Game 1

Game 2

Game 3

Game 4

Hi! I’m looking for some study strategy. I’m looking for encouraging & supportive advice.

I’m planning on taking the exam on Nov 17. I’ve taken about 7 practice tests over the past several months. I’m averaging about 149 and have a goal of 160. I have a high accuracy on my untimed tests.

I generally get through 2 logic games, 2.5 reading comprehension passages, and all but the last page of a logical reasoning section on a timed test. I do blind review and go through the questions. I’ve been studying off and on since January. I’ve read all the PowerScore books.

So, I’ve got several weeks left. How should I prioritize my studying and schedule my time to bump up my score? I work part-time, too.

hey all,

i was wondering how top scorers do SA Q's under timed conditions? i've been realizing that SA questions take me WAY too long to do under timed conditions.

Do you do the short cut way -- where you identify the "new guy" in the premises, and the "new guy" in the conclusion, and just go hunt for an answer choice that has both "new guys"?

Or do you actually map out the logical chain, and try to find the area you need to bridge?

do you hand write the logic for SA questions, or do you just do it all in your head?

if you do it all in your head, how are you able to do that with certain SA questions that are very convoluted (both with grammar and logic), and have many conditional logic chains?

in other words, what's your thought process/strategy whenever you see a SA question under timed conditions?

thanks!!

When people say to foolproof games 1-35, how are you doing this? A couple questions with this...

I'm new to the concept of fool proofing, which I'm sure is surprising because it seems that everyone is doing it! So I'm jumping on the train. Just need to know the best way to begin doing this.

it is a strengthening question where the conclusion is that descriptive labels have outlived their usefulness.

Because an unusual Grb was sighted that had properties of both.

My issue with the correct ans choice is that the argument says that the unusual GRB had all properties of Short GRB in every other respect other than duration. So if take the ans choice to be true, then other properties would be more important in classification however in that case since we know from stimulus that all other properties were that of a short Grb then we could easily classify the unusual Grb to be a short one.

so i dont see how this strengthens the conclusion for us. In a way i suppose it weakens the argument at best. Could somebody let me know where i am going wrong ?

i can see how others are wrong but cant see how C is correct.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-3-question-06/

this is a weaken question

the conclusion is that those skilled workers who remained in EE will be in high demand

Premise: highly skilled workers left for the West

B is clear to me as the correct answer choice

but i could not get rid of D (in fact, in PT i changed from B to D);

if those countries plan to train many new workers to fill the positions left by those skilled workers, wouldn't D also weaken the argument?

thanks for the help!

Hello, with just about a month left until the November exam, I'm taking 2-3 prep tests every week and will have taken 25-30 PTs by the exam week, but I'm reading that a lot of the test takers took every available exam in the market (some even twice). I'm pretty consistently hitting high 160s and early 170s on my PTs but am concerned that I am not taking advantage of all the resources available. Generally, do scores improve with more PTs? Should I be concerned about the fact that I will have taken less than 30 PTs?

Hello. Lately I have been having a lot of trouble with grasping what exactly I am supposed to be doing with Weaken and Strengthen Questions. I understand that the basic concept is to find an answer choice that will either weaken or strengthen the existing support structure provided in the Stimulus or more it less or more relevant but despite this I find myself having trouble with finding the correct answer.

Because we have to treat what is said in the answer choices as true what does that mean for the assumptions that you can draw from the answer choices? Are we even supposed to be making any assumptions from the answer choices when doing this and if so do they also hold true? Or is the truth of these assumptions from the answer choice dependent on something else like the information and context provided by the Stimulus? Should we even be making any assumptions at all when it comes to the AC?! Also do we treat all the information in the Stim as true as well?

To make my question a bit more clear I will be using Question 15 from "Weaken Questions Problem Set 5" as an example.

Admin note: Please review the forum rules.

4. Do not post LSAT questions, any copyrighted content, or links to content that infringe on copyright.

PT25.S2.Q15: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-2-question-15/

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the reasoning above?

Answer Choices (With my Reasoning Below)

A.) Admin note: Deleted

X = I picked this answer choice (but it turned out to be incorrect) because I thought that the argument above assumed that it was only temperature that is capable of causing rhododendrons (R) and crocus (C) to blossom. If it was to some other factor which this AC seems to hint at then wouldn’t it weaken the authors argument that because of the observed incident it can be concluded that it would indicate something about the temperature.

