Hi everyone. RC is one of my best sections; I score no more than -3 per RC section. I will be hosting a free RC session this Saturday on Zoom at 11am PST. If you're interested, you are definitely welcome to join. Please leave a comment below indicating interest.

We'll be utilizing the RC from PT 74.

COMPLETED.

Thanks for joining me, everyone. Good luck on the LSAT! Feel free to message me privately if you have any questions.

Hey guy. If any of you had issues with proctoru, you can file a test complaint through LSAC. I for example, was interrupted by my proctor and she did not pause my time and I lost time. I already filed the complaint. They said after the investigation, i might be able to get a retake next Thursday or in February. If any of you had a similar experience, file a complaint if you are not happy with your performance.

Hi! Does anyone know what the curve was for this exam?

Hello 7sage!

I am hosting a free tutoring session focused on Logical Reasoning.

We will be using PT 35 as a reference, all skill levels are welcome.

All I ask is that you come willing to participate as I will be calling on a few volunteers to help.

See you there!

.

.

.

.

.

Ruben Daley is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

Topic: Ruben Daley's Zoom Meeting

Time: Jan 22, 2021 03:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)

Join Zoom Meeting

https://us04web.zoom.us/j/75301928030?pwd=T2RqMDJlNEREMnpYV3pId050VXVIQT09

Meeting ID: 753 0192 8030

Passcode: n0yUyD

Hi everyone!

I'm a consistent high 170's-180 scorer that's been tutoring for around 2-3 months now. I hope everyone who's currently taking the Jan test is doing well, and congrats!

This sesh is more for people who are targeting the Feb/April 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 9PM EST. It should go on for around 1.5-2hrs, or so, and I'm going to be covering, roughly, the following topics:

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 1/20

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.

Is there any difference between the two? If there is, could anyone give an example of how that would look?

For example:

Premise: A->B

Conclusion: B->A

I feel like the flaw here is both that it confuses a sufficient condition for being necessary, and that a necessary condition is sufficient.

Does the order of the language make a difference?

How do you approach studying for logic games? Do you expose yourself to one new logic game at a time, and then keep repeating it to master it? Or do you do as many logic games as you can, and pocket all the ones you had difficulty on to come back later to work on them?

I felt this exam went horribly for me. I guessed on far more questions than I am used to guessing on when taking PTs. I started with LG and was overwhelmed. This bled into my LR section where I ended up guessing on about 8 questions. Plus, I felt unsure on about 5 more questions. My last section was RC. Fourth passage was difficult and ended up guessing on about 7 questions. Even if I did get some of those questions correct, I feel that amount of uncertainty will lead to a lower score than what I earned on the Nov. LSAT.

Is this a sign that I should cancel?

I'm a Tuesday test taker, just wanted to wish everyone else good luck. Remember to stay steady, focused and, consistent! Don't rush through the questions simply because it's test day. Do whatever you normally do on your practice tests - we've got this!

Hi everyone!

I'm a consistent high 170's-180 scorer that's been tutoring for around 2-3 months now. I hope everyone who's currently taking the Jan test is doing well, and congrats!

This sesh is more for people who are targeting the Feb/April 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 9PM EST. It should go on for around 1.5-2hrs, or so, and I'm going to be covering, roughly, the following topics:

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 1/20

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.

help!!!! i just tested my equipment for my exam today and it says my RAM is too high. it was at 94%. i was connected to a live representative and they told me to restart my computer and clear my cookies and now it's at 98%!

Hello fellow 7Sagers,

I have a question regarding the third passage of PT17. I cannot seem to understand what the author meant in line 13 to 16. What does the author mean? Why would you substitute less-polluting fuels (natural gas) for those carrying a higher tax (meaning more-polluting fuels)? This is mind-boggling to me!

I've watched and re-watched JY's explanation video, but it doesn't solve my problem.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Cheers,

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-4-passage-3-passage/

Hi all! I hope you're all doing well. I have a quick question. I requested testing accommodations (50% extra time) because of a condition I have. I requested it for the February LSAT (two weeks before the deadline) and have not been notified yet if it has been approved. Should I take PTs with the extra time or do them under the regular amount of time allocated until I hear back from LSAC, or both?

Thanks!

Wondering how well people have improved with this method using the flex? This is by far my worse section as far as timing goes. If anyone has any pointers i am open to suggestions

I know these questions are supposed to be "gimmes" but I still struggle with SA and PSA questions, even the ones I get right I don't feel 100% confident. So I've been drilling them and I had some trouble with this one. If anyone could confirm my thought process, and/or offer any tips, it'd be much appreciated.

Context:

Fred and Dorthy are allegedly being considered for receive 25% raises.

Conclusion:

Jim argues that he should also receive a raise to at least what theirs will be or else it is unfair.

Tasha argues that it would be unfair to raise Jim's salary without also raising the 35 employees' [who have been at the company for the same length of time as Jim and earn the same salary as him].

Premise:

Jim has worked at the company longer than Fred and Dorthy have and their salaries would be higher than his with the proposed raise.

Similarly, Tasha says it's unfair to raise his without raising theirs because they have been at the company for the same amount of time as him and earn the same salary.

What I'm looking for:

I need something to justify both parties statements which both deal with fairness and raising (or not) another parties salary with equal or less tenure. So something tying pay to tenure to company. If you raise one party's salary and do not raise another party's salary who has worked at the company for the same or larger amount of time than the first party, then it is unfair.

AC:

A) It starts off correct, "in order to be fair", which would mean the contrapositive of my prediction but the second part doesn't follow. Our stimulus did not mention anything about differences or similarities in duties (although this thought did occur to me while reading the stimulus) so therefore it wouldn't justify why we have to raise Jim's and the 35 employees to raise Fred and Dorothy. Also it says "identical salaries" and Jim is arguing for a salary increase at least F and D. I'm not sure if this would be another reason to eliminate, but at the very least it doesn't match the stimulus. Eliminate (more so for the first reason I think).

