Hey all, so I saw my score very early this morning expecting to be somewhere near the median of where I was PTing (which was around the 153-157 range), and I ended up getting a 149. Obviously, this isn't seriously lower as I make it out to be, but it's confusing to me and i'm more shocked than angry or upset. I felt very confident during this test, and I had a ridiculous amount of energy even up to the end, so I can't blame test fatigue or zoning out. I ended up having a terribly bad RC and LR #2, both dipping in double digit incorrect, which is not even remotely close to where I falter on PTs.

So I know the obvious answer is just move on, and I want to move on, but I also want to improve as much as I can in the short time I have until the October LSAT. I've seen a ton of improvement in LR, LG, and i've peaked at around -6/-7 for RC. I don't feel like I would see major gains in RC so I don't feel like it's worth re-investing into it this late, and I genuinely don't think i'm that bad at it, so i'm just super confused if I should take this test's result into consideration for where I need to patch my wounds. My current study plan has tons of LG foolproofing because I think I can definitely get a really great score on LG realistically. I think I have stagnated for a long time on LR and RC with zero to minimal gains for a few weeks, but I can't neglect 75% of the test obviously.

So yeah, any advice is heavily appreciated. I know i'm likely overthinking everything but I'd hate to have another nightmare scenario happen and be forced to either apply with a low score or apply late (or just delay everything)

Help! I still have not received my September score. I did not receive an email and my account still has the test scores listed as unavailable. Any thoughts?

who agrees

Why foolproof 1-35 in particular? I will have had about 3 months study leading up to Nov administration, and have done most logic games sections 19 - 70s. I haven't however touched a pre-19 PT. I'm foolproofing some of the middle ones now, 30s - 60s, but wondering if this is like..wrong... Does FP need to be done with PT 1-35 or is that just a suggestion so as not to burn thru sections of what would otherwise be better to use for full timed PTs (like I've done, admittedly stupidly)?

Well unfortunately I did not get anywhere near the score I wanted. However, I didn't find 7 sage until a week before the September LSAT. I'm now registered for the November and have been using 7sage ever since. I'm hoping to make even the slightest improvement because some is better than none. Really hoping that I'll have enough time to increase my score like I'm hoping to and don't burst into tears at the site of my next score! I have hope!

Hi Fam,

Been recklessly checking my email and logging into LSAC although I know nothing will change yet. I just need a place to let off my steam.

Does anyone know at what time should we expect our scores to be released? Should I stay up until midnight or am I going to be filled with anxiety the wole day?

In case this helps anyone:

When down to 2 ACs that weaken an argument to 2 different degrees, pick the one that matches the degree of the conclusion.

When down to ACs that provide sufficient and/or necessary conditions that could serve as the missing link (SA), pick the one that clearly triggers or fails something. If it's a mystery, that doesn't help at all.

Don't second guess yourself when only one AC is right. If all other ACs have been confidently eliminated, flagging that question will only cost you valuable time.

When down to 2 ACs that both mention the key word or concept you know will be in the correct AC, only one is in precisely the right context. Make sure the key element is performing/describing the correct thing.

If you're confused when piecing together a list of facts, some with numbers, some with %s, give the situation real round numbers and apply them to the contending ACs. Don't mistake many for most. Many could be some, which could be a different subset from some other some. (Some historians claim X, many historians are wrong - do not assume overlap.) Some can mean just one. 

When looking for a NA in an argument that strikes you as just plain weak, say to yourself, "Within the universe of this shitty argument, which AC points out something that matters, something that absolutely has to be true or else the shitty argument has no leg to stand on in the first place?"

When 2 ACs have the proper conditions to satisfy what MBT, pick the one that matches the stimulus in terms of what is sufficient versus what is necessary. Don't get turned around by the language. What is literally required? Put everything methodically into S->N. Don't overthink.

Parse out the conclusion of convoluted arguments. Sometimes it's just stating that an action will lead to a goal, the NA is that it's possible for said action to lead to said goal.