B) Admin note: Deleted

X = The subject of this AC is what many people think about being outdoors which is irrelevant and thus does nothing to weaken the argument above.

C) Admin note: Deleted

X = I feel that this would strengthen the argument because if it is also favorable then it is more likely for this incidence to be indicative of the accuracy of a thermometer reading.

D) Admin note: Deleted

Correct AC = This is my problem with this AC. It says that R “CAN” grow 12 feet tall. Are we supposed to draw an assumption that the R plant in the Stim is infact 12 feet tall. “Can” seems to indicate only a possibility but it doesn’t guarantee anything so then I thought that because we had to draw a assumption that this wouldn’t be a strong enough AC to weaken. Also the phrase “is likely” doesn’t guarantee us anything either, it just indicates an increased chance but not something I would consider to be 100%. That 1% that the air temperature might not differ could possibly lead this AC to be useless in weakening. So I am confused as to how much we can assume to make an AC fit with either strengthen or weaken.

E) Admin note: Deleted

X = Seems irrelevant to me although it has the possibility to weaken if the assumption that the author was using this specific thermometer + would have to assume that he is not working in modern temperature range + also would have to assume that he is observing this phenomenon where the thermometer would be less accurate. So too many assumptions that we are not guaranteed of.

When I do logic games, I usually follow these steps:

I realized one thing I neglect to do is thinking about the structure of the base. This is a bad move on my part! Thinking about what kind of base we are dealing with helps clarify the game! Below I’ve detailed the 3 main types of bases in logic games.

1. Sequenced Bases

The only difference between the bases is the order in the sequence.

Example 1: PT01S2G3

The game is a pure sequencing game. It is telling us the order of the partners joining the law firm during the years 1961 through 1968. Therefore, our gameboard is going to be 8 slots, with each slot corresponding to each year.

Example 2: PT13S1G3

This game is a sequencing game with grouping elements. We have 2 lectures, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, on 3 days. Therefore our gameboard will have sequenced days (1, 2, and 3) with lecture spots for the morning and afternoon on each day. Each day is equal. It is the lectures that are different and have rules attached to them, which affect the days.

Example 3: PT01S2G1

This game is unusual at first glance, but after understanding the setup, we can see how it’s just another sequencing game. The trade reps are sitting around a circular table in sequenced chairs. This is just another sequencing game with the caveat that chairs 1 and 6 are next to each other, which the LSAT writers have explicitly mentioned! Each chair is the same as the chair next to it, except for its order in the circle.

2. Distinct bases

These bases are different from each other. They can show up in both grouping and sequencing games.

Example 1: PT14S1G1

This is an example of a grouping game with distinct sequenced bases. Our groups are the different positions of the employees: president, manager, and technician. The groups are sequenced because an employee must be supervised by a position that is different from the employee’s position.

Each group has a different characteristic. There is only one spot in the President group. The employees in the President and Manager groups have differing supervising rules. An inference is that the employees in the Technician group do not supervise anyone.

Example 2: PT09S3G2

All in/out games have distinct bases! One group is in and the other is out. Here, we have 7 people and exactly 4 can be in the in group. Therefore 3 must be in the out group. These requirements for the number of elements that must be in the two groups help us determine where the elements can go.

Example 3: PT14S1G4

This is a great example of a game where the differing requirements for the different bases are the key to splitting. Our bases are fall, winter, spring, and summer. Each of the bases are different because Nikki and Otto are limited to playing different sports in each season.

3. Interchangeable bases

In this category, the bases are independent and have no relation to each other.

Example 1: PT15S4G4

This is an in-out game and while the in and out groups obviously differ (with one being in and the other being out), the in group has interchangeable subgroups. Let’s focus on that part. All we know about the in group is that it is composed of 4 teams with two elements each. The four bases here are the four interchangeable teams with 2 elements each.

SPOILER WARNING: There aren’t too many examples of these in PTs 1-35. This is why I’m including PT 62 as Example 2.

Example 2: PT62S3G2

We are tasked with figuring out the colors for 3 stained glass windows. The three windows are our groups and they are totally interchangeable. From figuring this out, we can start placing elements in our groups. This is because the order in which the elements are placed doesn’t matter and we can focus on placing the elements down as is required by the rules of the game.

Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions/corrections and thank you for reading!

Hi all,

I have always thought that it is extremely selfish to vent to one's peers, since imposing all these negative emotions without asking for consent first is basically equal to taking advantage of innocent people (at least for me). But this time, I really need some advice, for I am drowning in this pool of hopeless frustration originating from LG drilling.