B) Same with A that this starts off correct, but the second part also doesn't follow. Although, I didn't eliminate this right away because I initially assumed experience in the field=length of time at company. Upon final confirmation I deleted because experience in the field is much broader than what's supported in the stimulus and we just don't know anything about their experience. It could very well be the case that Fred and Dorothy have 50 years of experience in the field but have only been working at the company for 5 years, whereas Jim while he has been working at the company for 10 years, he only has 15 years of total experience in the field. Therefore, it wouldn't justify the conclusion that Jim's should be raised simply because he has worked at the company longer than they have. Eliminate.

C) The wording of this AC tripped me up because it starts with "in order to be fair" so I took that as the sufficient, but then says "if the first..." So I had to figure out which was the sufficient and which necessary. Ultimately, I understood it as if first employee worked for company longer than second --> business must pay one employee more than another, or else unfair. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought this was the reversal of what we needed. It establishes that Jim must be paid more than F and D because he has worked for longer than they have, whereas we need that if we raise F and D (workers with less or equal tenure), raise Jim and 35 employees (higher or equal tenure). Eliminate.

D) This is what we're looking for, as it is essentially the contrapositive of my prediction. "In order to be fair", "must never pay one more than another", "unless" establishes, If you pay one employee more than another---> first employee has worked for company longer than second. So because F and D have not worked at the company for longer than Jim, you cannot pay them more than him. Similar to Tasha as well. Correct.

E) Amount of time they work every day is not discussed nor is relevant in justifying the conclusion. Eliminate.

I went to test my mac book on the proctor U website and it passed everything except for 'RAM usage'. Did anyone have this issue/did it affect you on test day? I write tomorrow so any advice would be greatly appreciated!!

Hey all!

I will be taking the flex on Tuesday at 11:30 AM.

I took my last PT today (May 2020) and could feel myself very fatigued of just reading LSAT material by section 3 - so I decided to do the last section untimed to take pressure off of myself incase I underperformed (didn't want any psychological stress of score fluctuations before my test lol).

For those who are also writing Tuesday: I was wondering what you are doing today/what you will be doing tomorrow?

I'm not sure if I should do any timed sections tomorrow? The other option was just doing some drills of questions I need practice with for LR.

For RC I was planning on finding a couple dense passages and practicing reading through them/identifying the MP, tone and structure to myself (not answering any questions).

For LG, I was planning on practicing setting up some difficult games and making inferences upfront (again not answering any of the questions (just practicing being able to set things up properly and efficiently).

Would love to know what everyone else is doing today, tomorrow, and what you will do the morning before your exam?

PS: I know a lot of people thought May 2020 was an easier exam - I ended up scoring fine (thank god) - but I thought RC was rather difficult while taking it...thoughts? Maybe it was my nerves kicking in a little, but the second passage was a WTF moment for me for sure.

Sorry if there are any typos, I'm really tired today for some reason lol and didn't read anything over just now! Feel free to message me if you want to talk about your plan of attack before we sit on Tuesday! :)

Hey 7Sagers,

Here's the official January 2021 LSAT-Flex Discussion Thread.

**Please keep all discussions of the January 2021 LSAT-Flex here!**(/red)

Rules:

❌ You can't discuss specific questions. 🙅‍♂️

You CANNOT say things such as the following:

Is anyone taking the test outside the US or Canada? Was hoping to create a discussion thread for Tuesday (Obeying all 7sage and Lsac rules ofc)

I usually don't make any notes or map things out on the LR section and I usually score between -5 and -7. Should I be mapping out every single question?

I see JY maps out every question, should I be doing the same?

Hello

I'm searching for a tutor as soon as possible to prepare for the April 2021 LSAT Flex. Please reach out to me at : zorazambezi@gmail.com with your rates and availability.

Best,

Zora

The file that needed to be downloaded for a proctor to show up wasn't working. Now i have to reschedule. the restart button is not showing up.

Did anyone have this problem?

Sat for the exam today. Spent two hours trying to get past the pre-check requirements, my audio or video feed kept “disconnecting.”

When I finally got in, I was interrupted 2 minutes into my 1st section, that my video feed disconnected. Waited 10 minutes for technicians to fix the issue. This happened two more times. Time of exam was 3:40pm. Finished at 8:30pm

I went through 9 proctors, and 8 technicians.

Anybody with a similar experience? What recourse did you or will you take?

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

"Hello!

Could you please offer some advice as to how I can best utilize 7sages premium Curriculum to get better at games? Because I think there is a study plan available within the account to aid me in getting better at my accuracy, comprehension, and consequently my timing in games. I’m doing fine in reading comprehension and logic reasoning, but for some reason I’m not doing good enough in games yet. So I need to somehow customize and tailor my learning in a way where I can learn games thoroughly. I can do ordering games fine and the type with the conditional chains but sometimes grouping and hybrids take a while for me to understand. I need something I can follow along with and track my progress for LG. So far I can do almost two games in the 35 minutes. I thought about starting with the first prep test and working my way up on games throughout all the sections and then hopefully by like the 60s, I would be good enough to start timing myself but someone told me that was not the best way to proceed because games from the earlier prep tests are not a reliable indicator of how games are today. So if that’s not the appropriate way to learn and drill games, then do you have any suggestions for me? Do you have any advice for me please?

Thank you"

How do we implement meaningful increases in LR? I'm halfway through fool-proofing for LG & try to do Harder RCs every 2 days, but usually just look at the hardest questions for LR from the Problem Sets page under untimed conditions. It feels like this is the wrong approach; so how do I improve and cut down the errors?