Hello All!

Quick question for those who know:

How in the world do you Blind Review reading comprehension??

1. I do the memory method, however at this point, i am taking practice tests, and i have no clue on how to Blind Review, or Review in general, the reading comprehension section

2. If anyone can, PLEASE give me some detailed insight.

-After taking your PT and Blind Reviewing the LR section (and of course, doing the fool-proof method on Logic Games that you did not breeze right through), how do you Review/Blind Review the RC passages? How do you better yourself? How can you increase the amount of control you have over the passage?

-After taking your PT and Reviewing/Blind Reviewing all other sections, (and of course, putting the memory method ASIDE, since its physically impossible to do the memory method after you've already taken the PT), how can you increase the level of comprehension you have within the passage? I.E. - some passages i am able to completely master after reading them untimed, and for others i will literally sit there for a good 20-30 minutes still saying "DFJDHVDKJFDNFFDFFD??????"

THANKS ALL!! and for everyone else taking the 10/3 LSAT, GOOD LUCK!

In terms of necessary and sufficient conditions for the LSAT, I'm wondering what the difference is between "All because..." and "Only because...". For example: "All because the nail fell out, the war was lost" vs. "Only because the nail fell out, the war was lost." Or, the example could be, say, "All because of you, the war was lost" vs. "Only because of you, the war was lost", etc.

My confusion is that "All" introduces a sufficient condition, whereas "Only" introduces a necessary condition. But, the sentences seem to have the same meaning. What's the difference between "All" and "Only" in the examples above? Is the use of the word "All" just simply wrong when applying it to only one person (or thing), and such an example would never be found on a LSAT (even if people say "All because of you..." in everyday, real life)?

Also, I am confused by the word "because" in the above examples. I know "because" introduces a premise (which I think of a premise as being akin to a sufficient condition, or at least as an antecedent), but does "because" introduce necessary or sufficient conditions, as well?

Thanks!

Michael

I understand that this is probably a dumb question but I keep having difficulties with flaw questions that have answers that "confuse necessary and sufficient conditions."

This is what I understand so far:

If I eat an apple, I will be healthy.

So eating an apple is a sufficient condition to being healthy since I can be healthy through other ways as well. It doesn't have to necessarily be by eating an apple.

I just know that if I eat an apple, I will definitely be healthy. To reiterate, being healthy doesn't necessarily have to do anything with eating an apple.

So if I say:

1. if I eat an apple, I will be healthy

2. I am healthy

3. I ate an apple

Is that confusing necessary for sufficient? Which flaw is this?

Can I have an example of both types of confusions (confusing necessary for sufficient / sufficient for necessary)?

Thank you!

I tend to miss these "fill in the blank" miscellaneous questions. I tend to categorize them as MSS or MP questions. Since that isn't really working (easily this question type is my lowest % according to the analytics) does anyone have any ideas about how to tackle these? The curriculum just had some listed questions, but no lesson about them.

For this question, during the timed exam and during BR, I thought all of the choices were equally awful (except for A, which was even more awful), so I pretty much randomly chose between B-E. Can someone justify B and eliminate the other answers? B seems pretty bad to me. It states that Stay in Power--->Victorious party must address the disagreements. However, the passage says they ignore their disagreements and that they come forward after victory. But, the passage (to me) doesn't imply that unaddressed disagreements trigger an overthrow. Sure, the passage starts by stating that the factions differ as much in ideology as the dominant party, but it doesn't create a sufficiency arrow for overthrowing that party (I think). Idk, this question had me spinning my wheels on the exam, and now I am spinning my wheels on it during BR.

Under the influence of today's computer-oriented culture, publishing for children has taken on a flashy new look that emphasizes illustrations and graphic design; the resulting lack of substance leads to books that are short-lived items covering mainly trendy subjects. The changes also include more humorous content, simplification of difficult material, and a narrower focus on specific topics.

Q. Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?

A. The inclusion of humorous material and a narrower focus detract from the substance of a children's book.

B. The substance of a children's book is important to its longevity.

C. Children of the conputer generation cannot concentrate on long, unbroken sections of prose.

D. Children judge books primarily on the basis of graphic design.

E. The lack of substance of a children's book is unlikely to be important to its popularity.

I chose E and the right answer is B.

I cannot figure out why B is the right answer..

