Hey guys,

I have improved drastically on LR! And honestly, it feels so good! Thank you to 7SAGE and @akistotle who has helped me tremendously!

Nonetheless, I took PT 78 yesterday and scored 9/25 on the first LR section and 22/26 on the second one.

I honestly don't understand how this could have happened.

22/26 has been my best LR section yet, I usually score around 18/19. BUT A 9? I have not scored that low on a LR section since my diagnostic to be honest.

Is this just an outlier? The section felt hard like any other LR section to me but even after doing BR and scoring it... I scored fairly low.

Help please... freaking out right now since the LSAT is only days away.

Hi everyone,

So I was working on an RC passage today and after reading it once, I got that frustrating feeling like I needed to read the whole thing again. Before I did though, I thought to myself "Why do I spend time underlining and things that may or may not be important when I get to the questions?". When I do get to the questions, I usually end up going back to the passage anyway because it isn't until after I read the questions that I truly know what the test writer wants from me. So would it be better just to read the questions first? With RC you have to be able to cut through superfluous info, but a lot of time I am unable to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary info until I read the questions and know what I am supposed to be looking for.

Hi everyone!

I've been studying with 7Sage since October while working full-time, going through the Core Curriculum lessons after work (spending about 3-4 hours per day). I started writing timed PTs in mid-December, and I've completed about 20 of them to date. My average score is 157, with my highest being 159. My target is 160, but of course I would love to be within the mid-160s.

After reading the discussion threads during the December exam timeframe and reading the threads now, there seems to be a general consensus that one should postpone if they're not scoring near their desired range. Does anyone have any advice for those of us that might be very close or just barely within their target?

My apologies if this has been touched on previously...

Many thanks!

So it seems like we're going to have the July LSAT as well!

https://twitter.com/official_lsat/status/956924504172847109

UPDATE 2:

It's undisclosed :(

https://twitter.com/Official_LSAT/status/957003399299502080

https://twitter.com/matthew_j_kahn/status/959646383119708160?ref_src=twcamp%5Eshare%7Ctwsrc%5Eios%7Ctwgr%5Enet.whatsapp.WhatsApp.ShareExtension%7Ctwcon%5E7100%7Ctwterm%5E0

Has anyone seen this? haha!

There are some situations where JY takes a different approach to a rule for no ostensible reason other than the fact that the ordinary approach would result in some difficulty that is not clear except based on hindsight. But this does not help someone facing the game for the first time!

The primary example of this is how we approach an ordering rule that has "or but not both." The usual way appears to be to split the game based on that rule, because it creates a "binary cut." This makes a lot of sense and is helpful. JY recommends this approach in PT83 Game 2, PT52 game 4, PT51 Game 2, and I might be missing some others. He occasionally solves without the split but also endorses the split and goes over it in a different video - PT78 Game 3. But what is troubling for me is that there doesn't seem to be an explanation of why one would approach this type of rule without a split rather than with the split. Obviously it's good to be able to do it both ways, but how does one know when one approach would be more effective than the other?

This problem reveals itself in PT61 Game 2, where JY does NOT do a split and does not talk about why he didn't do the split, even when one would quite naturally think about doing the split if one has been following the other videos. It turns out that the split, if done, is slightly messy and is not as easy to do as it normally is -- several students in the comments to the video note that the game was a lot harder with the split. But when asked why he didn't do the split, JY comments "Yeah, the P messes things up… It was a while ago, but I think that was why I didn’t link them up." This is definitely a good reason why the split doesn't end up being too effective, but it seems to be something that is only evident AFTER trying to split. We don't get to see the actual process of trying to do the split, seeing that it's not good, and then approaching the game without the split. Instead, it seems as if one should naturally know not to do the split. That seems like a hindsight based strategy rather than one made actionable for a student! I don't see any reason up front why we would not at least explore the split first.

Another example is the different approaches in PT73 Game 1 and PT53 Game 2. In PT73 we have 2 "or but not both" rules that create 4 possibilities. JY says it's a no brainer to sketch out those possibilities. Yet in PT53 Game 2, JY does NOT do the split and in fact mentions that he tried to the split but it wasn't helpful, so is showing how to do it without the split. But there doesn't seem to be any clear reason why a student approaching PT53 the first time after having reviewed the explanation for PT73 and similar games would proceed by not doing the split! PT53 presents 4 possibilities in almost the exact same way as PT73. It's like JY's showing the best way to do the game based on hindsight rather than showing a consistent approach that student could take to know up front which way is the best way to do the particular game!

Any thoughts?

PT2 S2 Q14

Type of question: WEAKEN

Correct me if I am wrong in any part of my explanation.

Premise(s)

Oct. 1929 suicides due to stock market crash Comparatively low, summer had higher suicide rate, while Stock market flourishing

Conclusion

Stock market crash Suicide wave in Oct. 1929 more legend than fact.

