Hello, everyone.

I've done the core curriculum and am (trying) to solve all the LG problems from PT 1-70 but things are not looking up.

I've done 40 PTs so far. This is what usually happens. First, I will try to solve the problems on my own. I will probably get the sequencing and simple in-out games and make all the inferences. On a good PT, three sets with maybe 4-5 wrong. On a particularly bad one I might get two or even one set properly done, missing up to two digits. The latter has been happening a lot and on the September LSAT, I did not fare well on this section and had to randomly guess for about twelve of the questions.

I understand JY's explanations and they have been very helpful. But are you supposedly to go over EVERY single game set with explanations? For me, that seems to be the reality. And even with 40 PTs down, I am not making the leap I had been hoping for.

The Games are holding me back and I have not done anything else for some time. It's making me really depressed, guys. I hope to hear some words of wisdom. Thanks and have a nice one.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-3-question-26/

I got this question right during the PT by POE (A-B reverses necessary and sufficient terms, ACD all use most-statements) but in BR I really had to labor over the logic. It in fact took several sessions to feel good about my interpretation. However, my translation differs slightly from JY due to the presence of nested terms so I'm curious what ya'll think about it.

expect benefits outweigh cost → (acquire info → R)

Therefore

acquire info → R

This appears to be the most basic logical structure in the book. A→B, therefore B. We need A. But the nested terms muddy the waters a bit. We need to conclude R which is nested within the necessary condition. Because of the odd form, there are more ways of doing that than just A→B. But, most importantly, we can't conclude R if one expects the "benefits outweigh the cost".

This is really where I had my difficult. the easiest correct AC would have just said "The benefits never outweigh the cost". However, what they gave us was

acquire info → expect benefits outweigh cost

That results in a perfectly valid but unusual form. Our final chain looks like

expect benefits outweigh cost ↔ acquire info → R

"Consumers who do not bother to acquire this info are acting rationally". We can safely say that now because consumers who don't bother to acquire this info also don't expect the benefits to outweigh the costs.

Hello everyone!

So, I have started fool proofing, and I feel like I am not doing it effectively. I generally use the concept of doing the game once. Watched the video explanation. Do it again the same day. Then, do the same game the next day. Wait a week and do the same game again. However, I do not seem to be getting some of the games within time by the 4th try and some of them I am still answering wrong. So, I have thought of some reasons why I may not be grasping the concepts and wanted to get ya'll take on it.

First, I am not focusing specifically on LG. I have split my study times between LG and LR or LG and RC. My LR is doing better, but I also think I put more emphasis on LR. Do you think I should take it section by section instead to focus?

Second, I vary in how many games I will do a day mostly since I split time in studying. For example, I may do 2, 3, or 4 games on my study session. Should I do a whole section each time?

Third, I think my Foolproof cycling is not good. I do the four tries, but since I vary on how many I do, I may start a new game. Also, I have not returned to some of the games that I have done 4 times and not got all the answer right/within time frame. Should I increase my intervals such as: do game x twice in a day, then next week do game x, then next month do game x?

It's funny because the more I type, the more I am seeing what the problem is lol.

Reading Comprehension is my lowest scoring section. Does anyone have any good tips for improving this area? I know a few people who find RC the easiest read magazines such as the Economist and WSJ. I used to read WSJ when I had the student discount, but only because it didn't cost a lot and their topics actually interested me. Most RC passages aren't as interesting for me. For those of you who have seen improvement and/or do well on RC, do you have any Publications/Magazines that you recommend reading for practice? How often do you read them and what is your strategy for reading them (do you read all the way through, or mark conclusions/premises/etc.)?

Please let me know if you'd like to join and have not yet received info in your inbox. :)

I was wondering what the best way to approach RC is following completion of CC. I usually miss between 8 and 4 consistently, but that's too wide a range. I want to get down to -2, which I believe I am capable of doing. I usually blow it and miss 2 and 2 or 3 and 2 on the harder RC sections, and miss only 1 on the easier sections. Should I review "Hard RC" sections from the CC or does anyone have any tips on something that would be more constructive? Should I go backwards from PT35 and review only the hardest RC passages per test and then BR them? I imagine that that would be best strategy, but if anyone has any thoughts I'd love to hear. Thanks for all and any feedback!

Did anyone who took the Sept 2017 LSAT with accommodations take the same test as the normal one, even after the normal test date?

Hi everyone,I was wondering if anybody had any strategies on how to study misc or really weird/one of a kind type games?

