98 posts in the last 30 days

[I am posting on behalf of a 7Sage user:]

Can you go through and explain I am really confused I think PT 1 S3 Q07 has answer mistake.

The last sentence says that there is more male duck in the old duck ration compared to young duck ration with the female duck, which means more male in OD: FD compared to YD:FD.

After stating that they are saying that NOW we can infer that if there is more disparity b/w two sexes M: F the more the adult male ducks will be.

it is like saying that there are two liquids A AND B in both A and B there are three components 1,2, 4

( 1,2 both belong to the same group so lets say 1+2=3 )

now they have given us a ratio of 3:4 for both A and B and said that 3 is more in quantity than 4

but we know 3 has two components 1, 2 and they have also given us quantity comparison of 1,2,4 they are saying 1 has less quantity gap with 4 means if we add 1 into one flask and 4 into another flask they will look filled nearly the same, but if we compare 2 and 4 in quantity 2 is much more than 4

now they are saying we can use this for all so whenever 3 increases 2 will increase in greater proportion than 1 because the ratio of 2 is more compared to 4 means there are many 2 compared to 4 than there are 1 compared to 4,

A/B= west/east

1=young male 2 =old male 3=1+2 (all male)

4= total female

User Avatar

Last comment sunday, dec 31 2023

Flaw questions

For the questions that ask: "The argument's REASONING is flawed because...", would the right answer choice explain why the support structure is flawed?

Alternatively, for questions that ask: "The argument is flawed because...", would the right answer choice explain why the conclusion is flawed?

Need help clarifying

Can someone help me understand how we can infer [A]? It says that officers deviating from cognitive interview techniques is problematic because it might make the cognitive interview less effective. I eliminated it because although the author suggests that officers deviating from the cognitive interview techniques is problematic, they doesn't say why it's problematic. And then the answer choice infers that it's problematic because of decreased effectiveness. I eliminated it because we don't know if that's the reason... it could be problematic for other reasons.

How is it an acceptable inference?

for the people who have gone through cc already/ high accumlative score::

when tackling the lessons in cc, what would be the best approach with the games provided as examples. Would it be best to:

try the questions on your own THAN watch through the explanation videos;

work through them simultaneously (doing it at the same time);

or work game one simultaneously, then for the other games in that type try the questions on your own THAN watch through the explanation videos

  • how long it may take isnt critical, willing to work for as much time necessary for an 173+ -
  • i literally just downloaded this for specifically lg and a little bit lost in regards of what method is most rewarding, i am a very visual learner, however i am severely stubborn and insist on always teaching myself material and since i was a kid in gymnastics, have a very hard time - refuse almost, i reject it - allowing others to teach me. but doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results, just like einstien said is insanity. ive already done the whole lsat trainer book, when practicing games i rarely miss more than three, but i develop extreme methodological issues when i dont know what the "correct" first step is or if its not being assigned. i have no methods for games rn besides the game board which i feel as thought i am as close as you can get in "mastering" them. even with my my time on exam day, the time i spend wondering how i should start my approach, etc, is where majority of my seconds go.

    so swallowing my pride and forcing myself to allow help, which i am doing good so far and havent ran into any rejecting but i am now stuck in a block for the past hours, bc adhd and not knowing the correct first step for a task makes me feel like im walking through cobwebs in minecraft, getting no where. without knowing the correct step to take - however i know in this instance there is no right answer and it is all your personal learning prefs but wont do trial and error without knowing it has worked for someone before - i cant start until i find out what it is, which i have been looking for myself and failed to find for the past hours. which is no surprise i have waited to finally ask for help now at 6 in the morning after searching for 5 hours, my final resort.

    i do have severe adhd if you couldnt tell from a one sentence question becoming an essay, if that is important, im open to trying literal anything.

    i would literally love nothing more if someone pls gave me any sort of guidance/suggest a plan they used/how to figure out what i should do because adhd and ocd wont let me go to sleep until i figure it out and i am so tired. thank you in advance

