Hey Guys,

So this is my first time posting here but I often read the discussions and think that they are really helpful. I am hoping for some advice with my current dilemma.

So I have given the LSAT 3 times already, and always with score increases. My latest score was a 168, which was great, but it's just that I have been consistently scoring in the 171's for months now on practice exams. I messed up the logic games section really bad in the actual test even though I usually get a perfect score in that section on preptests.

But if I register to give the January test it will be my fourth attempt, and am wondering if this is one time too many? I have to apply this cycle, so another concern is not having the score (even if there's an increase) in time for admissions. And finally I feel like I have run out of recent preptests to practice on if I do decide to give it another shot.

I really feel like I can still improve, and more than anything, I believe I want to figure out the challenge of the LSAT to grow as a person.

What do you all recommend?

Hey 7Sagers,

Here's the official November 2018 LSAT Discussion Thread.

**Please keep all discussions of the November 2018 LSAT here!**(/red)

Rules:

✅ You can identify experimental sections.

You can say things such as the following:

❌ You can't discuss specific questions.☠️

You CANNOT say things such as the following:

Have fun discussing!

Before starting the 7sage course, no matter what I did, I could not improve on logic games. However, I took J.Y. Ping's advice and started drilling the same logic games problems until I was able to get them right on my own. It's been tedious and exhausting at times doing the same games over and over again until I get 100% accuracy, but I have noticed a significant improvement on my logic games score just from doing that. If you're feeling hopeless about logic games, keep practicing because practice really does make perfect, or close! :)

Hi everyone, I am re-writing the LSAT on Jan. 26 after scoring a 157 on the November test. The goal would be a 160, which I have consistently scored on my PTs. My problem area is logic games, I can never seem to do a full 4 games in 35 min and even the three games that I complete I still get questions wrong. I have never tried the foolproof method and am wondering how I would approach it with limited time for studying. I will have two weeks over Christmas break where I will be able to study 25 hours a week and then I leave for vacation for 2 weeks. I am back on Jan. 5th and will have significantly less time in the weeks leading up the test as I will be back in school.

Any advice??

Hi all,

I was hoping someone might be able to help me with two things here:

[Exposure to heavy metals (correlated with heavy metal poisoning resistance)] presumably causes/correlated with [resistance to antibiotics].

Is that part about resistance to heavy metal poisoning just fluff in cases like this (i.e. does the implied correlation not matter)? I've just never seen it before and was curious what the theory is here.

Thanks!

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-1-question-22/

TIPS?

Admin note: edited title. No all caps please

How's it going everyone? I am officially registered for the January 2019 LSAT and actively working on 7sage's Ultimate + study material. Through the course of my studying I'd like to set up study sessions with others also registered for the January LSAT and or anyone who would like to join. I'm located in Orange, CA. We could meet up in person or through a medium that allows video chat. If anyone is interested, please let me know by replying to this post/private messaging me. Also, a little bit about me, I am 32, currently working for Progressive Insurance's house counsel, engaged to my best-friend, Arizona State Alum, Marine Veteran and a huge sports fan. My goal score is somewhere in the mid-160s. I hope some of us are able to connect!

Hey y'all! I've been studying for the LSAT on and off for the past couple of years. I'm in the early period of taking full-length pretests have a goal of going to law school in Fall 2020. Qualitatively and quantitatively speaking, what are the true benefits of taking the March LSAT over the June LSAT or the July LSAT over the June LSAT? Also, I'm thinking about joining a study group but I am not sure for which one. Any advice would be appreciated.

Hi everyone,

Was looking for a bit of advice. Just got my November score back and unfortunately it wasn't what I was hoping for. I ended up with a 166 while straight up bombing the games. For comparison my last 3 practice tests had been 178 (definitely an outlier but a score nonetheless), 169, and 172 so I know I'm capable of better. After getting my score back I had basically written off this cycle which is discouraging since I'm already 30 and had delayed a previous cycle. I want to do public interest stuff and would like to go T-14 (preferably with money) or get a large scholarship from a T-20.

