#help

I consistently get -4 on the RC section. There seems to be no rhyme or reason regarding the questions I miss. They're mostly different question stems. They are often but not always the hardest questions. I try to review them and it always just seems to be a matter of the "content" (and in my opinion they always seem to be very arguable questions).

Either way, does anyone have advice on how to move past this plateau I'm on? With LR and LG, it seems to be much easier to find trends or patterns that help reveal why you're missing questions. But I struggle to do the same with RC.

So I just need clarification over why answer choice E is correct.

Reconcile what's happening.

Answer choice E says) Due to technological advances over the last decade, much oil previously considered unextractable is now considered extractable.

But I don't get why this is correct because it says, "amount of oil considered extractable is THE SAME as they were 10 years ago."

Please tell me what I am missing here!

Thank you!

Hi! I am taking the January test and studying full-time. I live in EST time and have been studying since July and get around 165 and I am reaching for the 170. I am looking for a study buddy that is serious about studying everyday and doing PTS. Thank you :)

When a passage says "usually," is this a version of "most"? For example, "John usually goes to the store." Is this essentially saying that "Most of the time, John goes to the store"? I'm confused about how one approaches this as a conditional.

I have been reading through some of the previous posts regarding this question, and they have really helped me understand the stimulus and why it is wrong. Basically, the author gave us the following premise:

S= support new tax plan

E= chance of being elected

UE= understand economics

P1: S----> /E

P2: UE----> /S

C: E-----> UE

In order for us to get to the author's conclusion (E----- >UE) we should've had the following as our premise:

E-----> /S -----> UE

Valid Argument #3- A--> B--->C

If we had been given this premise, we would have been able to validly get to the author's conclusion.

The author's error is that he is treating UE -----> /S as if it were the same as /S ------> UE. To put it in more simple terms, the author's flaw was a mistaken reversal error (in premise two).

However, I am really confused when it comes to the answer choices. I don't see how answer choice "D" describes the error that has been identified. I have found that for the harder flaw questions, LSAT writers tend to write the answer choices in very convoluted/ abstract manner. It has really been a struggle for me to get past this. Would greatly appreciate someone's help.

I am missing something on this game. Help please.

If I have a statement: A ---> C

and a second statement: B ---->C

is it fair to say A + B ----> C?

Why is the strategy to write an individual rule then immediately check that against the acceptable situations. Does this have a strategic benefit to writing all the rules, then evaluating the acceptable situations. I am inclined to think the latter takes less time, but I was curious if someone has thoughts on this?

Hi 7sagers!

Happy to announce session number 3 of these free tutoring series! We will be covering LR flaw question strategy. It will be Sunday November 1st at 7pm EST.

I have gone through the 7sage CC twice, taken over 90% of the PTs out there, and am currently scoring in the low 170s. My diagnostic was a 138. I've struggled immensely with this test, and I can show you how I overcame these obstacles.

In this session, we'll cover topics on:

-How to approach flaw questions under timed conditions

-How to actively read and engage with flaw questions

-Why anticipating what the correct answer choice could be is helpful, but why you still need to be careful when doing so.

-How you can still get these questions correct even when you don't anticipate what the flaw is.

We will be using questions from the free diagnostic LSAT test provided on the LSAC website. This session will be helpful for students that recently completed the flaw CC, or are in the PT phase of their studies and is struggling with Flaw Questions.

If this session goes well, I'd be open to hosting more free sessions! Please let me know what topics you'd like to discuss at a future session in the poll below. See you there!

A few additional things I want to mention so we can all get the most out of the session:

Please refrain from looking at the correct answer choices when we are going through problems. It is to your benefit to be unaware so you can learn!

Please make sure your microphone is on mute during the session, unless you are the person volunteering to help answer a question.

I will be asking for volunteers throughout the session. If you would like to volunteer, please type it in the chat box.

The session will last around two hours, questions unrelated to the topic at hand should be saved until the end.

If you learned something helpful, all I ask for payment is that you share the knowledge with others that could be struggling. After all, we rise by lifting others up. :smile:

Let me know if ya'll have any questions. Hope to see you there!

Chris Nguyen is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

Topic: Free Tutoring, Flaw Questions

Time: Nov 1, 2020 06:00 PM Central Time (US and Canada)

Join Zoom Meeting

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81312736718?pwd=L3M0Zmd4NElwYkVPa2Y2bTh0VjlEUT09

Meeting ID: 813 1273 6718

Passcode: 375180

One tap mobile

+13462487799,,81312736718#,,,,,,0#,,375180# US (Houston)

+12532158782,,81312736718#,,,,,,0#,,375180# US (Tacoma)

Dial by your location

+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)

+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)

+1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)

+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)

+1 646 558 8656 US (New York)

+1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown)

Meeting ID: 813 1273 6718

Passcode: 375180

Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/keDJlyUDws

For drill question 12 on page 49. Wouldn't the valid conclusion be that Sophie is unlikely to be a person to know? As it is unlikely that her moon will stay in Virgo and if her moon doesn't stay in Virgo she will not have a cholesterol increase. I'm sure I am wrong but I am just not getting it.

I'm going to be taking my test in NYC at a hotel. Any fellow locals have any suggestions on hotels? I live here so I have no idea about what the best hotel is to take this test :D

please explainnnn

Any tips or tricks for improving RC in the last couple of weeks before the test? I’m averaging about a 168 on PTs, and I feel like RC is holding me back from breaking 170. I typically go -0/-1 on LG, -2/-3 on LR, and anywhere from -4 to -8 on RC. I’m able to finish all 4 passages with only a minute or so to spare. Any advice is appreciated!

Also, I would be thrilled with a 168 on the real test, but would like to be more comfortable with RC in case I get a test with a killer RC section (aka the August Flex RC with the bees and patriotism passages).

