I just did my recon and found out that the desk I will be using is the type that is attached to the chair and it's extremely small...duh..I took my June test in China so we were taking the test on a big flat regular desk..unlike the one we are using in the US..small desktop area doesn't really allow any room for you to lay out the two page booklet and put your answer sheet next to it...it's gonna cause some trouble for me but I guess I'll just have to suck it up..

Any thoughts?

So, I stumbled upon 7Sage just but two weeks ago. Up until that point I was feeling confident with my self-study approach and had been scoring consistently in the 160-166 range with an absolute abysmal showing in the LG sections. When I read all the different approaches and the time spent preparing from users on here I felt ashamed and underprepared for the upcoming exam. My hope was to eventually to get above a 170 but I have not scored that once on any practice test. I feel that with an additional three months of studying and incorporating the approaches that I discovered on here I can reach my goal. With that being said, I am eager for next weeks test. Would it be terrible if I took the test and if necessary take it again in December? Will I be looked down upon if I do this? Just wanted to know what people thought. Thanks in advance.

Ok, on weaken questions the correct answer does NOT weaken a premise, right?

From PT30, 4, 24

The conclusion is that since voice mail is more (1) flexible (2) convenient (3) cheaper -> answering machines will become obsolete.

The correct answer choice is D. Answering machines have a feature that voice mail does not.

But does D not attack the a premise and D seems to attack the premise that voice mail is more convenient and flexible?

I watched the 7Sage video for this particular game but fail to understand a particular rule.

The rule was O1-R1-R2, which made O only possible on wednesday OR thursday. However, why isn't O1-O2-R1-R2 possible, that is, having O on both wednesday and thursday before R1 and R2?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-57-section-1-game-2/

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-43-section-3-question-10/

Can anyone help me about the PT43-S3-Q1?

I understand A can fill the gap but it seems more like a sufficient assumption because of the word "only". So if I negate A and financial reward is not the only incentive, the conclusion seems to be ok. Because, you know, what if financial reward is the primary incentive?

and I chose c because when I negate c, I ask myself what if the cost is more significant than the future profit? the conclusion seems to fall apart.

Many Thanks.

Hey LSAT Geeks~My test in 10 days and one of my lingering concerns is about the type of in/out game questions that asks "what's the maximum/minimum number of blablabla that can be in or out", or "Which one of following must be in for maximum number of blablabla in/out". It generally involves a huge cluster of in/out chains and can be intimidating. Is there any rules of thumb? Sorry I can't find any specific games right away, but this type is not uncommon.

Question asks us to identity how the argument's REASONING is most vulnerable.

I understand why (E) is a flaw; it's an obvious correlation/causation problem.

However, I don't understand why (A) isn't also a flaw.

Looking at the last two sentences of the stimulus, I see a jump from "shedding tears" to "crying." The author seems to be assuming that shedding tears implies crying, but this need not be the case and (A) brings this up. It's a subtle scope shift, but it's still a shift. Any thoughts?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-2-question-24/

Hey guys, I just wanted to share my thoughts and also receive feedback on the issue of LSAT burnout.

I am currently preparing for the October exam taking place in about 2 weeks time.. and after cranking up my studies for the past 2 weeks (10 hrs per day), I hit a brick wall of mental fatigue that I have never experienced before. I have heard of this mental phenomenon before, but did not believe in it until I actually experienced it for myself. I took a PT yesterday (it was the Lunar Moon festival season in Korea) and wow, I was blanking out on most RC passages, had no idea what was going on with the last 2 games even with 25 minutes remaining, and for 1 LR section I ran out of time with FIVE questions TOTALLY UNTOUCHED!!! Timing was always my weakness in LR, but I did improve a lot after a chat with JY.. so seeing myself a-bomb it so badly was a real shocker to me.

After a dismal performance, I just sat down and interrogated myself. Are you studying hard enough? Hmm... well for the past 5 months all I did was eat sleep LSAT. Are you not understanding your material? Well.. I do well on BR.. Are you just dumb? .. I hope not.. well I did get a 3.8 at a good uni..

After a brutal session of beating myself up, I wandered around soullessly online and read an article that James of our forum put up: http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/signs-lsat-burnout-avoid-recover.html

And yea, it seems to indicate that I am burnt out and I am really beginning to appreciate the complexity of LSAT. This exam tests you on much more than your ability to reason. Since this is not a knowledge-based test, crunching does't actually work very well as it may lead to mental fatigue. Even though you understand the fundamentals of RC, LR and LG, it is of no use if your mind is wandering off to the distant galaxies and Sirius 67293 when it should be on planet Earth and more importantly, on the god damn paper itself.