As an example consider G4 from Prep-Test 72. I bombed that game during my practice test, and I'm not sure what else to do besides watch the video. Its not like bombing an in-out game where you can refer to back to many other examples of in-out games and practice those. This game seems like a one of a kind sort of thing.

I'm writing the test in Dec. and I'm just worried because if something along the lines of the above example game comes up, I don't think I'll do very well on that game. The silver-lining in the clouds here is that I'm comfortable with all the more formulaic or generic types of games (e.g. in/out, sequencing etc.). But if I run into a G4 from PT 72 in dec. that could be a big score difference, and affect my admissions chances for specific schools :/

Hi everyone,

I logged into the LSAC's website to change my test center and came across the notice that the December 2017 LSAT scores will not be available until February 2018. I was planning to complete my applications by the end of November/beginning of December but I am worried that I might be at a disadvantage to get into some law schools. Is anyone planning on taking the December LSAT as well? Should I just take the test this year and apply in September of 2018 instead?

Any suggestions would be much appreciated

Hi again,

As with yesterday, I made another parallel (flawed) argument for an LR stimulus I had troubles with. I would appreciate it if you could help out by answering :)

:cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie:

Letter to the editor: Your newspaper seems to heavily biased against renewable energy. The study presented in the article "Can We Survive on Renewable Energy?" distorts evidence and shows flawed reasoning. The article states that countries with lower rates of renewable energy had lower average cost of electricity than other countries. However, that will not be the case for long, since the average cost of electricity is increasing in the countries with lower rates of renewable energy. Thus, the evidence actually supports the view that the use of renewable energy should be increased.

The reasoning in the letter writer's argument is flawed in that it

(A)　concludes based on evidence from the article it criticizes

(B)　fails to take in to account the possibility that using renewable energy is often costly

(C)　fails to take in to account the possibility that not everyone wants to use renewable energy

(D)　fails to take in to account the possibility that the average cost of electricity in other countries is also increasing

(E)　does not show any evidence against the viewpoint in the article

https://media.giphy.com/media/Lt3VrZ2WqL3W0/giphy.gif

The title says it all

So I'm signing up for 7sage today. It seems like this program is great for LR and LG, but I am really struggling with RC for some reason. I took the Sept. 2017 test and really seemed to have a tough time (to be fair, that judges passage was impossible!).

I self studied with a book (cant remember what brand) that covered all three sections- it was one of the highest rated on Amazon (definitely not a Kaplan one), and then I also purchased the Powerscore LR and LG bibles. I also purchased the newest collection of LSAT exams. I took my first PT shortly after I began studying, and did pretty well on the RC section (I think it was -5). Unfortunately, my RC score has continued to decrease each time I take a PT.

I know that the RC sections have become increasingly difficult over the past few years, but I can't justify that to be the sole factor for my decrease. (My last PT before the LSAT was around -13, but I was exhausted and burnt out so that definitely did not help.) I noticed that I did not make any marks/notes in my first RC PT, and now I cannot stop myself from taking notes in the RC section...

Anyway to stop a long post from getting even longer, I was wondering if anyone could tell me about 7Sage's approach to RC. I feel pretty comfortable with LG and know I am decent at LR (but there's definitely room to improve). I have never had issues with RC in school, so I am feeling pretty discouraged. I scored a 157 on my first PT, and went down to a 151 right before the LSAT last week (I took 7 PTs in total). My LG has increased substantially, and my LR has slightly increased, so this huge decrease has come solely from RC.

I am hoping to score in the 160s in December. I would be thrilled with anything160 or above. Thank you in advanced for your responses!

Pure sequencing is one of my weaker areas and I'm starting to wonder if it might be easier and save more time for me to translate each rule individually and then make a master diagram. I feel like this may be easier for me to make inferences and it also allows me to avoid having to erase certain sequences when you find out that the next rule changes things, ultimately saving me time in the long run.

I'm curious to know how you guys all approach diagramming pure sequencing games!

I'd like to sharpen my technique on questions with lots of difficult conditional reasoning (arcane content, lots of confusing negations, embedded conditionals, etc.) Unfortunately, there is no "conditional reasoning" tag in the LR section of the 7Sage Question Bank (hint, hint @"Dillon A. Wright")

Does anyone have an efficient strategy for culling together and drilling questions?

So I have been trying to fool-proof the in/out and grouping games in the CC... But I never do good on a game on the first attempt. I either find myself interpreting rules wrong or not making enough inferences or anything else basically LOL.

Of course, after looking at the video explanation I can do it... not sure if this is my anxiety kicking in or I just suck at these types of games.