Just wanted to say goodbye to this wonderful community and thank JY and everyone else for helping us thru this process. I started at a 159 diagnostic and after my third try got a 178, which I cannot believe!!

Edited to add some tips:

Honestly can't believe this score and can't quite fathom what that means for me as a reapplicant but just wanted to say that if you are privileged enough to be able to take a month off work and move in with your parents so that they feed you and nurture you and you can just focus on studying and exercising and meditating and can afford to pay $100+ to a great tutor (shout out apollo prep!) then everything is doable!!!

Much love to those juggling work and families out there, this game is unfair!

A few have asked for tips, so here are some:

-- for LR I had already done 7sage and read the loophole and felt I had a pretty solid background, so I got a tutor (apollo prep, I really recommend them!!) and realized that lol my background wasn't as sturdy. We'd just review questions I got wrong after blind review together and it was very useful.

-- for LG, I did all miscellaneous games and all hard games, I realized my weak point was facing new games I had not seen before so I just did that over and over, also reviewed games but focused mostly on knowing how to tackle them.

-- for RC, I read a lot and I tried to have a conversation with the writer as a read.

Good luck everyone!!

Diagraming this stimulus into conditional logic was hard for me. I started with the second sentence:

Unless= G3= negate, place in sufficient

/heat to cause volcanic action -----> /renewed surface

For the third sentence:

Any= G1= sufficient

Since it used the idea of "/renewed surface" , I was able to chain it up with the second sentence:

/heat to cause volcanic action --->/renewed surface ------->heavily pockmarked

When I got to the last sentence, I got lost. I didn't know how to diagram it. I feel like the last sentence plays a role in the chain from above, but I don't really know what that would look like.

Would really appreciate some clarification on how to diagram this stimulus. Thanks in advance!

Hey Everyone,

I've heard a lot about this book and was wondering if anyone has an E copy/ PDF of it by any chance? I cant find it anywhere. Let me know. Thanks!

This service is fully responsible for me getting a score so high. I could not have done it without you, JY. Thank you very very much. Will recommend 7sage until I die.

I've finished the core curriculum logic games section. I feel determined to finish -2 or -0 on the actual Logic Games section come January. When I did the core curriculum. I would do the section timed, blind review, watch the explanation, and usually when I finished the explanation video I would redo the game from scratch and do somewhere between -1 or -0 for those two games in that problem set.

Now that I've finished the whole Logic Games section of the course, I want to do 2 games a day, review them, and repeat the game until I miss none of the questions. I don't think this will take long because after I watch the explanation video, I usually don't miss much and finish with time left. But my question is, should I even bother with doing games from Prep Tests 1-35 since they're old? When I got to the MIsc Section of LG in the course, I noticed how different those games were and how I probably wont see them again in January, and would rather perfect the standard: linear, in/out, grouping etc. games. I'm thinking maybe from now till January I can focus on drilling the Newer/Newest Logic Games?? Thoughts? Also, before I found 7sage I used the LSAC prep books and completed like the first 10-15 Prep Tests that were released on my own, but before I did blind review and had all of the wonderful tricks and tips that I learned from 7sage.

Side note, I did the Logic Games from PT 43 recentlly and went -6. I didn't blind review or time that section, because I was just doing it casually with some Youtube in the background because I was bored.

The title says it all. Somehow I got a 179!!!

Hi there,

I took my first LSAT this October and got a 147... I am of course booked to write again but am wondering if it is worth it to cancel my score or just leave it? I am worried that it looks bad but I also do not want to lead my application with that score. I do think that I can do a lot better as I have already seen an 8+ increase in my pt's (I also am aware most people advise not to however, while searching the forum this seemed to be the advice for the regular LSAT when you could not do score preview and I didn't see any posts about scores this low). I am also applying to Canadian schools and I am aware that 147 is not a competitive score by any means. Any input is welcome!

I never thought I would get to write this post: After over a year of studying with 60+ practice tests taken, I can finally say I am done with the LSAT. I Climbed to 170!

Thank you so much to 7sage for helping me break through to this level! I'm absolutely going to write more about my study patterns, how I adapted to score drops and test-day anxiety, COVID, employment, and more, but first ------ I'm going to go celebrate at 9 AM 😝

I got a 149 and I’m so sad. Any advice? I am retaking the exam in January. Is there hope for someone like me with a killer GPA and a teaching background to go to a place like Harvard?

I interpreted "D" as saying that new fields had been found since "oil that is considered unextractable is now considered extractible." For "D" to be correct, I thought we had to make the assumption that the shift between unextractable to extractible was referencing the oil fields that have already been found. I would really appreciate some clarification on why "D" is correct. Thanks in advance!

Hey all - I just got my October flex score and am feeling pretty discouraged. I scored a 157 and my best PTs were in the mid-160s (scores I would be very content with). It's frustrating because after the exam I felt really confident and felt like I had a great test day and the exam was easier, but my score ended up not reflecting that. I've been studying 20-30 hours a week for 9 months and am really burnt out / tired of studying for this exam. I want to apply this cycle and feel kind of meh about going to a mid-range law school. My GPA is also just kind of alright (3.6 from Berkeley) and my soft factors are strong (Teach for America, good letters of rec, a PS I feel confident about). Does anyone have any thoughts/advice on how to navigate? I'm super satisfied going to a not-top 20 school but a little above that like a GW, Notre Dame, or Boston College, but now I feel like I don't even have much of a shot at those. Thoughts??? Thanks everyone.

Just wanted to say thank you to JY and the 7sage crew for getting me to this score. Honestly, one of the best LSAT study services ever, JY's voice is truly iconic. All the best to everyone else, hope you all achieve you dreams! As for me, no for LSAT forever unless someone is willing to hire me as a tutor lol