I finished my first quiz of the course on MC. I got 8/10 and did it in 12.29min. I missed the 2 due picking the wrong conclusion (no indicators). This is easy if you can find the conclusion in the stimulus, all you have to do is find it paraphrased as an answer. I got the rest right so not to think I can't identify a conclusion with no indicators. But, you can tell it's not my strongest pursuit I guess.

How do you suggest I take the next step? I only had one quiz set so there's no more practice left through 7sage. Should I move on to learn about MSS... it's my next lesson. Or should I practice more MC with old PT's? If I practice more, how much more before I move on to my next lesson? FYI taking the Sept LSAT.

Thanks!

I just started to study for the Sept LSAT. I did terrible on the logic games section in the diagnostic test. I have since then purchased materials, 7sage's course and did some online research.

Now more than ever am I confused with the games as I thought there were a couple of types and I just had to learn them. But, in each type their are sub-types and it looks like powerscore, 7sage, and the online resources I have found have different names for them?

Game 1 - Grouping: Splitting (Division)

Game 1 - Grouping: Matching

Game 2 - Grouping: In & Out (Selection)

Game 2 - Grouping: Matching + In & Out

Game 2 - Grouping: In & Out

Grouping: Defined fixed, unbalanced, underfunded

Grouping: Defined moving,balanced numerical distribution, identify the possibilities

Grouping: Defined fixed, unbalanced, overloaded, identify the templates

Grouping: Undefined

Grouping: Linear Combination, numerical distribution

Grouping: Partially defined, numerical distribution.

and there's TONS more. At this point I feel like I am wayyy in over my head. I believe that I am making it more complicated then this all is. But, I need someone to tell me how this all works then. I want to later on do drills and all these websites and my books call it different things so I don't know how to make practice "packets" for a type of game when there's 20 diff. grouping games.

Thanks in advance for any help!!!

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-1-question-16/

I had a hard time to solve this question and couldn't find the exact flaw.

I was confused between B and C and ultimately chose C, but the answer is D.

I have no idea why D is right and others are wrong.

Can anyone explain me this question?

Thanks!

I'm just took the June LSAT, and I basically took it cold turkey (stop judging me, I can practically feel the disgusted glares as I type). I am already planning on taking another one in the Fall, but I can't decide if it would be better for me to take the September test and have a guaranteed early admin result, or to wait until December and have more time to really study. I'm expecting this score to be somewhere in the 150's, and honestly the test doesn't really stress me out, I just want to be confident in achieving a higher score. I know that I am capable of the score that I want (168), it's just a matter of putting in the time to really hone in on the skills and methods to taking the test. My plan is to study my butt off until I take it again, I was really disappointed with how much prep I was able to do before this last one, but I already have all of the PowerScore and LSAC books so I'm ready to go. So suggestions on when I should take it again?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-2-question-01/

I’ve been struggling with questions like this. It’s clear that the author is using an attack on the character of the writer, but that part where (A) says “as evidence that this person is not competent on matters of scientific substance” is not descriptively accurate. The author’s argument doesn't mention R’s competence on matters of scientific substance, it only tries to say the _book_ doesn't merit professional attention.

Hello!

Simple question + looking for confirmation.

If a rule says: If Sarah is cool, she will go to the party with her sister; otherwise, she will not.

Sarah cool ---> Party with sister

~ Sarah Cool ---> ~ Party with sister

Yes? I read somewhere that this is like an 'if and only if' rule... can someone comment?

Their contrapositives:

~Party with sister ---> ~Sarah cool

Party with sister --> Sarah cool

Hey everyone, if someone could give me a quick explanation on failing either the sufficient or necessary I would greatly appreciate it.

In LSAT Prep Test 15 (June 1995) - Section 4 - Logic Game 3 JY does exactly that during question 19. Here is a link: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-15-section-4-game-3/

There I asked, "Can I get clarification on how rule 5 becomes irrelevant during question 19? I usually understand satisfying the necessary but this mixed me up. If F is on 4 and 6, then J has to be on 3; that I understand. Because of this, G does not have to be on 1, correct? However, it still can be. When the necessary condition is satisfied through the question stem (as that is what happens in 19) then sufficient condition (G) becomes a floater?"

Furthermore, JY also shows a similar scenario when explaining rule 3 here: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-11-section-1-game-2/

Thanks!

Has anyone created their own LG pkg sort of like the Cambridge pkgs that you wouldn't mind sharing? I know I'm asking a lot. LOL I've started and stopped trying to complete my own pkg a few times. I'm looking for maybe a list of each question type for each LG question type for all LSATs available. I have LR pkg just didn't want to pay for the LG pkg just yet. Anything would be greatly appreciated!! Also, those who have purchased the LG pkgs, is it worth it?

