Hello,

I am currently working full-time as a conflicts analyst at a well-known law firm and studying for the LSAT. I started my LSAT study last July and took the September exam. I scored horribly (138). I completely under-estimated the time and hard work it takes to really master the LSAT. After taking a 4 month break from studying, I began to study again in January of this year. I am currently scoring in the high 140's now and would like to get to the low 160's if possible. I signed up for the June test, anticipating that I would be ready, however, I, once again, under-estimated the time frame to study for the LSAT. I am now almost one month away from the June LSAT and I know I cannot improve 15+ points within 4-6 weeks, all while working full-time. Given this, I was considering taking the September LSAT, and I wanted to know if this seems like a good time frame? I am currently taking about 1-2 PT's a week and going over ways to improve on my LR/RC sections. I have improved on my LG's section (from -10 to -3). I have the hardest time with LR/RC.

All in all, I just want to know if the September test would be a good time for me to take the LSAT. I do not want to take the exam again, my gpa is decent, and I'm not stern on getting into a T14 school, I just want to make sure I get into a decent school with as much of an opportunity for scholarship.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-3-question-06/

I am having such a tough time on this question. I have written out my thinking, watched the explanation a few times and I am still stumped by this question. Answer C is giving me trouble.

The goal here is to support the author's conclusion that the duration being long and everything else being short is not enough to classify the unusual GRB dichotomously. Two assumptions are being made here: 1) that the long duration is not enough to classify it as long, and 2) having almost everything short is not enough to classify it as short.

With B, I can clearly see now that this answer denies assumption #1. The duration being long would sometimes allow one to classify it as such. This would weaken the argument.

However, C states that ONE instance of a "long" property is less important than other "short" properties.. Wouldn't this deny the assumption #2? If one out of all the number of properties is a long duration and this duration is not as important as those short ones, then why would this answer help the conclusion? By explaining that duration is lower in importance along with the fact that it's severely outnumbered by short properties, the answer seems like it's implying that a "short" classification would be more fitting for this GRB. I do see the words "more important," but a short property that is important surly is more important than a long property that is low/not important.

Any thoughts on this question would be extremely helpful, thank you.

Does anyone have any strategies or tricks for these questions? The latter is heavily lawgic based, which helps at times, but I'm still getting more of them wrong than any other question type.

I have a hard time understanding why B is the right answer? Also, could someone explain why D is wrong?

Say you have premise that doesn't specifically identify whether members are in or out, but is a bi-conditional like:

"Wharton serves on a different committee than the one Zhu serves on"

How do you decide which side to negate? It ends up having consequences when you chain up and try to find "or" and "not both" inferences with other members. I'm so confused.

77.3. - Game 3 is a doozy! I was getting into a better groove with timed LG and then...this one. Holla if you hear me.

Has anyone used Ellen Cassidy's new LR book -- The Loophole. There seem to be rave reviews on Reddit. If you have used it, is there anything revolutionary about it? Are its approaches similar to 7Sage's?

Studying for the LSAT is so brutal that when you hit a goal like this it is important to take a deep breath and appreciate the work you have put in thus far. My diagnostic was a 144 for some perspective here. For anyone that is currently struggling with LG - trust the process. Keep grinding and you will see the results.

Back to the books!

I'm having a hard time seeing how reviewing (or BRing) RC questions (e.g., by watching JY's videos) helps you do better on future RC. I feel like doing well on RC is largely passage-driven (at least for me), so correcting my answers on one passage probably will not translate into getting more questions right on future passages. What are some RC skills that reviewing RC questions/BR-ing could allow you to work on that could help with future RC questions?

I am having a hard time with newer RCs. With older ones (( PT60), I can often find a clearer correspondence between a correct answer and the supporting lines. With newer RC passages, the Answer choices really stumped me. There seems no correct answers! Because I cannot find A correct answer, I often struggle with one question for a long time and had to rush the rest of questions/passages.(/p)

Any tips?

A related question is that I see a couple of people mentioned fool-proof RCs. Fool-proofing method for LG worked really well for me, so I am thinking to try out this method for RC. Did it work for you, especially with newer RCs? Thanks.

There are no video explanations for this PT ): I got this correct originally and then in BR changed my answer to E. Can anyone explain why C is correct? I can't seem to find the rationale I used last weekend to pick it.

Thanks in advance!