    User Avatar

    Last comment wednesday, dec 27 2023

    In Out Games logic game

    When one of the rules are:

    if A is selected then B and C are also selected

    so A--> B and C

    if you negate(Not select) JUST ONE of B or C not both, does A also get not selected or do both B and C have to be not selected for A not to be selected? For In Out Games

    Hello. I wanted to see if there were people who set aside a few months of their life to fully dedicate weeks just for this test. I graduated from college 2 months ago and have been studying for this test full-time and wanted to know if there were others doing so as well. I believe we could make a Zoom call where we study for 3-7 hours a day and keep each other motivated and prevent burnout.

    Let me know if interested!

    You're invited to my new group 'LSAT students' on GroupMe. Click here to join: https://groupme.com/join_group/95986662/smNJxNdR

    Hello, I am still in the middle of the CC and looking to take my LSAT prior to Aug 2024. With that being said, I just finished the CC on LR. Should I start taking some sections of LR to see where I am specifically weak and then to master this section before moving on, or should I just move on through to LG now?

    User Avatar

    Last comment saturday, dec 23 2023

    RC setup time

    Do most people actually finish reading and annotating the passage in the setup time described? For some of them the time is under 2 minutes and that just seems unrealistic for the vast majority.

    I have gone through all of the lessons and drills for weakening questions and find myself increasingly humbled every single time. I think "oh man! This will be the one! I feel great!" and get a 0/5. Strengthening questions? Easy peasy. My brain clicks it into place every time. I don't understand how I'm struggling between the two.

    What are your tips for weakening questions? What/who did you sacrifice your soul to?

    The weakening questions are my weakest section. I am aware of the humor in this situation and I fear, my friends, that I am not laughing.

    User Avatar

    Last comment thursday, dec 21 2023

    Frustrated with Plateau

    In August, I hit 159 in one of my preptests. I took the LSAT and unfortunately bombed it, scoring a 153 or so. My goal has been a 170+. After a break from studying, I resumed studying around mid to late October to prepare for the January LSAT. Since then, I've been averaging a 157-159. My BR also remains between 163-164. The highest BR I've ever gotten was a 168. I'm starting to feel that day was just luck. I panicked last week and shifted my exam date to February. As you can imagine, this feels pretty heartbreaking. I took a PT today, scored a 158. BR 163. I've been consistent and thorough. I spend 4-6 hours of my day studying. Sometimes more. I don't know what to do anymore. I'm starting to fear that maybe this is my limit. While I don't want to accept that, it may just be a hard pill to swallow. It's pathetic but I can't help but cry right now.

    To break down my progress, I average a -5 to -2 in LG, -9 in LR, and a -10 in RC.

    My goal this December is to bring LG down to a -0 which I think I am on track doing and LR to a -5. I fluctuate a bit too much with RC to get comfortable but I will try to work on my time when reading passages more as I noticed time is a my limiting factor there.

    Most of my frustration lies with LR. I would appreciate any tips. I've read various forums and have incorporated these tips into my regime but after today I don't know anymore.

    User Avatar

    Last comment monday, dec 18 2023

    Last LSAT Attempt

    Last attempt for this cycle.

    150 -> 155 -> 159.

    I need a 161 at least to be at the median for my dream school. 2 more points.

    Of course most of us feel less pressure / whole different dynamic practice test vs. real thing, but I was scoring 163 - 167 for the last 10 tests I took prior to the October LSAT. Not sure if my brain freezes or what. My average was 164 so I was expecting a 160 at least.

    Please help, how can I get these two extra points? What would you do in my shoes?

    HELP! I am continuously scoring 151 on preptests, and my blind review score is 163. I have gone through all of PowerScore materials, all of 7Sage, and have even met with a tutor for many hours. How do I improve my score by the January test? Why do I keep scoring 151? Any help is appreciated.