What I am looking for:

Answer A NO. We don’t need to know the reason of suicide.

Answer B NO. This strengthens conclusion.

Answer C YES. I was thrown off by language. I thought “preceding and following years” was talking about how suicides stayed above average for preceding and following years, which doesn’t answer why summer suicide rates were higher, and seemed a bit off topic. What this answer is saying is the average suicide rate of Oct and Nov was lower than stock market crash before and after 1929. So, it means stock market crash did indeed increase suicide rates. Weakens the conclusion.

Answer D NO. We don’t care about beginning of calendar year.

Answer E NO. Unnecessary information. Not the same as Oct and Nov? And, season has to do with it?

MISTAKE

I didn’t understand answer C. I picked E, and was not happy with it, but moved on.

I really dislike this flaw q and I've historically had trouble with it so I'd love some feedback to see if my understanding of the stimulus and the AC is finally correct. Also there's no video explanation for this one.

Stimulus:

In an experiment, researchers ran rats through a maze, some of which were missing one of their five senses--sight, taste, hearing, etc. Regardless of their specific missing characteristic, ALL rats finished the maze in the same amount of time.

Researchers found out that kinesthesia (sensation of body movement) could also be relevant to finishing a maze, in the same way sight, taste and hearing is helpful.

Off of this info, the researcher concludes: kinesthesia is sufficient for maze running.

I had a really hard time understanding the stimulus the first few times I saw this question especially w the double negative sentence, and more so with the unstated idea in the conclusion that the researchers were presuming kinesthesia ALONE is sufficient for maze running. From the language in the conclusion, I didn't see the researchers ruling out the possibility that the other senses in which the rats were not deficient (aka the blind rat using his/her sense of smell) could've helped as well in finishing the maze. So would love to see how people came to this flaw on their own or how I should've better identified it when attempting to prephase.

I got to choice B by process of elimination. Ruled out A because it was descriptively inaccurate with "small deficiencies in proficiency." Ruled out C, D, E, because of the phrase "it can be determined from the data." None of those things can be determined from the data for sure.

Thanks!!

Hello,

Why is E wrong?

Is E wrong because it is an assumption that plants and animals "will" move to inhabit areas that are currently used for "agriculture"

I had a short 4 month study period while working full time. Recently, I've done 70, 71, 72 and previous 60s and a few 40s.

What do you suggest as my final timed two PTs? I'm thinking a late 70's and maybe an 80-83. Any particular 70s or 80s?

During the week, I'll do various individual sections during the day. Which PTs would you recommend I use of those?

TIA

I will be testing in just a few days and have to say the majority of my nerves are from not knowing what to expect during the actual test. I have a few (possibly really dumb and/or basic) questions I am hoping someone can assist me with. 1) Is the timer visible at all times (will I be able to tell if I am on a good pace)? 2. I know there is supposed to be more room to write and diagram on the test itself than in the past - is there any guidelines around how much you can or can't write on the test itself? 3. What am I allowed to bring into the room to actually take the test? 4. Any basic advice for a first time test taker in regard to the actual test environment? ..... I appreciate any advice you can offer.

Could someone be so kind to explain why AC B is correct? I went with E, quite confidently at that. Any insight is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!

-H

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-2-question-19/

I am wondering if there are any methods and/or ideas you use to configure a game board within the analytical reasoning section. Thank you in advance.

The question is as follows

Rock music is musically bankrupt and socially destructive but at least album covers of rock LPs from the 1960s and 1970s often featured innovative visual art.

But now since the success of digital music has alnost ended the production of LPs rock music has nothing going for it.

The question was to find necessary assumption.

The correct answer was

'Digital music is not distributed with accompanying innovative visual arts.'

Only rarely questions 1 to 10 took this much time to figure it out. In the end I did choose right answer but with great doubt. POE told me that this is probably the choice that had the slightest connection to stimulus.

But I cant quite understand how this is a necessary assumption.

If I understood it correctly it is reasonable to say that Digital music refers to digitally distributed music i.e itunes or what not.

If so why is it necessary to assume that all digital music is without innovative visual art?

I mean some genres of digital music can have innovative visual art and some might not have them . For instance hiphop albums are all digitally distributed with cool innovative arts while rock music does not have it.

For me the n.c must be something like Digital 'rock music' is not distributex with innovative visual arts.

Am I missing something here?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-75-section-1-question-03/

Hey guys, since I didn't do a BR call for PT83, I want to open the forums up to solicit questions from PT83, preferably from LR.

If you have a question about PT83 please make a new thread with a title conforming to:

PT83.S#.Q# - first several words from the stimulus

Do not ask the question here in this thread. Make a new thread.

Try to explain your thought process in your original post. I'll try to answer / explain.

