Ok, I might be exaggerating when I say "punish prephrases," but I noticed that the prephrases, especially for the flaw/ assumption type questions, don't work as well in the recent PTs ( 70s up) compared to the older ones (the ones we used for CC). Also, prephrases make me to be a bit inflexible in considering answer choices (I am too quick to eliminate those that do not fit my prephrase), which hurts me as a result.

Most of the prephrases I used for older PT flaw Qs/ assumption Qs were right on, so I just picked the right answer quickly and moved on. With the newer PTs, I see that my prephrases attract me to trap answers. It seems better to leave the AC that matches my prephrase well as a contender (as opposed to choosing it and moving on) and REALLY carefully consider every other answer choice. I found that I do better in the recent PTs when I don't prephrase at all. Rather, I focus on EXACTLY what the conclusion is and stay open minded. Then, I see if the answer choice weakens/ negates the conclusion (in case if the Q type is flaw/ weaken for example).

Maybe prephrasing isn't to fault at all; maybe the recent PTs just punish those who are inflexible and expect the answer choice to have a certain form. Or maybe I don't have a solid prephrasing skill, but wasn't punished at all in older PTs, but am in newer ones.

Either way, does anyone else perceive a similar trend? What do you think about the utility of prephrasing in general?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-2-question-14/

I answered this question correctly under timed conditions but switched my answer during BR. Then I noticed lots of others experienced the same difficulty. Neither AC, B nor C, seems better than the other. JY describes B by saying that it independently explains each phenomena in the stimulus but doesn't resolve the tension between the two. I agree that B doesn't resolve the tension without the help of assumptions, but I don't think the assumptions required for B to be correct are any more egregious than that of C.

Here are my BR notes. There are two sets, one for B as the correct AC and one for C.

C correct

"B: I can see why this AC may be tempting to some people. It's by no mistake that it is placed just before (what I believe in BR) is the correct answer. This is tempting because it says demand increased. That part is pretty relevant to the stimulus, but it doesn't resolve the paradox because it doesn't address how the industry could meet this higher demand with 15% less workforce. Eliminate.

C: I breezed passed this the first time, but it does seem to do the best job of explaining this paradox. The stimulus says that Ravonia laid off jobs in logging and WOOD PROCESSING. So why is the amount of wood being taken at Ravonia increasing? Because their not playing around with processing -- just cut it and ship it raw. This isn't a great AC because we need to assume that the increase in exports is enough to drive the 10% increase in wood harvesting mentioned in the stimulus. We also need to assume that there are enough loggers to supply this 10% increase. Least bad AC. Correct POE."

B correct

"B: Oh man. This is definitely right but I totally missed it and nearly missed it under BR. The acres are lower, so they need fewer workers. The demand is up, so they're cutting more trees. Correct.

C: I was pretty sure this AC was correct until I started analyzing it in BR. "A growing number" could mean anything. Maybe the amount of unprocessed wood only increased by 1 tree per year. In fact, this says "proportion" which could mean that the total number has remained constant. I latched onto it because I didn't catch the "proportion" error I was making and felt that the reduction in wood processors explained why raw wood exports were increasing. Eliminate."

I'm working on translations to help with my SA understanding and am using the "find the missing link" exercises by taking the logic and translating them into English before I solve.

One of them uses:

/G most W

W some U

My question pertains to the premise. My initial thought was to translate it as: "Most things that are not green are wet." Would this be correct? I tried using "unless" but I'm not confident on that one either. I know that "not" is a group 3 negate sufficient but when I use it, it doesn't seem right. Any thoughts?

Thanks!

This question is strange -- the correct answer is not properly inferrable.

Many child psychologists believe that the childrearing practice leads to lower self-esteem in children, which leads to those children having less confidence as adults. But, "no one disagrees that adults raised under the traditional practice, were, on average, as confident as adults not so raised."

