http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-2-question-16/

Hello, I was wondering if someone could help me understand why D is incorrect? Thanks! :)

I thought the conclusion should be the natural process study doesn't need plentiful of resources as the study and discoveries started under the condition of drought and hunger

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-2-question-20/

Can someone break this down? I thought B was the least attractive answer, and it turned out to be correct. I am completely clueless on this one; I can't even make heads or tails of the argument. Is it saying that since TV caused music videos to exist, then those that think music videos are art should also think TV gave rise to a type of art? But how is B anything like this? There is no causal indicators in B and there is no comparison in the original passage (like there is in B).

For all of those taking the Dec. LSAT tomorrow evening we will start with PT 42.

If you would like to join please PM me your skype handle. Thanks!

@nicole.hopkins

said:

Note on all groups

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-1-question-22/

I completely understand the argument core and the correct answer. However, upon review, I am confused with the way a Manhattan expert eliminates (A).

https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/forums/q22-microbiologist-because-heavy-metals-t5572.html

(See the comment by rinagoldfield. Last post when I last checked. )

Is answer (A) strengthening the correlation between "metal resistance" and "antibacterial resistance" ? According to rinagoldfield, it is. She argued that (A) is incorrect because it strengthens correlation and not the causation. I am confused for two reasons:

1. I think that Mike Kim said somewhere in The Trainer that correlation, although can't prove causation, is perfectly okay to strengthen the causation. (I only glimpsed through the Trainer, let me know if I am daydreaming what this.)

2. I would have interpreted the correlation in (A) as between "not metal resistance" and "not antibacterial resistance" instead of between "metal resistance" and "antibacterial resistance" Am I missing something?

Thank you everyone in advance for trying to help!

Hi guys,

I am very nervous and depressed after taking 5 PTs and looking for advice for my October LSAT.

My diagnostic around early June was a 161. I have spent 7 weeks on 7sage and Manhatton, and also finished the Cambridge LSAT by category. I have taken 5 PTs in the past two week. However, it looks like I am plateauing at around 168-169 and my goal is to get a 170+ on test day.

As for LR, in the past 5 tests I went -7 (pt 70), -6 (pt57), -4 (pt 55), -4(pt73), -9(pt58). In light of question types, totally, I missed 5 for MSS, 5 NA, 5 Flaw, 2 PF, 3 Weaken, 3 Strengthen, 2 Resolve reconcile, 1 MBF, 1MC, 1Para, 1 Argument part and 1 Misc. I feel that 20% of these questions are really difficult that I could not figure out the correct answer by myself. Another 20% are really simple that I either misread the question stem (like misread weakening question as strengthen question) or overlook a key word. The remaining are the ones I am struggling between two choices and end up with the wrong one. Also, for the correct questions, I am also not certain for about 15% of the questions.

As for RC, I went -6 (pt 70), -4 (pt57), -2 (pt 55), -6(pt73), -4(pt58). I am bad at the questions with answers in abstract language, and the analogy question. And some times I have trouble with the difficult words.

As for LG, I went -0 (pt 70), -3 (pt57), -1 (pt 55), -0(pt73), -0(pt58).

Overall I'm having a really hard time making the marginal gains I need to get myself consistently above 170. This is almost my last chance to take LSAT, therefore, I really want to do well. Please do not hesitate to give me any advice you regard as helpful. Also, I am wondering if I need to hire a personal tutor since there is only 5 weeks left. Thank you guys.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-4-question-24/

Hi friends! I want to make sure that my reasoning is on the ball for this question, since I got it wrong the first time around.

Clarification before you read on: everything in parenthesis is taken from the stimulus, and anything not in parentheses is from the respective answer choice. I mostly need help distinguishing more clearly, A, D, and E from each other.

(A): At least one of the players in the orchestra (at least one of the joists in the wall) must have made a mistake (must have broken), since nothing else would have made the conductor grimace in the way she just did (since nothing else could have caused a bulge).

(B) doesn't match up a "fault" or a "cause" with why something must have occurred, and there is no "at least" element, either; (C) this seems pretty out of scope, especially with the X do Y only when Z

(D): This is the answer I incorrectly picked at first, with some hasty logic like: "Oh, if they are playing a piece of music that has a harp (if there is a bulge), then at least one of the players must play the harp (just like at least one of the joists must be broken). VERY BAD, I know, and answer choice (A) matches up much better. Not to mention, that (A) correctly matches the stimulus in its noting of "at least" and (D) notes "one" -- which is not a correct match.

