Discussions

LSAT

New post

289 posts in the last 30 days

Hey guys I recently graduated with a masters in legal studies this December so now I have nothing but free time. Though I have not taken a diagnostic or done any pretresting for the lsat I believe I’m good at logic games and reading comprehension.

Anyway do guys believe studying full-time for three months (6hrs/day) and using the 7Sage starter pack will be adequate for a high 160s to170 score. I have also purchased the newer lsac PTs (60-81)and will be drilling those newer PTs twice a week. Does anyone have tips or a daily schedule? Anything helps...

BTW I am applying for Fall 2019 admissions so taking it now is a must!

0

Hi all! I ran into a logic based MBT game in my lsat PT that quite honestly stumped me. So I want to present a version of it here in pure logic to see how my fellow 7 sagers work through it. This will make more sense in a bit:

All A's are X

All B's are X

If X is /Y then /Z

All Y Xs are C

Most Z Xs have F

In my opinion things start to get a little dicey at the If X is /Y then /Z but. So for starters, how would you translate this line into logic? Ignoring the statements that follow for now.

Thank you so much!

0

I've realized for some tough strengthen NA Q's, the right AC also kinda functions like a NA, and by applying the negation test, it actually weakens the argument.

Often, these tough NA questions have right AC that are "defenders," which defend against an alternative explanation/fact. So if you negate a "defender," it'll make the argument weaker/more vulnerable. (Example is PT 74.1.17)

I was wondering if some people also considered applying the negation test to strengthen AC's?

Again, I'm not advocating to do this for ALL strengthen Q's, but just those tough ones in which the AC's are very subtle, and pulling out the negation test from the toolbox may prove helpful.

Any thoughts or suggestions appreciated. Thank you!

0

"If males are assigned to Veblen South, then Wisteria North is assigned males."

Can I take the contrapositive of this as such: "If Wisteria North is not assigned males, then Veblen South is not assigned males." And then translate that, since the only two options are (1) male and (2) female, to: "If Wisteria North is female, then Veblen South is female." ?

I watched the solution video and this wasn't explicitly explained in these terms, so I wanted to make sure this is correct. I guess the way JY set up the video kind of implied this, but in any case. Thanks in advance!

1

Good Morning 7 Sage Community,

Hope everyone had a wonderful holiday. As I am making my way through the core curriculum I am considering signing up for the March 2019 LSAT as a type of practice run/PT/get comfortable with the testing environment. I then plan on taking the June 2019 test as well. I am looking to apply in the Fall 2019 for enrollment in Fall 2020 and I want to give myself the best chance at scoring well. Obviously is things dont go as planned I do have the later 2019 tests which I am open to taking as well but the goal is to be in a position to apply early with a great score.

From listening to the 7sage podcasts I have ben hearing the common theme of if you are taking the lsat, plan on taking it more than once to be the most successful. And some of the most successful have taken it 3+ times in some cases.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this or experience in a similar way? Thanks again.

0

Good Morning 7 Sage Community,

Hope everyone had a wonderful holiday. As I am making my way through the core curriculum I am considering signing up for the March 2019 LSAT as a type of practice run/PT/get comfortable with the testing environment. I then plan on taking the June 2019 test as well. I am looking to apply in the Fall 2019 for enrollment in Fall 2020 and I want to give myself the best chance at scoring well. Obviously is things dont go as planned I do have the later 2019 tests which I am open to taking as well but the goal is to be in a position to apply early with a great score.

From listening to the 7sage podcasts I have ben hearing the common theme of if you are taking the lsat, plan on taking it more than once to be the most successful. And some of the most successful have taken it 3+ times in some cases.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this or experience in a similar way? Thanks again.

Admin Note:

Thread closed for duplication

0

@Sami @"Cant Get Right" @NotMyName

Hey Sages, I've read about different methods of doing Cookie Cutter Review, but I was curious how you guys do it, and what method worked best for you guys. I think the community would benefit from y'all insight.

3

Hi everyone

I hope someone out there could shed some light on a problem I have been having. I took the November LSAT and plan to write in January too. During studying and actual tests for the LR sections my first 13 questions I do really good on like 11/13 where my last 12 I do horrible like 4/12. I have heard the hardest questions are in the middle of the section I do not know if this is false but I do not think it is simply because of the fact the easiest are first and the hardest last. If anyone could help me out or have experienced it themselves I would really appreciate the input.

Thanks

Kyle

0

Hi All,

In the LG CC, there are a series of exercises after each section, e.g. sequence game is followed by a core of practice exercises. Do the sum of all the exercises equal all of the games from PT 1-35? Or are they only a handful of them and do I need to print out the logic game bundles in total? Thank you!

0

I've noticed that in some videos, JY says this RC passage should take 7 minutes, etc - and in others he doesn't.

Is there a way or any info where we can see JY's recommended time for RC passages -- similar to what he does for LG?