With parallels, remember sentence order NEVER matters and logic order ALWAYS matters. Be sensitive to distinctions such as "any" versus "one instance."

When there's no obvious explanation for a phenomenon in a RRE, look for an AC that would push one element of the equation in the particular direction that would provide an alternative explanation of the phenomenon. Do NOT give in to bringing in outside bias (such as generic costs less than brand names).  

Don't let ACs bait you into "attacking" or "rethinking" a premise - you must assume all premises are completely true no matter what. Period. You are only trying to attack the manner in which the premises "prove" the conclusion. Never pick an AC that merely restates a premise. That's not even good enough for PSA. It does NOTHING.

Never settle for, pick or eliminate an AC you don't understand. Never help an AC out and try to make it fit the mold of a particular flaw. ONLY pick it if it makes total sense.

Be sensitive to WHILE as a conclusion indicator. While X (concession), really Y (conclusion).

Argument parts sometimes can be assumptions or denials of assumptions. Label them as you go. 

Don't assume the exact same number of people need to be tested in an experiment. Pay attention when a stimulus starts to compare apples to oranges (or bone samples to blood samples).

Be sensitive to subtlety. (Saying it's wrong for a country to diminish prosperity isn't the same as saying it's wrong to hinder the growth of prosperity.)

If you're spending too much time stuck between 2 ACs, SKIP, read again on Round 2 with the rest eliminated.

Always bear in mind that just because someone claims, says, believes, thinks something does NOT make it one of the things in the stimulus that we accept as true. Accept what the author says. Everything else is suspect. 

Does anyone feel that the newer LRS are actually easier? Because im testing pretty far away, I try to sprinkle in as many old PTs as I can. On the newer tests I can go -3 to -6. But on the really old ones I can never get better than -6 haha. I feel like the old ones are just so weird.

Ive been doing ok on LR...should I skip over the explanations for the wrong answers and just focus on why I got the answer right??

Working on a time crunch.

Hi! So I understand why D is correct but I thought that the sentence "the position that X is unsustainable" was the position the author was trying to defend. In that he/she is defending that it is unsustainable. Why is this thought process not right? It's why I picked B

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-81-section-3-question-17/

Hey guys and gals Nov test taker here

I’ve been hitting -3 or better on Lr sections through the PT60s, but just hit a -8 on section 4 on PT 69. I’m not too worried because I had heard about a shift in Lr around this range. I’m hoping I will adapt.

Can anyone speak to what changes they noticed if any and what you did to adapt?

TIA

So I've been studying for lsat for some time now and i always had this question i couldn't sort out in my head.

For certain describe the flaw questions on LR, we see a lot of conditional reversal flaws.

For example, "A --> B. Therefore, B -->A."

When choosing the right answer for this kind of flaw, we usually get obvious answer choices.

But we sometimes get "fails to consider" kind of answers like "fails to consider that there could be other conditions necessary for A other than B".

My question is, for the kind of flaw that i mentioned above (A-->B so B-->A), could we also say that "author takes for granted that only B is required for A"?

Thanks.

Since completion of the CC, my LR scores have been ridiculously inconsistent. Here are the stats:

PT 40 S1 -9 S3 -4

PT 41 S1 -4 S3 -3

PT 42 S2 -4 S4 -6

PT 43 S2 -8 S3 -2

PT 58 S1 -2 S4 -7

I'm especially concerned about the last two. I tried taking a couple days off in between those two (to combat burnout) and yet the inconsistency is unchanged. I rarely miss more than 3 in BR, so I know I have the potential.

I'm pretty good at navigating the test (knowing what questions are difficult and should be skipped, for example), so I don't think that is the issue. I really don't know what the issue is but I feel like I've hit a wall here.

I have been consistently testing around 167 for my raw score, but I feel like if I could get my LR scores more consistent I'd have a good shot at 170. Plz help!

Hey!

