I've been studying for the September LSAT since June and all you 7Sagers have provided me with invaluable advice. I'm hitting a bit of a block, so I'm hoping for some more of that great advice. My situation requires a little background:

I started studying for the LSAT at the beginning of June. I've made substantial progress since then, but I'm still not where I want to be.

I used PrepTests 29-40 for drilling sections of the test. Initially not timed, but as I got better I started timing. I got to the point where I was able to complete each LR section in just under the requisite time, with only -2 to -4 MAX on each section.

"Great," I thought. My LG skills are great, RC isn't great, but hey, my close to perfect LR score will get me where I want to be.

Well, I was wrong.

I just took a full-timed PrepTest 52 and LR tanked due to timing issues and I'm not really sure why. I've since also taken a full-timed PrepTest 53 and am experiencing the same issue.

For some reason, I'm not able to finish in the required period of time, which I don't understand because previously this hasn't been a problem. Either I go over by 5ish minutes and get a good score,or I rush, get 6 wrong in a row and come in under.

If I get these sections done in time, I'd be PTing at around 165. Which would make me very happy. But time is killing me.

What gives? Is LR harder in later PrepTests? I am finding that some questions (no pattern) require me to read the question stem multiple times to properly understand - I have to do this more-so than in earlier tests.

I thought BR was supposed to help this problem. I expected that the more BR I did, the better I'd get at solving the problems in a shorter amount of time. Is this not the case? Because I've BR'd a LOT of LR sections and I'm still finding that I'll come across 1 to 2 problems each section that I have absolutely no idea what to even think.

I'm confused, and very disappointed. Thoughts?

If there is anyone that would like to study with me, I am located in Paris, France. We can meet up during the week and weekends to this studying down. Please be serious, because I am enroute to law school next year and I need and will make an excellent score. So please again be about the business at hand of being prepared and diligent in your pursuit of achieving this goal!

I am booked for the December test here in Paris.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-4-question-12/

Hi, I am struggling between B and C...

I thought B is wrong because they might be able to get water from other regions if they run out their water...

Why are we not allowed to think in this way in this question? because it's not practical in real world?

Also for C...I thought it's correct because if they do not adopt water conservation methods in the near future, some regions may run out water. (but then it sounds like it suggests the same issue as B...maybe then can get water from other regions)

Is C wrong because in the conclusion it says "unless pop. growth trends change are simply mistaken" so adopting water conservation methods or not does not matter?

Thank you in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-1-question-13/

I thought A is the correct answer because it sounds if most viewers started to watch the 1st episode of the program because of the network's ad, it sounds the ad had huge influence or better influence. After all "most" means more than 50%. (Nothing can be more influential than this because it's more than 50%) Why is A wrong? :(

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-31-section-2-question-03/

I just had to stop drilling for a second because I came across this question and was amazed at how incredibly sexist it is. Shame

on the lsat writer smdh. There are 3 answer choices that made me lol and take a big swig of coffee.

Anyway back to drilling.

I've been studying for the LSAT starting in early June and whilst other sections of the test have been manageable, LG section does not seem to show any improvement. I consistently get at least 1-2 questions wrong and even though I watch the videos and do the questions again, I always get at least one question wrong. I feel so stuck in the cycle of failure in the LG section. I keep on getting discouraged by my score. I am currently doing fool-proof method but this does not seem to give me any boost in scores.

Any advice will be deeply apprecited :)!!!

Can anybody tell me what logical reasoning questions that you must be wary of extreme language (only, whenever, all, etc) when approaching? I know inference questions ("the information above provides the most support for which one of the following") but what other questions is it important to be wary of extreme language and keep it vague? Also just on a side note, why is it important to be wary of extreme language on inference questions? I have ever come across an all encompassing answer for this.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-2-question-21/

Hi, I was wondering whether anyone could explain why E is correct.

I was not sure about E because it says more than half of the students received a grade of B-or higher, but I thought it's not nec, true because there might be other factors influenced their grades, such as test score etc. Even though some students attend all classes, they might have done poorly on exams and it might result in receiving grades lower than B-, so I thought E cannot be inferred from the stimuli, especially the part "more than half..." at least some, maybe, but more than half is too much.