I feel this will be helpful for RC, because time management is so tough and crucial in RC, and because there definitely are (similar to LG) easier RC passages and harder RC passages, and knowing when you should pace oneself more quickly through an easier RC passages is so important.

0

For RC, when you skip/circle a question, do you come back to that skipped/circled question once you finish all the 7 or 8 questions in that section, or do you come back at the very end of the section (once you've completed all the other 26 questions).

i think there are pros and cons of each.

For the first approach (coming back after you finished the 7 questions in that passage), there's a concern that not enough time has passed to let that question "subtly process" in your brain. Also, there's the concern that you still have to do like the other questions in the passage, and so you may get time sucked into that 1 question even more such that you don't have enough time to do the other questions.

For the second approach (coming back after you finish the entire 27 question section), there's the concern that after having done 2-3 more passages, when you go back to that question, your mind wouldn't be as "fresh" because you just did other passages.

Idk those are just some of my thoughts.

Any advice or suggestions appreciated.

Thanks!

0

Hi,

I've foolproofed almost all the games from PT1~current, with a few remaining fresh PT's.

I've done at least 2,000 games. I have no problem meeting the target time when I repeat games.

But whenever I face a new LG section, I go anywhere from -8 to -10. My cold score for LG was -10 (PT68), which I took two years ago. It's so strange that I have made almost zero improvement, although my conditional logic is much more solid than it was two years ago.

I know that there are patterns on the LG, but I have serious issues registering new rules into my head and pushing out inferences under time pressure. My brain really,really suffers whenever I see new logic games.

I've been doing almost only LG prep intensively for the last two months, but my LG performance is actually getting worse.

At this point, I'd be very happy with a -5 on the real thing.

Any help or encouragement will be appreciated.

Thank you.

0

How many LR questions do top scorers completely skip in their Round 1? How many do they circle due to under confidence/uncertainty (but still chose an AC) and then return to?

For me, in a LR section, I usually completely skip around 5-6 questions in my round 1. So I end up finishing my LR round 1 pass at about 27 minutes, and I have about 8 minutes to go back and finish those 5-6 questions I completely skipped.

Those 5-6 questions I completely skipped are usually long formal logic questions, long parallel reasoning questions, tough sufficient assumption questions which I suspected need a lot logic mapping, or questions I read the stimulus twice and didn't understand and skipped in about 1 minute.

In addition to those 5-6 questions I completely skipped, I also have around 2-3 questions I circled and filled in an answer choice but was uncertain because I was down to 2 answer choices (one AC at 60% confidence level and another at 40%, and I filled in the 60% confidence level AC).

Those 2-3 questions I also wanted to get a second look at, but I often can't/run out of time because I'm rushing to complete those 5-6 questions I completely skipped.

Am I completely skipping too many? Any suggestions or advice would be appreciated. Thank you!

4

For causation logic, I know for strengthen questions, there are a few ways to strength an argument

  • eliminate alternative cause

  • when cause happens, effects occurs after

    • But does "No Cause, No effect" also strengthen?

    And similarly for weaken question,

    does "no cause, effect happens" -- weaken? Couldn't there be another cause that is accounting for that effect, while also still allowing for the original cause to still cause the effect?

    For example, Doing bicep curls causes you to grow muscle.

    Would an answer explanation of "He didn't do bicep curls but still grew muscle" weaken that argument? I would think not, because there are other ways you can grow muscle, like doing pushups, etc.

    Any clarification or explanation on such causation logic and ways to strengthen/weaken causation would be appreciate.d Thank you!

    0

    I am scheduled to write the January LSAT but am wondering if I should reschedule for March 30th. I wrote the November test and scored 157, my goal would be 160. I have been scoring between 157-162 for the last three months. I took a 3-week break after the test to finish final assignments and have been back at studying for the last two weeks. The problem is now that I leave for vacation for two weeks on Christmas Eve and when I get back will have less time to devote to studying with school and will only have three weeks until the test. Really not sure what to do. If I push it to March the test will be falling right at the end of my semester when things get super hectic.

    Thoughts??

    0

    The question is linked below:

    https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-4-question-22/

    I'm looking for advice because upon first read, I thought this was a mistaken reversal flaw, but now I think I misinterpreted the meaning of "protect". When I first read this stimulus, I got hooked on the causal relationship, but to relay my thought process, I figured there is more than one way for a dog to get arthritis outside of neutering. Maybe you feed your dog all the time and it gets extremely obese and his/her brittle bones can't support it's meaty body. That's a weird example, but I just figured that arthritis is just a condition that has more than one cause leading to it and eliminating one cause doesn't mean there isn't another.

    That's why E looked so attractive. Properly developed bones in an obese dog could still get arthritis. However, I now have to find a reason for why that is wrong, and that reason might lie in the definition of "protect". Just because an owner protects his/her dog from something, doesn't mean that the thing being protected against won't happen. It just means you're lessening the chances of that thing happening. If that's the right way to interpret this stimulus, then I can see the conclusion not being flawed in that way. I just read "protect" to mean to completely eliminate the chances of your dog becoming arthritic.

