I've always loved to read. Obsessively, truly. When I was younger I would get in trouble for trying to read under my covers with the lights off. My mother incessantly warned me about the dangers of straining my eyes. I'm now 22 years old sporting thick glasses shamelessly. Needless to say, I never learned my lesson. I also never gave up my love for reading. This is perhaps why RC is the section that leaves me most at ease, except for one very specific question type that always gets me - anything that question's/asks me to analyze the author's point of view. This frustrates me to no end because I understand the text. I can honestly read through a passage once and hold the structure and ideas in my head while minimally actually reverting back to the text. I feel like I engage enough with the text to even be able to argue in it's defense or opposition if someone were to ask me to do so ... but why are these questions so difficult for me to comprehend... Am I not sensitive enough to "cue" words? Do I need to expose myself to more "uninteresting" texts? Any tips at all on how others have overcame this struggle (if it is a common one), would be greatly appreciated. I understand that RC is perhaps the hardest section to improve on, which is why I assume more "high brow" reading exposure is really my best bet.

After completing the LG CC and fool-proofing the problem sets using the Pacifico method, I've gone through PT 1-5 of the LG Bundle. I've seen ~108 unique games at this point. LG has always been a weak point of mine (the first simple seq game problem set took me about 3 hours), and the CC seems to have really helped my accuracy. I'm around -2 average.

However, my timing is still much too slow. It's been taking me around 10-15 extra minutes to finish each section in the bundle.

I'm going to continue with the Pacifico method. If anyone's been in a similar situation, at what point in the bundle, or in the PTs phase, did you start to see your LG reach -2/below territory?

Hi guys,

I just tried to register for the Feb 10, 2018 LSAT. When I was just finishing my registration the clock passed midnight to Jan 6 and the LSAC website told me that I had passed the registration deadline. Is the deadline that just passed the regular registration deadline or the late registration deadline?

LSAC's website says the regular registration deadline is January 4, 2018. So will I still be able to register late?

https://www.lsac.org/jd/lsat/test-dates-deadlines/2017-2018/us-canada-feb

Thanks.

Hello, I have been studying for my LSAT and I take it again next month. I was wondering if anyone would care to study together in the Atlanta area ?

@aburk3

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/except/

JY says this conditional statement is a biconditional which is equivalent to "Allen is in the park if and only if Chris is not in the park". But I see more complexity in the statement than that due to the fact that "everyday" introduces frequency. I believe that we can clearly say "/C --> A" or "If Chris is not in the park, then Allen is in the park every day", therefore if Chris is not in the park on a given day then Allen is definitely in the park that day.

However, it gets messy when Chris does go to the park. JY says that when Chris is in the park "we can definitely say that Allen doesn't go". But I don't think that that's the proper translation because it ignores the frequency aspect of the original sentence. Rather, I think it translates to "If Chris goes to the park, then Allen is not in the park everyday" or "Allen is not necessarily in the park". Which means, we don't know whether Allen is in the park or not and therefore this is not a biconditional at all in fact.

TLDR

We can say "/C --> A" "If Chris isn't in the park, then Allen is in the park"

We cannot say "C --> /A" "If Chris is in the park, then Allen is not in the park that day"

We can't say this because "everyday" negates to "at most 364 days of the year". We can't forget about "everyday" when we translate.

Happy new year everyone!

I'm having issues with picking out assumptions in the NA section. It's completely my fault for letting the answer choices spoon feed me until now lol. I understand how NA works but it's still difficult to pick it out from the stimulus. Any tips? :)

Thank you always.

For 3-4 months I have been doing the fool proof method. After a redo or two, I can perfect a game, getting all the questions right and under my time limit. If I ever see thay game again, I am have the same sucess. So far I have probably completed close to 30-35 games of each type. The problem is, whenever I see new games, I am very unsucessful. I work extremely slow and I usally end up getting 4-5 correct in 15 minutes, which is unexceptable. I am getting extrmely frustrated because I have placed a lot of time and effort into the fool proof method, and its not helping me when it comes to new games, which is obviously going to be a HUGE problem on the actual LSAT. I’m starting to feel like my dreams of law school are going down the toliet.

I'm not sure how to go about this since technically I have "unlimited" time. Obviously I would review the section but is there any point to doing a BR?

Details: I woke full time and scored a 157 in Sept, and a 160 in December although my PTS are closer to the lower mid 160s. I plan on putting my applications in regardless within the next 48 hours but should I take the February LSAT in hopes of higher financial aide?

Brutally. Any advice? I'm just now learning them and just completed that part of the CC. They are just crushing my soul. Tonight I plan on reviewing the conditional logic exercises, anything else I should be doing? I cried, broke down today, brainstormed other professions, then got a hold of myself and realize that giving up is just not an option. I can and will own these asshole jerk questions. No offense to anybody that loves them.

I just got an email from LSAC saying my answer sheet got wet in transit and they had to hand grade my answers. Did anyone else get this? I’m super worried and concerned that my test didn’t get graded correctly. Is there anything I should be doing/contacting LSAC about?