The whole point of this exam is to apply your skills effectively and efficiently, which absolutely requires a clear and rested mind. And from my experience, burnout is pretty real and it WILL prevent you from performing well on the test day. After all, what it really boils down to is those split seconds on the test day that your brain makes decisions. You really don't have the luxury of understanding everything and making sure that your answers are correct. So make sure to keep your brain happy and rested so that it does make the right decisions on the actual test day!!

Is anyone else studying for the October LSAT?

I'm practicing, and I am having trouble with this particular question.

The correct answer is (B), however, the stimulus does not state (or imply) that more or less molecular motion is produced in "hot" climates as opposed to "cold" climates; the stimulus only states that "...molecular motion is directly proportional to the temperature..."

I could use a bit of help with attacking answer choices that expect me to make assumptions of this nature.

Thanks

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-3-question-24/

Really unclear as to why (B) is the correct answer.

The conclusion of the stimulus is about "marks of success."

Answer choice (B) talks about whether a rock group is successful/unsuccessful. This seems to be beside the point as we are discuss METRICS that determine success not about WHETHER something is successful/unsuccessful.

I really liked (E) because it sticks with the conclusion's scope - "marks of success." I know a potential problem with (E) is that it discusses COMPETENCE whereas the stimulus mentions only the group's incompetence. But why can't we interpret competence in (E) as a concept that encompasses both the presence and lack of it?

So I have been studying since the beginning of August in hopes of taking the October LSAT. I work full time in a law firm and have a 2 hour commute. After taking numerous LSAT's and blind reviewing them I have only been able to score up to a 155. My goal is to get up into the 165-170 area. SO I am now rescheduling for december.

Does anyone have any advice for me? J.Y. told me to switch my studying to the morning instead of the afternoon, however I can only really get in an hour before work. Any earlier and I am looking at waking up at 4 am.

I have the powerscore bibles, kaplan drill books, powerscore class books, this resource. I am willing to put in the time and have made up a "plan" with my buddy to meet 3 times a week. However, I really want to start seeing some results and I feel kind of lost starting over again. I want to apply this cycle, but I also don't want to half-a** it.

Any advice would be appreciated.

I've been scoring at around 166/167, but because of my not-so-excellent GPA (3.4) I will need a minimum of 170 for my desired school to even consider me. With less than 3 weeks left, do you think this is an achievable goal? Should I wait until Dec? I've already put aside 90% of obligations so I have as much as 6 hours to study everyday before test day.

For those of you who think this can be achieved, what are some recommendations/useful tactics? I've been getting around -5 RC, -0 LG, and -3/-7 LR. It seems to me that the more recent tests always have one easier and one obviously more difficult LR section, so I've been scoring very unevenly in LR.

I hope others who have the same problem will find this thread useful too.

Thank you!

I took the June and decided to retake it again this October. Over the first part of my studying after the June test I was feeling really good about my progress. Recently however, my LR scores have been tanking.

I have been Blind Reviewing everything and taking a lot of time to really dig into the questions I get wrong. I also seem to understand most of the arguments and answer choices; on Blind Review usually end up with -1 or -2 and that process had seemed to be really helping me for a while (especially on LG and RC). I am also not pressed for time when taking sections or PT's... I have been getting 6 or 7 wrong regardless of whether I slow down and take almost the whole 35 min or go at a faster pace of around 27 min (or anywhere in-between)

Right now my plan is to go back and redo the LR lessons from the course, as my best scores came right when I had finished all the lessons. I feeling like I have such a good understanding of the test which is why I am kind of at a loss. Any advice or strategies that people have found useful is more than welcomed, thanks (... am I sleeping, eating and at least going outside now and then)

What does this flaw look like? Can someone point me to a certain PT or example?

Just something I've been doing a lot lately that I think might help some ppl out.

I commute every day to work, so I leave in the morning and my dad drops me off at the train station and then I ride the train to work. (it really freaking sucks spending 2 hrs 45 min a day commuting!!!)

Using my smartphone, I usually read articles related to tech or science on the train, and as I read I try ask myself questions like "what was the author's purpose in mentioning _______" or "what function does the word _________ serve in this sense" as I go through each article. When you're reading try to do the fool proof method JY talked about where you ingrain the main point of each paragraph in your mind. Then, at the end of the article, ask yourself MSS and inference type questions. Be creative!

I find most of these articles through news.google.com and search for new science, tech, or world news type articles.

I am sure that most of these articles are not of the caliber presented on the LSAT but just reinforcing the methodology used to go through a LSAT passage is VERY helpful.

When I first started studying for RC I found it tough to get through so much material but now I am relieved when I turn the page to the next section and see a passage. Hopefully you will also like the RC section more if you read some articles. The general knowledge you gain might even be helpful on the test!

