So, I've seen on here quite a few times that it is a good idea to use a sheet protector for logic games. I've been doing the same for logical reasoning and loving it (~save the trees~). When I went through the lr cc at first, I was a "starter" level 7sager. So, I missed out on anything but easy questions. Now, I upgraded and I'm going back as I begin to fool proof sequencing games (I want to have those down 100% before I move into grouping; it is also a good opportunity to delve into the tougher lr problem sets).

I've ended up doing something I haven't seen yet (though I'm sure 50 people have already had this idea and posted it) for lr. I'm not br'ing these very intensely, as my focus is purely on getting it right, not on timing (that can come later in my opinion). When I get a question wrong or am not confident in how I got it right, I watch the video explanation and then (as I've seen in other posts) cut the question out and (lightly so I can't see through the paper) write the answer on the back. Here's the actual point of this post:

Starting on Monday, I put all of the cut outs throughout the week on questions I got wrong into the plastic sleeve (be it 2, 10, or 20). On Sunday evening, I write on the sleeve the dates I am allowed to/must go back and solve all of the cut out questions I had previously gotten wrong - the following Saturday-Sunday.

So, the weekdays become days to go through new problem sets in the morning before work (I work full-time) and on the commute to and from work (for once I love MTA delays as it gives me more time to go through questions). The weeknights become the time to move forward in the cc on new topics and the weekends become time to go back and retry questions and work at them. If I don't answer a question correctly or confidently that was already a cut out, then in it goes into the next week's plastic sleeve.

Just an idea! Hoping this helps me not let any question go unattacked from the cc. I also think this is an easy way to keep up my lr even as I move into the lg portion of the curriculum.

Also would love to hear advice from other folks on this! I'm approaching lg similarly and will begin to balance this out once I wrap up the cc and move into the stage of PT and br.

Hi, could someone help me understand Lsat4.s1.question-18 better? I have several questions.

Admin edit: Please review our forum rules. Posting licensed LSAC materials is against our TOS. Sorry, duly noted

I think my problem comes from the fact that I didn't come up with the right 'antecedent claim'. I had thought the claim would be something along the lines of, 'intelligent life exists...' or 'intelligent life doesn't exist...' so when I got to answer choices I went with (C) because it seemed that the whole passage hinged on the ambiguity of the key phrase 'intelligent life.'

Now, knowing the right answer is (D) I'm struggling. It's clear that LSAC are tricky bastards to put (C) as an answer choice. The nuance to the question lies in understanding how the passage challenges a claim that we are supposed to infer. Right now the only way I see (D) working is if the claim is 'The question whether intelligent life exists elsewhere is precise.' Is this right**?**

Typing this all out makes me realize what seems to be the proper claim is just the negation of the first sentence in the stimulus, but is that what we are supposed to go on**?**

I have the conclusion of the stimulus in lawgic as:

define life more precise -> !(find and recognize life -> leave definitions open)

conversely

(find and recognize life -> leave definitions open) -> define life less precise

With this all in mind, what part of the stimulus should I identify as arguing the claim is 'counter productive'? and am I right now looking back to say that 'cannot be adequately defined' is too strong and not what the passage is saying. When it's really saying that life cannot be precisely defined**?**

Admin note: edited title

So I have a question regarding the rule used for negation ie 'All jedi use the force' is negated as 'some jedi do not use the force'.

Wouldn't 'some jedi do use the force' have the same effect, because both are inferring that if some do or don't, then the opposite must also be true and some don't or do?

Another example 'Every doctor in this hospital is qualified to work on combating the city's zombie epidemic.', isn't 'some doctors in this hospital are not qualified to work on combating the city's zombie epidemic' conveying the same information as 'some doctors in this hospital are qualified to work on combating the city's zombie epidemic' would? that if some are qualified, than others aren't. That if some aren't qualified, others are? What is the significance of the negative?

So I'm about to embark on the journey of improving RC. Just for some background, I started studying in June of 2017. The bulk of my studies has gone to LG and LR. My diagnostic was just flat out bad in all sections. It's been a battle; but, I am fully committed to earning a 170, or at least extremely close. I worked my ass off for 4 years to earn a stellar GPA; I'm not about to waste those efforts because I wasn't patient enough to master this test. I started out with Powerscore, but in September I FINALLY went with 7Sage. Since then I have improved with RC slightly. I'm currently sitting at a -10 in RC (yes, that is improvement). I'm only able to do 3 out of the 4 passages right now, and that is something that will change; I refuse to only do 3 out of the 4. I'm realizing that this is simply just going to take a long time, which I'm fine with. I want to make sure I'm not making huge mistakes in terms of how I invest my time, which is why I've decided to confer with some of you who might have some wise words to share. So, I'll give you an idea as to what I plan on doing for the next month (2, 3, maybe 4 months?), or however long it takes to figure RC out.

