Hi ya'll,

How many PTs are you taking per week? I am gearing up for Saturday and then taking again in November. I would like to think I can balance 2 or 3, but after being burnt last week, I am a bit hesitant. My original plan was to take a PT Monday and again Thursday (on the weeks with 3; I would test Monday, Thursday, Saturday). BR and drill on off days, take Sundays off entirely. I have been studying on/off since May, full time since mid-July, and those 5-8 hr days really take a toll. Any advice would be great! Additionally, how are you guys starting to incorporate the actual application process? I plan on starting my PS next week after Saturdays test.

Hi guys!

I planned on going straight to law school after graduating college which I just did in June. I was set to take the Sept 2017 exam so I could get in for this fall but postponed to this year's Sept exam. I already delayed once, should I delay again if I am not scoring where I want to be?

I still have not decided but I do not want to risk taking it in Nov and Jan as Jan may be considered late acceptance to some schools.

.

Hi, I am having trouble with every miscellaneous game (not I/O, Seq, Grp, Hybrid) I encounter on the most recent PTs. Does anyone have any good advice for approaching these? I am worried about getting one on the Sept. test in less than two weeks, because they suck up so much time and I usually don't get them right until I think about them later without the time pressure.

Hi all,

I've been studying since mid-May and I feel that I really need more study time. I'm not done with the CC of 7sage (I'm almost done--I'm at 60% and am skipping the Reading Comp sections for the moment (since I'm pretty good at reading comp) and will complete them before I take the November LSAT).

I am set to take the test this September 8th. Should I still take it and get the test jitters out or should I just delay taking the test until November? I plan on only testing in September and November so if I don't take the September LSAT, I will be relying 100% on the November test and that gives me anxiety just thinking about it. But scoring poorly on the September LSAT also gives me anxiety so really it's a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" emotional turmoil situation...

But, at the same time--I've only taken one diagnostic practice test and I'm quickly running out of time to study so I am pretty sure that I will not get the goal score I've been shooting for (160-165). I am planning on taking a practice test this weekend to gauge where I am and...idk I think that practice test will help me decide what I need to do but I would really appreciate any advice from people who are in the same situation/ experienced the same thing.

P.S. I am currently in the midst of a gap year before attending law school and I REALLY do not want to/ can't afford to take another gap year so there's really no way I can delay the test another year.

P.S.S. I think I will probably get a 155-ish test score when I take a practice test this weekend but idk yet.

Thank you all for taking the time to read this.

hi Sagers!!

for those of you taking the lsat next saturday i am right there with you!! let's make the most of this weekend amirite?! war paint ON

I have been reading about doing a mental warm up on test day. I like this idea because I definitely think I need to get the part of my brain i have reserved for lsat stuff pumped up, focused, & ready 2 GO. I have read a few past blog posts on what people do & have found these helpful. One user suggested reading 1-2 articles, an easy LG section and a few questions from a LR.

I have never done this for my PTs and I think it will help me feel more relaxed! I wanted to do it tomorrow before a PT. All comments, suggestions, personal routines that have worked in the past welcome :)

Hi friends, I'm reaching out for any and all advice on speeding up Logic Games. When I do the games timed, the ones I finish are 90%+ correct, but I am struggling to even finish 3 games. I know my perfectionism is getting in the way, and I'm trying to push myself to be scrappy and fast, but still struggling so hard. With only 3 weeks left, I need all the support/advice out there on speed. Any fellow perfectionists who overcame this? Or non-perfectionists who can teach me your ways? Thank you guys.

I usually try and complete questions containing a stimulus riddled with formal logic in my mind, but sometimes that burns me because although the structure isn't too complicated (i.e. no embedded clauses or anything), the answer choices could be structured in a way that is a bit harder to decipher if you don't have a diagrammed structure written down somewhere. Refer to the example in Preptest 82 below:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-82-section-1-question-19/

I was just wondering if there is anyone out there that avoids this issue altogether by habitually diagramming stimuli that are heavy with formal logic, or if you guys generally do what I do and try to keep things in your mind, and then diagramming after you figure out that the diagrams might be more than your working memory can handle - especially when some of the arguments require taking the contrapositive. I guess I want to see how competent I am compared to someone doing well with formal logic stimuli. If you guys generally keep the structure in your mind, then that tells me I have more work to do in understanding formal logic at first glance, or on the other hand, maybe needing to diagram out the argument isn't just common, but efficient when it comes to getting through a logical reasoning section.

Hi everyone,

I’m taking the test this weekend and am currently averaging 165 on my tests. I’d love to see any increase before the test this weekend, so I’m wondering what you guys think would be a better strategy for me this week:

I’m still going average -4 on LG, so I could drill the hell out of LG today and tomorrow (and lightly on Thursday) and take only one more PT on Wednesday.

Or, I could take a PT today and Wednesday and drill LG tomorrow and lightly on Thursday.

At this point I’m thinking it might be worth t to be completely solid on LG, but I’m not sure one more day will get me there, so I’m not sure if I should waste an opportunity to squeeze in one more PT.

