Hey everyone,

So, I have been in my PT phase for a couple months now, and realize that LG is my worst section. It's weird to realize that, given it is generally the easiest section to improve on. I vary widely in my performance (sometimes missing 2 or 3, sometimes up to 10 or 11). If I could be consistently scoring -2 or 3, my scores would be meeting what I am looking to get on the real test. I've tried a lot up to this point (buying every released PT and fool proofing games by PT, going through all of the core curriculum, revisiting games that gave me trouble, etc.). Does anyone have any specific study schedules they took on to improve their LG section? Should I stop PTing and focus on games exclusively for a couple weeks? I don't want to lose "proficiency" in the other sections... I know it's silly to be complaining about the most learnable section of the test, but if anyone has been where I am and has gotten their LG misses to be more consistent, I would greatly appreciate advice.

I am looking for someone to take pt with and BR with weekends plus monday and Wednesday evening. Not available on tuesday and thursday. Schedule is pretty flexible.

Hi everyone,

I have found that inference questions have, by far, been my weakest point in RC, so I have been searching for a better way to understand the question type. It occurred to me that Inference questions in RC behave somewhat similarly to necessary assumption questions in LR. That is, it seems that if you negate the inference, it will "wreck" or at least be inconsistent with the part of the passage in which that bit of information appears.

How do others think about RC Inference questions, and does this analysis make sense?

Hey y'all, I'm quite stuck on Q6 re: why E is better than D.

I chose E and cite my reasons as follows:

line 12-13: "the stated legal rationale ... has nevertheless proven be to be problematic."

line 57-61: "the legal rationale... thus failed to target the genuine problem ... "

to clarify, it was not the judicial decision that was controversial but the rationale given. the rationale given blamed judicial enforcement rather than the covenant's content, the latter of which the author believes is the genuine problem. the author offers up a new rationale: the covenant's racially restrictive content is the genuine problem. that is E.

in regards to D, i felt that it was operative in the author's argument to an extent: only in paragraph 3. if the question had read, "...most clearly operative in practice," i would've chosen E. but the main principle operating in the author's argument is that: in upholding a judicial decision, if the given rationale was controversial, a new one should take its place, which is what the author argued for in paragraphs 2, 4, and parts of 3 (1st two sentences).

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

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-85-section-1-passage-1-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-85-section-1-passage-1-questions/

Looking for a study buddy in Toronto or anywhere in the world with whom I could check in daily (via Whatsapp for example), and they with me, about their progress and such in order to motivate one another not to slack off and kill it for the November LSAT or any other date. If anyone is interested, please let me know.

Thank you!

Logged onto LSAC today and was able to switch my Oct. test center from God-forsaken Newark to a hotel near Penn Station. Head's up - limited availability.

I'm only 40% of the starter curriculum and the test is now in a month! I know I can't get through 100% of the curriculum simply because I don't have enough time in the day to dedicate to studying since I have other responsibilities. Anyone else feel nervous? (Also first time taker here)

I've been able to consistently get -0 or -1 in LG, and I got my first perfect LR (both sections) yesterday. Best RC score I've gotten was -1, but I've been scoring -3 to -4 pretty consistently. I'm definitely doing better than when I started, and I'm usually able to catch most if not all mistakes during BR, but I'm having trouble nailing down those last few points while I'm timed (even when I'm not feeling rushed). Any tips on improving RC? Thanks in advance!

If Larry drives to work in the morning, he will hit traffic. Therefore:

A If Larry hits traffic, it must be morning.

B If Larry drives to work in the afternoon, he will not hit traffic.

C If Larry doesn't hit traffic, it must not be morning.

D If Larry drives to work in the afternoon, he will hit traffic.

E None of the above.

I would like to understand the answer.

Hello Everyone! I will be entering my Junior year this semester. I have not taken any LSAT prep tests before. I recently received the notification about registering for the LSAT coming up in September. I am wondering whether I should keep studying, and finishing my course with 7sage prior taking my first LSAT test, or take this LSAT and prepare to sign up for more after I finish this course.

