Hi all,

I'm new to 7sage and must say that I love it. I have used the LG Bible from PowerScore to learn the foundation of Games in particular however when I discovered JY's videos I realized that 7sage was for me.

Have done PT's 65-66-67 with scores of 166, 167, 169. I'm aiming for lower t14 with big money. On each PT, I have been -3/-4 in Games. I find that these games are significantly less complicated than the ones I find in my book that mainly come from the early 90's to the early 2000's. When I do the PT's, I read the stimulus of the game, the rules once to understand, once to diagram, once more for inferences and then I am ready for the questions.

That said, when I look at some of these grouping games (example) from the early/mid 90's, I freeze. There's sometimes 7-8 rules that are all conditional. I have no problem understanding it but getting all of that done in 8 minutes literally makes me fearful. There are so many moving parts. As a result, I see these games and often shut down or get rattled which obviously takes away from my ability to infer which in turn, adds time and limits accuracy.

Is this a common problem or is this all in my head? How worried should I be?

Frank

I chose D because all the other answers weren't strengthening the argument and the answer is A but the reason why I didn't pick it was because it says " that are proportional to the harm they BELIEVE to result from those crimes". We're not talking about the perceived harm so that is why I didn't choose it, can someone explain to me why this answer is correct. Thank you!

reasons why the other ones are incorrect:

b) Were not talking about legality but harm

c) Were not talking about an increase in penalty were talking about equal sentencing

e) Were not talking about deterrence

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-3-question-09/

Hi!

I have been working in the core curriculum for some time and there is something that I am not quite clear about conditional reasoning and its inferences.

What I do know is that IF A, THEN B contraposes(is that a word?) to IF NOT B THEN NOT A. I know this must be true.

But what about IF NOT B THEN A? Is this a cannot be true or a could be true? Does this statement negate the original statement?

Help!

I understand the flaw in the correct answer choice, but not how it applies to Tom's argument in the stimulus.

D : "Fails to apply a general rule to all relevant circumstances" is the correct AC here.

Conclusion: No it isn't the the best one to rent

Premise/Sub-conclusion: The yard isn't as big as it looks.

Premise: Property lines in Prairieview start 20 feet from the street, so what looks like part of the yard is really city property.

Rolanda points out his flaw: "That's true of all the other properties we've looked at too."

What is true of all the other properties we've looked at? General rule: Property lines start 20 feet from the street, so what looks like part of the yard is really city property. The yards aren't as big as they look. (Is this last sentence included in the general rule?)

Would this still be flawed if Tom said "None of the yards are as big as they look?" I do not understand where exactly this flaw is committed in his argument. If someone could point this out, I would be very grateful. Thanks.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-65-section-4-question-11/

I am having the hardest time with assumption questions required and sufficient alike. I am getting it down to two answers; the right one and the one that everyone picks and I pick the wrong one. Does anyone have any sort of advice on how to handle assumption questions? I reviewed all of my notes and Im still not getting it. Thank you!!!!!!

I just got to this spot in the CC. I have a basic understanding of what is going on, but I am slow and I can tell this is a HUGE weak spot for me. What can I do to drill this into my head? I took the four quizzes in the CC and did poorly, I reviewed and watched the video explanations but I want to do more. How did you guys drill this into your heads?

For example:

Negation 4 w/ Answers, Question 3 (CC)

There is little variation in the ratio of energy output to body weight among animals.

My gut reactions was to say;

There is A LOT of variation in the ratio of energy output to body weight among animals.

The answer was;

There is anywhere from a moderate amount to a great amount of variation in the ratio of energy output to body weight among animals.

Moderate did not even cross my mind....

So where can I go to get a lot more practice on this, how can I drill this all into my head to the point where I spit out correct negations without hesitation?

I am able to get perfects scores on the section without time limits but during PTs I range from -3 to -6.

My biggest issue is feeling rushed during the PT...

Any advice?

When I first started out studying last year, I wasn't notating at all and I was only missing -2, -3 on a section. I was reading a lot of books before then, so I think I was able to intuitively connect paragraphs and recall the most significant pieces of information.

But as I got further into my studying and began notating based off the curriculum and part of Nicole's presentation, I noticed an immediate drop in my scores. This was right after I began notating. I continued with this method until today, when I got a -9 on a timed RC and -3 on BR. Right after that I drilled a new section with no notes at all and got -4 timed.

Notating just slowed down my read, clouded my interpretation and bogged me down in details rather than reading at a consistent pace with no breaks for underlining, circling, and writing down details on the side. This all slowed me down and caused me to break in the middle of sentences, in between sentences and in between paragraphs. Not only did it slow down my read, I wasn't able to fluidly read a passage and ascertain the content or the main purpose or structure.

