Greetings, fellow 7Sagers and JY Ping fanboys (or fangirls). I'm hoping to use your collective brilliance to help solve a small dilemma I have regarding how to proceed in my studies. If you were slated to take the June 2016 test date, would you:

(A) Complete all of the 7Sage coursework and then take ALL of the prep tests (PTs 36-76) before the June test date. The goal here is to get as much practice as possible before the big day in June so that re-testing in Septemberis unnecessary. Let's call this the "eggs all in one basket" strategy.

(B) Complete all of the 7Sage coursework and then take MOST of the prep tests (PTs 36-65) before the June test. The goal here is to retain the remaining PTs (66-76) for practice, just in case I don't like my June score and want to improve by taking the LSAT again in September. Let's call this the "hedge your bets" strategy.

(C) Some other wonderful idea I have yet to think of (and of course, feel free to give that strategy the proper moniker of your choosing, as well).

Thanks in advance for all of your advice!

Hey guys,

I am planning for the June test and just started the Ultimate course. I moved back home to dedicate full time to the LSAT and have almost no obligations for the next 5 months. Back when I studied in late 2015 for October/December, I took an expensive prep course where I crammed in 8-10 hours a day (bad idea) hoping to do well in 2 months. Now that I started 7sage and embraced the method of taking your time, I realize I have too much time!

Other than following a strict schedule, which gives me about a month of the fundamentals, what else should I utilize? I would love to do problem sets here and there from PT 1-35 but I know the questions are also used by JY in the beginning of the course. Obviously, 36-76 will be for PT and BR only.

I guess my feeling is that I won't be motivated enough to stick to 2 hours a day when I am used to much more. I already plan on reviewing lessons such as Grammar (concepts never taught in my last prep) but I would prefer to hit about 30-40 hours a week to maximize my potential.

What do you guys think? Thanks in advance!

Target times in games will vary based off of one's respective LSAT goal score. Are the games target times listed by 7sage guided towards someone seeking a particular score? Depending on if someone is seeking to hit a 165-170, 170-175, or 175+ score, how should one relate to the target times listed?

There are only two test centers that are currently available for June 2016 lsat in my area, whereas for February, I clearly remember seeing more than five. Since the deadline for changing test date is tomorrow, I guess I have no choice but to select between the two, but one test center is notorious for being bad and the other is 40 miles away. Does anyone know if LSAC offers more test centers as we get closer to the actual test date?

Something I came across recently and found slightly confusing was the difference between a claim and an assumption. Can someone help me understand the difference between these two categorizations specifically as it relates to logical reasoning?

admin edit: here's the link to the lesson: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-76-section-2-question-16/

Hi everyone,

I understand why (C) is correct for this question, yet I picked (E) during my timed PT and I'm still not 100% sure why it's wrong. From the stim, I understood that a group of respondents was split as follows: 40% wanted conservatives, 40% wanted liberals, and 20% wanted moderates. From that info, we don't know precisely what PERCENTAGE of conservatives/liberals/moderates these respondents each want in the legislature: only that they want them. Maybe one respondent that wanted liberals wanted a legislature with 60% liberals, while another wanted it with 100% liberals. Therefore, this evidence only supports a rough estimate.

The conclusion, however, states that each citizen wants a 40/40/20 split in the legislature, which are EXACT PERCENTAGES. Therefore, I thought that (E) applied (going from a rough estimate to an exact/quantified conclusion.)

Thoughts on this are much appreciated!! :)

I've gotten to a point where the only types of questions I'm missing are weaken, principle or flaw questions. I usually am on the right path to the correct answer but seem to be stuck between two answers almost overtime- and chose the incorrect answer very frequently. Any tips or pointers in what to consider when answering these types of questions?

I can figure out almost most of the questions w/o time constraints. I go through all that I miss using the explanation videos provided. I appreciate that this took an incredible amount of time to put together. But since the clock is designed to be the deal breaker, explanations that are quick could be introduced first, then the complete explanation. Like for whomever provides the explanation, just say how they would reason it through quickly. Speak the words that an expert's/or 175-180 mind says. Help me to train my mind to think the same way.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-11/

When writing out the conditional logic for the reporter, I initially got /C--> /M but when I went back to review I got C---> M. In other words, because of the if I kept cured as the sufficient and then placed medication M as the necessary. But I thought when you have the word not in the sufficient side and the not in the necessary side you can negate the necessary side twice. I guess what I'm confused on is when you have "not" written on the sufficient and necessary conditional. If not is on both sides of the conditional how do you use lawgic?

I wrote out my conditional for answer choice E as this:

Independent--> (/TF and EB)

Is that ok?

The video wrote Independent and /TF--> EB.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-19/

yep, as expected, LG3 f-Ed me over. But it's ok because I didn't suck at the other sections. I'm also well within the median for my goal school. But yeah, Game3, how cruel a fate.

Inbox me if interested * Brooklyn Latina*

[Admin edit: Please don't post titles in all caps.]

Hi all!