Thank you any feedback, it is highly appreciated!

#help

Does anyone have the link to extend course that is expiring just before the September LSAT. I can't seem to find it, thanks!

Just a recommendation, I think it would be great if you can create random problem sets using sets of PT's. For example, using PT 1-35, all of its LR questions, to randomly throw at you. After answering the question the correct answer as well as the solution is presented. Very much how the LSAT Demon works, I think its a useful design for casual practice.

Just a quick question

If assumptions are premises the author left out then does that mean that I am trying to find that assumption in the answer stem?

I am just having a hard time with these so if anyone has any hints or suggestions that would be awesome.

#help

Guys, so for N.A we have the flip test for the answer to see if the assumption is necessary or not. Is there something like that for the Sufficient Assumption questions?

Thanks xx

Help! I'm having trouble studying for the RC section of the LSAT. any good advice/tips?

I have a question. If you are given a statement like the below:

Most dogs are cute.

Does this by inference mean that some dogs are not cute? As in there is at least a some relationship between dogs and cute. Say there are 100 dogs. 99 are cute. What about the remaining 1? Is it common sensical to assume it is not cute, or are we not allowed to make such an inference.

So after looking at several of my tests - I feel line referencing questions are just a pain in the ass lol.

I am not sure if I am approaching them right: do I have to focus on the line reference specifically in the paragraph? Or to the overall passage? Or to its relation with the passage MP? Or all of this LOL?

I usually try to connect it back to MP but on my BR still getting these wrong.

Any help would be awesome.... thanks :)

Hello 7Sage Community((/p)

My LSAT journey has been and long rough road. I took the December 2017 LSAT and scored 155. I stopped studying for awhile and discovered 7Sage. I started the core curriculum and 7Sage helped open my eyes to how to correctly study for the LSAT. I started studying again mid-April 2019 while working full-time. I have been able to increase my PT score to 164. I signed up for the November 2019 test, but I am a splitter student (my gpa is 3.0) and I am considering rescheduling my test to February 2020. This would mean 4 years between completing my undergrad and entering law school. I am torn about taking the November test or cutting my hours as a server and subsequently taking the February 2020 test. Any thoughts?

This is the main point question from the Gilman Passage

Can some one please explain why (A) is incorrect? I was stuck between A and D, but chose A because D does not say ANYTHING about there being two different theories, which was basically what the whole first paragraph was about. I get that the word usage of "central doctrine" in (A) is a bit weird, but is this really the reason why A is incorrect? I would also like to know if its normal for the Main Point question to just leave out a whole paragraph? Thanks so much

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

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-83-section-2-passage-4-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-83-section-2-passage-4-questions/

Hi everyone! I scored a 158 on the July LSAT with about a month of prep. I'm taking the September LSAT and am seeking a tutor to help bring me into the 160s, willing to pay, let me know if you can help :)

This is a method of reasoning question. I got the answer correct - B - because stimulus goes and defines unnatural and uses that to destroy the absurd claim it sets out to. However, why is AC D wrong? Is it b/c it is partially right and not fully correct. The claim does say doing something unnatural is impossible - hence to a certain degree that would be a contradiction...

Thoughts?

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

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-3-passage-4-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-3-passage-4-questions/

l

I see why the answer is A but I was wondering what rules out answer choice E ?

Admin note: edited title

Hello Everyone,

I wanted to know that if

A -> B + C (with the + being "and")

Then the Contra would be /B or /C -> /A

And in another situation

A

B

/D ====> /A or /B?

Thank you!

Hey guys, does anyone have any suggestions on recognizing when an argument is causal when it does not include key words like "responsible for", "resulted in", or straight up "caused"?

I'm seeing question 22 on on Section 2 in PT 73 being identified as causal, and I totally missed it. Wanted to see if anyone has a good way to break these things down. Thanks!