    What do you all think?

    1

    Hey guys, I live in Austin and I am looking for someone to study for the January LSAT with me. Please comment or dm if you are from the same area and want to study together!

    0

    _Conclusion: Modern literature can damage individuals who appropriate this attitude, as well as damage society at large.

    Necessary Assumption: It is to the advantage of some individuals that they be concerned with contributing to the societal good._

    Can someone help with this? If we negate it, we get: It is to the advantage of no one that they be concerned with contributing to the societal good. I don't see how this destroys the conclusion. This answer choice seems to equate damage incurred with the loss of an advantage. It seems to be saying that, when negated, if I get no advantage from X, then I can't be damaged by X (and thus, the conclusion fails).

    But I feel like this is kind of a logical stretch. For example, suppose I gain no advantage from taking Route A or Route B to Destination C. The loss of Route B (if a street closed down) could still damage me in the sense that, while I previously had an option, now I have none.

    Admin note: edited title

    https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-46-section-3-question-15/

    0

    @BlindReviewer I think I'm seeing a pattern here.

    Hey 7 sage Fam! This is a question I got wrong on my most recent PT. The last one I discussed with the very helpful @BlindReviewer shares some elements with this one (https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/18842/pt60-s1-q13-many-economists-claim-that-financial-rewards). Thing is, I took PT60 months ago, hence the maybe pattern. Help me work through some of the snares?

    Similar elements:

  • Some x argue y

  • But they are wrong

  • Bad reason for why they are wrong

  • Referential phrasing

    • Like the pt60 question, I ended up between 2 answer choices (D and E)

    Analysis:

    Conclusion: It is not the case that buying lottery tickets are an unwise investment

    Reasoning: Because they share a characteristic with buying insurance--and that's generally considered a sound investment

    Flaw: Assuming that this similarity is sufficient to guarantee the conclusion. It is not. Overestimating the strength of this characteristic and ignoring the differences between the two scenarios/context.

    My problem: Both answers are discussing ways in which these two scenarios are different. So the task is to choose which difference is most relevant. But I can't figure out a compelling reason to eliminate D (in fact it's the choice I ended up going with. "Well-Being" in E made me nervous). Do you have any brilliant thoughts to share?

    Thanks in advance!

    https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-69-section-4-question-19/

    0

    I'm currently registered for the January 26th test but don't think I'll be ready. Can schools see if I change my test date? Does that show up as a "cancel"?

    Also, it seems like it'd be slightly cheaper to do the "Change registration date" instead of canceling, getting the partial refund and then re-registering. Does that sound right? Thank you in advance.

    0

    Hey Everyone,

    I have depended on this community for nearly a year now, and I need some advice/good mojo. After hitting my target score consistently, I retook the November LSAT and scored six points below my PT average again (162 September, 162 November). I was floored. Honestly expected to reach my average when I opened up my LSAT email, or at the very least done better than September. It is hard not to give in to feelings of inadequacy, but I'm trying my best to stay positive and focus on January. I do not have to attend law school this coming cycle, but I have already dedicated so much time on this test, moved back home/turned down a job to study, and have submitted applications (and paid fees) to apply for this cycle.

    How should I approach January? I have 40-50 hours a week available to study for this test, but want to be very cognizant of burn-out. My apps are all submitted, however, so luckily I do not have to juggle admissions essays, addendums, etc.

    Thanks ahead of time for any suggestions/advice y'all provide. I'm so lucky to have found this community a year ago.

    -jmpm

    1

    Hi, everyone,

    I just discovered 7Sage and am so disappointed that I didn't hear of this sooner. I'm a full-time working mother, as well, so that's made things tricky -- but I devote about 3-4 hours a day of studying (not all of it intense, as I can get distracted if I'm honest). Anyway, I took the test without studying (ridiculous rookie error) way back last February and got a 150. In November, after Kaplan 2x (thinking this was not a wise move on my part), I got 155. I want at least a 160+, ideally. My dream would be a 165. I'm not looking for top tier schools or anything like that, just more that I want (need) a higher score to ensure that I can get some help in the financial department.... don't we all?

    Currently, I do the best in LG (~9 to ~5), semi-OK in RC (about ~8 to ~5). In LR, I can get anywhere from ~14 to ~7; it honestly depends on if I get distracted or slow myself down (I used to be great at skipping and going back and having some time left over...).

    So, what do you all think -- can I get enough out of this course even by starting now, to make a difference of 160+ by January 26th? Do I do the starter course option or the ultimate? I'm not necessarily looking for your assurance that "definitely yes you can do this" (because I know there's human error, etc., and it really depends on how well I manage my time/study) but I am looking for if you think the content in here is do-able in the time I have in terms of the area I need to focus on (LR). Also, if you think the Starter is what I can use or if I should go Ultimate+. Thanks! #help

    0

    Confirm action

    Are you sure?