Hi y'all!

I took the Testmasters course for the September LSAT, started studying in July with a cold diagnostic of 153. My highest PT was a 169 two days before the LSAT (I had been steadily PTing around 165-170), and ended up with a 167 on test day.

During the course I had been knocked out by a nasty case of food poisoning for two weeks or so (I ended up in the hospital. Do NOT, I repeat, do NOT go to the Chipotle on N. State in Chicago) and had missed a lot of critical time for test prep. I sucked it up and took the LSAT anyway even though I knew I could've put more time in.

So, after the September scores came out, I registered for December. Upon realizing it was the basically the same price to reactivate my Testmasters account vs. getting 7sage (with like...50 more PTs, I mean c'mon), I have defected! I was wondering if anyone could give me any advice as to how I should go about using 7sage to prep.

My individual section breakdowns usually go something like -6/-7 on RC, -8/-9 on LR, and -0/-1 on LG. On the September test I posted -5 on RC (somehow got Judicial Candor all correct), -10 on LR (a whopping 7 points dropped on the second LR section), and -0 on LG.

LG was my weakest section starting out (I had missed something like 15-20 LG questions on my first diagnostic) so I had put most of my time into Games. Other than drilling individual LR question types and RC sections repeatedly, I didn't give my due diligence to those sections and suffered for it.

I've skimmed through a few course videos already but don't really know how to structure my study schedule around the material. I don't feel it's feasible (or efficient) to do all 800 hours of the course before December. Should I just be doing more PTs? Identify what weaknesses? Figure out what the hell a Blind Review is? Give up completely? Any advice is appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Is there any particular reason why the games chosen for the CC are chosen?

So we are around 7 weeks out from the December Test. I have the premium package on 7sage and I am wondering if it is worth it at this point to upgrade to Ultimate+. I completed the CC like 5 weeks ago and do return to it frequently.

I am currently missing around 10-13 on LR for both sections. Normally what happens is I go -3/4 on one section and around -7/8 on the other, not sure why but it is pretty consistent. While there is some randomness to the types of questions I'm getting wrong, there are definitely patterns as well. I consistently miss at least a couple SA or NA questions and also seem to struggle with flaw and parallel argument questions. Obviously it affects my test performance as I miss the question, but what's worse is that when I arrive at one of these types of questions on a PT I immediately think "oh no" because I'm worried I'll get it wrong. I then spend far too long on these questions, which sucks because when I BR I realize some of them are actually quite easy (rated around 2 or 3 difficulty stars). So obviously this lack of confidence is affecting me.

I've stopped PTing because it seems ineffective at the moment. I would like to drill LR questions by type. I've looked back to the CC several times at this point to review my trouble areas, so the questions in those problem sets are really familiar to me now. I also obviously have access to the questions I've missed in past PTs (I've taken about 8) and can sort by type using the analytics feature but I would like more.

Does this basically require me to get the Ultimate + ? I now wish I had just gotten it from the beginning, but when I initially began the 7sage curriculum only a month or so before the September test (woooo for underestimating the difficulty of this exam...) I knew I wouldn't have time to complete the ult+ package.

Another thing is that except for the LSAT I sat for in September, I have only taken rather "old" PTs. I know the difference is minimal, but I was also wondering if I should familiarize myself with newer tests, which are available in Ultimate +.

WHY is this post so long, what happened to my ability to be succinct.

TLDR: Is it worth upgrading to Ult+ with only 7 weeks to go mainly for additional LR problem sets?

Hi guys, I havent gone through the LR curriculum in over a year. I am wondering which lessons cover some, most, few statements, and LR diagramming. I think MBT questions and SA had some?

Okay so I've asked about this before and worked on it a little bit but these questions continue to bite me in the ass. I have a really hard time figuring out the authors attitude and what they would agree with in R.C.

How can I practice this? Should I look for indications in the writing? Should I practice making special note of areas where it looks like the author is revealing how they feel? Even if I find how they feel how the hell am I suppose to know what they'd be likely to agree with? What mindset should I have for these questions?

