Hi All!

I've been PTing twice a week now and have been scoring anywhere from 161-166 with a high BR score of only 169. I used to be able to BR well into 175 earlier on in the PT process. I guess I'm just wondering whether there's enough time to push my score into the mid to high 160s by the October test?

I manage to get max 4 wrong in LG and I know that I can keep drilling those to get my accuracy up but what about for LR and RC? Do you recommend going through the 7Sage curriculum again? I have the Trainer and Manhattan LR, which have been somewhat useful but I fear that I'm not utilizing them to the fullest extent. I'm not willing to push to December unless it's really necessary as that would be my last time to take it but I want to break the mid-160s wall as well.

What do you think? Thanks for your help!

So who has committed to the October test? How ready do you feel you are? I've paid my fees and I'm locked in. I'm consistently getting the PT score I'd be happy with on the real thing (17 tests done so far). I'm just hoping I'm able to duplicate my practice results on game day. Good luck to all!

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

This is the first one I have missed on the 7 practice sets I have done so far for MSS. Since there is no video explanation, I'll add a forum post to see if I can get some people's thoughts. Here is my process:

This is a most strongly supported except question. This was a really weird question stem that I had to reread a few times. It probably contributed to me missing the question. We have to find an answer choice that does not fit the evidence.

In all mammals, during their childhood years in which they play a lot correlates with the most rapid growth in their neural connections. These connections establish complex movement, posture, and social response. Thus, this playful activity is necessary for survival/well being as an adult.

What I am looking for: This is an argument, and there is a flaw (I know we don't need to evaluate the flaw for MSS, but I like the practice). It makes a correlation implies causation flaw. How do we know that it is the playful activity that causes the neural connections to form? Anyway, back to the question. Since I did not really understand the stem, it was hard to formulate what I was looking for.

Answer A: This seems supported. Young mammals are going to run away from predators (which is a similar activity to playing).

Answer B: We don't know anything about non-mammals. The passage is just about mammals. This is the correct answer because there is NO evidence supporting this claim.

Answer C: This seems reasonable supported. I think it is OK to say that this behavior is a type of social response.

Answer D: This is definitely supported. The whole point is of the passage is that playing while you were young mattered. If you didn't play, then you were a weird adult animal.

Answer E: This is what I chose (I had eliminated A-D during the timed section; I was not confident in my answer choice, either), and I ran out of time trying to redo this question. This is supported. When the young play, they practice things that will help them in adulthood. Like answer D, this seems to be explicitly stated.

I missed this because of the weird stem, and I got caught up trying to figure out what it means. Are there any other questions out there with similar MSS, except that are this difficult? I know PT28-Section 3-Question 4 (from the MSS set #6) is an except question, but it was really easy I thought.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-2-question-21/

Hello! This is my first time posting a question. I am having trouble understanding why e is the correct answer. Is it correct because to if it's unpopular with the teachers than we have to modify and the word modify implies adopt a new policy? So to make the students happy we should adopt a new policy? Because isn't adopting a new policy the necessary condition for it being unpopular with the students? not the teachers?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-3-question-08/

I think I may have answered this question myself, but can you guys chime in on this one? I chose D instead of A because "their investments" didn't have to be true. They could make a profit from someone else's investment, right? However, since this is an inference question I should be taking all of the answer choices to be true and then seeing which one can be proven from the stimulus? True, meaning that all of the answer choices are true, but only one can be proven from the stimulus. Does that make sense? I chose D because I didn't feel that there was anything in the stimulus that specifically stated, or even implied, in my opinion, that the investors were making investments only from "their" investments and I took "most" from the first sentence and "majority" from the last sentence to seem the same. If A hadn't included "their" it would've been my choice. I hope I didn't confuse anyone because I think I just confused myself!

Hi everyone,

I took a couple RC (and even LR) sections recently, and noticed that I made 70% of my mistakes because I did not fully understand the meaning, or alternate meanings, to key words in the passages or question stems. I'm an English major, so I thought I had a strong grasp of vocab but now I just feel kind of stupid. I've started noting down these words and will try to expand my vocabulary on the side, but I was wondering - have any of you encountered this problem? Are there any techniques you could suggest to overcome this?