Hi Everyone,

I've been going back to the core curriculum to brush up on a few things, and I realized that I rely more on what JY calls the "carve-out" method of dealing with embedded conditionals rather than the translation. (It just feels more intuitive for me.) But as I was trying to match up my "carve-out" understanding with the translations JY does, I ended up with a few questions.

Here's the link to the CC lesson with the example I'm considering: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/mastery-embedded-conditional/

"If the seeds are planted in the winter, then flowers will not blossom unless fertilizer is applied."

JY draws these two statements using the "and" translation:

SPW and FB -> FA

SPW and /FA -> /FB

So I like to think about this by relying heavily on the "unless" factor at the end:

My question is, aren't JY's statements (and my own) supposed to be biconditionals? For example:

So together, FA (-) (SPW ->FB)

Because right now, in JY's statements, if I know fertilizer is applied (FA), nothing happens. If I plug in FA, then it fulfills the necessary for the first translation and fails the sufficient for the second. But isn't it true that if FA, then it must be true that if seeds are planted in the winter, that the flowers will blossom?

Hi! So studying for July 15, finished the CC here and now drilling with the free Khan Academy materials (and to simulate digital testing), doing 1 PT/wk., but increasing to 2/wk at the 3 month mark, then at 1.5months out doing 3/wk.

PT scores are 167, 170, 175, 167, 166 for PTs 36-40, respectively.

I generally average -4 on LR (though this can be affected by if I'm mentally weariness/clarity), LG -4 (miscellaneous games kill me when they emerge), and RC -4.

Thoughts on how to move fwd? I want to clear 170 on test day, dreaming of NYU ED acceptance. UGPA 4.0 and in a MA program in the MENA region currently.

Pls help with any tips you have.

Is it ok to br rc right after pt?

I read that I should br within 24hrs, but it seems I'd remember stuff much more if I br right away.

What's better? br right after or do it after two days? It takes me whole day to br lr and lg, and by the end of it I get really tired. So it's either I br rc right after pt or do it two days after...

This has come up briefly before on the forums, but I wanted to ask more about chaining biconditionals rather than splitting. On PT 54 game 1, because I wasn't on point with my understanding of biconditionals, I tried to chain up the first two rules with the rest, and it ended up being a total mess. I was super confused, whereas when I came back to it and just split the board and got rid of the biconditional it was a lot easier.

I think there are times where chaining biconditionals is helpful, but my real question is, do we then have to write two versions of it when trying to read the chain? Because biconditionals can be /A (-) B or A (-) /B, (and the other two for "always together"), I find it pretty hard to read the chains. How do you guys go about this / is it ever really THAT helpful? It seems like if a biconditional comes up on an in-out game, it's always better to split it?

Also if you know of any games that use chaining biconditionals, that would be helpful!

Hey guys so im retaking the lsat in September 2019. I scored pretty bad in the Feb 2018** test then took a year off because I just didnt feel good enough. But after much time off, I just feel like I could do so much better! I scored a 150 and honestly my problem is with LR ! If I was untimed which I know is of zero value, I get -3/4 but add time and boom -9/10 per LR section. For logic Games, Its actually my strongest section averaging about -2/3 per section. I am aiming for 168–170 because my top choice is Fordham Law School (3.8 gpa) and Boston College. Im studying about an 1-2 hours everyday sometimes more depending on work and schedule! Any tips? is it doable? I used blueprint last time, and it was a great course but very fast in my opinion. I am currently using the bibles, I like the question breakdown and details but I also have the trainer that ill be using as well. I have about 5.5 months. Also if anyone needs an accountability or online study partner, I’m so interested:) any tips/study suggestions are welcome?

Admin - please delete if not allowed

Hello! I just complete the March LSAT and honestly miss practicing LG. I figured since I continue to practice them daily that I would offer private tutoring for anyone struggling with foundational LG skills. I consistently finish this section with -0 and would like to help others get to that point as well!

I wouldn't charge anything for 7sagers, but if anyone knows any websites that I could post about this tutoring service and actually get paid that would be great!

"Jack must be diligent and smart because without these traits he is doomed to fail"

Meaning: If Jack is not diligent or smart then it guarantees he will fail.

As this is a OR statement Jack can be the following below to trigger him Failing

Meaning: If Jack doesn't fail then he must be both Diligent and Smart.

I have been trying to make up more difficult sentences to diagram into lawgic to help my understanding but have been a bit confused with this. Would really appreciate it if someone can correct me if I have messed up in anyway thank you so much in advance!

This one is making my head hurt. Can someone help explain?