The answer the LSAT calls "properly inferred" from the above is that at least one part of the causal chain asserted by the psychologists is incorrect. But this depends on 2 critical assumptions that are entirely unjustified and could easily have been described as flaws. First, just because "no one disagrees" about a statistic DOES NOT MEAN THAT STATISTIC IS TRUE. Second, EVEN IF THAT STATISTIC WERE TRUE -- that adults raised under the practice are on average as confident as adults not raised under the practice -- the correct answer IGNORES CONFOUNDING VARIABLES! Maybe the kind of child who is subject to the childrearing practice starts off with a higher self esteem than the children not so raised, so even though the practice does decrease self esteem, it doesn't make it lower than the other children on average. THIS IS THE EXACT POTENTIAL VARIABLE THAT FLAW QUESTIONS AND STRENGTHEN/WEAKEN USE ALL THE TIME. It also comes up on "explain the paradox" questions, too. If you've studied for the LSAT, you know what I'm talking about. We'd need to know that the two compared groups -- those raised under the practice and those not so raised -- started off equal in the relevant areas -- self esteem and confidence level when they become adults.

Can someone please explain to me why (E) is considered to be 100% logical, to be "properly inferred" from the above?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-40-section-3-question-11/

A friend and I were discussing PT68, Section4, Game 3. I was trying to articulate why a chart was needed in that particular game and when to use charts in general. And I discovered that I couldn't explain it clearly. And I think that's a problem. In my mind, it indicates a lack of mastery.

So, if someone asked you when it's necessary to use a chart and when not to, how would you respond?

(for those of you who don't know what I mean by "chart", check out the game I mentioned earlier.)

so i played last week they received my package on monday, and it still says theyll respond within 14 days, has anyone ever applied? maybe tell me something encouraging like "they take about 14 week for everyone" or clear things up like " if they answer in 4 days, its a not" the suspense is killing me.. checked the lsac site 5 times today ...

Can someone please confirm that I have this chain correct? I became confused with the "cannot" in the first premise. Now I'm presuming "cannot" is modifying the sufficient clause since this premise includes "unless." Please correct me if I'm wrong. I was initially under the impression that cannot was modifying the necessary clause since it is a group 4 indicator.

AV (Aesthetic Value)

WM (Whatever Meaning Reader Assigns)

OE (Objectively Evaluated)

Premise:

AV--->~WM

I was very unclear on the wording in the necessary clause. After looking at this for a while, I determined that at least two readers agreeing on the "correct" interpretation appears to be the logical opposite of a poem having whatever meaning a reader assigns. Still a bit shaky on this though.

Conclusion:

EO--->~WM

Answer Choice D

EO--->AV

Chain:

EO--->AV--->~WM

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-3-question-24/

I apologize if a few of you fine mentors have already told me when this group will start to gear up, and I know its really early days yet. But, I wanted to get a feel for my Summer full time & Fall part-time study plan with respect to at what point I should be at in my studies in order to join such a group. If I was told, it has totally slipped my mind---I'll write it down this time!

I know I need to be done with CC and starting to PT with BR, and I know one jumps in whenever one reaches that numbered PT within the group's schedule, but I wanted to get a tentative long range game plan in place to find out how I can consistently join this highly recommended group study, whenever it starts.

Plus, I'd like to find out if I'm just too slow and should not consider sitting for Dec '17 as a reasonable goal, or if I'm close to the target. I realize study pace is entirely individual, and I can guess June '17 (and September '17) dates and groups come first at the moment.

But one question that keeps nagging at me, specifically: there are so many PTs, does the Study Group start at 36 or somewhere in the 50s (that's a totally random guess), or some other number, to reach the most recent & published LSAT by 1 week before test date?

And, do the groups cover every single PT or just a sampling in each group of ten: # 40s, 50s, 60, 70s, & 80s.

I thought this might help new 7Sagers get a long range game plan in place too.

Thanks!

Hey all! I am slowly improving my PT scores and although I have become better at LR sections, I can't get passed completing 18 questions which is negatively affecting my score potential. Any advice on how I can study to improve and make faster times on each question? Any advice would be appreciated! Thanks

Simple question really, when can you register for the September 17 test? Since I'm fairly certain I want to take it in September I want to register early to get the testing center closest to me. Just wondering if anyone knows roughly around when registration opens.

Hi everyone,

I'd like to share a RC strategy that's been working for me.

PLEASE DO NOT SHARE THIS INFORMATION WITH OTHER SITES/ COMMUNITIES.

I'm just trying to give back to this community that has given me much.

Quick note about me:

When I first began the LSAT prep, I didn't think that I needed to focus on RC much, due to my arrogance.I majored in Political Science (Political Theory) and got a master's degree in humanities. I'm very used to critically reading and analyzing dense, complex materials. I also happened to get a perfect score on GRE verbal. I didn't have much trouble with the GRE RC passages, so I thought that my experience would be the same for the LSAT passages.

