When discussing this passage during a BR call, I thought a certain meme would be appropriate, given the unusual insights of the psychologists. I visualized expanding mental horizons and became one with the universe:

http://imgur.com/a/KrCnA

Hey everyone,

So, even though I get most of the SA questions included in the 7sage drills right, I end up taking 2-3 minutes (sometimes even more) on them (barring the really easy ones: i.e., 1-3 difficulty rating). I think converting the sentence into lawgic consumes a lot of the time. As a point of contrast - I was wrapping up the PSA questions within 1:24, and wasn't diagramming for any of those.

Any suggestions on how I can improve my speed?

PS: I didn't print the questions and was drilling directly from the laptop, which meant I couldn't immediately underline key words and diagram. I'm not sure if this was an obstacle in completing the question within the allotted time?

Looking forward to everyone's suggestions!

Hi guys, Im having trouble setting up this type of game. Not sure where to put what elements, what the elements are and what the base is. Does anyone have any tips? Would reading the advanced linear games in PS help with the set up? Im good once I get to the set up.

Hi friends,

I keep having trouble with questions such as #5 section 4 on PT 72 that say something along the lines of "The order of _____ is fully determined if which one of the following is true?"

Any tips on how to solve these? I think I'm really in my own head when it comes to these questions.

Thanks!

Pretty much what the title says. It feels like everything I learned went down the drain. I'm trying very hard not to panic for the test in less than two weeks. How can I get back on track?

I am consistently getting NA questions wrong. Any advice? I find them very hard.

Thanks! :)

Okay guys, I need your help figuring out my next step.

I have finished CC, Manhattan LR and Trainer and I do believe that I have a very strong sense of LR arguments and question stems. My strategy was to do LR from PTs 17-36 untimed and really take my time to analyze the questions. So far I did 17-19 and my average is -6.5 per section. I need to bring it down to at most -2 and I do not know how to achieve it.

The way I did the questions that I did was to

Now two things happen 1) either i am down to two answer choices (most of the time one of them is correct) and i pick the wrong one because somehow in my head i overthink it and all of the sudden it becomes somehow attractive or 2) i do not read careful enough and misread the right answer in a way that it becomes a wrong answer, so even though i take my time to understand the argument, i rush with understanding the answer choices.

My question is, should I stick with my strategy and keep going with the rest of the PTs in hope that after enough bumps along the way I will be able to learn better what my weaknesses are and spot the wrong answer choices easier?

Should I employ a different strategy?

P.S there is not one specific kind of questions I miss the most. I am pretty decent at all of them according to 7sage trends, with SA and Flaw being my best and Strengthen, AP and MBT being the worst.

Hello! I was hoping to get some clarification on this question.

So clearly our right answer should link the reintroduction of rock salt to a disproportionate burden on low income people.

I put B, and the correct answer is D.

My understanding is that you're supposed to use the part of the prompt that says "Although the city claims that cars are now better protected from salt's corrosive properties than they were as recently as five years ago" to pair with the text D, which says that low income people are more likely to purchase older vehicles.

My issue is that I think not a large leap, but a nonsensical leap to interpret the prompt portion as referring to new cars in comparison with old cars. The text merely says that "cars are now better protected from salt's corrosive properties." There's literally one subject in that sentence: cars. The sentence makes no distinction about different groups of cars within the general "cars" umbrella. The distinction, grammatically and logically speaking, is between how "cars" handle salt now, and how "cars" handled salt before.

Maybe "cars" better handle salt because of some trends in humidity levels. Heck, you could just as easily and fairly interpret the opposite of what you were meant to. Maybe the older a car is, the more resistant it becomes to salt corrosion because they develop a layer of dirt and debris that keeps the salt from penetrating as deeply as it does in new cars which are exposed.

Deriving the necessary assumption is ludicrous and arbitrary, in my view.

On the contrary, D requires but a small, feasible leap. We're told that sales tax disproportionately burdens low income people. We're told that road maintenance is primarily funded by local sales tax. This appears to have all the ingredients we need to make a perfectly in-tact chain of logic. All we have to do is check to see if rock salt re-introduction counts as road maintenance.

Rock salt is applied to roads in order to maintain a safe, drivable road. It is undoubtedly a road maintenance matter. We weren't using it for several years, we are now. Sure, maybe we have a vast reservoir of rock salt in an underground bunker that will spare us any additional expense, but that's terribly farfetched and extreme. At the very least you're going to have some costs associated with the switch, if not also the highly likely case that you're going to have to buy some quantity of rock salt, the money of which is coming from sales tax that disproportionately burdens low-income people.

B seems to be all but iron clad, while D is all but impossible. We need but the smallest, likeliest set of circumstances for B to work. We need the biggest, most ridiculous, most ambiguous crapshoot of an assumption in order for D to make a drop of sense.

Am I missing something here?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-67-section-4-question-08/

I'm taking the Sept exam and was wondering how I can get better at deciding whether to split the game board, solve by brute force or just make a basic diagram and move on to the questions. I usually rush towards the end because I spend too much time trying to split the game board or too little time making inferences. How do you guys approach different problem sets? I kind of have to get -0 in order to get the score I need...

I have a fantastically hard time with these question types. I attribute it to a lack of complete understanding of the passage content. But even during BR i still get these wrong.

Any pointers or tips on how you guys go about these?

My BR score is generally 178-180. This is literally the only thing i consistently get wrong.