I really struggle with reading comprehension, and have been thinking of ways to improve. I have a few months before I write the LSAT and was wondering what some of you would recommend to get better.

I was thinking about subscribing to the economist and reading random articles that I find hard on a daily basis and using the 7sage reading comprehension method to really understand those articles. But I'd really like to hear from some of you who are killing the reading comp section. What works??

Hi all!

I'm hoping that someone can help me out here. I started studying for the LSAT around Christmas, at when I took my diagnostic and a few subsequent LR sections/PTs, I was going -1/0 pretty consistently on LR sections. However, in the past two weeks or so, I've been doing a bit worse, ranging from -2 to -4, with a lot of -3.

Is it possible I've gotten worse? That I'm burning out? Any thoughts would be appreciated, especially if you've found that you've gotten worse on a section since studying!

Hi fellow Sagers,

I'm currently in the final stretch preparing for the February LSAT. I have a quick question re: blind review. I've been doing it for the past 4 weeks, and rarely see an improvement (or significant increase) on my BR results. Sometimes it's actually lower! I feel like I almost look to find a way to pick an alternate answer, if I've tagged a Q for BR. Like it's triggering a part of my brain to second guess my original reasoning. Sometimes my BR is one or two points above or below my timed conditioned PT. For example, just PT-ed #71. Actual score: 165. BR: 166. Am I an outlier? Is this normal? Seems like everyone else scores way higher on their BR. To be clear, I'd be more than happy with anything in the 160s as these scores will fall in and above the medians for my schools of choice (Canada), so I'm not especially bothered by the scores nor am I aiming for the 170s (of course, a score up there would be a pleasant surprise, but I don't think it's realistic). Any feedback on this would be most welcomed.

Would anyone advise against taking 3 tests within the week? If so, what alternative practice would you recommend during my final days of studying?

Hi all,

I'm scheduled to take the Feb 10 test and my score is not near where I want it to be. I am tempted to take the Feb test anyway just so I can see what it's like to take an official test and then retake it in June if I'm not satisfied with my score. Would it be counterproductive to take the exam in Feb knowing I won't do as well I want to or would it be best to postpone and take the exam in June instead?

By the way, I have been studying for a little over two months by using another company's prep books and I just recently signed up for 7Sage. I can tell 7Sage is far more superior and I wish I signed up sooner.

Apologies if someone has asked this already.

Thanks in advance!

Hi 7sagers,

Is there a difference in the meaning of the statements below?

If you see the desk, you will choose to buy the desk.

If you see the desk, you will buy the desk.

*If the main clauses are written in the past tense, the sentences mean different things.

I chose to buy the desk (intended to buy it, unsure if one actually bought it) vs. I bought the desk (actually bought it)

However, written in the conditional+future tense, the sentences seem to imply the same thing. Is there a difference?

Thanks very much!

I saw that someone posted about this a while back. Any tips for the “infer” questions in RC? I am consistently getting these wrong. Anyone here have a good strategy for answering these questions?

coinpurse

Can you someone please further explain why AC (C) is wrong? Please also let me know your thoughts on my explanations. Thank you!

P1: Public interest comprises many interests

P2: The broadcast media must serve all of them.

P3: Most TV viewers would prefer an action show to an opera.

P4: A constant stream of action shows on all channels is not in the public interest

C: The broadcast media should not have a constant stream of action shows on all channels because by doing so, it would not meet its obligations of serving the public interest (comprised of many interests).

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-1-question-06/

A ) If broadcasters look only to popularity, then broadcasters won’t satisfy their obligations of serving the public interest.

B ) Posed a hypothetical situation. We don’t know how many artistic and cultural shows are already being contrasted compared to other types of shows nor do we know if TV shows are being broadcasted in the right proportions to serve the public interst. Therefore, we don’t know if the public interest is being/not being met.

C ) The question didn’t ask to extrapolate beyond the information in the argument, but to logically complete the argument. AC (C) could be considered an inference from the information given, but not a conclusion that logically follows. The stimulus also discusses what broadcast media must do, not what television producers should do.

D ) Artistic quality is irrelevant and not discussed in the argument. Popularity doesn’t imply no artistic quality.

E ) “Only” is too strong and limiting of a word. Action shows could be replaced by opera or any other type of show and would not serve the public interest.

Hello everyone, this post is inspired by the fact that I just got wrecked on both LR sections on a PT. While I normally score -4 or -5 I got a -7 and -8 this time. The infuriating part is that I because have finally improved my RC and LG to a consistently high level (-4 & -3 respectively on past PT) I decided to dedicate this past week to fortifying some weak areas in LR. Unfortunately, it seems like my efforts were counterproductive. I spent most of my time doing 4/5 star questions untimed to focus on the thought process. I am wondering whether this was counter productive - maybe it hurt my confidence? Other than BR what other techniques can I utilize to bring my score down below a -4 on LR?