Basically...help...haha

So I took the LSAT in Sept (posted a similar discussion before) got a 157 and this past weekend I took a new diag without studying for 3 weeks and got a whopping 160! Which...I mean I'm glad but still wish I at least got that on the real one. Obviously I hope to move past 160 in Dec but I'm truly at a loss on how to study right now. I have the starter program with 7sage but I can see that I still have timing issues with LG and RC. On the real one I did terribly on RC. I can still polish my LR but I don't know if I should start from Square 1 or ... what. Please help! I posted a help discussion before but got no replies and also didn't have a new diag score then. Thanks!

what’s the difference?

I completely forget where the lesson is that outlines how to deny a conditional statement. Any help?

Hey, guys! Does anyone find strengthen questions harder than weaken questions? I'm not really sure if you should find one easier than the other but for some reason my brain says that strengthen should be easier than weaken. I get the task for strengthen questions but for some reason I'm having a harder time with strengthen than weaken questions.

Hi All,

So I have a bit of a problem. I have some natural ability, but I have a tendency to cram. I did all of the 7sage curriculum in a month and a half before the September test and was scoring in my PTs around 169-172. I then got a 167 on the September LSAT. I ran out of time for LG, which I'm not too surprised about, but am now gearing up for a December (or February/June) retake.

These questions are about LR/RC because in LG when I do something wrong I know exactly what and why but I can not for the life of me figure out the same for RC/LR:

I am wondering if it is useful to go through the curriculum again and if you do, how the many lessons stick in your head and solidify as testing strategies for later use? For example, I was horrible at strengthen questions, did the strengthen part of the curriculum, ended up getting those practice questions right, but then forgetting how to do strengthen questions on a PT because I can't hold all of that info together at once. How do you retain all of it or imbed the skills so you can keep them all in mind for a test? Flashcards? I took notes on each question type and how to solve but it didn't help and reading those notes again was like reading something out of context, and of course I can't just re-do the entire curriculum before every test.

I also found that even if I understood JY's explanations and how to solve for a certain problem, I still get it wrong. Does that mean I'm missing some integral link/understanding? How do I fix this? I will get his explanations perfectly and see exactly why he came to an answer in his sample Q but not be able to mirror that. Conversely, even when something is explained, I can't understand why the correct answer is correct still.

Sorry for the long post, I guess it's an awkward point to proceed when you've done something and now need to re-do it but better?

Also, for all of those with the Trainer, did you do his book before JY's curriculum? After? Or during (and if so, how?)

Thank you so much in advance !!!!

The definition of an intermediate conclusion is that it supports another sentence, at the same time it's being supported by another sentence.

But when I came across "PT70 - 1LR - Q17", I realized the difference between "cause and effect" and "premise and conclusion" can be quite subtle

Here's my question.

(1) A causes B,

(2) B causes C,

(3) C causes D.

Therefore, A causes D

Here, "B causes C" seems to be an intermediate cause between "A causes D".

Does it make (2) an intermediate conclusion? because it's supported by another sentence?

Just want some clarification because I think the different between Causation and Argument seem to be overlapping.

Like if say:

Because A, therefore B--- (That would be an Argument)

But if we say

B happens because of A--- (That seem to be both a Causation, and an Argument?)

Any thoughts?

This was just an incredibly difficult game for me. I had such a difficult time with it. What about you guys?

Hi!

I've spent about 30 minutes trying to figure out this question but it seems I've hit a wall. I was able to eliminate (A) and (D) quickly but had a hard time understanding what the "youngest" "oldest" phrases were referring to. I ultimately went with (C), considering that there is a majority of S that is older than D (which, I thought, leaves some of S that is not older and/or is the same age as D). But I was taken back to find out the answer if (E). I tried to wrap my head around why (C) or (B) is wrong and why (E) is right but I wasn't able to get far.

It would be really helpful if someone could help me with this question.

Thank you so much in advance! :)

Hi!

I am going through MBT and MSS questions because they seem to be my biggest weakness. I came across this question while drilling and I contended between (B) and (E). I ultimately chose (B) and again in BR.

I thought the "everyone sometimes acts in ways that are..." could be considered as "commonly performed actions", and thought (B) was regarding to those actions that occur as a result of treatment as infants and therefore, people are not morally responsible.

I understand why (E) is correct - within the scope of "everyone" includes adults, therefore adults are not responsible for every actions (because there could be those actions they perform as a consequence of treatments they received as infants) - but I can't exactly pinpoint why (B) is wrong.