So I have kind of hit a plateau with LG. I am averaging around a -8 timed, but in BR I am consistently -0 to -2. I know I can do pretty much any game!

I'm finding a couple of issues:

I truly feel if I could correct these issues (along with cleaning up dumb errors) I can go sub -5 which is my goal! I feel like this comes down to strategy more than anything. Anyone have any tips that may help me here?

Thanks!!

Hey all, new to 7sage and I just took a timed diagnostic exam and scored 144, my goal is 160. I'm applying this round for 2020 admissions and January for most of the schools I'm applying to take January as the last acceptable exam. Do you think I have a shot?

I have a pretty good understanding of the LR material but still struggle with the questions and I do struggle quite a bit with RC. My strongest section is LG (I scored 18/23 on the diagnostic exam).

Is your study buddy feature working? Despite trying on multiple devices and with different internet browsers I am getting a java error for the maps section.

I do not understand the difference between correct answer (A), and answer (D). The terms used in each of the answer choices are the same. I feel like I am missing something because I understand the structure of the argument, but the terms discussed in the video explanations do not make the distinction clear?

Thank you!!

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-76-section-4-question-22/

Hello all,

I've been doing some practice with the older test and stumbled upon a part of the stimulus that I tried to translate into lawgic. The sentence goes as following:

"Yet not until teacher have the power to make decisions in their own classrooms can they enable their students to make their own decisions."

Clearly the until is a conditional indicator for group 3 (Negate, sufficient). Given that there is a not before, I simply negated the not translating it into: Teachers who have power to make decisions -> Enable students to make their own decisions

However, after checking the answers and explanation it seems I made the translation wrong and the correct translation would have the sufficient and necessary conditions flipped.

What is it that I'm doing wrong here? Seems like I'm missing something but can't quite point it out.

(The question is from Dec 1992: Sec 2 Q23 for those who are interested)

Hi everyone,

So as we all know, the October LSAT is 4ish weeks away...I found 7Sage in August and have studied the crap out of it (in the Starter addition) since. I work full time, with 12 hour days one day, 7 hour days the next, so my study schedule isn't as consistent as I'd like it to be. I was starting to score high 150's, but I've gone back down to mid-150's with BR in the low 160's. Do I have enough time to study for my target score of mid to high 160's? Should I withdraw and try for the November or December LSAT? I'm trying to get in this cycle, only having just picked up studying in May. Any advice would help!

I have completed my LR curriculum and while I feel fairly more prepared and knowledgeable, I for sure have not "mastered" it yet.

Would you all recommend going through this major part of the CC again, or should I continue with the curriculum and dive into LG (and then LR) and then begin the mastering once all is complete?

Thanks!

hey so I have taken about 3 PT's over that past two weeks and my PT score as well as my BR score have been the same consistently. I was wondering what are some studying tips or ways that people are using in between PT's in order to increase your score. any feedback is greatly appreciated.

I need your best tips on how to complete the LR!! I practice and practice and still cannot get them right! Thank you.

In his video on EC, JY discusses the example A ----> (B---> C), where the embedded part is second, and it becomes A + B ----> C. But what if the embedded conditional is first [(A--->B) ----> C], what would the mechanical rule be then? Do we say that A----> B + C?

I picked D and confirmed myself in review.

The conclusion of the argument seem to be that watching network TV increases tendency to think of public issues in simple terms as compared to newspaper reading.

A is the credited answer. But even if one were to read the paper AND watch TV news, it is still the case that TV news programs make that person think about issues on simple terms? Doesn't it affirm the conclusion that people watch TV news for a simple view on an issue and than read the papers for the "full" view on it?

I really don't get why A is credited over D.

The primary objection to TV news is that it's over in 30 seconds using slogans, that's why it is "simplifying" our thinking. But if TV news devote equal time discussing multiple view points, then doesn't this weaken the conclusion? It suggest that since we learn about the opposing views, it can no longer be said that the TV watcher's understanding of the issue is simple.

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"