Thanks!

Hello,

Like others I am trying to decide whether to take September (see score and make a decision on retaking or not) or just go for November completely.

Background:

Goal: min 170

Highest PT: 165

AVG on last 5 PTs: 158

Studied for about a year and half now (on and off)

Lately, I've started a new job and have pushed myself so hard these last six months that by August I was burnt out. I practiced just not productively reviewing or reviewing the next day after.

Any idea if I should take it solely November or take it September (then decide)?

Hope everyone is doing very well. Just wanted to ask if anyone has some advice for my situation.

Up until last week I was averaging between 169-171 on PTs, which is exactly the range I was hoping for.

However, I got a 168 and and 166 on the last two PTs I took.

I think this is "burnout" because most of the mistakes I am making are just careless, and my pacing is a bit more off than usual too.

My plan is to take the next few days completely off (save for maybe some light reading of the LR Powerscore Bible and maybe a couple of logic games), take PT84 on Wednesday, and pray for a good performance on Saturday.

Please let me know your thoughts/advice/if you have experiences something similar.

Thank you, take care y'all!

If you're taking the September 2018 LSAT and your account is inconveniently set to expire a few days before the test date, you can get a free 14-day extension from this page: https://classic.7sage.com/free-extension/

For those of you who are expiring after, good luck on the LSAT! We here at 7Sage are rooting for you.

hey all,

so i see JY implement a strategy for comparative RC. I think I get the gist of it, but just wanted to confirm, and would love for any correction/advice/input.

So it seems when JY sees a comparative passage, he first looks at the questions to see which questions only address that ONE SPECIFIC passage (A or B). If he sees like 3 questions that solely ask about B, he'll read passage B first.

He'll then answer those 3 specific questions that are only about Passage B. He'll then go to the other questions and try to eliminate certain answer choices if he can. For some questions, he can't eliminate any

After this, he reads passage A, and then goes back to the remainder of the questions and finishes them.

Is this the correct strategy for comparative RC?

Thanks everyone.

These are one type of question I often struggle a bit with, so I figured I would write out a bunch of common answer choice labels and define them in my own words, and was hoping others could weigh in on my definitions and possibly offer corrections, or general advice for these questions. Otherwise hopefully these definitions will help you clarify when examining the answer choices.

I find the most common labels are:

Analogy

Generalization

Example

Evidence

Premise

Sub conclusion

Principle

Support (offered as)

Premise

Main Conclusion

Destinction

Some of these are obvious, but others seem to be worth definition.

Analogy: A comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. Example: Finding an extra point on the lsat is like finding a needle in a haystack. An analogy actually functions quite similarly to a principle - while a principle makes a broad claim and applies it to a specific case, and analogy takes one specific case and applies it to another.

Generalization - A claim, drawn from a piece of evidence about a broader population. When survey results are used to make statements about the general population, that is a generalization.

Example: I asked 50 people along the beach if they liked icecream,and they all said yes. [I guess everyone on the beach likes icecream.]

Evidence: When were talking about evidence were talking about something objective. Evidence is a fact or something observable that, in and of itself, says nothing about what should or ought to be. Sometimes you might think evidence implies something, for example, the claim [gun violence has risen 25% every year for the past 6 years] might indicate gun violence is a serious problem, but that's you applying the meaning.

Premise: a premise is a claim which is subjective. [Gun violence is a problem] is a subjective statement when it's used to support the conclusion: Thus, /we should invest more money in our police force/ Premises are directed towards and support conclusions.

Sub Conlusion: These get pretty easy to identify eventually. I just look at rather evidence is directed at it. A subconlusion is a joint which connects premises and often packages them together into something easier and more compact that can then be tied into the main conclusion. If your unsure which conclusion, just look at which conclusion is directing into the other. Example: Everyone on the beach likes icecream. They also like frenzies and popsicles. [This shows that everyone on the beach likes lots of cold snacks.] Thus, we should open an icecream store on the beach.

If we cut the icecream store part from this argument, the statement about cold snacks would be the MC. But because it offers support for a final statement, that statement becomes the main conclusion.

Support: Something in the argument that makes something else stronger. This is really broad, and can have a ton of applications. Essentially, everything in an argument exempt the main conclusion is a support for something else. Generalizations, analogies, examples, principals, and premises are all supporting portions of an argument. When you encounter the word support in an answer choice, you need to focus on the direction of the support. Is it actually supporting the thing the answer claims it is? Dont worry about support indicating a specific type of statement. Dont be like, "This isnt really a support, it's a principal". Everything except the MC and possibly redundant statements or context is support of some kind. Focus on the direction.

Principle: is ‘a fundamental idea or general rule that is used as a basis for a particular theory or system of belief’. On role of statement questiond, principles are often offered without further support in an argument. They are a claim about the way things should be, perhaps based on the basis that their truth is self evident. The can also be argued for, or be a conclusion. Example: We should not hold punish John for getting someone badly injured while speeding down the highway, because he was doing so to save three people who were badly injured who he was driving to the hospital. Doing so saved their lives and saved their families from massive grief, and of course, [One should always act in a way which maxamixes net happiness].