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

PT29 S4 Q03

The kind of question this is: Most Strongly supported Question

Paraphrased question: PE should teach people to pursue healthy active lifestyle when they are older, but the focus on competitive sports in most schools discourages less competitive students to turn away from sports. Having learned to think of themselves as unathletic, they do not exercise enough to stay healthy.

What I am looking for: Something that has to do with PE and how it needs to change or upgrade.

Answer A: Yes, this backs up the passage. Non-competitive sports would deal with the less competitive students in helping them to see sports in positive way.

Answer B: No, the passage does not talk about how competition turns most students away from sports. It talks specifically about less competitive students and their motivation to continue with sports to stay healthy and how they see themselves.

Answer C: No, passage does not talk about the habits and talents of people and how motivated they are to exercise regularly.

Answer D: No, this might be true, but the passage focuses on less competitive students and how to encourage them to exercise.

Answer E: No, the passage is about encouraging less competitive students to exercise, and not about teaching them about the dangers sedentary lifestyles. They may or may not already know the dangers; we don’t have that information. They are discouraged to exercise because they are less competitive students pushed into competitive sports, and not because they don’t know about the dangers of a sedentary lifestyle.

Regarding *PT28 S3 Q04*

The question reads: "Each of the following is supported by the information above except:"

Can someone explain why "A" is the right answer. It sounds like the passage/"information above" supports this answer choice by saying "Raising the humidity of a room protects... computers from damage cause by excessively dry air." Based on that information, it seems like the passage is saying that "Humidity can be bad for computers." But, that is not supposed to be the case. I wrongly chose "C" because I thought passage does not say how dry air feels compared to humid air of the same temperature. I did not see a comparison made.

Let me know :)

Hi all! :) I am writing this with shoulders free from the heavy panic I was feeling 4 days ago as I frantically tried to shove 5 PT's a week into the time before the October test. I have been familiar with LSAT training since May, forked up and used Kaplan, got the LSAT Trainer and found 7Sage and almost died of LSAT burnout/overdose. Now, I'm finding that I have about 10 extra weeks. I've done a lot of PT's, but haven't blind reviewed but 3, as I discovered 7Sage and JY's methods a few weeks ago. With that said, I want to make the most out of the extra time I've granted myself, and I don't want to run through 60-75, as I know those are extremely important PT's. Doing 3 PT's/week makes me done with those 15 in 5 weeks.... and that makes me nervous. Should I stick in other PT's between them, like the 30s or something?

How did anyone else do it/how are you guys prepping for the Dec. test?

Hey Guys,

So i just finished ten Pts. I have some data with me to see where I'm making mistakes. Just wanted to know what is the most efficient way of drilling on the weak parts ( Amount of questions, difficulty level etc). Appreciate any advice as I'm about to start practicing again soon.

Cheers,

Nat

So I recently purchased the 180 watch and have been using it for PTs as I expect to use it for the upcoming October test.

Today, I found out that the screw part on the reset button is missing, and I can't seem to locate it anywhere (must have fallen off somewhere).

Would I be able to bring a small piece of sharp element to push the reset button? If so, what would be the most ideal way to do this? If not, any suggestions on what I should do?

I'm assuming it's a little too late to turn to customers service, this being among their busiest seasons I'm sure.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-2-question-07/

I'm a little confused by this one...

Could anyone explain why Answer Choice B is correct?

Researcher: We have found that some cases of high blood pressure can be treated effectively with medicine. Since it is generally accepted that any illness caused by stress is treatable only by the reduction of stress, some cases of high blood pressure must not be caused by stress.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the researcher's argument?

D) Some conditions that are treated effectively by medicines are not also treatable through the reduction of stress.

E) Medicine used to treat high blood pressure does not itself reduce stress.

The negation of D seems to me to be "All conditions that are effectively treated by medicines are also treatable through the reduction of stress." While the negation of E is that "Medicine used to treat high blood pressure does itself reduce stress."

In my mind, both of these seem to break the logic of the argument. I understand that E is correct because, having diagrammed it, I understand that a some statement will not suffice and that I need a conditional statement to bridge the gap between the premises and the conclusion. However, the negation test did not allow me to eliminate D, but it is supposedly infallible in determining the correct answer. I am a bit concerned that both D and E seem for me to break the argument. How is it that D does not do that? Or if it does, how do I know to trust the negation test? Is it that the negation of D says that medicine and stress reduction are both separately effective and that E says that the medicine is effective because it reduces the stress? Is the negation of D even applicable, since it would contradict the premise that states that an illness caused by stress can only be treated by a reduction of stress? Thanks

I don't understand why A can't be an answer and C is right.

