art "should do" and Elsa would say no because it's an impossible goal.

If anyone is going to answer my questions, please watch the video explanation first or you won't know what I'm talking about.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-87-section-3-question-22/

I cannot seem to figure out the logic behind this question.

I am having problems with the Logical Games especially with grouping and matching. If anyone can help I would appreciate it.

Hi everyone,

I am planning to take the LSAT in October. My goal score is 165. I’ve been scoring consistently in the mid 150s and sometimes will score a 158/159. I haven’t been able to crack 160.

Logic games is my worst section by far. Reading comprehension fluctuates. And LR is typically -4/-5. Any advice? It would be greatly appreciated.

Hi I understood that B is the best choice but I am confused as to how its pattern really match with the pattern in the stimulus.

Basically, I was threw off when seeing "are designed to" in B and moved on, only to realize all other choices are wrong. By the time I got back to B again, at least 3 min was already wasted!

Is my mindset wrong for thinking that the pattern needs to be highly matched?

Thanks in advance!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-31-section-2-question-23/

Hi, folks

I came to cross PT 70 sec1 Q11, and started to wonder what proportional propositions imply.

Let’s say “The more A, the more B” is given as a Premise, not Conclusion

Does this mean that the Only contributing factor to B is the A, regardless of any other factors?

Since it literally means the more A, the more B, if A goes up, then B should go up, right?

Then as long as A is more, then other factors doesn’t matter?

OR is the proposition imply that “if all other factors are equal”? So even if A rises, if the other factors are not equal and offset the proportional relationship between A and B?

Hey ya'll! I am taking my exam in October and I am looking for a logic games tutor. I desperately need to get better at making inferences and was wondering if a tutor might help. Please reach out if you are up for it. If you are willing to offer free sessions you would be a god-sent but if not I guess we can discuss rates (not really sure how that works but we can figure it out). Thank you!

Hi guys - I had a nightmare experience with Proctor U and was just reached out by LSAC to potentially sign up for a retake of the August exam.

For anyone that has taken a retake, does this retake count as an additional attempt? For example, the August exam I took on the 16th was the 2nd time I’ve taken the exam. If I am to take a retake, would this count as my 3rd or will it still remain my 2nd attempt?

Thank you all for your help. Best of luck studying for everyone!

RC is one of my strongest sections--I at most go -3. I will be doing an RC session on Tuesday at 11am PST (2pm EST), so feel free to join me! We will be deconstructing a passage together and going over the questions.

I will be posting the Zoom link shortly before the session begins. Feel free to message me if you have any questions.

Thanks for joining, everyone! Sorry the Zoom meeting cut out. If you have any more questions, feel free to message me.

Can someone #help identify the conclusion??

Hi Everyone! I am working through the last few sections of the LR part of the course and have struggled with the Parallel Method of Reasoning and Parallel Flaw Questions the most. I find that I take forever to read the AC and second-guess myself. I have gotten better at intuitively answering the other LR types now that I understand what the questions are asking (without Lawgic/diagramming... this is still difficult despite understanding the questions). Do I need to go back and study the Lawgic sections, or is there other approaches that might help?

I made myself a reminder sheet for each section with recommendations/strategies to avoid errors I've previously made. Every section I do, I assess why I made each error and what I should do to avoid it, and then I add this recommendation to my reminder sheet.

I thought you guys might benefit from seeing what a sample reminder sheet looks like, the tips here are specific to me and many methods might work for your own LG practice.

Just finished my first LSAT take (August) and thought this would be a good time to give something back to the 7Sage community!

I've been studying for the LSAT for a year. I started with a diagnostic of 157 (although it wasn't a true diagnostic score as I'd done the Blueprint video course beforehand). I've gotten my PT score up to the 170s with my highest being 177, and a lot of that improvement was thanks to the 7sage question taking interface and explanation videos.

I also found a wonderful tutor @Christopherr through 7sage who helped me get from the low 160s to the 170s.

The most intimidating section for me was logic games. Although I got to a point where I understood the games and could do them without losing any points untimed, when it came to doing all 4 games under time, I felt hopeless.

Thanks to a combination of @Christopherr, 7sage, and analysing my own mistakes, I learned about several strategies that I could use to shave off time without losing out on accuracy and wanted to share them with anyone who might be interested.

This session is aimed at people who are familiar with all the game and question types and are now working on their speed. If you're a beginner you might benefit too as these tips could prevent you from forming some unhelpful habits.

We'll go through a sample game or two (I'll pick some from the pre-60s so as not to "spoil" any more recent ones) while I talk us through my approach, and you can ask any LG related questions that you have.

To join the session, just use the Zoom link below.

Topic: LG group tutoring session

Time: Aug 21, 2021 10:00 AM Eastern Time (US and Canada)

Join Zoom Meeting

https://us05web.zoom.us/j/89850497645?pwd=dmhjR0ovNGl2T09KSWNGcmZQV25xZz09

Meeting ID: 898 5049 7645

Passcode: 6aEeDr

I don't get how this is the right answer. I'm aware the color red usually means stop and the color yellow usually means yield but why should I need to assume outside information like that to get this answer correct?

How am I supposed to know this from just the stimulus. Am I missing something?

I'm considering re-doing RC passages plus questions to increase pattern recognition and to review any questions that got past me.

Have you done this and found it helpful?

https://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/podcast-episode-91-the-august-2021-lsat-review/

What’s up fam - it’s your boi lsat_sus.

I hope the Aug flex folks practice some self-empathy if you didn’t feel too hot on your exam. “Just keep swimming” as the great blue aquatic specimen so graciously stated.

I just took PT 86 and did “not bad,” and after thorough review I think I got the underlying logical reasoning structure for the second LR section. I’d love to discuss it with y’all this Saturday night at 7:30pm** CST.

The plan is to do the entire section together and explain what I extrapolated from those questions that I hope will be applicable to future LR questions.

Topic: PT 86 S4 Review

Join Zoom Meeting

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6898274355?pwd=RHpGUFkxR2FyUlkxeS9iOGZqdE1XZz09

Meeting ID: 689 827 4355

Passcode: 152658

Much thanks,

lsat_sus

I don't understand how E is the right answer over D. I eliminated the answer choice E because she claimed to be an insurance adjuster and didn't provide proof. How is claiming to be anything providing enough proof of being a government official? If the answer choice said the insurance adjuster provided some kind of proof I would have opted for it but ended up picking D because the government official provided proof, and I don't consider being evasive necessarily lying.

Hey yall! So my testing experience went so bad to the point that I cried when testing was done. I filed my complaint and luckily they offered me a retest next week. Anything I should be concerned about for next week's test?