I was wrong.

When I first timed myself, I realized that I go over 10 min easily per passage, with 1+ wrong. I'd be missing on average 5 questions wrong per section, way over the allotted time. Since then, I have been studying and researching various RC strategies to help me, such as Nicole's webinar, Corey's active reading webinar and @"Cant Get Right" 's, (they were also super duper helpful. I really highly recommend watching them), some discussion postings from here (the posting from @theforms is also very helpful) , some from TSL, Mike Kim's trainer, etc.

After synthesizing my own strategy and using it, I am now consistently 2~3 min under with 0-2 wrong per section.

Here's my synthesized strategy from the various resources above.

Success to RC = a seamless integration of 1. active reading + 2.reading for structure.

My strategy is on how to INTEGRATE the two. I'm not going to go into details on explaining what is each, because there are many resources out there already.

Before I go over my strategy, I will still briefly mention what active reading and reading for structure are.

What is an active reading? It is engaging with the reading as if one is having a dialogue. Think of it as active listening; it is about being totally present, but mindfully detached. We all know some of the crucial techniques to actively read well. Below are the especially effective techniques for me.

Here's an example sentence. "LSAT passages are like paper tigers: they appear to be formidable at first, but get easier over time."

When you encounter the sentence, think about what question would prompt the above sentence as an answer. My question would be, "how difficult are the LSAT passages?" Here, it helps you to articulate the essence of the sentence: It is about the difficulty of the LSAT passages.

Reading for structure

Like I said, I won't get into the details of reading for structure.

Now here's the crucial integration piece I'd like to share with you- how active reading and reading for structure integrate and feed off from one another.

The key is to

Step 1. find the central theme (the key subject matter that forms a basis for an argument, hypothesis, claim, finding, problem) in the opening paragraph and treat each sentence as revealing the aspects of that central theme. Compile the aspects of the central theme as you are reading, and add them on to the central theme. This is pretty abstruse, so I will use an example (PT 32 Passage 4 opening paragraph) to explain.

sentence 1: something about wine. - (hold this in thought as you are reading. Something about wine is the central theme)

sentence 2: wine - distinct. (Here's an aspect of the central theme, wine: it is distinct. try to utilize the active reading techniques mentioned above. What question would the sentence be answering?

sentence 3: wine- distinct b/c of health benefits (there's another aspect. It is distinct. Why? Because it has health benefits)

sentence 4: wine- distinct health benefits- obscured by the scientists.

Do you see what I am doing? I am simply adding on and connecting the previous information to the new information. Going from simply "wine," the central theme as revealed by sentence 1, I now have a more clear picture about this central theme and its aspects by sentence 4.

The paragraph ends here. What do I have now in sentence 4, the last sentence?

The scientists (who? go back to sentence 1) have obscured the healthful benefits of wine that other alcoholic beverages do not have.

Step 2. Find the structure.

What does this compilation of the central theme + its aspects signify? What does it mean? Why did the author write this?

Simply try to articulate using this mantra, "the author is trying to..." with the compilation that you have at the end of the paragraph.

The author is trying to... 1. suggest that wine has a health benefit that other alcoholic beverages do not have (this is the author's position) 2. counter "the scientists."

So think of having 2 mental columns as you are reading.

The left column: find a central theme--> find the essential aspects of this theme in each subsequent sentence and add on to the central theme found. (like what I did above. wine-> wine is distinct -> wine is distinct in x way -> wine is distinct for x way but that distinction has been obscured by Y)

The right column: after each paragraph, think about the final compilation in the left column and simply ask, "why did the author write this?" Why did the author write that "wine is distinct for x way but t hat distinction has been obscured by Y?" The answer to this question = the purpose of each paragraph.

Repeat this for each paragraph.

Using this strategy, I read the passage in about 4:15 min and answered the questions in 4 min. Total: 8:15 and 30 seconds under the allotted time / passage.

Please help. I don't understand why (C) is wrong.

Stimulus: No combining publicity appearance and competition. So it is "not both" rule.

PA-->/Competition, or it could be Competition -->/PA

PA-->/Competition

Competition

_________________

/PA

(C)

Tomato thrive --> Hot Summer

/Hot Summer

______________________

/Tomato thrive

I was also having trouble subtle differences of serious emergency and critical emergency.