    Hello everyone,

    I am looking for some tough advice at this point. I have been prepping for the January LSAT for about 4 months now, and have got one month left to go before I take the test. My goal score is 170, and I am currently testing at an average of163 timed, 170 BR, although I have gotten a 171 on PT 55 timed. All other timed tests are at about 160-165. What can I do to reach my goal score by January? For some background, I have the luxury this month to dedicate as many hours a day as I want to test prep, and this is my only focus for the next 30 days. I'm taking some time off work, and I've already finished my undergraduate year 4 fall semester.

    I am familiar with all of the core curriculum on 7sage, and have read the PowerScore books as well. I would say my weakest section is reading comprehension. Sometimes I can get a -3 or -4 on the section, other times I get a -9 or -10 and I can't figure out why. I average about -4 on LR and -0 to -4 on LG. Because of the inconsistencies on my practice tests, I am looking for any tips on how I can achieve my goal, and be brutal! I am willing to do whatever it takes.

    I guess I really struggle with RC because I find it so boring, lol (i know, who doesn't). I also have a tendency to overestimate how well I have done, and when I get a score back that is lower than what I wanted, I feel like my confidence gets shaken. I am already aware that I have to really spend the time doing BR and not get frustrated, but I guess I'm looking for some concrete methods than you guys can recommend to me!

    User Avatar

    Last comment thursday, dec 14 2023

    Help with LR

    I've been studying this site for over a year and I consistently get only half right on LR. There is no specific question type that I have an issue with but it's all up and down the board. Each test is a new group of question types wrong, so right when I think I have something mastered I don't. What can I do to get about 18 right instead of 12 right consistently?

    User Avatar

    Last comment wednesday, dec 13 2023

    RC Tips

    Hey! I am taking the January LSAT and I have been struggling with RC. When I do untimed passages, regardless of difficulty (whether its 1 or 5) I will usually miss like 2-3 questions on like 6 or 7 passages, but when I do a timed section ill miss anywhere from 6 to 9. If anyone is willing to share any tips or tricks they use for RC I would truly appreciate it. I am trying to bring down my RC to around a -4. If you're struggling with LG, I have gotten that down to a consistent -0 and I'll be able to share some tips as well. Please let me know, thank you!

    Working a LG in the LSAT trainer (p.210), and I need further explanation on why this is the correct answer choice. Specifically Q2. I am including Q1 for context.

    Seven coffees - F, G, and H from Brazil, and L, M, N, and O from Colombia - will be showcased on three different displays. One coffee will be displayed by itself on stand 1, and the other six coffees will be evenly split between stands 2 and 3. The following conditions apply:

    F is displayed on stand 2

    One of the displays will have exactly two Brazilian coffees

    L and M must be displayed together

    F and H cannot be displayed together

    Q1) If O is displayed on stand 2, which of the following must be true?

    (A) H goes on stand 1

    (B) H goes on stand 3

    (C) G goes on stand 2

    (D) N goes on stand 1

    (E) N goes on stand 2

    ANSWER: (C) G goes on stand 2

    If Oc is on stand 2, the only place Lc/Mc can go is stand 3. This forces Gb on stand 2, since there needs to be a bb combo, and Hb can't go with Fb.

    1: Hb or Nc

    2: Fb, Oc, Gb

    3: Lc, Mc, Hb or Nc

    Q2) Which of the following must be false?

    (A) A Brazilian coffee is displayed by itself

    (B) A Colombian coffee is displayed by itself

    (C) One stand displays only Colombian coffees

    (D) Two stands each display both Brazilian and Colombian coffees

    (E) No stands displays only Colombian coffees

    ANSWER: (E) No stands displays only Colombian coffees

    For (E) to be true, each stand must have at least one Brazilian coffee. However, this cannot be true. Therefore, (E) must be false.

