Hi!!

Whenever I do Modern test with 1LR, 1LG, and 1RC I get about -5 ~ -6 on LR. However, when I do two LR it is -5/-6 on one LR but about -10/11 in the second one. I see the pattern but I am not sure what the issue could be?

PrepTest A - Section 1 - Question 16

For this one I was able to gather my information to see how I could even weaken this argument. Automatically Bruno was accused of being the spy. In my process of reading this question type, I was automatically thinking of an AC that would no longer make him the spy in question. AC A gave that set up exactly. Although I was able to figure this question type out, I am wondering if there is a quicker approach for weakening/strengthening question types that could help me. I felt like I could've answered this one quicker than I did, so anything helps!

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

From PT B - Section 1 - Question 06.

None except the most virtuous deserve praise

I know it's part of the 4th group, where you negate the necessary. But I've only seen examples like "none of the Americans are political" and there's no video guide for this one.

How does the "except" affect the translation?

I'm unsure if this is supposed to be...

DP -> MV

MV -> DP

Been over a month on my end and nothing.

I was confused between answer choices A and E for this one.

Is A incorrect because it leaves out the part about researchers being puzzled by how kinglets are able to survive cold winter nights? I was trying to figure out if answer choice A had any descriptive/factual errors, but I couldn't find any, so I'm guessing the problem is that it doesn't address the fact that scientists are trying to figure out the mechanisms behind the birds' survival.

That seems to be the only difference between A and E.

Okay, I have been working w SA questions since the end of August now, ( I am an undergrad student so doing this on top of classes is ass), and I feel like I am really missing something. I am missing more than half on some of these PS, and even during BR, I don't catch my errors. Does anyone have any advice on how to get the fundamental patterns of SA questions engrained in my head? Or even just how to go about re-visiting the foundations of SA questions (I feel like the video examples aren't too helpful in this section)

According to LSAC a ton of people have signed up for October. I've been checking and refreshing to sign up for a seat in a testing center. I'm required to test at a testing center because I'm taking it pen/paper. I've searched for slots all over my state and even into the next closest state but it's not showing any availability. LSAC gave me Prometric's phone number. I've called and been disconnected every time. I called LSAC and they're like, meh, we can't help you, call them back. It's so frustrating. When I asked them point blank if I'm guaranteed a spot if I've paid and sign up they say no, that it's first come, first serve. And I asked them if, worst case, I don't get a spot, will I get my money back, they said no. How is that possible? Like you can't give a company your money and be denied the product? I will continue to refresh but LSAC sucks.

Hi ,

I am planning on taking the January LSAT and i want a study buddy.

It would really help to have study sessions and go through test prep together.

I can do online, or in person.

I am free anytime after 4pm + weekends.

I'm consistently spending too much time reading the passages. I'm pretty confident when going through the questions and I answer them quickly, but my timing issues while reading/sketching the structural outline of the passage foreclose my opportunity to reach the fourth passage, which forces me to guess on all the questions on the final passage. I only refer back to the passage for questions referencing specific line numbers, and my structural outline is normally around 3-7 words per paragraph (sometimes a few more depending on subparagraph breaks).

What sort of drills can I do to cut down my reading time?

In the section titled "Fool Proof Guide to Perfection on Logic Games," J.Y says you have to drill the game over and over and that is how you will remember the inferences. Are we supposed to be memorizing the general inferences? For instance, remembering that if there is a new condition in the question stem that creates a block, there are only like two places it could go, which causes one of the leader - follower rules (L - N) to go before the block and the follower to go after the block (like l would be in spot three and the block would start in spot 4 and then n would be the last spot to be filled)? Or are we supposed to memorize the exact inferences of the game (specifics)? I have been drilling the pure sequencing problem sets and got the time down to five minutes to six minutes on all of them and get the answers all correct. I felt like I owned the games and decided to try to drill more sequencing games. I did two, and they both turned out terribly (2/5 or 3/5). Please help!

I totally don't understand this question. Need help and let me know if I read correctly.

Stimuli provides: certain peculiarities are used unconsciously, and if used by more than 1 poet, it represents common usage; if used by only 1 poet, then its unique trait which plays as "fingerprint" allowing the scholars to identify the poem of that poet.

Q stem asks to choose the proof from ACs that goes against the stimuli.

(A) - wrong : didn't like "labor"

(B) - don't understand so I'll leave it

(C) - this was correct AC but I don't get it: well, if such peculiarity was not unique to that author, then doesn't it suggest that it could be the commonly used language among other poets as provided in the stimuli?

(E) - thought this was the correct answer; if peculiarities are used "conscious" (by other poets) even if it is supposed to be unique in other poems, then it would make the scholars hard to identify

Can someone explain?

I am taking the Oct and Nov LSAT but I haven't taken a practice test in a month. I keep planning on taking them but then I get scared seeing if my score won't increase. Does anyone else go through this or know how to overcome it? I know I have to take them in order to improve my score but I am scared to see no improvement after another month of studying and doing better on my drills.

Hey all,

The weakening section is making me really frustrated and I'm starting to panic because I'm just not consistent. I'm even missing some of the "easy" 1/5 difficulty questions. On the most recent example I still cannot understand why the answer I selected is wrong and the correct answer is right.