Everyone keeps saying how LG is the easiest part to crack, and how you will see (tremendous) improvements if you are dedicated to exercising repeatedly. And by no means am I questioning JY's fool-proof method to LG, I am just extremely disappointed time after time when I think I nailed the game by repeating, but got stuck again when I encounter another question of a similar level of difficulty. It certainly feels impossible for me to finish all the questions within the time constraint, and I begin to constantly question my capability. I have been searching, and am looking into the chances of taking GRE as a change. But that makes me feel like I am running away and probably, I don't have what it takes for law schools.

Woo looking back I realized how a first-world problem complaint this is. Although in my defense, the pain is very real. I would appreciate if anyone can share with me any advice, in relation to boosting LG power, GRE/LSAT, or simply how to stop this self-loathing.

Good luck to everyone!

Can someone explain the difference--if there is one in fact--between causal and conditional relationships/statements? Seemingly, A causing B is the same as saying if you have A, then you must have B. In effect, the sufficient condition is the cause for the necessary condition; without it, the necessary condition wouldn't exist. Therefore, a conditional relationship is a valid causal relationship. There are no competing hypothesis nor potential for the cause and effect to be swapped with each other.

Not sure if the above is true. Please comment with your observations.

I have a quick question about LG 4 on PT 56. I got 3 questions wrong because I misunderstood one of the initial rules -- S cannot take place after any site that includes V.

I wrote it as S --- V even though it was supposed to be S is with or before V. I understood it in the context of the explanation posted, but am wondering if there's any other foolproof explanation that applies to games in general so I don't overlook it in the future?

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-56-section-1-game-4/

I know that for weaken questions we're supposed to be critical of how the premise(s) support the conclusion (e.g. select the answer choice that "most weakens the argument" (an argument of course comprising one or several premises and a conclusion). But what if the question stem is cast in weaken form but refers only to the "conclusion"? For example, a stem might ask for which choice "casts the most doubt on the conclusion above." Is there a distinction to be drawn between these stems insofar as what the test is asking the test-taker to do? In other words, if I'm asked to weaken exclusively the conclusion, should I pay no attention to premises and select the answer choice that would simply weaken the conclusion, or do I need to without exception be cognizant of the premise-conclusion relationship?

I re-took the June 2018 LSAT today. I remember when I took it in June and RC was my first section. When I turned the page and saw the passage was on Borges and fiction, I was elated. All of my nerves disappeared. I worship Borges. To me, there's writers, and then there's great writers, and then there's Borges. He's a marvel of literature. I've read almost almost all of his short fiction ("The Aleph" and "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius" are my faves) and have taught his work at colleges. I know a lot about him (his love for magnifying glasses, how he went blind late in life, his career as a librarian in Buenos Aires). He's a GOD to me. But did this help me that day, or today, on my RC? Nope! That RC section, and that passage, picks me apart. Usually I'm -3 to -5 on RC. Today I went -9. And 3/6 on the Borges passage. Just goes to show, sometimes having previous knowledge doesn't help. If anything, I think my Borges' biases on that section was a hindrance.

Is there any way to use analytics to easily see how I'm performing on a particular question type over time?

Any tips for increasing the score from around a 149-150? This is my second time taking the test and have one month left, so any study tips for the second time aroung would be great!

One of the issues I had with LR was how quickly I had to change gears from one question to another. The test tries to mess with you as it asks similar questions and tripping you up is what the test writers are trying to do. I had to come up with a way to remember all of the different types of LR questions so I could recall quickly what was being asked of me. I 'borrowed' from both the 7-Sage lessons and the Powerscore books to make this basic study sheet. It is a breakdown of the similar question types, what makes them similar and a definition of the individual types.

Hope this helps.

LR STUDY SHEET

THE MUST BE OR PROVE FAMILY

-Information in the stimulus proves that one of the AC’s is correct

-Accept the stimulus 100%

-Any information in the stimulus that does not directly or indirectly appear in the Stimulus = Wrong Answer

• MBT/MSS- Best proven by the information in the stimulus

• Main Point- What is the primary conclusion (similar to MBT ?’s)

• Point at Issue/Agreement- Find point of contention or point of agreement between the speakers.

• Method of Reasoning (MOR)- Describe in abstract terms the way the author made the argument.