Breaking at the end of the passage to solidify your understanding is helpful and writing that down might help sometimes, but maybe for some people notating just isn't a good idea. You might have to return to the passage a bit more, but the time saved during the read more than makes up for it.

If any of you have similar problems, don't feel bad about not notating because I guess it just doesn't work for some people.

Onward and upward.

I have an issue with the harder flaw reasoning questions. 99 times out of 100 i can point out the flaw. Hell i can make a stand up comedy routine about how stupid you are for coming up with your conclusion with the flawed reasoning in the stimulus. my issue is pinning down the abstract language that exists in the answer choices. I get them wrong like half the time. I am the Tom cat and the LSAT makers are Jerry mouse in this scenario. Im getting got way too often. 50 percent of the hard flaw questions i get wrong. And when i watch the explanations, my flaws are right, i just can't pin down the abstract language down. (random example. PT 41 section 3 question 20)

Has anyone else struggled with this and how did you really get better at this? I of course do BR and mark down the questions and refer back to them. I just feel like theres an infinite amount of ways for them to be so convoluted and vague and subtle with the right answer. I have a positive attitude when i come up short on other questions but its hard to not get frustrated when i miss those questions specifically. Its like I'm getting beat by the same move and it huuuuurrtttss.

I know i have to keep practicing. Im not taking the LSAT until September and i hover around the low to mid 160's on my PT's. sort of just wanted to vent on the forum, sort of want to see if this is a problem anyone else has and if theres hope and what they did to master this.

I'm in the middle of PTing for the September LSAT. My target goal is 175. I'm currently in the upper 150s-mid 160s in terms of PTing. I also work full-time, so it's harder to get my PTs in on most days. I'm going to explain my strategy now and ask for some tips/feedback:

What happens is that I usually end up exhausted. Ramadan is also coming up, so I'm worried about becoming even more tired with the fasting component. I most likely will not be working out during Ramadan.

What do you guys think? What PTs should I focus on more? What resources should I tap into? Anything wrong with my method? What would you add/improve/take away? etc. I'm looking for any kind of feedback really. Is my target score feasible within that time? I'm aiming for T14 schools.

In the PT 50s I was solid -4/-5 on RC. On LR I was missing more than 6 per section.

I am wrapping up the 60s and I am now solid -2 to -4 on LR.

BUT NOW I AM -7/-8 on RC!!!

LG is stable ranging from -3 to -5.

If I can get my RC back to -4/-5, I will be able to score in the 166-168 range which is my goal.

Right now I've dropped to 163-165 :( Very Very Very down and disappointed...

Any suggestions on how to improve RC in the final stretch before the June LSAT?

Also, 7sage and LSAT Trainer strategies actually made me a worse RC test taker. I do much better when I stop over-thinking/analyzing and just read slowly and carefully while visualizing the passages. This can take 3-4 minutes for the passage but I do much better. Annotating via 7sage and LSAT Trainer suggestions just slows me down and ruins my flow. I am going to try the rest of the tests with my original strategy and ditch what I have learned. Anyone else have experience with this?

Thank you in advance!

For the RC section, would you advise to start timed like J.Y.s version or not timed and then after getting a handle of structure then start timing like J.Y.s? Thank you so much!!!!

I'd like some advice for the inconsistent performance I'm seeing in my timed logic games sections. I can sometimes finish the entire section with a few minutes left over and get almost all the answers right, but other times, I'm very short on time, and can quite a few more wrong. Any insight into this discrepancy and how I can fix this?

PT9.S2.Q17 - Certain instruments

Since there is no video explanation for this question, I would appreciate it if someone could confirm my understanding below.

It took me so much time to figure out what the second sentence is saying :(

Second sentence

energy used to sterilize of a set of nylon instruments: SN

energy used to manufacture of a set of nylon instruments: MN

50 x SN = 3.4 x MN

SN = (3.4/50)MN

SN = 0.068 x MN

energy used to sterilize of a set of stainless steel instruments: SS

energy used to manufacture of a set of stainless steel instruments: MS

50 x SS = 2.1 x MS

SS = (2.1/50)MS

SS = 0.042 x MS

Answer choice

(B) is the correct answer (MBF) because SN has to be less than MN. SN = 0.068MN

(A), (C) - (E) could all be true.

I'd say I'm pretty darn familiar with the 19 common types of flaws. However, I feel like I've never seen a circular reasoning flaw actually on a PT. Sometimes I second guess myself on a tricky flaw question when it's in the AC's. Anyway, would love it if anyone has come across one of these flaws in their recent PT's?

I'm into the high 60's series, so hopefully I haven't been oblivious to them all this time. But I do think they are a rarer flaw.