Could anyone explain this question?:(

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-40-section-3-question-25/

Hoping someone can explain why the answer is D.

I understand why A, B and E are incorrect. I got down to C and D but chose C and I'll explain why.

D makes an absolute conclusion. It says, "It is therefore unavoidable that the level of vehicle safety will not be optimal." In other words, "Vehicle Safety WILL NOT (absolute) be optimal." Our stimulus however, makes no absolutely claim, instead using the word "overly optimistic (unlikely)"

I read through the Power-score forum and the admin was attempting to claim that D did not make an absolute claim. I just can't get behind this.

I realize that C ends with a conditional. But it's still a correct conditional that parallels what we see in the stimulus.

Feeling frustrated because this makes no sense!

I used the Memory Method and it greatly improved my RC ability, but I haven't done it on PTs thinking it'll too much time to forfeit.

Do any of use continue to use the Memory Method on PTs by covering the passage and recalling the main point of all the paragraphs?

Hi all, I am currently registered to take the September 2016 LSAT and I have been studying but I just don't know if I will be ready to meet my maximum potential score by this time. I plan to attend law school in the Fall of 2017 and I was wondering if, even after taking the September test, it will be too late for me to apply to schools with my December score?

I don't want to take the exam twice, however, I think this is the best way to maximize my score and allow myself enough time but I also don't want to postpone until December and end up regretting not taking it twice.

Is the December 2016 test too late to use to apply to law schools?

I finally took a full PT. I chose PT76 under time limit with 144. I finished most of the LG class and ready for LR course on. My goal is to enter 170s.

I got internship 4 of 5 days. I use the lsat blog schedule and use the 7sage course with reading LSAT trainer。

.How much I should do for drills before full section？ My LSAT is in December.Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks!!

If someone can help me understand this question, I would be most appreciative. I have been staring at it for the last 15 minutes, I looked at the Manhattan explanation (on their forums) and was not satisfied, it really does not make sense to me.

If someone could help me, I would be most appreciative! Please, please help me! :(

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-2-question-02/

Does the stimulus in this question illustrate a causal relationship between the Sumerian's inability to support agriculture and its collapse? I'm wondering if the second to last sentence of the stimulus can indicate a mere correlation, that there were other factors that caused the collapse unrelated to agriculture. I'm just having trouble understanding if the causation was something indicated through indicator words or if it was implied based on the information of the stimulus.

I first read Passage A, and because I'm a nervous impulsive person, I go straight to the questions that refer only to passage A and do those, and then skim through the questions that refer to both A and B (i.e. "Which of these would both the authors from A and B agree with?") and eliminate a good 2-3 answer choices for each of the questions like that. I do this because I fear that I'll forget what I read in A after I finish with B (or worse, misinterpret A wrong and see it through a different lens after because of what I've read in B.)

This strategy doesn't seem terrible, since I still do ~okay~ on the passages, but it also probably takes up more time because I'm re-reading questions? I wanna know if anyone else has tips / good strategy for Comparative Passages. I'm still trying out my strategy, but if it's deemed inefficient or unnecessary, I'm still in the early stages so I'll be ready to change/modify to a different strategy.

Thanks, community!

Hi there.

I have been preparing for LSAT for 2 weeks and my progress right now is that I finished the Powerscore Bible of LR and also the relevant part of 7sage and I have also done around 8 PTs. So as I practice the LR with the PT, I try to finish the section in 35 mins but if I do that, then I am always around -8. However, if I do take my time and finish it around 45mins then I am around -4. So my question is that, what should be the main concern for me right now, to get more right answers or to try to finish the section in time? Or is there any other right things to do that I am missing right now? Thanks!

So regardless if I take a timed or untimed test, I only get half of the logical reasoning questions right. The first 10-12 I get right and then it goes downhill. Does this mean that my foundation and understanding for logical reasoning is not good enough? Problem is I feel confident about a lot of my answers :/. Please help me in how I can improve my poor logical reasoning scores!

When the question asks: "which exhibits a pattern of reasoning most closely similar?" indicating a Parallel question, is it implicitly given to us that the stimulus contains a valid argument? Or can we not assume that? Just wanted to make sure because I think that would help me eliminate answer choices (that contain invalid arguments) quicker.