I am in the Some and Most Relationships category of the curriculum and I am finding myself a little confused about negation vs the contrapositive. One of the quizzes gives this example: "All non-water breathing mammals have limbs". The task states to: 1. Translate all English statements into Lawgic. 2. Negate each statement in Lawgic. 3. Translate each statement back into English. So my translation looks like this: NWBM --> L. Now I believe that this is correct but the next step is where my confusion begins. I recognize that All is a group 1 logical indicator so the task for that involves finding the contrapositive which would be: /L --> /NWBM. This is not negation which would be in the english translation: Some NWBM do not have L. So I believe that my confusion is coming from not understanding when I am supposed to apply a negation rather than a contrapositive to the original statement in an LR question.

Hi everybody.

I scored a 143 cold (done in June 2017) but I don't really consider it valid because I was sleeping through Reading Comp and barely taking the tests seriously. Regardless, my strongest sections were LR and LG. LR is somewhat understandable for me. I know for sure I am to do very well in February by looking at the questions in terms of category + strategy. Thought I'd shoot and ask you what are your strategies for LR questions. You can either state one question or how you approach the section as a whole. I'm devising a plan for each question and will test it out through drilling a million of them. My latest practice test (back in like October) was 158. I've been studying half-ass, but seeing as I wasted my $ not taking the December test. I chose to study very hard since October. I've been on it and with now 6 weeks left to the test, I'm on full throttle. Right now I'm perfecting my logic games, but I'd like to dedicate the next two weeks on drilling LG and LR and perfecting the strategies for this. Then I'll do 1 week for perfecting RC and spend the last 2-3 weeks doing practice tests, working on weaknesses and drilling.

170+ or go home.

Thank you!

I am fool proofing the 1-35 bundle of games, and wondering if I should spend any time fool-proofing the so-called irrelevant games in the early tests.

JY mentions that they don't appear in modern tests.

Wondering how long it took those who study and work full time to finish the full logic game bundle.

Maybe slightly off topic, but anyone have tips for screen sharing and drawing platforms for tablets for LG? Basically like JY's videos, but for screen sharing not recording videos.

If you are new to the site and left handed you might want to try diagraming on the right side of your paper. I realized that when I diagramed on the left side of my paper I was taking up valuable time when moving my hand out of the way to look at my diagram. I didn't realize how distracting it was to keep moving my hand. Every second counts.

Hi guys,

Can someone break this question down for me? It’s a PSA question, and I’ve watched every explanation I could on it and it’s still not clicking.

Would appreciate any insight on it.

Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-2-question-12/

Dec 2017 score 153. Hoping to break into 160s, and I think there's a good chance. The 153 was at the tail end of nearly a month of acute bronchitis, I even had to leave during LG to cough a lung up in the hallway. Thought about cancelling at the time, but was fairly sure I could regain control of my nerves to finish without complete disaster. My UG GPA & softs with even a 153 are probably enough to get me into my state school of preference.

I'm a non-trad, grad student. Please be ready to provide references and have an established credible method of receiving payment like PayPal.

Where is the best place to buy Logic Games from PT's 1-35?

Hey, guys. Can anyone thing of a more recent game that has a rule like, “Only seats in the same row...”? Like who thought something like seats in row 1 and in row 2 could be immediately beside each other??? I guess that could happen if you diagrammed something like 123 with an aisle then 456 so 3 and 4 could be immediately beside each other and then 789 immediately behind 123??? I interpreted the rule to mean that no one can be assigned to a row by themselves and the middle seat can’t be empty because someone has to be seated immediately beside you. I diagrammed three rows on top of one another just as displayed in the game so I never thought of it any other way. I set up my game boards this way and missed questions because I misinterpreted it. Anyway, I’m venting because it seems dumb to me but can anyone think of something like this in more recent games?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-3-game-1/

I am doing the flash cards for the group 3 logical indicators and keep coming up with the contrapositive first. Example: There is no punishment without law. The group 3 operator is without I picked “law” made it the sufficient and negated it. The other idea was punishment. So for me it looked like this: /L -> /P. and then my contrapositive is P -> L. I kept doing this on many of them. The flash card showed with P -> L first. I realize that they are just contrapositives of each other but I just started to worry that there may be something wrong with the way I was reading it that would cause me problems in real LR questions.

Hey I was wondering if anyone could help me with this problem. Its a main conclusion question. It seems as if the second sentence is something like a minor conclusion, that is, its used in service of the larger conclusion (the first sentence). If this were a main conclusion question for reading comp, I think I would have chosen the correct answer C. Instead I chose A. Any ideas?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-4-question-11/

Diagramming the more complex questions can take quite a bit of time. Sometimes the correct answers are more intuitive and thus it would be a waste of time to diagram. But reading the question stem and all the answer choices also takes time and when the correct answer choice is not intuitive, you have to go back and read the stimulus again to begin diagramming.

So my question is, how do you guys know when to diagram and when to not? Do you diagram from the first reading of any conditional/existential statement markers? Or do you do so as a last resort? Or do I just lack the intuition to know when diagramming is appropriate vs when it is not?

Hey guys,

Trying to get a sense of how long it usually takes someone to achieve consistent -1/-0 on logic games. How many games from early tests did you do, how many attempts for each game, how many PT's before you started seeing perfect LG scores etc.