(B)

less serious emergency -->/critical emergency

fairly minor emergency

____________________

/critical emergency

I would think fairly minor emergency would also be non critical emergency....

I am nearing the end of the games portion in the CC [total progress %77] and I was wondering if I should have been fool proofing every single problem set or not. I have been studying 55 hour weeks for the past month now and I am still "35 hours" (according to the syllabus) behind in the CC. I think fool proofing the enormous amount of games would take a few weeks.

I am fully open and willing to take the time and fool proof the hell out of these games, but I was wondering if taking two weeks to get all of them done is worth it if it sets me back two weeks on my study schedule.

I do realize that the ultimate goal here is it do well on the LSAT and that this method will enable me to do so. But I just feel a bit overwhelmed as I am always behind in the CC, no matter how rigorous I set my my own study schedule.

Any thoughts?

For most of the time I have been doing the CC, I have been struggling keeping focus as I read the LR questions. When I time myself, I can't keep focus sometimes which causes me to miss key words/details resulting in missing the question. Its extremely frustrating when I have to keep re-reading sentences/the paragraph because I don't understand what I have just read.

I have tried to read random question passages and quickly write down what I have just read to improve memory and focus but I don't know if that is a waste of time or not. I'm about done with the CC and I really need to fix this problem or I'm screwed 6 ways to Sunday for this test.

Are there any drills or tips anyone has with LR focus or just focus in general?

So I've been studying for the LSAT for a year and some change now.

Finally decided to sign-up for 7Sage in December.

I was averaging around 165 with BR's in the 168-9. I went through the curriculum and for my last 4 PT's my actual score is still around 165, BR score has been in the low to mid 170's. My major improvements came in LG and LR.

I miss anywhere from 4-7 on LR (mostly PSA and Flaws)

-0/-1 in LG

5-9 in RC.

I'm hopeful that with another two months of studying I can shave off a couple of mistakes from my LR and consistently hit -0 on LG. But my Reading Comprehension is so incredibly inconsistent.

A lot of times I'll do -2/-1 on RC drills but when I sit to take the real thing all hell breaks loose.

I've watched the webinars on Reading Comprehension and make an effort to read actively but this is just driving me nuts.

I remember when I first started studying for the test, RC was by far my best section (-2/-3). After a year of studying I'm missing three times that much.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Hello all, I hope everyone's studies are going well. I am wondering if it is worth it to purchase the older preptests that are currently sitting in my cart online. Everyday I browse through the discussion board and I believe ran into somebody advising to fool proof all the logic games from 1-35 to help with making inferences. I have really taken my time going through the curriculum because I work a very demanding and hectic full time job and plan to finish by the end of April and complete at least 20+ preptests before the planned target test date of September. I was originally going to complete the newer preptests (60+) and save the older ones for drilling along with the problem sets I have also saved. Through really taking my time with the curriculum I am getting more accurate and faster at completing LR and RC questions everyday, and I heard the key to really boosting your score is to become great at LG. I really want a LSAT score of 160+ to give myself the best chance at my dream law schools and if buying the older preptests is worth it I will definitely do so. I appreciate any insight anybody could offer,thank you in advance.

Hi I was just watching JY's video on grouping games set up 1.

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/grouping-game-1-game-board-setup/

I'm wondering why "neither nor" in rule 3 is interpreted as not both, as in S -> /Y , and W->/Y.

Why can't it be interpreted as biconditional? S (-) /Y as in S and Y are always apart.

Is it because unlike the in-out games, a biconditional in this a grouping game means that if, for example, Y is not in 1,then S must be 1? (which would be an incorrect inference given that there are more group options now)

If that's the case, if this game was an in/out game, could I still interpret the rule as a biconditional?

Many thanks in advance

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-3-question-21/

I'm trying to understand this passage fully...

I thought the data on the effects of the weed-killer would be misleading when it was drawn from studies of the weed-killer under a variety of soil condition because the effectiveness fluctuates. That's why I chose (D). I thought the premise was telling us how soil conditions ruin the data.

After watching J.Y.'s video I now (sort of) get (D) actually weakens the argument, but can someone help me understand why my thought process (above) is wrong?

Also why is this not a necessary assumption question? I think the argument has jumped from one idea (the molecules of a certain weed killer) to another (the data on the effects).