Anyone else experience a RC drop after the CC? My first diagnostic I took back in November had me at missing 7 questions in the RC. I've consistently scored missing 5-7 on each RC for entirety of my LSAT studying. Honestly, I haven't really bothered to beef up my RC score because I was doing okay without studying for it, and so I focused on the LR and LG. Usually the incorrect questions are from the last passage when I'm feeling a little rushed. SO I decided to go over the 7Sage CC for the RC to help me eliminate those 5-7 wrong RC questions. Now, after doing the 7Sage CC for the RC my score has COMPLETELY dropped. Like, -14 for RC instead of the usual 5-7 wrong. Anyone else experience this, and how did you undo the damage?

I've been really struggling with LR timing. I watched the webinar here (https://classic.7sage.com/webinar/timing-and-levels-of-certainty/), in which they suggested not spending more than 3 minutes or so on a question because there's a better chance you'll just get it wrong. But other people have suggested 'giving the question the time it needs,' not being afraid to invest 3 minutes into a question rather than rushing and getting it wrong.

Then, there's the '10 in 10' or '15 in 15' idea where you push to finish questions in a given amount of time.

I've only been getting through 17-20 questions per LR, getting 2-3 of those wrong, plus the ones I don't get to for a total of 6-9 questions wrong per LR for the past few months with no change. I'd really appreciate any thoughts people have on this and how to manage the ideas of investing time required and skipping when appropriate.

I asked about what types of questions rely on the understanding of sufficient and necessary conditions the other day. I got a lot of really good answers. The issue I am having, and have continued to have throughout my studies, is that they don't stand out to me. I spent a lot of time learning the indicators, making flash cards to remember how to employ them and I have it down by heart. When I'm in the LR section however, I am so hyper sensitive to these words I pick them all out. I have yet to find a situation where I have seen a question, realized it is dependent on my understanding of suff/nec and applied my knowledge to it. Is there a method to identifying when mapping X -> Y on a question? What am I missing?

In LG it is extremely clear and I have no issues.

Hey Everyone,

So far we have done a regular passage and an A-B passage. This time we will be going over a science passage. We will be applying the same strategy that we learned in the previous two sessions. The key is to keep practicing with these strategies so we can get better. This time we will be doing PT 44, Section 1, Passage 3.

I would recommend not doing the passage before coming to the meeting so we can work through this together and you can really practice with the right strategy. All you are required to have for the meeting is the passage and questions in front of you in some form.

If you have never attended one of these sessions please do not worry that you will not know what's going on. I will review the strategies before starting the passage and you will catch on.

To join the meeting all you have to do is click the link below at the specified date and time.

I'll see you all there! : )

Free RC Tutoring - Sami

Sun, May 21, 2017 4:00 PM - 5:30 PM EDT

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/283806493

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States: +1 (571) 317-3122

Access Code: 283-806-493

First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: https://care.citrixonline.com/g2m/getready

What strategies work best for you? How many passages do you attempt in practice tests? What have you found helps in increasing your score?

Thank you so much in advance!

Hello All,

I have definitely improved in mapping out my LG games and making inferences and other actions involved in tackling LG games. But when I take practice tests, I seem to be lost at the outset (maybe feeling pressured because of time) and take alot of time to determine what strategy to employ (linear, in/out,grouping etc...) When I come back to the question to blind review it after watching the help videos, the question becomes way more easy than when I try to tackle it under timed conditions.

Is there any fast way or are there any immediate rules to determine which strategy is best to use to tackle a game?

I am stuck on some of the MSS questions, Weaken, and the difference with how to tell MSS and Strengthen apart especially when C/C Strengthen is in play.

For example, PT 16, S2, Q21 was on a webinar with Nicole and presented as a C/C Strengthen question. The stem says what I would take as a MSS question though, stating "Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the conclusion drawn by the entomologists?

Nicole suggested looking for the one answer that actually doesn't strengthen the entomologists conclusion at all, rather to choose the AC that doesn't support it, thus making the entomologists conclusion more sound.

Such as A causes B is the conclusion, so the answer needs to be either: B causes A, C causes both A and B, or No relationship.

Can someone please explain how and why I would know that I wasn't supposed to be choosing a supporting answer, but rather a conflicting one? Are there any tricks or key words for questions like these?

I thought that this was an example of a part to whole fallacy. The author concludes that the decrease in revenue is exaggerated because part (parts and service companies) of the industry have succeeded even after admitting that manufacturers' share of the industry's revenue has fallen. Does (B) address this flaw?

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/preptest-6-print-and-take-test/

Anyone receive accommodations for the June test?

Any word on when the explanations for PT80 will be released?