Thank you so much for any advice!

Why A? And why not E?

I think I misinterpretted "addressing" in option A to mean that "referring to the..." Instead, by "address" I now think he means "considering and potentially implementing the critics claims doesn't matter yet cause now we need money."

In regards to "E" I interpreted it to mean that, "giving the report a single focus ('coherent vision of future') is less desirable than the critics claim seeing as we need some effing money." However, the true translation is "the author thought the critic's idea wasn't that awesome."

Did I just totally misread what was said? Is my misreading completely unwarranted (Am I cray)? Any strategies on how to not to misread?

Hey Everyone,

Began studying for the LSAT March 1st 2015. Did the bibles and numerous PTs (about 17) in anticipation of the June 2015 test. My cold diagnostic was 148 but I was consistently PTing 158-162 (Most of PTs 19-28 and 62-71) when I decided to postpone until October. At that point, I studied much less from mid-May through mid-July because I had a solid grasp on fundamentals but knew it was important to save the later preptests that I accidentally burned so early.

Then I found 7sage.. This program has been awesome at renewing my confidence and giving me the tools to attack this test. The straightforward way that JY teaches is superior to powerscore. I'm 45% through the core curriculum and cruising (I study about 3 hours most days). I'm hoping to be done with it in mid-August and move on to taking 4 PTs per week right up until the test.

Do people think I have enough time to max out my score? My benchmark minimum is 166, but the ultimate goal is a 170. I'm prepared to go all in for October, but if it's not worth it I'll restructure and go December...although I may not have the luxury of a retake at that point.

Thanks for any and all feedback!

Hey Fellow 7Sagers,

Just wanted to ask you a question about something that I've been seeing throughout Logical Reasoning questions and oftentimes, answer choices as well. What's a good way to remember what testmakers are talking about when they say "Confuses _____ for/with _____"??

For example:

B) LSAC confuses a necessary condition for a sufficient conditions.

Does this mean that what is meant to be a necessary condition is being mistaken by LSAC as a sufficient condition?....or vice versa...?

So should I remember this as whatever comes after "Mistakes/Confuses a _____" to be what is correct and that the author is mistakenly thinking of it as whatever comes after "...for a ____"?

Sorry for the extremely confusing explanation and wording....

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-2-question-13/

I wonder whether this is really necessary assumption question.

Isn't this most strongly supported question or anything else?

There's no clear conclusion in the stimulus and although I negate (D) I am not sure if I can entirely wreck the argument.

I got this question right, but just wonder whether this question is properly categorized.

So, I took my third PT today, PT 37, and it seemed like I was doing well with RC, until I got to the last passage. This passage was too difficult, so I kind of ended up guessing on those last few questions.

When I finally scored my test, I saw I only got six questions wrong. That's a good score for me anyways, but four of those six questions were on the last passage.

Is it possible I just was lucky with those first three passages? I have gotten that few wrong in the past, but the questions I got wrong were more scattered throughout the section.

So I'm two months into studying for the Oct. LSAT and am working on improving my accuracy regarding necessary assumption questions. I encountered 2 problems from practice tests (PT 56 Section 3 # 18 "Fund-raiser" and PT 3 Section 2 #3 "In Europe school children devote") that require you to find a nec. assumption.

For #3 from PT 3 section 2, I was between answer choice A and the correct answer, D. I chose D because it would destroy the argument if negated, but I couldn't eliminate A (All children can be made physically fit by daily calisthenics). I looked on LSAT forums online and one reason cited as to why the A was incorrect was that the answer choice makes daily calisthenics sufficient and not necessary (which contradicts the conclusion that states that calisthenics is necessary for physical fitness).

However, I diagrammed answer choice A as All children can be made physically fit---> by daily calisthenics

According to the forums online and speaking to other students, my diagram above is wrong. My question is why is it wrong and how would I diagram this answer choice. Does "by" indicate the sufficient condition and I'm just unaware of this or is there another method as to how we can diagram conditionals without indicator words like (if or without)?

