Hi,

Just starting to create my resume for law school and wanted to know if anyone would be willing to send me theirs so that I can see the proper format/template and how a law school resume should be constructed. Would really appreciate, thanks!

Can someone explain how D doesn't strengthen the argument? Wouldn't giving evidence that the sample of the 100 first graders was representative strengthen the broad/general conclusion in the passage? I understand that C is the correct answer, but I don't see how D doesn't as well.

I have PT 74 left to take. I was going to take it Friday morning at the same time the LSAT is being held on Saturday. I'm concerned with burnout, as my scores tend to dip if I take two PT's too close together (I've performed better with 4 days between, and worse with less, though correlation/causation could certainly be an issue here).

It's Tuesday. I took PT 73 last night. How should I go about taking my last PT? Should I just do sections over the course of the week?

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more.

Can someone please help me understand why this is A. How does this strengthen the argument that Han purple was discovered by accident?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-1-question-17/

So happy to say that!! I'm feeling really good. My diagnostic was a 153. I've taken about 35 PTs. My last three were all 167s. If I get within +or- 3 of that I'm going to be stoked. 163 is the 75th percentile for my school :)

I'm taking the October LSAT this weekend, and I was just wondering how much discussion we can have about the test before LSAC releases scores.

I know LSAC states that we are not allowed to talk about the test questions, but where is the line drawn? Would reviewing the tactics of a particular game be unacceptable? Then is it OK to discuss general difficulty level of the sections? How about discussing which section was likely the experimental section?

Thanks!

they say nothing about non-mammals in the passage nor do they imply anything about non-mammals.

Hey guys! A comparative passage question-

I recently watched J.Y.'s explanation for PT 75, and he stated that he tried and really liked the strategy of reading passage A, trying to eliminate answer choices based on his reading of only passage A, then going back to passage B and finally finish answering the questions.

I have never done this before, and was wondering if anyone else had/ if they suggest doing this.

Can anyone help explain this question? I used The Trainer for my LR prep, since I only found 7Sage a few weeks ago. On Mike Kim's website, it has this listed as a Strengthen question, but I cannot for the life of me figure this out. I have tried the Manhattan Prep forums but they list it as a Justify question and I have no idea what that means b/c MK doesn't use that category.

For the principle, I got:

Should criticize ---> no serious harm to person criticized + one does so in the expectation of benefitting someone other than oneself

contrapositive:

serious harm to person criticized OR does so in the expectation of benefitting oneself ---> Should NOT criticize

halp

Thanks in advance :)

I have finally (after being wishy washy about committing) decided to take the LSAT. I would really like to take the December 2015 LSAT. However, as it is now almost October 1st, that only leaves me 2 months to prepare. Is this a totally crazy idea? After stumbling across the 7Sage prep courses, I feel more confident that if I buckle down and follow the course, I can do well. I am just unsure if this is totally unrealistic. Any input is appreciated!

And I'm giving the side-eye back.

I'm not big on astrology, but with all of the hype about celestial happenings this summer (read: multiple supermoons mania), I came across that we're in Mercury Retrograde until October 9th. After falling down the stairs [sober] last week and then contracting one of the nastiest colds I've ever had this week, all I can say is "cheers" to October 3rd. If I ever take the LSAT again (hopefully never again), then I'll make sure to avoid Mercury Retrograde. Unless of course Mercury is trying to tell me that I shouldn't go to law school, ever.

Has anyone taken the LSAT on Dayquil before? Haaaaaa

I am planning on doing one more PT this week before Saturday. Should I choose one in the 70s? Thanks in Advance!!!

Eye of the Tiger? I will Survive?

Nah... BURN IT DOWN!

JY’s explanation was very helpful, but there’s one part of the question that’s been bugging me.

We’re told in the premise that people who would be “adversely affected were [the bill] to become law are very influential.”

Answer choices (B) includes “any bill that is opposed by influential people” and (C) has “those who oppose it are not very influential.” I understand and accept JY's explanations for why these are wrong and why (E) is correct, but I think there might be something else wrong with those answer choices.

A lot of the explanations I see for why B & C are wrong still seem to accept that it is the influential people who oppose the bill. However, can we really make the assumption that the influential people who would be adversely affected by the bill would oppose it?

It definitely seems like an unstated assumption in the first part of the argument, but is it really valid to say that they would oppose it (and that’s why the bill won’t be passed)?

It’s possible I’m not really understanding what “adversely affected” means. However, isn’t it possible be adversely affected by a bill, but still support it? (for example, wealthy individuals might support higher taxes for the rich, even though that adversely affects them).