    My thinking... If I take the diagram I used to answer Q1, which is

    1: Hb or Nc

    2: Fb, Oc, Gb

    3: Lc, Mc, Hb or Nc

    and I assume Hb is on stand 1 and Nc is on stand 3, I get

    1: Hb

    2: Fb, Oc, Gb

    3: Lc, Mc, Nc

    which follows all the rules, and has a stand that displays only Colombian coffees. So how is the answer choice, "No stands displays only Colombian coffees" - MUST BE FALSE?

    I appreciate the help. I promise I am joining 7Sage after I finish the LSAT trainer. Thank you!!

    I know there’s a lot of similar posts on here, but I was able to increase my score from a 155 on my initial diagnostic to a 171 on my first LSAT with 2.5 months of 7sage, so I thought I’d share which strategies helped me the most. Figure this will be most useful for anyone else out there who speeds through tests and reading, as that was my biggest Achilles heel.

    History – I decided to apply to law school over the summer, in early July, so I was already very under the gun in terms of timing. I mapped out the studying and application process and decided that I would need to take the October and November tests, and could maybe take the January test to help get off a waitlist. That left me exactly 3 months until the October test. The first thing I did was order the Kaplan LSAR Prep book and then take a diagnostic test – which was a 155. Like many people, Logic Games was my kryptonite – I think I truly finished the first 9 questions before time ran out and guessed on the rest. I started studying via Kaplan, and started to pick up on the games a bit, it sort of helped, but not enough. I took a second PT via lawhub and got another 155, and was not feeling great about the progress so far. Then I spoke to someone who recommended 7Sage. I’d already been thinking something interactive and digital would be more helpful, specifically for explanation videos and being able to pay attention to what I did wrong, and so the timing lined up perfectly. With 2.5 months to go, I started on the 7sage learning paths and started triaging what of the syllabus I would be able to cover in that time frame. I was studying about 20-30 hours per week, and so I figured I could do most of LG (since that was my weak point), pick and choose my way through LR, and do the RC one if necessary (ended up being very necessary, which I’ll get to later).

    I started with, and probably spent the most time on, LG. I think with LG, it really just comes down to reps. You can’t shortcut that. The more games you do, the more you start to memorize the inferences you have to make, and I could literally catch myself remembering an inference from a similar type of game mid-section. However, I definitely have a bias for speeding through things – a theme throughout my LSAT studying. I had to learn to slow down – practice doesn’t make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect. For me, that meant that I needed to stop and review each game (seems obvious but like I said I speed through things) and TRULY understand each inference, and make sure I understood each question (why the correct answer was right, and why the wrong answers were wrong). One thing I started doing towards the end was printing out 5 copies of each game I got a wrong answer on, and then completing them and reviewing each one in depth afterwards. This really helped, and if I could go back and do it again I would absolutely have done this from the beginning. I’d probably just start out printing out 1 star games early, move to 2 star games, 3 star, etc – and use this to supplement the syllabus work. This process allowed me to get to the point where I was consistently around -0, -1, 2. I truly learned to enjoy the LG section, and as weird as it sounds I think I’ll miss not doing those games every day. Sort of sad to see them go too.

    Initially, I felt very solid around RC. It’s just reading right? But, like I said I have a tendency to speed through things. I eventually realized my scores were not improving, and I was anywhere from -6 to -9 on most PTs. That was when I dove into the RC syllabus, which absolutely helped change the way I looked at RC. But the biggest mindset shift for me was just slowing the hell down while I was reading. Shifting from finishing the passages in 1:30 to finishing in 3:30-5 minutes is what really helped. It felt like I was wasting valuable time that I could be spending returning to the passages to hunt for details and to rule out incorrect answers, but the scores just spoke for themselves. This way I was consistently able to get around -3, and there was just no arguing with results. I was better able to remember those details and where they could be found, and understand different perspectives and tones throughout. JY’s syllabus material about the low-res summaries helped a lot too – for me, when I first heard this, I started focusing too much on the detail of the passage in the low-res summaries, before shifting to focus on the argument format. Focusing on how the argument was structured helped me answer the questions around the main point and structure of the argument, and slowing down already helped a ton with finding the specific details. I also limited how much highlighting/underlining I was doing – I read somewhere online that sometimes we use marking up passages as a method of saying “I”ll come back to this later,” but when you’re reading a timed passage like this, you don’t have the time to do this. So I tried to focus on just reading, the only other thing I let myself do was write down the 1-2 word low-res summary. Also, RC is another area where reps matter a ton. I absolutely hated doing them everyday, but doing a few passages a day paid off. Doing entire sections at a time was too stressful to do daily for me, so I started doing one passage at a time (timed), and then 2 at a time, then 3 at a time. This got me much more comfortable with the timing (I would also time how long I spent on each passage just reading), and the volume helped me start to pick up on trends across passages. By the end, I was much more naturally acknowledging, as I read, changes in tone or who’s argument this paragraph’s is. I also think re-doing passages from PTs was a worthwhile exercise. I don’t think you can truly understand where you went wrong on an individual question unless you re-do the whole passage. Time consuming, but worth it.