Hi everyone. I took the June LSAT after taking an in-person Blueprint course. I did well but not as well as I wanted to or think I could. I've now put off starting to study again for the October re-take way too long, but here I am. I was thinking of doing 7Sage Premium somewhat selectively, focusing on my problem areas (definitely LG and a bit of RC), and then supplementing with something like the Cambridge bundles since I've heard 7Sage's problem sets aren't great (and only easy ones available in Premium). Note I also bought the Blueprint LG book and I've heard good things about the LSAT Trainer, but I don't want to overwhelm myself with too many things. I work in tech and have a full-time, demanding job. Any advice on the best approach here would be thoroughly appreciated!

There's been a lot of concern about weird game types appearing or potentially appearing in this era of LSAT. I think it's a healthy concern, and is perhaps the hallmark of this "era" of tests. Future LSATers will likely look back at the PT's in the 70's and say "Oh yeah, that's when LSAC started bringing back those weird game types."

There have been a good number of weird games. Some of them are potentially very useful (namely if we learn something from them that could apply to other weird games, even if not of exactly the same type).

If we have a decent list of weirdos, then those of us who want to prepare for/mitigate the risk of future weirdness will at least know that we've covered our bases.

What weird games have you come across—and what have you learned from them?

When you post your selection[s], please include the link to JY's video for that LG since those are free and accessible to everyone! Or if you don't know exactly which game it was, describe it, and we will try and help locate it for others.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-1-question-10/

I don't understand how this is not A?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-3-question-19/

Why is A incorrect? Is it because having the tallest peaks in the region doesn't mean it has the absolute tallest peaks?

Hey all,

Do you have any suggestions for preventing careless mistakes? For example, after you've completed a few questions, all of a sudden forgetting one of the rules, or one of the inferences. Is this just something you have to hone by practice? Or perfecting set-up and notation habits? Specific practical advice would be wonderful :)

Thanks!

Could someone explain why the answer is C? What does attending a college of choice have anything to do with it?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-04/

I got this question right, but not perfectly clear why (D) is correct.

Could you elaborate the answer choice (D) - why is it a clear-cut answer?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-2-question-20/

B is the answer, and the only reason I did not choose it is because it required me to make an assumption that 1. Plankton are not fish (which would require some background knowledge of what plankton are), and 2 particles from the from the mud did not contain fish. Can someone explain this question to me from a different perspective please. Answer A is easy to come by if I knew I was allowed to make such assumptions.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-02/

Could anyone explain why the answer is C- All lawyers are cattle ranchers and not A- Some lawyers are cattle ranchers.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-23/

I'm having trouble translating the "not until" statement. Until is "negate sufficient" but the "not" cancels the negation from the until rule so then it reads just like an if then. Is it ok for me to go ahead and memorize that when group 3 and 4 indicators are used this way in the beginning of a sentence they cancel each other and it reads like an if then?

For practical purposes can some and many be treated the same way for LR sufficient assumption questions?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-2-question-07/

I initially picked C, probably making some bogus quick logic about how the new bus routes would actually cost the city more and therefore it would not be cheaper to build on the outskirts of town. However, I realize that the answer is B, but still need some more clarification/confirmation in my head to see how that'd be it for sure.

The conclusion is that the Brownlea's post office must be replaced with a larger one. The premises are - the present one cannot be expanded, land near the present one in the city-center is more expensive, and since the acquiring of LAND is where the major cost of a new post office would come from, the outskirts of town is the best place to build it -- because land there must be way cheaper.

B would be the answer because it says that a parking lot would be required if it is built on the outskirts of town and a parking lot would not be required if it is built in the city-center. So, ONE WOULD NEED TO BUY/ACQUIRE MORE LAND (aka more costs) if one builds the post office in the outskirts vs. the city-center. So, building on the outskirts is not necessarily cheaper -- because of the "more" land argument/parking lot which wouldn't be needed if it was built in the city-center.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-2-question-17/

The correct answer choice is B: "[t]he argument relies on the testimony of experts whose expertise is not shown to be sufficiently broad to support THEIR general claim."

I think this choice would only be correct if the "THEIR," the "experts" I assume being the referent, is changed to "its," the argument being the referent, because it is the hospital executive who's making a claim beyond the scope of the testimony of these experts.

Thoughts?