So for the past month and a half I have been attacking LR and LG extremely hard. I've worked my way down to about -5 in LR and -2 or -3 in LG. I have finally seen a bit of improvement in my score thanks to these two sections. I still have one major mountain to climb however. I am sitting constantly at a -8 or -9 in RC. I would really like to see AT LEAST a 4 point improvement in this section consistently. I just am not quite sure where to start.

According to the analytics here on 7Sage my most missed question types are the Author Inference types. I have never really had tooooo much issue with timing. I'm always in the last passage when they announce the 5min mark. I would like to get some what faster, but I think accuracy is something I'm more concerned with. However with LR and LG I was able to see a clear way to attack my weak spots and make improvements. In RC I'm not as clear about how to go into the questions.

I have 7Sage and the RC Bible as well as the LSAT Trainer. Each has helped a little, but I would like maybe some more specific advice on how to lower my missed question count here.

Hi everyone,

I just started the logic games curriculum and I'm so confused. I under stand the basic principles of diagramming and the rules, but I look at the questions and I just don't know what the first step it, or any step is. Any help would be great!

Thanks!

.

.

Hey im still confused after reviewing the CC again

I know a some statement can be reversibly read but is there a way to negate it?

For example:

A some B --- C

If I negate C, what does that do to the some relationship?

Hey Y'all,

I am currently registered to take the LSAT next week in Beijing. Curious if anyone has experience taking the test abroad (or even better in China) any tips on how to make the day run smoother?

LSAC provided the address in English and I am trying to get them to provide it in Chinese to mitigate any translation issues that may occur with a cab driver. Any other tips for taking it abroad would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

/

I am at a standstill, I understand what I am tasked to do with these types of questions but I am still getting quite a few incorrect and Ive been blind reviewing and reviewing the LSAT trainer and I am still not getting them correct, does anyone have any advice on this? I would REALLLLLLLLYYYYYYY appreciate it!!!!!!!

I had a question about phase 2 of the memory method.

The following was stated, "The second phase of the memory method is exactly the same as the first, with one exception: you only spend 30 seconds on step two (Check Your Memory). Do this 6-8 times".

Is phase 2 done with the same passage or different ones? Also, i'm assuming phase 2 happens when we become comfortable with phase 1? Can someone provide more insight on this?

Thank you :)

Are the drill packets grouped by type yet?

So I'm aware that the standard on 7sage for LG sections is that you should never erase and that you should always re-write out your game board for each question as needed in a set. I understand the argument for this and it is totally practical for easy sequencing games with minimal time involved in re-drawing game boards. But I highly question this strategy when it comes to more complex game boards, especially when you have say 4 different split game boards for the question. To re-write out 4 game boards fresh for every question in the set seems like a waste of time in these cases, especially when you have really involved game boards with sub-categories and everything.

As a result, I've found myself doing a lot of erasing. I tend to write in very lightly to the original board and then I can erase it easily for the next question. I'm wondering what others do with this?

I realize there is something lost in erasing in that when you write out the game boards fresh each time sometimes you can have inferences saved on different questions that can help you in later ones. But I'm not yet convinced the trade off in time lost is worth it.

.

Hey everyone,

I want to get feedback and see if there is an interest out their in studying LR but with a focus on strategies that increase your understanding beyond just that PT and question.

Instead of the traditional method where we are just just blind reviewing and trying to understand the question in front of us, we will be focusing on identifying patterns behind each argument so we can carry what we learned over to other LR stimulus in future PT's.

A lot of speed in LR comes from our ability to quickly spot these patterns that are constantly repeating. These patterns are not about learning question types - the core curriculum does a phenomenal job of that - but more about argument types.

So yeah, let me know what you guys think and if you are interested. : )

Update:

I am going to let all of you decide what PT series you would like to use to study these patterns.

PT 30-39:

Pros: These are basically drill materials PT's and are considered ideal for burning in order to study. Even the very beginners can join this.

Con: These are older PT's and hence a little less relevant than 40 series. We have also seen a lot of these questions as part of our core curriculum.