Anyways, as I said I'd basically written off this cycle but I just saw some of the experts over at Powerscore advising people to apply with a January score. They were saying it should be a slow cycle and it's not too late. I was wondering if anyone had thoughts? All things being equal I'd like to go this year but I don't want to put myself at a sizeable disadvantage. Is it worth trying to take the January LSAT and if I do well sending in apps quite late or is that just putting me at too big a disadvantage? And does anyone have recommendations on consultants or experts that I could try and do a super quick consultation with to get their perspective? Thanks so much!

Hey guys, so this November test highlighted that I need to drill LR more. I focused so much on LG and RC that I may have brushed over my weaknesses in LR (which is usually my stronger section). I analyzed my errors and the most common question types I got wrong are flaw, MSS, resolve, and to a lesser extent parallel flaw.

Now that I've identified the question types I need to focus on, how do you guys drill to get the improvements? Do you time yourself? Blind review after? And what do you do with the questions you got wrong to not make the same mistake/recognize the pattern next time? Also, do you find drilling LR by question type useful as opposed to doing whole LR sections?

I've already been through the LG Bundle once. I didn't really strictly follow the famous Pacifico method. I did it a bit differently. I just didn't like having to use a timer so much, so I went by feel. I'm studying for a January retake now, though, and LG is still a section I'd like to improve. But I'm fairly familiar with most of the LG Bundle games. Should I drill the bundle again but do it by type? Or foolproof more recent games that I've already seen? For instance I've been through PT 62-71 and some other recent tests already. I don't want to excessively focus on foolproofing LG in preparing for January as I still have fresh preptests and probably should drill new sections of LG too, but I figure more foolproofing would be a good idea.

Hi, hope you guys are doing well! I am looking for a study buddy for the January LSAT. I live in Grand Rapids. If you are in Grand Rapids as well, we can meet at Starbucks or school libraries. If you are not, we can still meet online and discuss PT questions together. I scored 163 in November LSAT, and my target score is 168 or higher. If you are interested, please let me know!

Currently in middle of LG part of CC. I hear a lot of talk about foolproofing the "LG bundle". What are people on the starter package supposed to foolproof? Any advice appreciated. Thanks!

Just another thank you for JY and the 7Sage team. I didn't have the money or in person time to pay for a lot of the other courses, but signed up for 7Sage because I had heard JY had a great approach for high scorers. God, that was the best decision I ever made. I only had 8 weeks to study, but in those weeks, this site was my bible, and JY, you led me to the promised land. Can't thank you enough!

Thanks 7 sage! I wish i could start celebrating but i have another exam tomorrow lol.

I know this is very personal, but I'm wondering if anyone has been in (or is in) a similar situation. My choice to go back to school to finish my BS Chem degree and then pursue law school meant that we had to move and my husband changed companies, in addition to taking on debt. We're likely not staying in the same place for law school and will obviously be piling on more debt. One of the hardest parts of this decision was that we chose to delay having kids.

Thoughts on having kids (for the first time) while in law school? Is that downright nuts, or could it be manageable? I wouldn't do it as a 1L, but maybe into 2nd or 3rd year?

Thanks in advance

I recently discovered that sometimes I missed LR questions because I did not see the inherent connection in stimulus.

For example, in PT40 S1 Q23, I fail to connect the part "pre-existing state of health" to the part "illness". I thought it was introducing an additional cause (thus I chose D); but in fact, it is reversing the causation between the two.

I wonder whether people have similar experiences because of this failure.

So, the concept of an inclusive "or" was 100% foreign to me when introduced, and then even the exclusive "or" given another moment to think and allow the inclusive concept to sink in. In my English such as I've always understood it, "Or" is bi-conditional.

A (-) /B

Always, unless it means "and." Not neither, not both. I can't think of an example in English where this isn't the case. It's really screwing me up.

None of the examples given anywhere on the internet strike me as actually meaning anything else. People speak imprecisely all the time and all of the examples of inclusive or exclusive "or" unless "either" or "and/or" is actually used just strike me as imprecise verbal handles, not precise instances of or, which always means A (-) /B to me.

