Hi everyone! I would like to hear some suggestions on books for learning (American) literature knowledge. I'm an ESL and have never learned anything about American literature. I'm fine with RC passages that talk about literature since the pattern is quite obvious, but I feel like even if I understand the argument, there are always a lot of concepts in the passages that I just don't know and they're just some meaningless nouns to me. This makes the passages quite boring. For example, different kinds of devices, poetic forms, sonnet, couplet, quatrain, imagery, folk narrative, different genres of literature. I genuinely want to learn them, so that next time I read a literature passage, they would be more like real things in real life to me. And reading those passages would be more fun. Any advice is welcomed! Thanks!

How ought we interpret 'often' in lawgic?

Colloquially, 'often' might be invoked to 'a majority of the times' but it seems to me more analogous to "many" in that it can but does not necessarily imply most.

Instead it seems to me that 'often' implies that there is a some intersection in the same way that 'many' does. Just like 'many', often is subjective to the expected frequency of a particular event and not indicative of a particular objective standard (more likely than not aka 50% + 1).

But of course, my opinion is irrelevant... what have the LSAT gods thus decreed on this?

I noticed that in some of the newer PT's there is a small 'citation' at the top of some (but not all) of the passages.

E.g. Passage 1 of PT 81 - "This passage was adapted from an article published in 2003". Just curious if this is something that is EVER relevant to answering the questions?

I could see LSAT using an excerpt from a "scientific journal" and there being a curve-Breaker question that hinged on the knowledge that this was geared towards non-popular audience, for example. Has anyone seen anything like this?

If not, why are they including this piece of information on some (but not all) of the passages?

One of the biggest issues I have is not reading the sentences in the stimuli carefully...

Do you have any suggestions to prevent such mistakes besides underlining?

Also, I found paraphrasing/re-wording what I just read in my own words before moving on to the next sentence is incredibly helpful to comprehend the RC passages. For those who have mastered LR, how do you read the stimuli? do you think paraphrasing would be helpful in LR as well or do you think such step is unnecessary in LR?

Thanks everyone! :)

Hi everyone,

I am planning on taking the June LSAT Flex in Asia and had to secure a time slot last week.

Well.. the available time slots all looked ridiculous. I guess this is because they need to follow the US time?

The only available time in Asia time was in the range of something like 5:20am, 5:30am, 5;40am., or, 9:30pm, 9:40 pm.

These are all ridiculous..... I chose a night time slot because I just am not a morning person (although the usual 8:30am start time for regular LSAT should have been reasonable). I do believe LSAT heavily requires you to have intense focus and concentration (and that's why the regular LSAT starts from 8:30...isn't it?)

When I tried to find more information, there wasn't much.

is anyone having a similar problem right now? or, which time slot would you recommend? or should I contact the LSAC for this (don't think they will do much about it...)

I am soooo not looking forward to this.

Hi everyone,

So I had a discussion with a fellow 7sager about the conditional relationship v ----> /z and how it pertains to grouping/in/out games.

My understanding from the CC is that this relationship would not constitute a bi-conditional, because we can fail the sufficient condition /v, rendering the rule irrelevant. If it were a bi-conditional, /z would have to also be a sufficient condition for v, but this doesn't seem to be the case because as I just mentioned we can have v (v IN) and /v (v OUT). For this to be a bi-conditional would it not have to further be specified that we must have "either v or z, but not both" ?

The other 7sager mentioned that it would be a bi-conditional in a two group, non In/Out game. I was under the impression however that all two group grouping games can be conceived of as In/Out games -we seem to just arbitrarily assign one group as the in group and one group as the out group.

I would really appreciate any help because this has been running through my mind all day.

Hey guys, I just listened to JY's explanation for Question 19 from PT 20 Section 1 and it looks like the argument had a dual argument structure within the passage. I wonder if this is something common in LSAT or just one time thing. I see it first time, but wanted to confirm. Thanks

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-19/

Hi everyone! I'm taking the July LSAT Flex on July 14 and I was wondering how everyone else is spending these last couple of days before the test. Are you still hitting the books hard? Will you be taking any breaks before the test? What do you have planned for your day-of/day-before routine? I've read some discussions where people take a day or two off before the test, so I just wanted to see what everyone else has planned.

Can anyone explain why the correct answer here is C instead of E?

My problem with C was that, in order for C to weaken the stimulus, we'd need to assume that the landlords would take out the energy-conserving equipment once they install the energy meters. If the energy-conserving equipment stayed in once they installed the energy meters, then I don't know how any energy would be conserved because the tenants are living within the same energy standard whether they have the meter or not.

Thus, I thought that a better answer would be E. Granted, E does say "some" making it very logically weak, but at least it reveals something that could weaken the argument in the stimulus (which I don't think any of the other answers even come close to doing). If some people conserved energy for non-financial reasons before landlords installed the energy meters, then this would make it more likely that these people would not care about the new energy meters because they never saved energy for financial reasons in the first place.

Thanks!

Best regards

#Help

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-83-section-3-question-16/

How important is memorizing Groups 1-4 on a scale of 1-10 and why don't we throw in Conclusion & Premise indicators?

#help

I am wondering if people are taking the time to fool proof the problem sets (10x+) and game board setup example questions? I feel like I should be fool proofing wherever possible, but I also recognize the time commitment. Any thoughts?

Hi I was reviewing PT65.4.5. There is a sentence that says "The plaintiff has applied to the court for an order permitting her to question each defendant without their codefendants or their codefendants' legal counsel being present."