PT 40-49

Pros: They are a bit more relevant though I think there is not that much difference as the logic has not changed much from PT 1. I think it's fine to burn these for drills as well since we still have 46 plus fresh PT's left after these.

Cons: Some people still like to use them as fresh PT's.

PT 50-59:

I had a private request for this but since I cannot edit the poll if this series is your preference you can just write this down as a comment below and I would count it in the poll.

By the wrath of the old gods and the new, they actually did it. Little did I expect when I woke up yesterday to be most psychologically traumatized not by Reading Comp or Logic Games, but by the blasted writing sample.

Using the writing sample to have us write about whether a brother of the Night's Watch should be allowed to renege on his vows -- a sick, treacherous ploy by those above us to erode our confidence in the protective blanket the Watch provides the realm.

Mark my words my brothers and sisters, there is a darkness in this world, more cold and tormenting than even the four-hour exam by the name of LSAT. Winter is coming, with or without the Watch. Without the brothers on the Wall, however, along with Winter so too will come an unending shadow, shrouding our hearts in unspeakable darkness.

To those who argued that oath-breakers should be forgiven (or, gods forbid, encouraged), may the Seven protect you from what is yet to come, and may I remind you of the words that each brother of the Watch swears, with both men and gods as his witness:

"Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children, discuss any specifics about the June 2017 LSAT. I shall wear no digital watches and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the #2 non-mechanical pencil in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this exam and all the exams to come."

Did you argue against the Watch? I welcome any traitors to out themselves below.

I've been working through the Cambridge LR Flaw pkg and I've noticed that a good amount of the correct AC are E. Now before anyone jumps, I wouldn't go as far as to say choose E when in doubt on the question type. There are 284 questions in the pkg and E has been the correct AC enough for me to notice. Pretty useless info here but if I remember I'll give an exact number when I'm done. I believe the questions are from PT 1-38. I wonder if they say something like, "we'll go with E for flaws, C for MSS, A for MBT..." when determining which letter to select for the AC?? Again, this is pretty useless info and why did I hone in on it anyway?? Leave it up to me to be extra! LOL :)

Im having some trouble with this question so I chose A because I thought that this is what was needed to make the conclusion valid and I didn't choose B because it says " must encompass MORE than " and I took the conclusion to mean that physical theories couldn't explain consciousness in any manner, can someone help me please? TYA!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-37-section-2-question-05/

So i am 13 PTs into foolproofing and i am noticing that i am solid with sequencing but i am having a hard time with grouping games, both in out and multiple groups. So i was considering drilling those extensively and then going back to drilling chronologically. I was wondering if anyone would be so kind as to make a list of specifically fundamental in out and grouping games that they found to help them nail down the methodology and send it my way. Thanks in advance

Hey guys!

I'm finding that I'm still having trouble really intuitively knowing when my job in Parallel Method of Reasoning q's is to mirror the lawgic/structure of the argument, and when we're being asked to carry that train of thought/conclusion/principle into the answer choices (please don't say it's always about structure; maybe I'm not articulating what I mean correctly, but it's defintily 100% the case (after watching many many of JY's videos) that we're asked to carry the salient claim/reasoning into our selection of answer choice. (Ie. PT17.s2.q24 from Problem Set 3; or PT28.s3.q26 also from set 3).

The second q stem reads "which one of the following arguments is most similar in it's reasoning to the argument above?" Both answer choices seem to emphasize an especially strong match with part of the argument, not just a simple structural match...but the stems don't really do all that much to tell us that.

But after going through the practice sets in the curriculum, I can't seem to accurately/quickly distinguish whether paralleling the pattern of reasoning will refer to finding a parallel conclusion, or more broadly, overall parallel structure.

So sorry if this post sounds beyond confusing--I realize my attempt to articulate my struggle isn't great--but I'm just a little surprised that (if this issue really does exist, and I'm not just creating problems....happens) that it's not distinguished/discussed in the curriculum "as a thing".

N.