It would be extremely helpful and greatly appreciated if someone could shed some light on this question!

Thank you :)

Purely after finishing the LR core curriculum? then after that how much after drilling?

I was wondering if anyone has encountered a similar LG to PT34.S4.G2? It's the game that talks about different lectures/ speakers/ philosophers... The wording of that game really threw me off the first time. I wanted to get practice with other confusingly worded questions like that one.

Would appreciate any help team!

Just did an RC drill of PT 53.

Actually not bad considering RC is my most least practiced section. 20/27.

Stats were:

-5 Infer questions

-2 Application questions

Majority were in the final section. I wouldn't attribute it to rushing because I had a good 12.30ish minutes to complete the final reading section alone, so I felt decent on time. The questions themselves were quite difficult. I also feel like application questions have a dimension similar to inference questions in that you aren't directly finding concrete reference to the passage, and if you are, then it's not as explicit as you wish it to be.

How do you generally approach inference questions? Some tips would be lovely.

Thx

Could it be true that C and E are not the correct answers due to the following reasons?

.

C ) The stimulus doesn't discuss about architect in general, but specific architect (modern architect)

E ) Instead of work (object), the stimulus suggests that people (modern architect) have strong personalities that take over their work, which in turn leads to producing buildings that are not function for public use. This could mean that modern architects are impossible to simultaneously express his or her personality and be function for public use

.

.

My diagram:

Inviting + Functional --> Unobstructive (taking 2nd place to total environment)

.

Modern architects (=MA)

MA --> /Unobstructive (taking 2nd place to total environment) --> /Inviting or /Functional

MA --> Strong personalities take over work --> /Functional

.

.

.

Thank you in advance!

Hello sagers,

I want to make sure my application is perfect and idk if it would be a good idea to , I guess, pay someone to help me make sure it's solid, that I'm applying at the correct time and all, or if I need to retake, etc. Does 7sage offer these services? If not, is it against the rules here to offer to pay someone who is experienced to help?

My GPA is a 3.25, LSAT is a 169 (third take). I want a shot at USC UCLA and UCI (last choice). I was thinking I either apply now to all, or apply to UCI and retake for the others.

Thanks

Got this question right because of process of elimination, but I don't quite understand why A is the right answer?

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

Can anyone clarify why E is correct?

I chose E indirectly after eliminating other four answer choices.

.

Explanation for other answers:

[DIAGRAM]

Artist --most-> Hold less insightful political views than well educated non-artist

Artist statement --few-> Artistic talent =/= Political insight

.

[ANSWER CHOICES]

A ) Non-artist?

B ) Thorough education?

C ) Again, non-artist?

D ) Politicians?

.

.

Thank you in advance!

Hey, guys! I'm having trouble understanding why B is incorrect. My reasoning for selecting B was that if the diseased male grouse were treated with antibiotics their sacs would show that they were infected and this strengthened the hypothesis because the females would see this on their sacs and would not select them because they were unhealthy. It looks like I've made some assumptions somewhere or am I even on the right path with my logic? I read two explanations that aren't close to mine.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-4-question-06/

I would love to do a joint degree program. Specifically I'd like to either obtain a J.D. M.P.P or J.D. PhD in government. What sucks is that I'll have to study for my GRE right after I take my LSAT (crap :() But anyway I wanted to see if anyone is thinking on a similar line? Is anyone else interested in joint degree programs? If so where? Also do you think it would aid in my wanting to delve into either International Relations or NGO or Immigration work (I wish there was a job that encompassed all three haha. I'm indecisive)? Are these joint degree programs a waste of time/money? Any and all thoughts welcome.

I prepared for the September test for 6 months and averaged about a 157 on the prep tests I took. I want a 160 at least, but I fell short of that even though I felt better about the actual test than any other prep test. I ended up with a 151, and I’ve already signed up for December. I missed 11 in both LRs and RCand I missed 7 on LG (which is good for me). I honestly don’t know where to start now because I thought I had a decent grasp on the material. I have plenty of PTs left to practice with, but does anyone have any advice on honing these skills?

Hey everyone,

I underperformed so much on the September LSAT. I don't know what happened but I know my PT were way higher. Im going to retake in December. I studied with Kaplan and it was absolute garbage. Which 7sage package does everyone recommend for the next month and a half?