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.

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?

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!

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!

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 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/

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!

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

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!

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

Goodluck everyone!

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!

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 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.

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

JY said if you don't how to do the exact game, print ten clean copy and finish it with control and speed.

The problem is, after i watched the video, i only need practice 2-5 copy right after the video to reach the time limit. And when should i finish the rest of the copys?

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/

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

I marked (A) and eliminated (C), which is the correct answer, without hesitation. My reasoning was that if certain types of trees are less effectively pollinated, then honey production will decrease. At the same time, (A) seemed compelling to me because if the honeybees native to Brazil and those native to the United States are different, it's possible that the bees native to the U.S. might off the bat be superior to the Africanized honeybees. But I do realize that even if (A) were granted as true, whether they're superior or inferior to the Africanized honeybees is not determined and, while it could potentially weaken the argument, as stated, it doesn't necessarily do so.

Looking back, knowing the right answer, I can see how this is an assumption I made on my own since it's possible that the "certain types of ornamental trees" might not even contribute to the honey production to begin with, but I'm still not sure that I would come back to this question in the future and approach it this way.

Are there any additional and/or complementary reasons for why (C) is the best answer?

Admin note: edited title

Hello 7sage! :)

I am in Orange, CA and am looking for someone with a little bit experience to Blind Review with starting after the holidays! I'm new to 7sage, so I want to make sure I master this method correctly. I'm looking to break the 160s hopefully. Would prefer in person but am open to other options too!

Hello All.

Are there any of you studying for the January LSAT in the Pittsburgh, PA area? I took the test a few weeks ago and I am working on making a better showing of it in two months. I thought if there were a couple of other people in the area we could put together a local study group, like the group in NYC did/does.

Thanks

Chris

So I understand and see how valid arguments relate to LSAT questions, but can someone explain how I would apply invalid arguments into LSAT questions. What type of question would invalid arguments be useful for, I understand they are important to know, but how can I apply them.

Hello 7sage!

I am new to the blind review process and a little bit confused about writing out explanations. Does anyone have any drafts of what they wrote for one of their PT's specifically for LR sections that was helpful to them?

Additionally, I am trying to break the 160 mark by March or June depending. My past PT's have been somewhat inconsistent. 149 diagnostic, 152, 153, 157, 150... I took a few weeks off after the 150 because I felt discouraged, but I'm back now! :)

I took the Kaplan online course and feel like I have an okay grasp on the the core concepts of LR and RC. I've also started the fool proof method for LG and purchased 7Sage LSAT starter course. But I'm wondering, should I go through the 7sage CC meticulously again, or can I just watch videos on concepts I feel weak in and skip around?

Will it give me an edge that Kaplan couldn't? Or should I just head straight into weekly PTs and Blind Review? I can only give about 15 hours/week to studying because of work and school, so I want to be as efficient as possible!

Thank you!