    LR was probably the section I spent the least amount of time on, to be frank. I used the syllabus to cover most of the question types (but didn’t really finish any of them after the first few). The biggest bump on LR for me came as a result of the changes I made in RC. Slowing down, and really engaging with each sentence of a passage made a world of a difference. Your work on RC and LR really aid with the other, so I guess the new LG-less LSAT will be at least a more focused study. I never struggled with time on LR like I did with RC and LG, and I found myself consciously forcing myself to slow down. When I realized how slow I could go, I started picking up on things I wouldn’t have otherwise picked up on, eliminating all 4 wrong answers (previously I’d speed through and eliminate 2-3 wrong answers and rush through, ending up with time remaining at the end). Reps were huge in LR for me too, just re-doing all of the PTs I did made a big difference. Like the rest of the test, there are trends in right answers and wrong answers they like to throw out. You really can’t beat just doing and re-doing hundreds and hundreds of questions.

    As far as my testing methodology, I was extremely impatient and struggled with the blind review because I wanted to know my score so badly. Eventually I realized if I just looked at the score to satisfy that urge, I could then go set up each section as a drill and re-do it, and that was totally worth it. So, long way of saying blind review is great and totally works, I just needed to see the number, so I found a work around.

    All in all, this is just what worked for me, I realize some of this may not provide much help to others. I think if you’re someone who naturally moves quickly through tests and has a tendency to skim while reading, this is probably more relevant to you than to anyone else. That’s the biggest moral of the story for me, forcing myself to slow down made a crazy big difference. Even if you don’t move too quick, the repetitions of the same games in LG will be helpful, that helped me speed up on some of the tougher games. So anyways, go slow, do a ton of reps, and review each wrong answer very carefully. And 7Sage is awesome. Hope that helps!

    One last thing – don’t ignore the mental hurdles you go through. I bombed a PT 9 days before the October test and freaked out, felt like I was having a full blown panic attack. I realized I was studying way too much, specifically timed sections, and was just constantly stressed out. I took the next few days off, and didn’t do any more timed work before the test, and it turned out pretty well. So as much as you absolutely need to work hard and push yourself, when stress is really creeping in, take the time off. Do something fun and de-stress. I pushed myself HARD in those 2.5 months, and wouldn’t necessarily recommend it. My strategies were solid, but they would have been way better over 3-4 months instead.

    I'm having a lot of trouble understanding the stimulus's support for [A] being the correct weaken answer.

    I eliminated it because the skeptics never said that it was just the bottom layer that was contaminated; they just say "the samples were contaminated" so I thought that they were referring to the entire collection, which would include the upper layer. The skeptics never differentiated between the uppermost and lower samples for their hypothesis, so AC [A] doesn't seem to weaken their hypothesis at all.

    How can I infer that they're excluding the uppermost samples in their hypothesis? Is it because the stimulus says that the uppermost samples are dated to the present and therefore couldn't have been contaminated by the old carbon?

    Confirm action

    Are you sure?