Like many (hopefully not too many!) others on here, I am disappointed with my September score and am retaking. A really rough reading comp section was the only thing keeping me from my target score, so I'm planning on drilling this shit into the ground. Any and all suggestions are appreciated.

I took the September 2017 LSAT and unfortunately didn't perform up to my potential. For various reasons, my undergraduate career thus far has been hectic and extremely time consuming. To be on the path of graduating in the normal time-slot of four years, I took five classes in a seven week summer semester and tried studying for the LSAT at the same time. Realizing my enormous mistake, I decided not to take the June LSAT, took the September LSAT, and didn't do as well as I should have. Given my extenuating circumstances and how I want to graduate undergrad this April, I am in a full course load right now and will be in the winter as well. My desire to go to a top law school is strong and I will study as efficiently as possible for an exemplary test score. That being said, I would love some feedback on how efficient the LSAT premium 7sage course is and if it will more than likely help me in achieving a higher score. A 20 point increase on the February 2017 LSAT would be great in my case, as I plan to be in an entering law school class of 2018. Any thoughts, experiences, and opinions would be awesome.

any advice?

Hi everybody,

Now that I am finished with the CC, I was wondering how people with only the starter pack went about their LR drilling, since they don't have the LR bundle. Should I just mute the CC videos and try to quickly figure out the answers on my own? Should I type them up and save them (like I did with LG that weren't apart of a problem set?) I know some people just use the starter pack and succeed, so basically my question is how? I may upgrade to Premium in the next week but even so, I thought I should seek advice from more experienced 7sagers.

Grey alert!!!!!!

Why are most of the passages in RC science based?

Hi everyone,

I'm about to go through the LR Drill packs, but before I do, I have a question about how to use them most effectively.

If I'm drilling only Flaw questions, for instance, should I drill them under timed conditions? In other words, should I pick out 25 and try to do those in 35 minutes? Or should I just not worry about time at all.

I'm at the stage where I have difficulty with certain question types, but I'm definitely beyond that "initial learning" stage.

Thanks so much for you help :)

Hey everyone. So I graduated college in May. I started out with a 144 for my diagnostic. Since then my highest PT has been a 162 and I've been studying full-time. I am very proud of my progress thus far. My goal is to get accepted to USC, UCLA, Georgetown, or Berkeley. My GPA is a 3.57. In order to do this I will have to get at least a 166 to even be considered. I feel like I will not be ready by December despite the fact that I am studying full-time. A moment of vulnerability here; I feel like crap being where I am. I am studying full-time in my parents house trying to stick to an 7 hour daily study schedule while I watch all my friends go off to medical school or law school or get great jobs. My girlfriend of 3 years just got into Stanford and I'm not even sure if I will be able to take a test by the deadline I set for myself, namely December. I feel like a disappointment to myself and it's so painful to feel so close to my goal and so far at the same time. I feel like I should take the test in June and get a full-time job or something in the meanwhile. I feel like the only people who might give me advice on this would give me bad advice, so I am asking the forum. The way I think about it is the following: I'd rather study longer and get a score that's good enough to get me into a good school possibly with money, than I getting into a worse school with no money. Where do you all stand on this? I feel like the 7sage mantra is take as much time as you need to get where you want to go, but I just don't know what to do. I want to thank everyone who took the time to read and respond to this in advance.

I keep getting a 162. And I’m worried because I am planning to take the test in December. Any advice?

I assume, we obviously do the memory method on the actual LSAT exam, correct? Or does it take too much time?

Anyone know if it's allowed to use a highlighter on the test?? I'm trying different strategies with RC and think highlighting will help. Any insight much appreciated. Thanks

Hey 7sagers!

Im wondering how I could balance the time spent on LG fool proofing and working on other sections. I seem to be unable to juggle all sections together so Im currently neglecting LR and RC while focusing on foolproofing LG. It takes so much of my brain energy to work on LG alone and now im concerned about LR and RC.

Im so amazed by all who have done and are currently foolproofing LG! It takes so much grit and endurance.

Could you offer me advice on balancing the sections? Thank you 7sage!!

Hey, guys. I have some conflicting notes on something and was hoping for some clarification.

/A --> B

and

A ---> /B

are different things, right?

I wrote down:

/A-->B

=Either or; one of A and B must be in, the other is free to float.

A-->/B

=Not both; only one of A and B can be in, the other must be out.

This is what I wrote down from the course but I thought I saw something different in one of the explanations.

Can someone explain to me the difference between AC D and B

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-59-section-2-question-20/

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/advanced-andor-in-necessary-conditions/

I'm having trouble understanding this lesson.