Is this normal? Because I feel like I am never going to get through this :(

Hey everyone!

I've realized that I'm consistently failing the Necessary Assumption, MSS and Flaw/Weakening Questions (Among the most frequent questions in the test). I know that I need to have intensives on each type of questions, but during my practice tests, would you recommend that I skip every single one of those types of questions and leave them for the end?

Also, Parallel reasoning and flaw questions, since they are always so long, I also leave them to the end, because I consider them a time sink. Would you recommend that?

Any help is appreciated!

Hey everyone!

I'm having trouble with this particular question. It is an MBT question, and while I was BR, I read it without translating and was able to pick the right answer correctly, mainly by the elimination method. I tried translating it nonetheless, and it actually confused me even more. I don't know if I translated it incorrectly, but it just seemed to me that the right answer (B) was kind of a subjective statement when it says "It fits more closely than". Could we actually reach that valid conclusion through translation? If so, how did would you translate it? Isn't that statement too wide? Has anyone faced the same problem regarding translation, in the sense that sometimes it is easier to find the answer without translating?

Any help is very appreciated!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-1-question-11/

Hey sagers,

So I am currently working on fool-proofing logic games, however I do not always meet the suggested target time. I sometimes score 2-3 mins over the suggested target time. I was wondering if that is okay or normal? Is it a big deal if I don't hit the target time for each game. I find myself doing better on sequencing games, and even score below the target time. Grouping games on the other hand.. not so much.

Basically, I want to know if meeting the target time is crucial or does it vary from person to person? Like I can get an entire game correct but I sometimes just take 2 additional minutes to finish it.

Not sure if I will get better once I do more games?

Any tips on how to improve time for logic games?

Thanks!

Hi everyone! We are changing this week's call for PT60 to Thursday at 8pm EST. There is an Admission webinar on Tuesday night that some of us would like to attend so we're moving the call. Please show up, even if you are tired and don't feel like it....your brain will thank you for it!

Here's what to do:

Take PT60 then BR on your own.

Submit questions you'd like to go over here: https://goo.gl/forms/pxZVdh6THytU2way2

Note: We will try to limit the calls to under 2 hours. We will review LR questions first and only review RC if we have time. We will not be reviewing LG on the call.

This step is important: Come prepared to speak through how you approached the question you submitted. If more than one of us had trouble on the same question, we can each have an opportunity to speak through our thought process/which choices we were stuck between. The rest of the group then discusses.

Add side braid#1597 so that I can see if you're online when we go live for the call and make sure you get to the right place in the forum.

"A brief analysis of the table reveals that Linear and Grouping games dominate the percentages, and 91% of games on past tests were Grouping, Linear, or Grouping/Linear Combination games (almost 95% if you consider that Pattern games are also Linear in nature). Other game types appeared relatively infrequently. A student with limited preparation time would obviously be well-served to tilt their preparation towards the Linear and Grouping games as these types appear on every LSAT and are by far the most frequently appearing types of games".

While I'm doing the practice sets for different question types, I somehow find myself doing the BR method as I go through it the first time around and for that reason I take a significantly greater time finishing the sets than I should. I go way over 35 min.Does anyone have any tips on how to move faster through questions when doing these sets, and in general?

Thanks!

Hello Everyone. Quick question, JY speaks of the best approach/framework to a Social Science Passage as being Phenom/Hypo; do any of you happen to know what are the best approaches/frameworks to use for Law, Natural Sciences and Humanities? I think Natural Science maybe be Phenom/Hypo also, but just wanted to have a sounding board to see if I'm headed in the right direction? Thanks ALL!

I am confused by question 8. I was down to C and E, ultimately chose E, but only due to pure luck.

I don't know why C is supported but E is not.

The potential support for C is in line 23, where it says "one problem in studying the effects of drilling waste discharges..." But it just says there is a problem in studying. It doesn't say that the study is done. Perhaps the study wasn't done due to the problem. Who knows? Another potential support is just the whole second and third paragraphs of Passage B. They tell us that WBM is less harmful than OBM to the environment. That potentially implies that a study was done?

The potential support for E is in line 32, where it says that Drilling mud is normally released during the drilling phase of a well's existence. We know that the mud is discharged, although we don't know if it is continuously discharged into the sea.

To me, C and E both have weak support. I don't know why C is more supported than E.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-1-passage-2-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-1-passage-2-questions/

For strengthening questions, how much does it need to strengthen the stimulus for it to be correct. For example, weakening questions, as long as it casts doubt on the support, I can weaken the argument. Does this also apply for strengthening questions?