Hello everyone! I am new to 7Sage. Could someone please tell me where I can find the actual facts/questions explained in the videos?

Hey 7sagers! I am wondering if anyone can provide me with some advice on where to go from here in LR...

LR might be my worst section and I am having so much difficulty improving. It's not that a particular type of question gets me (in fact I tend to actually be better at the more technical lawgic based types like flawed parallel method of reasoning), it just seems that I am getting the majority of the answers wrong from questions 15-22 across every section. Often times I will misunderstand the stimulus or I will understand what the stimulus is implying and what to pick in the answer choice but will get confused about the wording in the answer choices and end up picking the wrong one. Note: English is my first language, I read extensively and have an MA degree and wrote a thesis paper. Is there any way to improve, or is it simply a matter of doing a ton of LR questions?

I have gone through the CC once and paid close attention to every different type of LR question while taking extensive notes, but it was a couple of months ago. Would a refresher be useful? I also have every LSAT from PT 1-75 and the accompanying Kaplan Explanations, so I began doing sections from early PTs untimed while taking notes on my computer to map out my reasoning, but am not seeing results, although it is still early (I have only done about three sections).

Any recommendations on where to go from here? Everyone provided me with amazing LG advice and I have been doing very well in that section so thank you to anyone who is reading this who helped me in that area, it feels great and I can confirm that the fool proof method is sound.

I will also be joining in the online study group for PT 70 this Saturday!

Thanks!

Specifically, what are some of the underlying traits that trip so many of us up? Grammar? Plurarlity of terms? AC order?

How do you improve upon these underlying traits? Marking up the stimulus? Check the conclusions in each AC first?

I have some thoughts on the matter, but I'd like to see what ya'll think.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-2-question-15/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-3-question-23/

I do not understand why, "'it is never acceptable to offer experimental treatments to patients who experience no extreme symptoms of the the relevant disease" is translated as no extreme symptoms (NES) -----> not acceptable to offer exp. treatment (/AOET).

If we negate the necessary - wouldn't that be 'it is sometimes acceptable to offer ex. trmt'. I do not grasp how just repeating what the sentence says is negating the necessary in this case? I'm having trouble in general with these 'not, never, double-negative type statements, and invariably getting them wrong. please help.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-57-section-3-question-15/

Hello guys,

So I just completed the BR on this passage, and I am still tripped up on question 1.

I understand why answer choice A is correct, expect for the bit concerning "oil companies". Can someone point me to where this is supported in the passage? or are we supposed to presume that the "researchers" are from the oil companies?

Thanks,

Kristen

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-10-section-3-passage-1-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-10-section-3-passage-1-questions/

Hey guys,

A 7Sager wrote in with a question that I thought you guys could help out with! Here it is:

I recently enrolled in your program and I had a technical question to ask you about one of your lessons. I believe you covered it however just for clarification, in bi-conditionals referring to Logic Games (in/out) in specific Prep-Test 24, Section 4-Game 1. One of the rules states that Fenugreek is not included in the same recipe as Nutmeg. When I wrote out the rule, N /F, however there is another rule that ultimately connects through G N (Ginger in same recipe as Nutmeg). I wanted to ask, when you diagrammed it on your lesson, you wrote the top rule as F/N (aren't they the same?). And ultimately your chain was F/G/N however mine turned into GN/F (/N going from outside to N in the middle). So....am I wrong? Isn't just N/F and F/N contrapositives but switched around, so I guess I'm deciding which side to put my / though (If I should have negated my N or F and if it should always be on the "right side" or can it be on the "left", it's interchangeable right?, but my rule seems ultimately a little "messed" up in comparison. I could use a quick clarification. I had a question and didn't know to whom I should write, thank you very much! I could really appreciate your help!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-4-game-1/

Hi!

I was down to answers C and E and wasn't sure why E would be a better choice than C and vice versa.

I did watch JY's video and still have trouble figuring this out.

C- I thought this was supported by line 2-4. Wouldn't "word processors, spreadsheets, legal research systems" be counted as as legal research tools? I interpreted C as the computerized automated legal reasoning systems not being able to fulfill its original expectations and functions.

E- This is supported by line 55-58. However, I thought that the wording "computer specialists" is too narrow to capture the idea in E. That's why I hesitated.

What makes E better supported by C? Because I see both as textually supported.

Please let me know!

Thanks.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-2-passage-4-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-2-passage-4-questions/