Hey y'all

I'm going to retake in September, and for the last two weeks I've been chipping away at Logic games from PT 1-15. However, I've seen marginal, if any, improvements. When I foolproof them, I can get perfect on the entire section with 10 minutes left, but the moment I see a fresh set I go -6 to -9. I planned on spending a total of a month straight on LG, but my patience and determination is waivering.

Now that I've given you background, please read my questions: 1. Any particular LG sets you think will help me for the most recent tests? 2. Should I go back and do the LG portion of the CC? (haven't done it since last summer) 3. How to maximize what I learn from the Fool Proof Method (i.e. what questions do you ask yourself/what do you observe about the LG set)

Thank you

Hi,

For me, the toughest part of the test has always been not letting my brain get tired from analyzing minutia and subtleties over and over... and over and over. I scored best on PTs when an LG section broke up LR and RC. I kind of think of LG as a "break" or a mental energy boost. Yesterday the LSAT hit some of us with LR, RC, LR right out of the gate. I was fine with the first LR (experimental :/) and the RC, but mentally gassed by LR #2. So, my question: Does the LSAC take section order into account when standardizing? Like, if the average score for takers who had the above order is 4 questions less than those with a different experimental section, is that considered? In a test where mental stamina is potentially the most important factor, not doing so would strike me as a little unfair.

Thanks!

Taylor

Hey All,

Games are by far my weakest section. The foolproofing method is working wonders, thank goodness.

I am slowly working my way through the CC, but I'm finding that the game sections are placed really, really late . I skipped ahead to the sequencing games and spatial games so I could start FP'ing those and it worked well for me. Does anyone see any downsides to skipping ahead to the other game types as well? I know the general advice is to move through the curriculum as given, but I'd like to be FP'ing as I go through the CC (it's worked out really well for me to do 3 or 4 new games a day as a sort of warm-up to the CC content) and I'm out of spatial and sequencing games. Also, if I wait so long to start the later game types, I don't think I'll get through it all and give myself enough time to really improve on my weakest area.

I feel a sense of urgency and a need to move these up also because I must, MUST sit for the September exam. I'm gonna anticipate your responses here telling me to wait until I feel my score is +5 of my goal, and that's all well and good, but there is such a thing as "real life" and right now my parents are graciously allowing me space to live and study rent-free, but only if I take it in September. I may be able to pull off taking it again in December if I really need to, but I can't count on that.

If I had three LR sections, one first, third, and last which one was the experimental section?

I just took the June test today and it seems that the general consensus online is that the RC was incredibly difficult.

For context, RC is usually my worst section, with me going about -6 each time, and LR is my best, where I usually finish with 5+ min remaining per section. I've been studying for years and only sometimes break the 170 wall on PTs.

My issue is that on this test I found the RC surprisingly doable; I clicked with each passage and felt that I fully understood the theme, structure, author's intent, etc. for each passage.

However, I feel that I got bent over and shafted on all 3 LR sections (I had exp. LR) and ran out of time and had to guess at least one question as a result on each section.

To my surprise, everyone on the reddit thread seems to be upset over the RC, with some saying it was the most difficult one they've ever encountered, and are pretty "meh" about the LR. Meanwhile, I'm sitting here feeling pretty confident about the RC but every now and then I have to wipe away the tears gently dripping onto my desk from remembering the LR.

Anyone else in the same boat? I'm starting to feel that maybe I didn't do as well on RC as I thought I did :((/p)

Hi everyone,

I plan on fool proofing LG using the typical method of using the PT 1-35 bundle. I was just wondering what are people's thoughts on fool proofing LG by type versus just going through the bundle from PT 1 to 35 in order. I read the Pacifico guide and he states that one shouldn't record the type of game one attempts, which makes sense to me, since we don't have that luxury during real test conditions. However, I have since read some other guides by people who have done really well on LG, and they recommend drilling by LG type (I guess to really drill the strategies for each type) So I am now having second thoughts!

So, I guess I'd just like some input from the high LG scorers out there, what are the pros and cons of fool proofing by type/not, and what method do you think is more useful for a beginner?

Thanks!

How did people find this section? It seemed pretty smooth but not enough to compensate from the hardest RC ever