Help!

I am so nervous for the score release! Can't focus on my applications this evening...should I just watch a movie?

Just went grey! Could the end be near!?

Hey!

I’m sure many of you know this, but in case you don’t, something you can do is put the January test at the testing center you love in your LSAC cart. It will stay there for 24 hours—until after you get your score!!—and you don’t pay. Then, once you get your score tomorrow you can decide if you want to retake. I’m guessing thousands of people are registering tomorrow morning, and you don’t want to be left testing at Ben Franklin Elementary School. Good luck!

Goodluck everyone!

Do I correctly understand the argument and why, especially, the correct answer is correct?

(s)PT13 S4 Q9(/s) Admin note: PT14.S2.Q10?

Premise: Government bans outdoor advertising, outside of particular type.

Premise: A Gov Report states that every industry using outdoor advertising, not necessarily of the particular class, had a larger market share than others.

Conclusion: Gov’s actions would reduce the overall volume of business.

(A) WRONG - The merchants seem to be protesting the government’s actions, which suggest that they are worried about loss of business, which is a good reason for NOT restricting the use of outdoor advertising.

(B) Correct. Marketshare (P2) and volume of business (Con) are not the same. Nevertheless, this answer implies that the outdoor advertising increased advertiser’s market share in a manner that wouldn’t necessarily just change where Penglai consumers spend their money on that island. A small mental leap is required to see that if the market traffic isn’t just diverted at current levels then overall volume can be damaged, for which there is no support.

(C) Whether the survey is objective or not, the conclusion that the overall volume of business would be reduced isn’t warranted.

(D) Even if the market share was proportionate to the use of outdoor advertising, that doesn’t mean that the volume of business would change.

(E) We have no idea what the Penglai constitution says.

Admin note: edited title

So for this tricky SA question ...

I was looking for a statement that would say “D”

A and D ——> M

Not M ——-> Not A or Not D

Conclusion: Not M --> Not A

Would a way to conclude Not A is if we have D?

Would this be logically sound?

Can another right AC be just D? Why did they decide to go with A -> D?

Any explanation would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Admin note: edited title and added link

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-71-section-3-question-11/

Hello,

Here is my reasoning for question 18 in section 4 for prep test 62. Since this is a sufficient assumption question, I want to be able to find a “connector” that would assure the conclusion from the premises, or evidence given.

Argument Analysis:

Premises:

• We can’t reach E.T aliens via spaceship

• If we can talk with the E.T aliens, then they need to be as smart as we are (most likely so they can understand what we are saying to them).

Conclusion:

• If there are E.T aliens, we won’t be able to know this unless they are as smart as we are.

Prephrase:

Initially, I was trying to look for something along the lines of connecting being able to communicate with the E.T aliens that are as smart as we are. For instance, maybe we don’t have the technology to transmit messages to them or perhaps they want their identity to remain hidden for all of eternity. However, looking more closely to the set up of this argument I found another primary issue. The issue is that we are only given two options for determining if they exist. Well, couldn’t there be other ways? For example, (this is purely made up) maybe we could get into a teleportation machine and teleport ourselves to their planet or we could build a massive slingshot to sling ourselves to their planet. My gist is that we have to get to the idea that it is necessary that the aliens be as smart as we are in order to determine if any actually do exist in the entire galaxy.

Answer Choices:

A. No. This doesn’t work because the person never rules this out.

B. I don’t believe that this guarantees anything. Maybe we could send them a signal and if they accept it, then we know there is life. A conversation isn’t necessary to prove that there is life.

C. No not need, the author never suggests that we need both options to determine if they exist.

D. Yes, because this AC rules out all other choices and substantiates the necessary condition in the conclusion.

E. This is slightly a premise booster and slightly a reversal of one of the premises mentioned in the stimulus.

Problem: My major problem with this question is that answer choice B is very compelling for me and I am afraid that I would select it during a timed test.

It would be great if I could have further feedback on why B is wrong or what we need to do for this particular type of SA question.

Admin note: edited title and added link: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-4-question-18/