I seem to be struggling with main idea question on the RC portion. I usually narrow it down to 2 answers, but almost always choose the incorrect one. Did anyone else struggle with this? And what strategies did you use to overcome it?

If A most are B and B most are C is it correct to say A most are C ?

I'm sitting for the Feb test, and if I could consistently get games to -1 or -0 as so many people say is possible then I'd be hitting 175+ on almost every test. I've read the games bible twice, I've done almost every game from preptests 7-38 several times with 7sage explanations, and yet I still can't seem to adapt to new wrinkles when I see a game for the first time. Time is an issue, as I constantly have to mechanically refer to the rules to check my work on questions. Diagramming any type of slightly unusual game is a huge problem. I'm particularly bad at seeing spatial patterns within games.

I don't know if I should stick with the strategy of repetition or what. Maybe the games will just get easier as I do the newer tests? I just have no confidence on this section whatsoever because my performance is so unreliable.

Any suggestions?

This was pretty tricky, and I got it right, but I still don’t have a good understanding of what is technically wrong with A. How is answer choice A not directly contradicting one of P’s premises? It must not because it isn’t the right answer choice.

Video link: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-69-section-4-question-15/

L: You philosophers say that linguists don’t understand language, but you haven’t provided evidence of that.

P: You say that “J and I are siblings” means the same thing as “I and J are siblings.” This isn’t true since the word order is different. For two things to be identical, everything must be the same.

What I am looking for: Both make pretty bad arguments (L makes an absence of evidence flaw), but we really only need to undermine P’s reasoning. P is wrong because he misses the point of what it means to “understand language.” The order of the words doesn’t matter necessarily; it’s the total meaning that matters. P assumes that “identical meaning” is influenced by the “physical” placement of the words.

Answer A: To me, this is attacking one of P’s premises directly (and that was one of the reasons I didn’t pick this one). Attacking the premise is technically an OK way to undermine an argument; the real issue is that the LSAT is very good at creating answer choices that SEEM to attack premises, but they really don’t. This one is different in my mind since it flat out contradicts the final independent clause of P's fact pattern. P defines “identical things” as “things having all of the same attributes.” If L responded, “I disagree with your definition since two things can have a few minor differences and be identical [referring to minor differences in physical structure, but identical meaning]” doesn’t this weaken the argument by directly attacking the truth of P's premise?

Answer B: I think this strengthens P’s argument since it provides another way that differences (context) matter.

Answer C: Wtf?

Answer D: This more succinctly hits the main point, and it is a much better answer choice that A. The issue is over “meaning," not the order of the words.

Answer E: More experience? So what?

I don't understand the correct answer for this one at all. Can someone breakdown why all the wrong ones are correct and D is correct? Here is my breakdown:

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-65-section-3-passage-3-questions/

Answer A: This is what I picked both times, I don’t really see what’s wrong with it. Doesn’t legally requiring something describe US/Canadian law while not legally requiring it parallel Roman law? To me, this is perfect…

Answer B: Roman law didn’t make anything illegal, so this isn’t it.

Answer C: Roman law didn’t distinguish between legality, so this isn’t it.

Answer D: Completely dumbfounded how this could possibly be the answer. Roman law didn’t make blackmail illegal outright. You had to show harm, and THAT made it illegal. I don’t see how this is analogous to Roman law in the slightest…

Answer E: Higher fines? Roman law didn’t have harsher punishment.

I'm confused how to write the conditional logic for this. Can somebody please explain this? When I see how the video skipped over labeling the first sentence like a premise, I got confused why he then uses it in conditional logic (TMU---> IASC)? I also got confused with what to do with the third sentence. I thought its a conclusion because of the keywords thus, until I got to the last sentence. I understand how he got the conclusion as /TMU.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-15/

I had it down to A and D and chose D. With that said, can someone destroy my reasoning for why A is not the right answer so that this sticks...

Ok, so what if pollen is transported from one region to another by wind, and human movement, we would have to assume that the pollen transferred is indistinguishable from the pollen that is KNOWN to have been unique to that area.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-49-section-4-question-08/

I place a because after the statements of interest in the stimulus and the statement that makes sense with a because coming after it I deem to be the conclusion. Is this an ideal strategy for argument labeling and mp questions?

I did not understand how and why he figured out which parts of the sentences he could use to make conditional statements from the video. He did not use conditional logic for the first sentence even though it had key words "not" and "are".

His diagram had:

LECC--> ELCI

ELCI--> LCI

LCI--> IH

I don't understand how he took from the sentence, "many people would do so" and instead wrote LCI. I'm just confused.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-06/

Hello,

I don't understand why A is the correct answer. I chose C. Could someone please explain why the right answer is right and the wrong answers are wrong? Thank you

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 :)

I'm doing really badly on this question type. I am going to rewatch the videos and lesson for this question type, but does anyone have any advice on how I can improve?

When I did this question type in the past, I got frustrated and skipped to the next question type, but this time I want to master it and do well on it. If someone could give me some constructive advice, I would be most appreciative!

This question really baffles me. How can B be correct? If the probe reveals that the light reflected is much less, how would that support B? Please help, I'm so confused!