I remember some people asking what sort of magazines they can read that might help them. Using something like google news is really simple and if you have a smartphone or a tablet and internet access you can build your RC skills on the go!

Hey guys, first of all here is the link to this question.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-59-section-3-question-13/

I seem to be having a lot of problem with questions that require mathematical understanding.

I got this question right through POE, but having a real hard time trying to understand why the correct answer is correct.

So the premise is about the relative difference in the percentage of INJURY between accidents involving large and small cars within the sample of 10,000 accidents (large cars = lower, small cars higher percentage).

And the conclusion is about the general likelihood of being INJURED in large vs. small car accidents (large cars safer).

So far so good, but.. where the hell is the FLAW?

Jon explains the shift in scope by saying that the conclusion is about ABSOLUTE numbers, and it would make sense if it is indeed about absolute numbers (remember, percentage -> absolute number is flawed).

BUT, the conclusion explicitly states "one is less LIKELY," which does not seem to indicate absolute numbers.

Please help!!

Hey guys,

I revisited one of my old PTs and got stuck at this question because I am not really understanding what the stimulus is saying. It's about politics and yes, I have ZERO interest in politics so it is extra hard for me to see what the author is saying.

BTW, the link:

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-57-section-3-question-22/

Ok, so I do understand up to the point where the author's argument begins.

Poor candidates need money from rich dudes to win elections and therefore likely to compromise their views (to align their views with their patrons).

But this sentence is giving me a hard time: "But since the wealthy are dispersed among the various political parties in roughly equal proportion to their percentage in the overall population."

In roughly equal proportion to their percentage in the overall population? What? Does 'overall population' mean literally the population of a country? Or does it mean population of the party?

And what does this have anything to with whether or not the candidate will or not compromise?

POE got me to B because the others are very irrelevant but I really want to understand the logic behind it.

Currently on PT 57.

Due to time limitations I am taking every 1-2 LSATs as full length timed, and doing the in-betweens as timed sections. Devoting time to BR is also demanding so I make sure I have enough time to attend to both BR and taking timed tests/sections.

I'm currently scoring about 170-172 before BR. I managed to get 180 after BR on PT 56. My biggest weakness is still LR.

I have the entire month of September to devote towards this test. How can I make the final push for as high of a score as possible? Due to circumstances my goal is basically a 180 or as close to it as possible. This is my only chance for getting into one of the lower of the T14 schools.

I'm going over questions I got wrong and understanding what I did wrong. I'm also going over lessons from the syllabus when I find that a certain type of question is giving me a lot of trouble. Current weakness is LR where I am still getting many questions wrong.

With that in mind, how should I schedule my studying for this month? This is the final assault and I'm finding it VERY hard to increase score.

I just don’t see where the author endorses anything. The author, to me, doesn't seem to reveal anything about where he/she comes down on this debate. I just can’t find one word that would do this. It seems instead, that the author is going out of his/her way to stay detached using phrases such as “she points out”, “she maintains”, “they maintain” “Gluck observes”. Could someone please point out one word that indicates the author is not indifferent?? I hate to say it, but JY did not provide much of an explanation on this question, though he is great with the other questions. (Still got much love for you bro!)

Passage: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-3-passage-2-passage/

Questions: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-3-passage-2-questions

How do I diagram this?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-20/

For this question here:

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-2-question-21/

My question:

If E is right, it didn't resolve this discrepancy. Because E implies "if all and only those who ate a particular seafood dish at the restaurant contracted the illness", which only prove that contaminated dish caused the illness. But what official believe is that "contaminated seafood caused the cases of illness". "seafood" and "dish" is not a same thing.

So I understand that logic games now are on two pages to give more room to write out diagrams. This is great. How are you guys incorporating it into your practice though, just an extra sheet of paper? Also if they are two pages do you know if they are always on pages facing each other, so you can see both when the test book is open? Or is it possible that I'll have to flip pages to get from the first page to the second?

How about this question.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-1-passage-3-questions/

I still confused about A and C.

In actually test, 54% people choose C and A only 31%

I still feel C make senses.

This game was terribly difficult for me, but after spending quite a bit of time thinking about it, I think I've figured out what surely has to be the best way to set this game up. The game seems confusing because it pretends to have 5 game pieces (the five cities) which are connected to each other. The epiphany I had was that those really aren't the game pieces: the CONNECTIONS between the cities are the game pieces, and it's really just a 9 piece in-out game. The 9 pieces are the 9 unique permutations of the 5 cities' connections. Boo-ya! -Do people still say that?

Anyway, I wondered if anyone else had thoughts on this game, or if there is a reason why this set up/approach to the game isn't the absolute best.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-40-section-2-game-3/