The problem in question is LR Weakening lesson 13/21, PT32 S1 Q12 "Polar Bear Navigation"(https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/animal-navigation-weaken-question/?ss_completed_lesson=994). I selected E because the argument's context defines navigation as returning to familiar territory without using the five senses._ This shows that the animal wasn't "navigating" as defined in the arg, but doesn't contradict the premise that the polar bear did return home-- it just contradicts that this shows it was navigating. How is this possibly an incorrect weakener?

Answer B was correct, which states that the location 300 miles away was actually along the polar bear's normal migration route. This makes sense as a weakener, because it shows that the return route wasn't actually unfamiliar. However, in my mind this required an assumption on directionality. Why would this mean the polar bear would return home, and not to the other endpoint of the migration route? To me this was too big of an assumption to make and so I eliminated this answer choice. Why is this not too big of an assumption to make?

Thanks so much for your time! Really struggling with weakening even though my scores are fairly good, almost always -5 on LR.

The passage touches on the actual definitons of home and house and how physical location does not affect those definitions. I don't understand how it could not be "D"

Hey, just wondering if it makes sense to BR RC? LR and LG makes sense but for some reason I am having a hard time justifying BRing RC sections.

Please help advise...

I took the January 2023 LSAT for the first time, got a 162, and cancelled my score. I took the LSAT for a second time in September and managed to score TWO points WORSE than the January LSAT. The September test was a bit of a fluke for me as I panicked and really got in my head during the exam, even though I had felt much more prepared.

I am registered for the October 2023 exam and am keeping that score no matter what.

So, do I cancel my September LSAT and have 2 cancellations on my record? I am planning to submit all my law school applications before Nov 1st (when October scores come out), so they will either hold my file if I only have cancelled LSATs, or they'll judge my file based on a 160 LSAT which is MUCH lower than any of my target school averages. I want to get into a T-14 school and know my LSAT will already be on the low end, but I feel confident based on my PT scoring that I can get above 166, at least.

I have to decide before October 3rd if I'm cancelling my September score or keeping it.. I really appreciate anyone's help!

Hello! So.. my worst case scenario came true. I took the January 2023 LSAT for the first time, did not do great, and cancelled my score. I took the LSAT for a second time in September and managed to score TWO points WORSE than the Jan LSAT I cancelled. I am really stressing out about if I should cancel my score or keep it - only if it would really look that bad to T-14 schools to have two cancellations. For context, I am also registered for the October 2023 exam. My September score is MUCH lower than any of my target school averages, and so I want to cancel the score but don't know if there's any merit to avoiding having two cancellations on my record. The September test was a bit of a fluke for me as I panicked and really got in my head during the exam.

I have to decide before October 3rd if I'm cancelling my September score... I appreciate anyone's help!

I noticed I lose time trying to figure out what the answer choices / stimulus and passages are saying. primarily because of wording. I lose time trying to overcome the wording barrier, then i get anxious about time and forgo it entirely, sacrificing comprehension. I need to practice reading more to get better, but how???

A little lost on how I should be drilling... Do I focus on tough RC passages?

What do robots have to do with anything??? Why not assume that the Mars exploration will be carried out by dogs or aliens or plants... how is that possibly a reasonable assumption left out. Why would that ever be a premise to that conclusion.

I seem to be negating the wrong thing and was wondering if someone could clear up my confusion for PT64 S3 Q26. :(

The sentence that reads “It is rational not to acquire such information unless one expects that the benefit of doing so will outweigh the cost and difficulty of doing so”.

I negated “it is rational not to acquire” when doing the group 3 translation like below:

rational to acquire -> expects the benefit of doing so will

rather than:

/expect the benefit -> rational not to acquire

In this case, would the “not” be modifying when someone is being rational? I really need to review my grammar…. I seem to be super hung up when I see the word “not”

Thank you!!

I've started taking practice tests recently. I'm not a super fast reader so I have only been able to complete three of the four passages and their questions so far.

Do you focus on completing all of them? Or do you just accept that you won't be able to get through it all and just focus on getting the highest accuracy on 3 of them?

If I don't get around to answering all the questions, I just pick a letter of the day for the unanswered questions.

Hi! I was wondering if anyone would like to join a study group with me. I am currently aiming for the October & November cycle and would like to review LR/RC! Please let me know if interested :)

To clarify, using pen to set up fixed rules/board/pieces, and using pencil to work out questions and then erasing, instead of rewriting out boards multiple times.

I go back and forth and I’m undecided.

Biggest pro with erasing is that I finish games way faster. But those few and far between questions where having past question boards available to review is the only drawback I’ve encountered.

Anyone else have experience or thoughts??

Prep Test 40 Section 3 Question 1

So for this question, I initially had the correct thought process that brought me to B, but then I decided that B was a trick answer due to a previous question that I had in prep test 89, section 2, question 24. This was a weaken except question. The correct answer was C, because it said that most workers are paid much more than the current minimum wage, but C does not do anything to weaken because it does not specify by how much more workers are paid, so you do know if it is sufficient to affect the prompt at all.

I had the same thought process for Prep Test 40 Section 3, Question 1. The correct answer here is B. I understand why the other answers do not resolve the discrepancy, but by following the same logic for Prep Test 89, I do not see how this answer resolves the issue. If big budget movies often gross two or three times more than cost of production, how do we know from answer B that there are enough small or medium budget movies made to be greater than the big budget revenue? It is is the same language of "much more" are made, that does nothing for the weaken question, and yet resolves this question. Could you help me understand this?

I have read online that there is a logical reasoning v2 curriculum. Could someone please tell me how to switch to that?