This is in contrast to Parallel Flaw, which explicitly states "which exhibits a pattern of *flawed* reasoning...?"

Hi, I'm consistently having problems with the Social Science and Law sections in the reading comprehension sections. I score almost perfect on my Humanities and Natural Science sections, but I can't seem to get more than 2 or 3 right within the two other areas. I was hoping there was some kind of strategy or method of thinking that I could try and incorporate that would help me within Social Science and Law.

If anyone has any good tips that would be awesome.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-4-question-13/

I understand why "A" is correct but still cannot arrive at why "E" is incorrect. My thought was that "E" allowed for the possibility that instead of not believing the testimony, some just did not find the testimony (which may have been one that implicated the defendant) significant enough to render a guilty verdict. In other words, all members of the jury could have believed the testimony, yet some may not have viewed it as significant enough to decide on a guilty verdict.

Does "E" just not draw upon the flaw in the reasoning behind the conclusion from the premises?

I was close to understanding this in last night's BR call, though I think I still need more input to clear my mind up on this.

Thanks in advance!

I did this question twice in a span of about 3-4 weeks. I got it wrong both times.

So what I did was diagram the stimulus:

TT-->OM-->OD

S-m->OM

OM=Older than Maples

OD=Older than Dogwoods

A) I eliminated because there is no relationship between dogwoods and tulip trees

B) We don't know anything about the youngest sycamores only about the sycamores that are older than dogwoods

C) I picked this when I did it last night. I actually thought it was correct because we know that most sycamores are older than dogwoods, so there must be some that are either younger or the same age as dogwoods. I guess this is wrong because of "oldest dogwoods" am I correct?

D) Similar to A there is no relationship that can be said between tulip trees and sycamores

E) same as D

Can someone help me. Clearly my reasoning is incorrect somewhere because I got this question wrong not once, but twice. I am incredibly grateful to whoever can help me understand this problem!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-75-section-4-game-4/

I'm so confused with the rule "Any feature occupying more than one slot must occupy consecutively numbered slots."

Could anyone list all (or some if all is impossible) possibilities of this rule?

I thought it just means,

it there are multiple Xs, it would be XX.

But it seems there are other possibilities other than this...the part "consecutively" bothers me.

It seems XXYYX is correct as well, but I thought this is wrong bc the last X is there by itself. (It should be XXXYY isn't it?)

I already watched the video but still it bothers me :(

How do you diagram unless, except, only if, and if but only if?

Especially unless, I'm super confused. I have been told to negate the left statement but then others say that's wrong. Also what are you supposed to do with statements like: Unless I get an A, I will not go out tonight....? HELP I HATE CONDITIONAL LOGIC

I am totally lost on this question. What I did was diagram :

--L ---> --C

C --> L

I picked E because it had the word many in it, and I thought from the first sentence it was being consistent. Initially, I was thinking D because of "some" but then I thought well the first sentence has "many" so I should be congruent.

I'm really lost and cannot figure this out. If someone could help me out, I would be most appreciative!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-2-question-06/

I hate that I'm getting stumped by a question this early in the section, but I've gotten this wrong both timed and also during blind review. I keep choosing C, although the answer is B:

(paraphrased stimulus)

Legislator: Your agency is responsible for regulating an industry shaken by scandals. We gave you funds for 500 investigators but you only hired 400. I conclude that you intentionally limited hiring in order to prevent the full extent of the scandals from being revealed.

Regulator: No, we tried hiring the 500 investigators, but the starting salaries were frozen so low by the legislature that it was impossible to attract enough qualified applicants.

Q: The regulator responds to the legislator's criticism by...

B. providing info that challenges the legislator's conclusion

C. claiming that complying with the legislature's mandate would have been an insufficient response

I chose C. because the regulator was saying that complying with the legislature's mandate (the one to hire 500 investigators with low frozen salaries) would have been an insufficient response (in combating the scandals)

I see why B would be the right answer since the regulator introduces new information that suggests an alternative explanation, which challenges the legislator's conclusion. I'm just not sure why C is wrong.

Any help would be much appreciated! I have tried to find this explanation or discussion of this question online elsewhere and haven't been able to.