(E) this also seems out of scope, but has those tricky, creepy, psych elements that JY talks about. "The emotion of the music is the only thing" (could be equated with the joist being the only thing), that could have caused the conductor to look so angry (that could have caused the bulge) just then, since the orchestra was playing perfectly. SEE, here there is no parallel available for the "just then" and the "since the orchestra was playing perfectly" - there is no "the wall was fine and then suddenly there was a snap noise" and so "just then, the joist could have been the only thing for the bulge," etc.

Am I making any sense?

I'm usually totally fine with these types of questions. Any thoughts?

Hey all,

How do you find consistency in how you approach the most difficult LR questions, e.g. the 5 star difficulty questions? I find during a timed test, I may or may not recognize these evil creatures. Sometimes they are obvious, but sometimes the right answer is so subtle, or the wrong answer is so tricky, that it completely flies over my head and I unfortunately felt confident about my reasoning. Does reviewing the questions over and over help?

Some of these most difficult questions seem so unique, in the way they are worded, or the way the argument is constructed. Not as formulaic as the easier questions. I want to find strategies so that they don't keep tripping me up. Thoughts?

Some examples

PT 72-S2-Q16

PT 72-S2-Q23

PT 72-S2-Q25

Heh, PT 72 was no picnic...

Thank you as always!

Julia

Alright, I already took and canceled my July 2015 score and registered for the October test. I have been studying all summer and I am now taking PTs. I am at PT 58 and I plan to go up to PT 74. I still cannot seem to finish any of the sections in time (I usually need like 3-5 more minutes for each). And to top it off, I consistently score at 159 and BR at 168. I'd like to score in the 170s.

I know I put it in a way that already sounds bad but, in all honesty, do you guys think I should postpone for December? It would be great if I could at least touch 170. But honestly, is it humanly possible for me to do it in the October one? If not, I should probably know soon to alter the study schedule I have set up.

:(

I've never taken the LSAT yet and I don't believe I'll be hitting my target score come October. I want a 169+ and it's really aggravating since LG is the section that's holding me back. In addition, I have some timing issues and am barely able to complete sections with a few minutes to spare. If I postpone to December, I think I'll improve in both LG and timing.

Now, I really want to apply for the upcoming cycle yet I also want to do my best. Postponing to December will hurt my chances for the upcoming cycle since I'll be late in the game + I won't have the option for a retake. But again, I want to take the real test knowing that I'm capable of hitting my target score.

Also, it doesn't help having parents and siblings continuously putting pressure on you. I've been studying since April, postponed to October after having initially signed up for the June administration, and now it looks like I'll have to postpone to December. And it's not due to laziness, rather it's taking a bit longer than I thought it would. The LSAT is hard! I wish everyone were as understanding as the people on this forum; my friends and family just don't understand how much work is required to hit a 170+ on this test.

And lastly, does anyone know how many practice exams one should take before his/her first exam? Should you save 5-10 practice exams for a potential retake?

I originally signed up for October, but that's just not happening anymore. So I decided to sit out this cycle and study hard throughout the winter. Anyone else considering the February LSAT? Just created a schedule up until the end of January, and would love to connect with others to keep each other accountable.

Hey guys!

I'm still a bit new to this website, so I apologize if there are other threads that are similar to this one. I'm looking to see if there are any students close to the Toronto area that are planning to write the December 2015 LSAT. Which law schools are you interested in applying to, and what mark are you hoping to achieve? I am not certain on where I would like to go just yet, and am instead focusing on obtaining a high score on the upcoming test.

Would love to chat with fellow students in the area. Always nice to talk to other students about their plans and/or experiences :)

Very confused on this reasoning question. Can anyone help explain?

@yinyinxu Medical studies indicate that the metabolic rates of professional athletes ar substantially greater than those of the average person. So, most likely, a person's speed and strength are primarily determined by that person's metabolic rate.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A. Some of the athletes are either faster or stronger than the average person

B. Some professional athletes do not have higher metabolic rate than some of the average ppl

C. The speed and the strength of ppl who are not professional athletes are not primarily determined by choice of diet and exercise

D. Intensive training such as that engaged in by professional athletes causes an increase in metabolic rate

E. Drugs that surprises metabolic rate have been shown to have the side effect of diminishing the speed and strength of those who are not professional athlete

Admin note: This is a fake question, so take it as you will.