It’s one the assumptions that jumped out at me when I did my BR and partly how I was able to get rid of (B) and (C). But I’ve read explanations from different sources and they all seem to accept the assumption that the influential people being adversely affected are the ones opposing the bill.

Thanks!

OK, this is another one that I just can't wrap my head around the correct answer choice relative to an incorrect answer choice. This is getting beyond frustrating ugh. Here is my breakdown:

This is a weaken question.

There is evidence that cave people polished their flints to a degree beyond what was necessary for hunting. Therefore, these people possessed an aesthetic sense.

What I am looking for: I think this makes the false dichotomy flaw. The argument assumes that the flints were either used for hunting or for aesthetic reasons. We want an answer choice that addresses this. I also looked up aesthetic during BR, in case my personal definition is incorrect. It means concerned with beauty or the appreciation of beauty.

Answer A: This does nothing to the argument since it doesn't address whether the flints were used for aesthetic reasons.

Answer B: This does nothing to the argument because we don't know if cave paintings provide evidence or not of an aesthetic sense. We just don't have any information about cave paintings to know if they are relevant to the argument.

Answer C: This is what I chose during the exam and during BR. I don't really see how the use of the word "display" allows you to eliminate this answer choice. Can't things be on display that are not used for aesthetic purposes? Especially for religion? Religious display seems like a worship use, not an aesthetic use. What also makes this attractive to me is that this is providing evidence that the highly polished flints (the ones we care about) were used for something other than hunting as well.

Answer D: This answer is the correct answer, but I run into the same problems as C. It is similar to C because it suggests that the flints were used for things other than hunting. However, I didn't choose it for two independent reasons. First, this answer choice is talking about flints in general, but we really want to know about the highly polished flints. If this answer choice had added "highly polished" as the first two words, then I think this answer choice becomes apparent.

The second reason (and I used this reason during BR) I eliminated it is the conclusion doesn't actually say that the highly polished flints were USED for aesthetic purposes. The conclusion is just that these early humans had an aesthetic sense. Specifically, this answer choice states that the flints were used for chores. Common chores are cleaning, taking out the garbage, etc. Are these not at least partly aesthetic enhancers? Do these not partly concern themselves with the beauty of the home? I think in this instance, D could strengthen the argument. For this possibility, I eliminated it and chose C.

Answer E: So what if we don't understand the benefits of their aesthetic sense.

Hi, I understand why the answer choice (D) is correct, but I have a question on (B).

The stimulus states that since "faculty salaries constitute a small part of the university's expenditure," the administration's explanation is not believable.

So I thought even though faculty salaries constitute a small part of expenditure, if they "significantly" increased after the tuition increase, the faculty's explanation can make sense, so this can be weakening argument.

To counter this weakening argument, I thought (B) can be suggested that increase in faculty salaries is only 5% which is lower than general increase in tuition. This is why I thought (B) can be strengthening argument which can fight back against possible weakening argument.

Probably I thought too complicated in this low number question (supposed to be not this tricky).

But could you explain further why (D) is better answer choice than (B)?

I was stuck between B and C and finally chose C because I thought "suggest that a particular approach be taken by the proponents of the assertion" from B didn't match the passage.

But the answer is B and I can't still find why C is wrong. It seems every words from C are match for the passage.

Why is C wrong and can B is an answer?

And which part of the passage is compatible with "suggest that a particular approach be taken by the proponents of the assertion" from B?

I still don't understand why D is wrong.

Is it ("a band signed with a major label ~~"part from the stimulus) the phenomenon to support the main conclusion?

What's the difference between D and E?

Can anyone explain why D is wrong and E is an answer?

Thanks in advance!

Hi All!

I am looking for a list that puts together all the grouping games.

Grouping games are a weakness of mine!

A few days back, I read a post here that had a list of some in/out games.

Now I am looking for a similar grouping list.

Can anyone help?

Thanks!

I watched JY's video on this one (http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-45-section-4-question-06/), but I don't understand his reasoning for eliminating answer choice C. During the exam, I couldn't distinguish between C and E. I know that E is a necessary assumption, but how is C not as well? If the beauty of the river crossing must not be preserved, then doesn't this completely wreck the argument? Why would the extra cost of the cable bridge be justified if the beauty of the crossing must not be preserved?

I chose C, but the answer is B.

I can't still find out what the difference between B and C.

Why is C wrong and B an answer?

Can someone explain me?

Thanks!

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.