(I only have about 3 hours per weekday to do this, and 5-6 hours per day on weekends. On the easier to medium difficulty passages I can get anywhere from zero to three wrong, but it will take me 10 minutes to do this. I would say I average getting one wrong on easy and medium passages.)

First, I plan to do all the passages and questions from 1-36. If I'm already wrong on this front, please let me know. I've read just about everywhere that RC changes quite a bit in later tests. I don't want to dedicate countless hours to something if it will actually hurt me in the long run. I think that is a reasonable concern. But, I've also read that RC for the most part is similar, and doing earlier tests would be beneficial. So, basically, is doing RC 1-36 valuable for someone in my situation? Or, would my time be better spent focusing on newer tests? My guess, because I am missing so many questions, is that I need as many RC sections as I can get my hands on.

As far as my methods, I plan on doing each passage three times. The first time will be timed, and in the beginning of my studies I will use the memory method, although I've already experienced with this quite a bit and haven't seen too much improvement, but I haven't ruled it out yet. The second attempt will be traditional BR - no worries with time, just accuracy. Then I will look to see which ones I got wrong, then watch video explanations for the passage and the questions. I also will be writing out explanations for questions that I got wrong on the first attempt and/or during BR. The third attempt will be similar to fool proofing. I just feel that I need to be training my brain how fast it will have to be processing the information from the passage and the questions. At the end of the week, I will review and maybe even redo any passages and questions that tripped me up substantially. I'm also considering having a "redo date" for each one, similar to one of the LG fool proofing methods that I've seen floating around the forums here. I'm aware that RC cannot be fool proofed in a sense that is analogous to that of LG. If RC could be fool proofed to the extent that LG can, RC wouldn't be as hard as it is.

In doing all of this, I feel that I would be getting the most out of each passage and its questions. But, I'm not totally positive. I could very well be wrong in using this method. Of course, I'll be looking for patterns in passages, questions, and things I get tripped up on. I will also be keeping track of my performance on each passage and its questions.

Do you think this method has potential to help? Or, is it overkill or maybe not enough?

Thanks!

I was wondering what the most effective method would be to foolproof logic games 1 - 35. For those of you who have done all the games from 1 - 35, would you recommend doing them in order or by game type? Ex., should i do 4 games from PT 1 each day in that order until i reach PT 35, or should they be done differently?

Also, if i wanted to foolproof games 36 - 60 instead of games 1 - 35, would that be just as effective?

Thanks again for any feedback, i appreciate it. :)

Hey!

This is a quick question, but I'm curious to hear how other's have approached this. I have some LGs where I get within 30 seconds of the "recommended time" with -0. My gut is to lower the number of times I redo this question to 3 or 5 (depending on how confident I felt) rather than 10 times, to help me ease up some time in my studying for games that give me more trouble (any game that takes me more +~1 minute or that I get -1+ on, I note to do 10X.

Thoughts on if this makes sense? How have you handled such questions?

I was going through PT 47 and wanted some clarification on phrases.

Section 1 Q23 of PT47 uses the phrase "accompanied by" and this indicates positive correlation.

However, in section 3 of the same test Q19 uses the phrase "associated with" and this indicates causation. Links below for the two questions.

For most phrases I find it easy to determine if it is causation or correlation, but this seemed really arbitrary. Are there other similar phrases you have found to be confusing or can someone provide insight?

Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-3-question-19/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-1-question-23/

Hi all,

I'm struggling with the translation of "cannot."

In an In/Out game if A & B "cannot" be together, then:

In a Grouping game, if A & B "cannot" be together, then:

Has anyone else noticed a difference in these two phrases?

I was working on PT 47 and "accompanied by" seems to indicate correlation while "associated with" seems to be causation. Is this a recurring thing, or am I misinterpreting these questions?

Thanks for any help!

S1 Q23

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-1-question-23/

S3 Q

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-3-question-19/

I havent applied to schools yet and I want to apply for Aug 2018. justttt want the results to be out. I cant wait to apply after that and see how many points did i increase after bringing 7sage to my life.

Hi everyone! This is my first post on here :)

I was wondering at which point in the syllabus y'all recommend incorporating the foolproof method...when we start doing full-length PTs, or earlier, at some point during the core curriculum?

Logic Games are currently my greatest challenge so I want to take the best approach from the get-go.

Thank you!

So after taking the december LSAT and underscoring. I have resolved to get my PT average from 172 to 175+ my sectional scores for the 2 most recent tests i have taken have been:

PT53/ LR -1 LR -2 LG -0 RC -6

J07/ LR -2 LR - 2 LG -1 RC -6

Clearly the only thing holding me back from a 175- is my RC

I am really struggling for a way to work on my weakness in RC. LR and LG are so rote and systematic in the way that we approuch improving. However RC is a completely different animal. I dont really have a sectional strategy apart from reading for structure and keeping my eyes on the MP. I am a slow reader so i spend around 4 minutes on the passage and 3.5 to 4.5 on the questions. Any advice from slower readers like myself would be much appreciated

For Lr Questions such as this in which the conclusion has a conditional statement.