I can't seem to get a grasp on necessary and sufficient assumption. It is consistently the worse category for me. I re-read and studied all the sections, paying close attention to assumption, but no change. I tried doing a test untimed, and yet again, assumption was the worst. I can do logic games and reading comprehension just fine, I just always get between 20-30 out of 50 in logical reasoning. What should I do?

Hi all,

I recently started 7sage with my main focus being on games--I did do the conditional lessons and a few other previous lessons and am now working a ton of sequencing problems. When should I move on to "sequencing with a twist?" after I can pick up any random new game I haven't seen and can do it perfectly and in time? Or after I am substantially faster and better (though not perfect and on exactly time) on sequencing? How many questions would you go through with the practice-make copies-review-process before moving to the next games lesson? I'm worried I'll just be practicing some games forever without learning new techniques ever...studying for the October but most likely will change test date for December, but still want to be studying at a decent rate as if taking the october (in case a miracle happens and I decide I want to take it)

Any advice would be helpful. Thanks!

I enrolled 7sage ultimate course and learn a lot of efficient methods watching videos. But sometimes I found it very difficult to truly understand most of LR and RC problems in timed constraints.

So I bought a Trainer book and it arrived yesterday to get more personalized support . I would like to supplement my weakness especially in LR and RC after carefully reading it. I plan to take an exam in December, I want to decide the best available plan covering both 7sage and trainer. If you are using the above materials, what should I consider in order to get the most desirable outcomes?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-3-question-19/

When you encounter the word "contributes" on the LSAT, do you take this to be a "causation" word? For example, if I tell you that "high cholesterol contributes to heart disease". Would you say that high cholesterol is a cause of heart disease? I always have assumed so, but PT 47, S3, Q19 threw me off by equating "contributes" (which I thought implies causation) to "is associated with" (which I thought implies mere correlation).

The word "is associated with" was on the stimulus, and the word "contributes" was in the correct answer (C). I did not choose this answer because I thought that I would be making an assumption from correlation to causation by picking it.

Does anyone know when Ultimate+ is coming out? I'm planning on upgrading to Ultimate for the video explanations but if Ultimate+ is coming out anytime before the October LSAT I'd rather save my money to see how much it'll be. Does anyone have more information on Ultimate+ (price or time-wise)?

Still unsure of what the best approach is when doing these questions on a timed exam. The Trainer advocates using intuition while 7sage seems to encourage diagramming since these questions are very formulaic. When I get to these questions on a timed exam, I never know which approach is best. I'm always a bit nervous to diagram since I'm afraid it'll eat up too much time, however, I know that diagramming will lead to better accuracy. Please help!

I usually get -2 to -4 on LG but I feel at least a good 75% of these are from careless mistakes. They're often really easy questions, so as one can imagine, this is really frustrating. I'm not sure why I was so careless most of the time. Perhaps I relied too much on memory/instinct and didn't explicitly check the answer against each rule I diagrammed. Any tips or words of advice?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-43-section-3-question-21/

I am not sure if this is the right place to post question. But the video explanation was missing something to me.

So you have

Spring Cleanup

|---------------------------------|---------------------------------|

Certificate

(-----------------------------------------------------------)

Not Active in the art circle (some but some can mean all as well)

(------------)

Now there may be some kind of implicit assumption that Spring cleanup too place at the same time as the art fair. And some people at the spring cleanup are not active in town's artistics circles. So the assumption here is that if you did not go to the art fair, then you are not active in the town's artistic circles. And if you are active in artistic circles, you did go to the art's fair. It is also (seems) to be assuming that art fair and spring cleanup are mutually exclusive. We aren't really sure.

The answer choice makes no sense, we actually know nothing about people who ARE ACTIVE in the art circles. Which makes D impossible as an answer choice. You simply cannot conclude NOTHING about it. It Could Be True, but this is a MUST be true question.

The logical negation of "At least some rhinoceroses whose horns are periodically trimmed off will be able to attract mates," is "none of the rhinoceroses whose horns are periodically trimmed off will be able to attract mates." correct?

I eliminated B and D and chose C. I am really stumped on the reasoning for this. I picked C because I thought the loss of teeth and traveling at the back of the herd could be correlated with: groups they live in-->diets--->size and shapes of face.

Can someone help me understand this reasoning? Please!!?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-4-question-15/

Someone please explain.

Admin note: Please don't include your phone number or email. This is a public forum.

Please PM the user for contact info.