Let's say codefendants stands for A. Codefendants' legal counsel being present stands for B. The sentences says the order permits her to question each defendant without A OR B. I'm wondering whether I should treat the it as without (A or B ), or (without A or without B ). The former should mean [no A and no B], the latter should mean [no A or no B]. How do I decide how to interpret the sentence?

And what about without A AND B?

I came up with an example myself. I can live without video games OR sugar. I would naturally think it means if I don't have video games AND sugar, I am still fine. But if the sentence says "I can live without video games AND sugar", it seems to mean the same thing. So what's the difference?

Additionally, "if I don't have video games and sugar" also seems to mean the same thing as "if I don't have video games or sugar" in English, right? Even if logically the latter has three possibilities -- no video games only, no sugar only, no video games and no sugar, when you say the latter, you actually mean no video games and no sugar, right?

I’m led to this question because of these steps (below) that I took lol. Correct me at any point if there is a flaw in how I went about it!

In 72-2-25, /A and /B strengthens A cause B. We want to strengthen the argument’s assumption by showing that A causes B (buy online cause /use car), so we say /A and /B (/buy online and use car). This makes sense to me intuitively because the CAC is saying that /cause correlated with /effect, which strengthens the relationship between cause and effect.

OK SO, IF /A ← correlated→ /B strengthens A -cause-> B (what we have above - no cause and no effect strengthens cause → effect ), does that mean:

A -cause-> B, which implies A ← correlated→ B, implies /A ← correlated → /B?

And if the answer is yes or no, is there a cleaner theoretical reason why?

*footnote: I shortened direct mail advertising (buy phone or online) from 72-2-25 to just “buy online” to focus purely on the theory part. From 72-2-25: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-2-question-25/, but this idea has also come up for me as a question in other causation q's.

Hi everyone! I finally received my first 100% on a timed LG set. Before, I would consistently get 100% under blind review, but was unable to perform under the clock. If anyone is struggling to close the gap between BR and timed LG score, message me. I am willing to tutor someone for free in LGs. My best LG type is In/Out.

I just finished fool proofing games from 1-35 and I was consistently doing most of them all right within time once I got a hang of it. I took two full timed sections today and scored -4 and -5. I did my blind review (before seeing my results) under timed constraints and managed to get a -0 and -1. Is this a transitioning issue that will go away once I do full sections more frequently or do I have to approach sections differently?

I am a little confused about the weak answer and strong answer choice in necessary assumption question. So it said in the CC that we should always look for weak answer choice, and most strong answer choices are wrong when it comes to NA question.

But sometimes I also see strong answer choice as the correct answer. For example, PT 24 Section 2, Q17. The AC B : "no nation that was not among the major powers at the end of the second world war would become a major power"

Is this a strong language AC? So in a situation we should focus on weak/strong language AC?

Thank you!

Has anyone gotten their disclosed report from the June Flex yet? Mine still says that it's not available for me to view

I was wondering if JY has any 'live-commentary' type of video where he completes a RC passage on the Digital Exam. I am taking the July Flex and struggle a lot with RC because I can't write notes on the passage.

Hi,

I watched the video for LG full proofing method and wondered if the strategy is to complete the 10 clean copies or stop when we have both speed and control.

Thanks!

Unfortunately, i don't understand this weak question at all, or why the answer is C. C seems to link excessive blinking to confidence, which is a factor in an official's ability to conduct well in office, but i don't see how it affects the overall conclusion: any impact of excessive blinking is deleterious to election results. The author doesn't make a clear connection between someone's ability to perform in the office and his ability to perform in the election. i chose A instead, which linked the candidate's debate performance to his election performance. Can someone explain this to me? As a side note, i seem to notice with more recent tests that the earlier LR questions are a lot harder than older tests -- i rarely had wrong answers before problem 12. is there a reason for this increased difficulty in the early questions?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-84-section-2-question-11/

Just wanted to post as possible inspiration and as a thank you to JY and the entire 7sage community! When I first started studying I remember seeing people post things online that claimed to not anticipate an increase of over 10 points from your initial diagnostic; know that is completely untrue. If it wasn't for my intense, I mean, INTENSE lack of desire to take a gap year I would probably skip this cycle and keep at it for the 170. The test is absolutely learnable as long as you put in the work and you have patience with your brain as it learns how to process information in the way the test writers are looking for. I will be re-testing in an attempt to solidify my score in the 90th percentile (that insane RC and 4 hours of sleep really did me in on test day LOL). But I just wanted to say congratulations to all who completed this test during such a crazy year. If you feel yourself wanting to reach out don't hesitate to message me!

Any suggestions on how to improve my in/out and double layered sequencing?

LG is keeping my score under 160.

Thnx.

why is the answer e and not c? can someone break down the logic for me?

Any tips on Specific Reference RC questions? These are consistently the only questions I miss when doing RC passages and if I can improve my efficiency on these I'll see really solid improvement on my RC section scores. I've been reading passages from my monitor while notating on scratch paper to accommodate for the Flex but I recall seeing that Specific Reference questions will be different in some way on the Flex but don't quite recall how. Thoughts?

Scored 163 after completing the LSAT Trainer by Mike Kim, with 7Sage LG videos that were freely available back in February. I realized then I needed a better resource that could help me practice more methodically, and that's when I subscribed to 7Sage. 4 months have past since, and I got my 173 today! Thanks 7Sage