Hi All,

I know this question has been asked numerous times, but with only a bit of time left before the June exam, I wanted to ask a question about the older LR questions with specific examples. I've started using the LR sections in the 20s because they're still relatively fresh (might have seen one or two questions but not all per section), but my scores have been declining and in my BR I get a little frustrated with the questions themselves. While at the end of the day, I accept the answers for what they are, my biggest gripe is that they just feel vague in a manner that doesn't fly in the newer exams? I bring this question up because 1) if the consensus is that these questions are good to practice in the PT stage then I'll keep doing them or 2) if these questions are considered a bit dated, then I'll probably use the rest of my time on solely the newer PTs (60+).

Here are a few examples of what I might mean:

28.1.7

The answer here just felt really poorly written?

28.3.15

I understand that "enjoy" here could be understood as "made happy" but again, still doesn't feel as precise to me.

28.3.17

While it's the best answer given, it just feels weird that you're allowed to assume that working for ten years means you don't have anything left to gain from training. It seems like a fair enough assumption, but one I feel would be punished in the newer exams?

What is the trigger to use a chart versus the standard grouping construct?

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/preptest-69/

I am retaking this PT and I really struggled with this passage. In particular, I have trouble understanding the difference between studies being debunked vs. studies giving two opposing facts.

I have come to understand that two ideas being opposite of one another does not lend credence to one theory at the dispense of another. This is reasoning was distilled in me by certain flaw questions that do precisely this. In this passage, we are told that person #1 states there are only 13 plants. Person #2 states there are hundreds of these plants (or only 13). Now, what else is there in this passage that would make the reader assume that #2 person is right, #1 is wrong and not the other way around? The author picking one side over the other is where I disagree incredibly.

The passage is difficult if one doesn't understand that the author thinks the dodo theory is BS. If one doesn't understand this, then they come out of this passage with the wrong idea that there are two opposing views and one shouldn't commit a flaw and pick one to be more right than another. This is exactly the way I was thinking. Questions #22, 24, 26 and 27 all rely on the subtle tone/view the author has---dodo theory is not the cause of the nonexistent phenomena.

Maybe LSAC got around this flawed territory by describing the author committing the flaw, then simply asking us questions about what the author thinks rather then what actually is the case.

My question is when are we logically right to choose one fact over another given the small amount of information in the passage? Yes, the author might have chosen a side, but is it right to throw logic out the window and go along with what the author thinks? Is it even possible that that an author can commit a flaw in an RC passage?

Thank you for reading.

Edit: I can see now where the author includes "the foremost expert on the plant ecology of Mauritius." So, the author's reason would be credibility I suppose. While it does help a bit when picking between two, it surly doesn't support the notion of the idea now being a "fact" as the author concludes.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-69-section-3-passage-4-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-69-section-3-passage-4-questions/

I'm having a really difficult time eliminating answer choice E) in this one. I I chose this during timed, switched to the credited response C) during BR. C) is stated in an unambiguous fashion in paragraph 4. I understand why the author would agree with this but why is E) wrong? I've read multiple explanations online yet I'm still stuck.

Since the passage states that "mirrors are an exception to the fairly reliable equation between our perceptions and their associated mental constructs," aren't reflections in mirrors to be mental constructs interfering with an accurate understanding of how primary perceptions function? Is it wrong because of the word primary? Mental constructs are what encourage us to focus on imagined, false images, which hampers our understanding of real perceptions. That's my understanding...

Please help!

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-71-section-4-passage-4-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-71-section-4-passage-4-questions/

Are these two sentences mean the same thing?

Some people do not enjoy the movie.

Not all people enjoy the movie.

I wonder if "not all" and "some not" are interchangeable.

Thank you!

Hello evereyone!

I just took the International LSAT and was wondering if anyone who has taken it wanted to sahre some info.

I took it Seoul on the 31st.

I had RC-LR-LG-LR-RC

I dont recall so well what passages were in the first RC but its compartive passages were about democracy and one of the passages had South Korea and Chile as example countries...

The other one had passages like...

dogs and human cues...(edited)

Native American Indian art and the artist Howe

a book about Notorious Woman( legal cases concerning a woman who found out her biological father rich and claimed her right for the inheritance)

compartive passages about monopoly and European Union competition law....

Nothing particular comes to my mind with regard to LRs...

For LG,

one of the games was about a concert with the piano and violin as one of instruments 6people had to play

The other one I remember is about accountants(?) who come to work to print or to verify....

I would appreciate it if someone could tell me which RC was the dummy...

Thanks!