Admin edit: do not post the actual LSAT question here.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-3-question-09/

I invariably get them right but its because of my intuition and not because of how i know how to solve them. Can someone tell me How do you approach this?

Hi everyone,

I am gathering some infamous LGs to practice before the make up test which will happen this Saturday.

Base on my own PTs and recommendations I saw in the past, so far I have the following:

Is there any other game(s) you guys would recommend?

Thanks.

I know there are a few other threads like this but I didn't see a very concise answer

I understand that few means some, most are not

A (-s-) B

and A --m-> /B

This is 1-49%

The negation would be all...not,

A --> /B (not 100%)

& it is not the case that (A --m-> /B)

It doesn't seem like with all cases of negation you can just pop off the / and call it a negation so I just want to double check

Hi 7sage Tutors!

I have gone through the Grammar lessons in CC. I need to make sure I am reading the RC statements the right way.While reading RC, I try to figure out the subject, predicate for each of the sentences. And then try to imitate JY, the way he reads while explaining in the lesson. I do it in my mind as if I am explaining myself.

I feel this is making me thinking and get involved with the content. Comprehension has improved but it is taking more time while reading.

Will the time taken reduce after practising this way for a few more passages? And what and how to drill Reading comprehension passages?

Thanks :)

I just want to make sure I'm understanding the %s and #s correctly.

Some...not means there exists 0-99% of the two ideas. Some dogs are not friendly means 0-99% of dogs are friendly. 1-100% of dogs are not friendly. there exists at least one dog which is not friendly. Whereas saying all dogs are friendly would mean that 0 dogs are not friendly. 100% of dogs are friendly.

Original statement: Some alphabets are not phonetic.

Lawgic: A (--s--) /P

% meaning: 1-100% of alphabets are not phonetic. 0-99% of alphabets are phonetic.

Number meaning: there exists at least one alphabet which is not phonetic (A & /P)

Negation: A --->P

All alphabets are phonetic.

100% of alphabets are phonetic.

0 alphabets are not phonetic.

I know that many means some. Can several be used interchangeably with many?

Hi Guys,

I was going through PT1 Reading comp passage. In that JY has recommended to watch some videos on Art if you are unfamiliar with the various terminologies of Art. Can anyone suggest me some good youtube channels/documentaries to watch for better understanding of Art?

Thanks in Advance :)

Can someone please rip apart AC (E) and explain why claiming that older children who slept with night lights as infants and still suffer from nearsightedness does not weaken the conclusion?

Is it bc AC(E) says "several" and several isn't a significant claim bc it could mean 4 or 5 out of 100 which could be chocked up to being outliers?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-08/

Admin edit: title and link

I figured we would make our own thread:

Darth Vader walks onto the bridge of his star destroyer. On the bridge are a navigator, a shift commander, a communications officer, a weapons controller, and two storm troopers. Sensing a disturbance in the force, Darth Vader decides to force choke everyone, one a time, according to the following criteria imposed by Darth Sideous:

Hello 7sage club!

I'm wondering if there are any success stories out there about LR and what that person did to overcome their weaknesses. Currently, I keep getting 8-10 questions wrong on the LR section. I've taken at least 10 PT's, I've done the 7sage core curriculum, and I do the sections timed. I don't find that time is an issue at all, on the contrary, I'll have 6 minutes or so to spare. So I'm just looking to see if there is a light at the end of the tunnel. I'm planning to take the September LSAT so I still got quite a bit of time.

Thanks!

Nil

Hey 7Sagers,

Sat for the Feb 10 LSAT last weekend... and not feeling too great about my performance. I think I scored the same or maybe a point or two lower than my previous attempt. I have been considering cancelling my score (deadline to cancel is tomorrow).

My post-game analysis:

Section 1: Real LG — These games were unusual and it really messed my head up... guessed on ALOT

Section 2: LR1 — Felt that this section of LR was easier than normal but it took me a while to get into the flow after basically panicking during section 1 games... ended up guessing on four questions

Section 3: Exp LG — These games were so much easier and more traditional... on test day I felt a bit of relief and thought that perhaps my first section of LG was the experimental, but after checking the forums, I was greatly disappointed these didn't count

Section 4: RC — Thought the RC section was on par with recent tests.. certainly not as difficult as Candor though... was short on time for the last passage but gave it my best answering questions

Section 5: LR2 — Felt this section of LR to be way more challenging. The stimuli were a bit harder to grasp... guessed on the last four or so.

Overall, I feel less confident about this attempt than my previous. I'm just not sure what to do... the last thing I want to do is post a score a few points lower than my previous attempt, but I also don't want to cancel would might have been better score... what do you guys think? Anyone else facing a similar situation?

Side discussion, how do you guys deal with test-day anxiety? I've been meditating and all of that but still freak on test day! :(

I have to say I was skeptical about the fool proofing piece of the process but it really does work! Just wanted to send along some encouragement to anyone struggling with LG. Hang in there!