Many of these catagorise subsume or overlap with others. When approaching the answer choices, I find it reduces stress to remind myself of this. A statement could be a sub-conlusion, a principal, and support. I made this list mostly for myself but figured I'd post on here. Hopefully others found it helpful, if anyone has any criticisms / input please let me know.

Hi everyone!

I'm getting excited (gotta stay positive!) for next Saturday and I'm mapping out my plans for this coming week. I'm going to take a PT in the 80s tomorrow, BR it on Sunday, and then spend maybe an hour or so each day until Friday (which I'll take off) drilling weaknesses. What's your week looking like?

The active reading strategies preached by @TheoryandPractice are really good for anyone who is looking for that.

This is something much more specific. I am currently finding that Hardest Law passages are ones that I consistently have at least -1 in. So I decided to read and do every single one available in PTs. I found that my understanding of law in general has improved greatly, and my speed has gone from on average 12minutes down to about 10minutes per passage. It also helps just to get familiar with concept, such as common law vs civil or constitutional law, or how common law is made or changed, and develop a LSAC definition on terms, such as abjure, adduse, injunction, enact, balance, or semantic. I realized I got a handful of questions wrong simply because of my colloquial use of or lack of use of some of these words gave me misinterpretations.

This strategy, I think, is probably only effective for law, since it is more specialized and the ideas and terms can be learned fairly easily, whereas for art/history passages, the breadth is too wide for specific weakness practice to have much of an effect.

I wonder if anyone else uses this strategy, or has any feedback, and hope that someone can benefit from this.

I understand the explanation for the question and the diagramming that led to the answer. However, I still am confused with the first line of the stimulus: "Because of the recent transformation of the market". Using the lesson on for/since/because being followed by a premise, that was my assumption and how I attempted the problem the first time around.

None of the explanations use that first sentence at all though. They just use

/10% --> B

and

10% --> 20%

Why is the because in line 1 not used as per the for/since/because lesson?

Hey guys. I’m hoping some of you LSAT masters can help with this question. I’ve been trying to wrap my brain around it for the past few days with no luck. I understand it is a correlation/ causation flaw, but I can’t seem to understand why D is the AC and E is wrong

Thanks :)

Admin note: edited title

I was wondering what have people done to improve their scores on the reading comprehension section. Ive heard the more sections you go through the more patterns one will learn. Has anything noticed some patterns in this section that seem to be reoccurring? I am still avg. -10 on this section and can't seem to improve my score. I am just not a fast enough reader and once i get to the last passage i feel like i am rushing to complete the questions. Please Help! :(

Can anyone please explain to me why the lower bound for ‘some’ is 1 and not 2? Is there no distinction in logic between a singular instance of something occurring within a set vs it occurring at least twice? Isn't it fallacious to conclude that 'some' things in a set possess a certain attribute from the observation of a singular occurrence of that attribute within the set?

For example, the sentence ‘some unicorns are fluffy’ would seem to imply that there are at least two unicorns that are fluffy. Same with the ‘some’ mice living in my home’ example from the lessons on existential quantifiers. J.Y. concludes that if we know that there are 'some' mice in the house, or 'some' unicorns that are fluffy, then we know that there is at least 1 mouse in that house and at least 1 fluffy unicorn. However, the plural forms of the nouns - ‘unicorns’ and ‘mice’ - are used in both of these examples, which would imply more than 1 of each entity. In fact in most cases that I can think of, the word 'some' implies a plurality of the noun that follows it.

If there were 100 unicorns in the world and 99 of them weren’t fluffy while only 1 of them was, could we really accurately conclude that ‘some’ unicorns (again, plural) are fluffy from this singular instance of fluffiness? What if that unicorn was an anomaly and turns out to be the only fluffy unicorn in the history of unicorns?

#help

Hey everyone!

Does anyone have an example of the false dichotomy flaw? Trying to see a good example of this.

Thanks!

My diagnostic was a 143 and I wrote the June 2017 LSAT and I got a 150. I then wrote the February 2018 LSAT and I got a 157. I plan to rewrite in November to bring up my score. Do you think it would be possible to score a 160+? I'm just starting to study for the November 2018 LSAT intensely this week. Ideally I'd like to score a 165, I'm just wondering if that is even possible?

Hi,

How many PTs per day would you recommend following Pacifico's LG strategy?

Would it still be advisable to do 1-35 instead of maybe newer ones? Asking because P's post is at least 2 years old

What is the correct way of translating 'not all' statements into lawgic?

It seems like there are 2 correct answers and I am not sure which one is the correct one to use in LSAT LR section.

For example, from PT 82, "Not all tarantula species have poison fangs."

Should I translate this as /T -> PF (because there are 2 conditional indicators all and not) or as T (-)some PF?

Thank you so much!

Hello! I was wondering if anyone had a step by step method for approaching MSS questions. For example, MP questions seem to have a structure to which you can follow to identify the conclusion and thus, get the correct answer...Any suggestions?