Hi guys!

So Ive noticed that after taking practiced LR sections, that 4 star necessary assumptions are one of my weaknesses. I was wondering if someone else had encountered this issue and how or what solution they took to correct it?

Hi guys,

Not sure if this is normally asked but I want to ask anyway because I want to know what it means when I run into it. Can someone reference an example of this and what it essentially means in an argument part question? Its such a simple term but I can't conceptualize this into words. Thanks.

For reference I ran into this in 27.1.17

Hello, I had a question concerning PT 41, Section 2 Q13. This is from LG 3. Q13 asks for a complete and accurate list of members that could be in the finance committee and in AC E (which is marked as the correct answer), the options listed are only M,U,W. When we follow the in/out procedure, we find that H is a possible member that can be added to this group (J.Y. even has so in his explanation), so my question is why is this correct then given that this question asks for a complete and accurate list? AC E seems accurate, but is it complete?

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-2-game-3/

Hey everyone,

Just wondering if anyone has any tips for full proofing LR?

Def. just subscribed. For those that have time and the money to purchase i think this will be extremely helpful for the reading comp. section.

I've been trying to improve my LR, and I find that a lot of the questions I get stuck on seem to be conditional diagramming questions (be in weaken/ MSS / NA / SA, etc.) .. wanted to drill them to try and improve. If anyone has a list of conditional diagramming questions across different question types, please share- it would be a real lifesaver! I don't see a filter for them on 7sages separately unfortunately..

Hi all,

I'm based in Manhattan. Wondering if there is anyone else here planning on taking July test and wants to connect.

:)

I have until June to improve from a -6 average on RC to -2. I've only just now discovered the question bank on 7sage and am thinking about using it to drill RC. I figured the best approach is to simply pick the earliest test range 1-16 and start with the medium passages and work my way up to the hardest passages. Then repeat with the next test range. I feel like if I were to incorporate JY's explanations and writing out low res summaries for each passage. I figure with this approach improvement is bound to happen. Has anyone tried something similar?

When blind reviewing, are you satisfied with just writing "irrelevant" as your explanation for why an answer choice is incorrect?

That's what I've been doing, but I sense that I might be cheating myself out of a deeper insight here. Is there something to trying to expand on/further characterize the irrelevance, or is this just a fruitless exercise?

Hi 7sagers,

I can't remember if CC covered sth. similar to this, but how should we translate this to lawgic?

Is it A -> B or B ->A?

Thanks!

I am having a hard time with necessary assumption questions. I understand the question type but when it comes to the answer choices I always end up picking the SA question. did anyone else have issues with this that could help me out. In the curriculum I only got 2 correct so im a bit concerned. also does anyone know how frequent these questions are on the lsat?

removed

So, I thought the words: But, although, and However introduce context. But, a lot of the MP/MC that I've done use these words as premise indicators.

For Example, PT 40, Sec 1, Q9.

Do these words introduce context or are they also premise indicators?

Anyone have a good list of terms that indication correlation? I have a hard time distinguishing what’s causal and what’s correlated.

Should I be concerned that, in the LG drill packs, I'm only completing about 10% of them in the requisite time? Obviously, after doing the Fool Proof method I can reach the correct timing, but I don't yet feel confident that I would get them correct within the time frame if they were new.

Any advice or encouragement would be greatly appreciated!

I dismissed answer choices A and C on the basis of "what is true of pretzels in this regard is also true of caramels." It seems to me that if we take everything as true in the stimulus then the correct answer for this question doesn't really seem like a flaw. #help

Admin note: edited title

I am finding that my Reading Comp scores are super variable - sometimes I get 100% on the section, and sometimes I miss 7-8 questions. I am still working through the CC and PowerScore Bibles. I guess I am just curious - does anyone else have this issue? Any clue what might cause this variability? I am getting pretty damn near consistent with the rest of my sections and know what my problem areas are...I just can't figure it out with RC because my tests are all over the place.

Hi, I had taken the January 2019 administration of the LSAT. Will I be able to use that for my required writing sample? I am not sure if I need to take the writing sample again after because I'm doing the June 2019 test, too. LSAC has a new thing for the June 2019 test so wasn't sure how that applies.

I struggled between A and B, why is A wrong? and why is B right?

I would think A to be wrong because it focuses the blame on historians, which came from nowhere because the stimulus didn't mention; or even "some great scientists" we don't know about any scientist but Newton

I would think B is also wrong because it says "review by other scientists": i guess I thought other scientist reviewing never came up but when i think more, I guess it can reasonably assumed that if it is published, it will be reviewed by other scientists which is what would cause the advancement of chemistry but an assumption no less

#help

Admin note: edited title

Hey guys! I'm trying to figure out what worked best for you. I have just went through CC for the second time and I'm trying to decide whether I want to start drilling sets 1-30 by the question type drill sets or if I should print it off and do it as a timed section. What suggestions do you have?

Hi everyone, this is my first time posting on the 7sage forum, although I've been here for a while.

By far my weakest section of the test is RC. I have a tendency to be super inconsistent; I can range from a –4 to a –14 on any given RC section without really knowing why. So recently, I decided to go back to the 7sage memory method (or at least a version of it that I believe suits me). That meant doing full RC sections untimed at first, but really focusing on accuracy. As a result, my accuracy drastically improved (new average –1 or –2 per section), and my time has been slowly coming down (from 50 mins to 45 mins, to now an average of 40 mins).

But now, with only 5 weeks remaining until the March test, I am struggling to get the time down to under 35 without compromising on accuracy - I tend to get through 3 passages timed with only 4 or 5 mins remaining for the fourth. Does anyone have any advice on how I can overcome this problem? Should I keep practicing the untimed sections and hope for gradual gains in speed, or is there a technique that y'all use to speed up?

Thank you to anyone who responds!

Hi, I don't understand how the answer is reached. Thanks!

Admin note: edited title

Hi, I got a 168 on the Jan LSAT and I'm looking to break 170 for the March LSAT. I've scored in the 170s before, but I'm looking to consistently be scoring in the low 170s range. The problem is, I'm practically out of recent practice tests. I've done almost all of the 60s 70s and 80s. Does any one have any tips for how to start consistently scoring in the 170s, and what I should do re: practice tests?

Hi all,

Do anyone know if there's a way to print ONLY the logic games from tests 1-35 in one go? I have access to all of the tests, but I don't want to print all of them. And I want to avoid having to go to each one and printing only LG manually. Thanks in advance!

So, working through the CC I've found that flaw questions seem to be quite difficult for me compared to other question types. I think that this could be due to me simply not having seen enough of these questions (I've worked through about 15 so far) to get used to the language that the LSAC hides the flaw in. So far I have been able to pinpoint the flaw in most of the stimuli but the AC trip me up because of how they are worded.

Did you guys get better at flaws just by seeing and doing more of them? I feel like exposure to hundreds of these may jsut be the best way to see all the patterns and traps. Or were there any specific ways that you guys approached these questions?