A--> B or C

Why can't "OR" in the necessary mean both? unless otherwise indicated as "not both"

Since its a necessary condition would it not mean that it is necessary for one of them to happen/be triggered but could it not also be the case that B and C happen?

A--> B and C

Similarly for "AND"

I don't understand why AND can split the arrow... if A --> B and C... doesn't this mean that it is necessary for both B AND C to be triggered? Because the contrapositive means if not B or not C then not A... If we say A --> B and A--> C are we saying that one of them could happen without the other and the statement will still be true.. but if this was the case why can't we say or?

Hello, everyone.

I've done the core curriculum and am (trying) to solve all the LG problems from PT 1-70 but things are not looking up.

I've done 40 PTs so far. This is what usually happens. First, I will try to solve the problems on my own. I will probably get the sequencing and simple in-out games and make all the inferences. On a good PT, three sets with maybe 4-5 wrong. On a particularly bad one I might get two or even one set properly done, missing up to two digits. The latter has been happening a lot and on the September LSAT, I did not fare well on this section and had to randomly guess for about twelve of the questions.

I understand JY's explanations and they have been very helpful. But are you supposedly to go over EVERY single game set with explanations? For me, that seems to be the reality. And even with 40 PTs down, I am not making the leap I had been hoping for.

The Games are holding me back and I have not done anything else for some time. It's making me really depressed, guys. I hope to hear some words of wisdom. Thanks and have a nice one.

I have encountered certain questions where often means "Some". I had made a note about it until I came across PT37 S2 Q18 where in answer choice C says " often sacrificed" and it was eliminated because it said often based on one example.

I'd love an explanation for this question along with how to deal with "Often"

Thanks in advance!

Hi all.

This is an intentionally short and to-the-point discussion post. I want as much input and insight as I can gain and don't want to turn away any potential comments with a huge long prompt. So please forgive my lack of details.

Things were going so well. I crushed my first prep test, skated through introduction to logic and strengthening questions. I felt good about my LSAT studies and had confidence. Until I started the Validity and Must Be True Questions section. My progress immediately halted. The concepts stopped sticking and I have begun to start losing the confidence and swagger I once had. Specifically, the Valid Argument Forms 1-9 might as well be Greek to me. I have trouble understanding why I need to keep nine fucking argument forms in my head. They appear to have only subtle differences and I don't see how memorizing those details could help increase my LSAT score.

I just want to get back to studying LSAT questions and study things that are directly applicable to the exam.

Now, let's be real. It isn't the awesome service of 7Sage that is discouraging me. I have been really exhausting myself trying to study every minute I have available. Additionally, I have almost completely stopped exercising and my sleep has been disrupted with stress about the exam. I realize that these lifestyle factors play a large part in my academic productivity and I am addressing them. But in the meantime, somebody - ANYBODY - please let me know how I can survive validity/invalidity sections.

Help me! Anyone! I'm losing my fucking mind!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-3-question-26/

I got this question right during the PT by POE (A-B reverses necessary and sufficient terms, ACD all use most-statements) but in BR I really had to labor over the logic. It in fact took several sessions to feel good about my interpretation. However, my translation differs slightly from JY due to the presence of nested terms so I'm curious what ya'll think about it.

expect benefits outweigh cost → (acquire info → R)

Therefore

acquire info → R

This appears to be the most basic logical structure in the book. A→B, therefore B. We need A. But the nested terms muddy the waters a bit. We need to conclude R which is nested within the necessary condition. Because of the odd form, there are more ways of doing that than just A→B. But, most importantly, we can't conclude R if one expects the "benefits outweigh the cost".

This is really where I had my difficult. the easiest correct AC would have just said "The benefits never outweigh the cost". However, what they gave us was

acquire info → expect benefits outweigh cost

That results in a perfectly valid but unusual form. Our final chain looks like

expect benefits outweigh cost ↔ acquire info → R

"Consumers who do not bother to acquire this info are acting rationally". We can safely say that now because consumers who don't bother to acquire this info also don't expect the benefits to outweigh the costs.

Hello Folks,

I posted this in the powerscore forum as well, but it looks a little dead over there. I was hoping I might be able to pick someone's brain about a particular question.

Hello everyone,

I'm working on conditional reasoning. Overall, I find using my intuition works 80% of the time, but sometimes I'm going to need to use the techniques discuss in Powerscore Logical Reasoning Bible Chapter 6 in order to maximize my score.

So, my question stems from question 2 of chapter 6 on page 171. The question is:

Admin Edit: Please don't post LSAT materials. LSAC owns a copyright on this and posting is a violation of the copyright. For reference, I believe this is from PT 31 Section 3 Number 22.

So, when I use my intuition, I get answer E. But I am practicing my conditional reasoning, and I am not able to get that answer.