(Bar those annoying LG substitution questions, ugh)

Hello 7sagers! This is my first time posting on the forum so bear with me. I am currently working on some PTs and my max is 160, but for the past few exams I exams I have gotten 154, 156, 157, 159, 156 with BRs between 165-169 on each. I was hoping to take the test in September, but I will probably cancel my score if I do and take it in December instead. I analytics are as follows: at best I get from -4 to -7 on RC (which I'm really proud of b/c RC was my worst section at the ve). On LG -8 on literally every single PT I have taken. On LR I'm usually -8 to -6 per section. Here's the annoying part and what I mainly want advice on: the questions I miss for LR are evenly distributed. So I'll miss two between 1-10 three or four between 11-20 (and often they're in a row) and only one or two between 20-26. I'm not sure what the cause is. I think I'm overconfident on the easy ones and not confident enough in the middle. Has anyone else experienced this? How do I overcome this

Also: I have decided that over the next 2 weeks I am solely going to work on foolproofing games. If I can manage to get between -0--3 on games -4 on RC and, then hammer out my problems on LR I feel confident in my ability to get a 168+ by December.

Thanks for listening y'all let me know what you think. Good luck to all of you taking it in September

Does anyone have a simple Framework/Diagramming approach to Math-type questions that you can rely on? This is for questions like those found in PT 31, Sect 2, Ques 15 (31, 2, 15) or those found at these locations as well: 27, 4, 14; 21, 2, 10; 34, 3, 21? Thanks for any tips/pointers!

So I've been at the LSAT for over a year now. I've struggled and plateaued. I've wanted to give up, I've felt motivated and defeated. The September test is right around the corner so I wanted to prove something to myself. I sat down and took my original diagnostic test again. I took this test in May of 2016. It's been over a year since I touched this material.

PT 63

May 2016 score: 151

September 2017 score: 174

While I know there are some factors here, like memory, the feeling of seeing pure progress is amazing.

If you want a confidence boost before the September test, and you are okay with retaking a test, I say give this a shot. It really helped me see that some of my work is at least paying off haha. Just a thought for my fellow September testers out there!

Hey all,

I was wondering what you all were planning on doing the week before the exam. As of now I think I'm going to PT on Monday and Wednesday, then just light drilling/taking the day off Thursday and Friday.

Also, was wondering if anyone had some helpful tips on relieving mental exhaustion or eye fatigue post-PT?

Hi,

I'm pretty comfortable with the RC passages about science as I've watched JY's lessons about finding the opposing arguments, hypothesis, evidence, theory, low to high res annotations. Just wondering if there are any tips specific to passages about old Art as well? Because the LSAT puts a lot of passages about 14th century art or something like that.

I have the impression that passages 3/4 tend to be more difficult than 1/2 - does anyone know if this is the case? Or am I just projecting because I tend to be stressing out as the clock runs by this time?

If 3 & 4 are, in fact, more difficult, would anyone recommend doing them first? Then going back and hitting 1& 2?

Hey all.

I've noticed the more recent exams have a lot of difficult necessary assumption questions. Another thing I noticed was that these questions frequently have conditional statements as wrong answer choices, while the right answer choice is most often just a direct statement.

If I'm choosing between two good sounding ACs on a PT, but one is conditional and the other is a direct statement, do you all think the direct statement is more likely to be true?

It seems to me that the conditional statements are very often sufficient assumption answer choices, while the direct statements are necessary.

Thanks

Hey 7Sage,

12 days until the Sept exam, WOOT! I am seeking advice on what PTs to do in the next two weeks. I have already done nearly

all the exams. My only completely untouched exams are old exams -- 39 and 44. Maybe also 10 and 13. Thus, I don't think I should focus on those in the next two weeks, although they are new to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think I want to look at the newest PTs again, since they're nuanced compared to older tests. I have done 70-72 and 75-80 once each. I figure I will do 3 more before the 16th. Should I do 78-80? Does it matter? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Hey Guys,

I always get confused when we have a group 3 and 4 word. For instance, PT 69, part 4, question 21, answer choice D.

So, we have /published AND important and well written (The published is negative and crossed out)

How would I take it from here since we have unless and not. I went through the lessons, and it said I can make either one negative. So I will make published positive and keep important and well written. So this answer choice would read.. if published----> is important and well written.

Is this correct?

In JYs video explanations, he says that the last 2 aren't applicable to the modern lsat. Given what the exam has been up to in recent years on logic games, do you think that statement still stands? I went -4 in this section and usually do -0/-1 so it threw me for sure.

So for this one I was having a lot of trouble because I couldn't see how any of the answers could be true based off the stimulus. Can someone explain this question to me please? Ty!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-79-section-1-question-20/

Does the statement "Most useful" connote that there is more than one AC that could help but we are tasked at finding the most useful?. If this is painfully obvious, i apologize. But i have learnt to not take anything for granted on this test. Thanks

Nathaniel

I have had some major struggles with weakening questions lately. After drilling this question type, I realized that weakening questions simply state the flaw in the argument. Because of this, would it be a bad approach to find the flaw in the argument and, rather then descriptively describing it, anticipate this flaw as an answer choice that exposes it?

Thank you for reading!

Hey all! I find that often during BR for LR I am still stuck between 2 answers, so I'm wondering what everyone does to try and push through to the correct answer choice while in BR. Do you look up an explanation of the question/JYs video without looking at the answer or look through your notes for help? Or do you just push through without looking at other sources?

But if anyone has any tips on how they BR LR that would be awesome to know as I find BR LR very tiring haha!

Thanks everyone!!