• Flaw in Reasoning (Flaw)- Describe in abstract terms the error in the authors reasoning.

• Parallel Reasoning/Parallel Flaw- ID the AC that contains reasoning most similar in structure to the reasoning presented in the stimulus.

HELP FAMILY

-Assisting or helping the authors argument or statement somehow, possibly by revealing assumption of the argument or by resolving a paradox or some other way.

• Assumption- ID the assumption

• Justify (The Conclusion)- Supply a piece of information that when added, proves the conclusion.

• Strengthen/Support- Provide support or strengthen the authors argument in some way.

• Resolve the Paradox- Find the AC that resolves or explains the discrepancy or contradiction.

• Weaken- Find the answer choice that attacks or undermines the argument.

~Cannot Be True- ID the AC that cannot be true or is most weakened based on the stimulus

I've been stuck at 137 for quite some time now. I am good with LG but poor with LR and okay in RC. I really need some direction.

Hi :)

Curious to know if people approach RC questions like LR (as in, when you're certain you've come across the correct ans., you pick it and leave -- without looking at any other ACs). If you do/did, why; how'd you build the confidence to get there; and are there any conditions for which you do that under (for exp., if you only notice yourself doing this when you've gone [back] to the passage to make sure the AC you're about to choose is the correct one).

Thanks!

I have tried the memory method, and it helps a little. My score for that section has been fairly the same. I am not entirely sure what I can do to improve it. Any tips?

i took the september LSAT, and i think nerves and lack of timed pt's played a large role in my low score. I'm trying to make at least a 5 point jump, and I want to make sure i'm being as effective as possible when studying. what is the best way to evaluate your weaknesses and improve them? my lowest section was RC, and i struggle with timing on LG. i've been taking two timed pt's per week since the september LSAT, but i'm not sure what the best method is when going back through your wrong answers. any tips!?!?

Hi Guys,

I am exactly one month away from my test date and in the past 2-3 months, I have experienced few worst migraines of my life. Seen general physicians, neurologists, tried many medications and regularly exercised over the past 2-3 months, but, nothing worked. I feel helpless at times and I think my stress is not because of the ‘test-coming-soon’ factor, but because of the fact that I am not getting my desired score on any of my PTs so far.

I have been studying for LSAT for a while now. From online courses (tried 3 of them) to private tutoring (advise-in solutions), I have tried all to hit 170 or up. But now, it feels sort of impossible and I am terrified. For my LR sections, I never get to attempt all the questions, but my accuracy is decent (19-20 correct when 21 attempted on average). For game, I only miss a point or two. For RC, I can mostly do only 3 passages (with 3-4 incorrect).

I am losing sleep over all this and my migraines are getting worst. Any helpful tips?

Fellow 7sagers,

I've long thought that Blind Review was only really necessary for L.R. and not Reading since the questions are mostly based on content in the passage. For those who do, is it really beneficial to Blind Review Reading Comp? If so, how do y'all do it. (Re-read the passage, and then go through the questions, etc.)

Hi! I'm taking the LSAT for a third time, and applying for a second. My first two scores were 140 and 147 (both times I really didn't prepare properly), but my resume was really strong with the 147 and I was pretty eager to jump right into law school, so I figured I'd give it a go -- but I only got accepted to some mediocre schools like Hofstra, NY Law etc. so decided to go through the process one more time and study properly i.e. four months, with a tutor, etc. and now my PTs are averaging between 158-160. I was supposed to take the Nov. 2018 LSAT but literally missed the deadline by a day, and am still kicking myself. I called LSAC and of course they said no exceptions, so I signed up for January. My question is, can I still get accepted for Fall 2019 if I take it in January, and if the answer is yes, how do I go about the application process?

I'm still looking around at schools, but some that I am initially interested in are BU Law, Syracuse, Cardozo, and Penn State.

I'm hoping to raise my score to the mid 160s because my logic games score is still pretty low, and I just recently found the 7sage games explanations which are the first LG explanations that actually make sense to me. I'm averaging between 13-15 on that section and think with some serious practice that will change.

It's hard for me to even understand how people get a perfect score for RC, because there are always answers that I can't get, even after BR and then, even after I watch JY's videos. I have never been able to get a perfect RC section, and recognize that it's my biggest weakness.

For people who can get close to 180 or people who get perfect RC sections, what is one thing you changed or developed that helped you get to where you are for RC sections? You insight would be much appreciated and invaluable. Thank you. =)