The stimulus said "Instruction is available-> consumers would find it much easier to put together" and I should find out the situation which cannot always meet the principle.

I thought if it went like this Instruction is available-> consumers would "NOT" find it much easier to put together, so that's why I picked A.

But the answer is C. It's like Instruction is NOT available-> consumers would find it much easier to put together, right?

So how can C be an answer?

I mean when we find something against principles, shouldn't we find A-> NOT B (if the stimulus says A->B)?

So that's why I thought A is an answer because it's just like A->Not B (But C is "NOT A->B")

Can anyone explain why C is an answer and A is wrong?

Thanks!

I tried to understand why C is an answer and B is wrong. But I still don't find out why.

I know the conclusion of the stimulus is this practice greatly increases the health risk~part.

When I looked C only, it made me think it attacked "this practice" part, not greatly increases the health risk to U.S consumers.

But for weaken and strengthen questions, we should attack/strengthen a "conclusion" as far as I know.

So I thought I should attack this practice greatly increases the health risk to U.S consumers which is the conclusion and tried to find out another possibility or sth (e.g "NOT increases the health risk to US consumer") even if

what the premises said. So that's why I chose B.

So I'm really confused how C is an answer, but B cannot be. Why C should be an answer and B is not?

And I really wonder how I can distinguish between which case I should attack the whole conclusion and attack just some/another part of the conclusion (just like "this practice" part in this question) when I encounter weaken/strengthen questions which means we should attack/strengthen a conclusion.

As far as I remember, I saw some of the weaken/strengthen questions that I shouldn't attack/strengthen the whole part of the conclusions just like this one.

Can anyone explain me?

Thanks!

Hi All,

I've been studying for almost a year now on and off with a full time job and have finally reached the mid - high 160s. The past 10+ PTs (60s) I've been scoring around 165 - I am STILL having trouble finishing the last passage on RC (mainly guessing after reading) and miss at least 2-3 questions on LR (NA, PSA, and FLAW). BR is consistently in the 170s.

For the Oct LSAT, Should I be drilling LR / RC before completing the last 4 PTs (68-71)? Or just go straight in to the exams and BR? I wish there was more time. I am a splitter and really need the 170. I'm really losing hope after plateauing and not being able to finish all the questions in time.

Looking for some feedback on anyone who has been / or is in the same situation. I've booked off work until the exam so I'm hoping to squeeze as many points out of the last 2 weeks of prep that I can.

Thanks,

Mike

Hello all,

Something I'm having a little difficulty with is differentiating "most strongly supported" vs "most helps to justify" questions.

I know that for MSS, we need something that helps validate the premise and/or conclusion. I know it doesn't have to make the conclusion 100% valid (although it can).

For MHTJ, it seems like it's nearly the same. This one is more on the lines of a SA where we need to find the gap between the premise and conclusion. Basically when I see these two types, I tend to attack it the same way.

Can anyone help me clear up some fog? Thanks!

strategies for moving up a point or two/ maintaining mental health?

If you are in the middle of filling in your answer sheet can you finish bubbling or do they disqualify you for filling in the bubble once they say to stop? How Nazi are they?

I first need to thank you all, the members in 7sage, some of you encouraged me a lot 3 weeks ago when I just finished my first PT. As a result, I registered for December 2015 for my first shot.

As I finished my fifth PTs, some questions have arise. I really need your help and suggestion. My first PT, ( I think it should be too horrible to record the credit score. actually I didn't figure out how to record the credit and blind review score at that time), I got 150 as blind review score, the credit score is missing. PT 37, my second one, I got 147 and 150 for BR. PT 38, 150 and 152 for BR. I got 145 and 157 (BR) for PT 39. And the most recent one, which I just finished blind review 2 minutes ago, PT 40, 148 and 159 (BR). It seems like I have improved a little bit. However, I wonder if I am left behind.