I managed to get the following:

NEOR: Nucleomorph is the remains of an engulfed organism's nucleus

SVG: Single version of the gene

(I use slashed /// in order to designate "not")

/NEOR ------> SVG

and the contrapositive

/SVG -------> NEOR

Which, in the book is generally correct. However, the book then suggests that because:

Premise 1: /NEOR --------> SVG (I understand this as noted above)

Premise 2: /SVG

Conclusion: NEOR

And then somehow, to my bafflment, they come up with the statement that:

SVG ------> /NEOR (This is neither the contrapositive or the replication of the original conditional reasoning as it appears in the last sentence. In fact, it simply looks like a Mistaken Reveral to me.)

I am NOT understanding how they build this conditional reasoning argument. Indeed, my only clue is that maybe a premise=sufficient condition and that a conclusion=necessary condition that maybe this is how they ended up doing it? But my searches online don't show this to be true.

Additionally, answer choice E does not have any conditional indicators, making it difficult to decide what is the necessary and sufficient condition for choosing your answer. Are there any resources out there that help with doing this? Could I ask anyone for a little help? Thanks a tonne!!!

I'm 70% complete with the CC and on the LG section. Should I use these lessons to just learn Logic Games or should I start fool proofing the practice problems JY has listed in the lessons now? For some reason I got the impression that Fool Proofing should be saved for after the CC is completed and when you start PT-ing...

Hey everyone,

I was wondering if there is any interest out there to also blind review the hardest RC passage together each time we do a PT . Maybe we can set aside one separate day to do this. On previous RC tutoring sessions I have noticed blind reviewing RC to take at most 2 hours. I am working on seeing what time we can do this by seeing openings on 7sage calendar. I hope to find an opening on Sunday.

Let me know if there is any interest out there to do this.

UPDATE:

Thanks for all the interest. I went ahead and scheduled the blind review RC meetings for every Sunday at 7 pm. Please treat this blind review call the same as our LR calls by not checking your answers before hand. Also, please have a clean copy of the section and a pencil with you. We will first read the passage together and do low-high resolution summaries and then do the questions under time before going over them as a group.

Here is the link to the meeting. Just click the link at the specified date and time and I will see you there.

70 Plus Series (December LSAT Study Group)

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/305261573

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States: +1 (669) 224-3412

Access Code: 305-261-573

Joining from a video-conferencing room or system?

Dial: 67.217.95.2##305261573

Cisco devices: 305261573@67.217.95.2

First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: http://link.gotomeeting.com/email-welcome

Reading Comprehension is my lowest scoring section. Does anyone have any good tips for improving this area? I know a few people who find RC the easiest read magazines such as the Economist and WSJ. I used to read WSJ when I had the student discount, but only because it didn't cost a lot and their topics actually interested me. Most RC passages aren't as interesting for me. For those of you who have seen improvement and/or do well on RC, do you have any Publications/Magazines that you recommend reading for practice? How often do you read them and what is your strategy for reading them (do you read all the way through, or mark conclusions/premises/etc.)?

Hello everyone!

So, I have started fool proofing, and I feel like I am not doing it effectively. I generally use the concept of doing the game once. Watched the video explanation. Do it again the same day. Then, do the same game the next day. Wait a week and do the same game again. However, I do not seem to be getting some of the games within time by the 4th try and some of them I am still answering wrong. So, I have thought of some reasons why I may not be grasping the concepts and wanted to get ya'll take on it.

First, I am not focusing specifically on LG. I have split my study times between LG and LR or LG and RC. My LR is doing better, but I also think I put more emphasis on LR. Do you think I should take it section by section instead to focus?

Second, I vary in how many games I will do a day mostly since I split time in studying. For example, I may do 2, 3, or 4 games on my study session. Should I do a whole section each time?

Third, I think my Foolproof cycling is not good. I do the four tries, but since I vary on how many I do, I may start a new game. Also, I have not returned to some of the games that I have done 4 times and not got all the answer right/within time frame. Should I increase my intervals such as: do game x twice in a day, then next week do game x, then next month do game x?

It's funny because the more I type, the more I am seeing what the problem is lol.

I was wondering what the best way to approach RC is following completion of CC. I usually miss between 8 and 4 consistently, but that's too wide a range. I want to get down to -2, which I believe I am capable of doing. I usually blow it and miss 2 and 2 or 3 and 2 on the harder RC sections, and miss only 1 on the easier sections. Should I review "Hard RC" sections from the CC or does anyone have any tips on something that would be more constructive? Should I go backwards from PT35 and review only the hardest RC passages per test and then BR them? I imagine that that would be best strategy, but if anyone has any thoughts I'd love to hear. Thanks for all and any feedback!