I feel "time" is really a big issue for me currently. For logic, I usually have no time for 4 questions, sometimes when I skipped some "hard" ones, I end up with having no time to do them. For reading, I usually have only 5 minutes when I heat the last article. For games, I usually have 5-6 minutes for the last game of that section. Is this normal for a newbie?

How you guys do blind review for Reading? I usually have 1-2 articles which I feel totally lost in a single section.I would re-read all the four articles and do all the questions again for blind review without taking time. And then I look at the video for each article when I just finish blind review of that article. But I quite dislike this way. I feel I need to force myself speeding up, for which this type of BR will not helps. So today, I use the timer to redo all the reading for blind review according to the time J.Y. suggested in the video explanation. I feel this is helpful. I feel is quite real, because I correct 9 questions even under time stress. Don't laugh at me. I used to hate taking time so much, since it gives me so much pressure. But I figured out this week: how I practice will really pay-off at the day I am taking the test; worrying and avoiding is totally useless, the problems and weakness will always be there.

Another question is how you guys circle the bubble sheet. I feel like it is better for me to circle each question once I just finish that question, cos if I circle all of them after I finish the whole section, I probably would run out of time.

I will really appreciate your responses, and have a nice weekend.

Is it possible to post an explanation for 19/2/9?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-2-question-19/

I do not understand how the answer choice C is supported at all. What part of the premise supports answer C? Thank you.

I am signed up for Oct 2015 *freaks out* what happens if I chicken out and decide to change my date to December? What looks worse... Taking in October and get a shitty score and retake it in December or withdrawing from October and taking it in December

Why is answer choice C correct? I thought this is a Most Strongly Supported question. I picked answer choice D thinking it is most supported since back then those who learned about natural processes through active learning where the only ones who learned at that time. So when compared to nonagricultural societies, they had learned how to grow plants. But I guess that is assuming too much. But that still doesn't explain to me why answer choice C is correct.

Hey 7Sagers! Here's a question from a student I thought you could help out with:

I am looking for someone to critique my attempted negations for necessary assumption question Dec 2009, s3,q25. Thank you so much.

My negations:-

A. Scientists ...always have biases...

B. ...biases...are shared among all scientists.

C. Biases ...are likely to impair...

D. Interpretation of data is not the only part...

E. ? (I am clueless in this one)

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-59-section-3-question-25/

I completely missed this question. I thought B was very unattractive, and I confidently eliminated it during the test and during BR. I would appreciate it if someone just completely dismantled my reasoning because I don't understand how my reasoning is wrong on this:

Some people think that highway speed limits should be increased to reflect the actual speeds of drivers (which are higher than current speed limits). This increase would greatly decrease saftey since higher average speeds would result. Most violators would obey the new law and almost all of the people that obey the current speed limit would increase their speed.

What I am looking for: This is a very hard passage to understand. The support for the conclusion is that higher average speeds would result since most violators would obey the new law (either increase, decrease, or stay the same speed depending on how much the speed was increased) and current law abiding drivers would increase their speed. The argument is flawed because we don’t know the magnitude of the change. What if the speed limit is increased by 1 MPH? Almost all law abiding citizens could increase by 1 MPH and the most fast drivers could decrease by 15 MPH (if you assume that they were driving very fast). So, it is possible that the average speed actually decreases!

Answer A: This is consistent with the argument since “almost all” (in other words “some won’t) increase their speed.

Answer B: IDK, I still am very skeptical that this weakens the argument. Where does the argument imply or give evidence that uniformity of speed is important? I have a feeling that the author would just say “so what?” to this. Also, the argument doesn’t talk about what a “low speed” is. The argument is talking about “higher vs. lower” speeds. This answer choice seems to making a “relative vs. absolute” flaw that we talked about during the 7sage course. The argument says that some of the drivers (“almost all” idea like in answer choice A) are not going to increase their speed, so there won’t be “uniformity” of speed because some are still going to be below the speed limit. I just feel like the author would respond by saying “dude, you just helped my argument! The speeds aren’t going to be uniform!” Additionally, I don’t see how JY assumes that a shift in the distribution now becomes a narrower distribution. Can someone break this one down?

Answer C: So what? Just because you haven’t been involved in an accident doesn’t mean your danger level has decreased.

Answer D: This is consistent with the argument, so it is not a weakener. The author says that most will obey the law, which could imply that some will still not.

Answer E: Is believing what is safe the same as actual saftey? What if the violators are very risk loving?