Anyone studying for the September/October LSAT located in the East Bay/SF area?

I'm having what I think is a weird issue. I'm not doing well with the MP/MC questions but I seem to be doing ok with the other questions. Doesn't that seem odd? If I'm having trouble with the MP/MC questions how am I able to do the other question types? Isn't this question type the most important as far as LR questions? If you can't identify the argument how can you be successful with the other question types? I think my problem is that I can determine the main conclusion if the indicator words are there but not so much if they're not. So, I'm not getting many of the harder questions correct. I'm not doing so well with determining the premises, sub-conclusions, etc. I'm using Manhattan along with 7 Sage. Obviously I have more reviewing and studying to do, but what am I missing? I'm just not getting this question type. I'm taking September test so I still have time. It's just kind of frustrating. I've been studying off and on for the past year due to some major health issues. I'm just now getting back into really studying so I know I may just be rusty but I wasn't getting these questions right when I was studying hardcore. Any questions or thoughts?

So,

"H will go before J if and only if it is after M." is a biconditional statement...

and is broken down into two different conditions, right --

M- H - J

or

J- H - M

If I wrote just " H will go before J if it is after M"

I would have " M - H - J " with H being before J because it is after M

But if I wrote

"H will go before J only if it is after M"

How does that give me J - H - M?

I'm somehow drawing a complete zero and a blank!

What am I thinking wrong?

I just feel like H is not before J in that translation at all...I'm lost and I don't know how or where to get out.

Thank you

Hey everyone! I guess we're all kinda freaking out about the june thing. Here's a good, solid, full-proof conclusion that I've come up with after taking several prep tests in the last couple of weeks.

Now, I think my abilities range from somewhere in the 160s to 174/5, but this tip might apply to others as well. I had prepared extensively through the winter getting consistent scores 170+ (three consecutive 170, 171, 172). After continuing with a softer preparation through april/may, and then restarting full-on a couple of weeks ago I noticed that my logical reasoning score had gone way down. I was freaking out, missing 3-5 questions per section, without confidence/certainty. I decided to buy a book of advanced lsat that collects a lot of harder questions from earlier tests so I could improve my accuracy. But although it worked to get some concepts straight, it was a psychological killer. I was really second-guessing myself all the time because I would often think the questions were way harder than they really were or I was trying to come up with an absolute reason of why I was getting some questions wrong, started taking a reductionist formal approach to the questions.

So then I decided to tackle LR the way I had in the past (individual sections) in a relaxed (but accurately timed) manner, blind method and then checking the answers shortly afterwards. I started improving a lot (down to -2,-3 and then -1, -2) and I had a sort of epiphany.

Although many of you already know that formal logic is not that important for this section some of you might use it to gain more certainty and avoid some mistakes. That's the most dangerous thing you could do. Basically, avoiding over-abstraction and focusing on the reading comprehension skill of LR is KEY. I mean, yes, you could avoid some mistakes by getting to the core with abstract thinking but the questions that really call for that kind of thinking appear usually once or twice in a section, no more. There are many more mistakes that you can avoid by reading closely and scrutinizing the terms of the premises and conclusions, which is way easier and less time consuming.

I hope this is useful, it has definitely worked back for me as I'm back in the 170s train and hope to stay there all the way to the real thing.

Hi, I'm currently in the process of solidifying different categories of logic games problems i.e. basic linear, advanced linear, etc. and I'm doing problems culled from the Appendix of the Powerscore. However, I realized 7Sage also has logic games sorted from PT 35-50 https://uploads.7sage.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/logic-games-sorted-by-type.pdf and the terms used for categories differ from those of Powerscore. For example, Powerscore distinguishes games by calling them basic linear, advanced linear, grouping, combination, etc. whereas 7Sage has In/Out, Sequencing with Twist, etc.

In this case did you guys go through all the different categories in both Powerscore and 7Sage?

Another psychological tip for this section:

Unlike the rest of the LSAT, each question in this section is completely independent from the other. Therefore, it could be a little bit daunting to realize that all of your hard work doesn't "pay-off" for more than one single question. Moreover, the fact that you have to "start-again" 25 times and be accurate for all of these during 35 crappy minutes is a quite stressful thing. All of this invariably leads to one thing: over-anxious reading of the stimulus (since you don't care that much about the reading and the text seems to be on your way) and, on the other hand, over-relaxed/careless reading of the questions (since it feels like you're finally seeing the light and about to move on).

So here's a bit of a buddhist/dalai lama relaxing tip that some of you could use. Whenever you approach LR questions (specially those with long stimulus), try to tell yourself the story behind it. Actually USE body language to accompany each bloody sentence. So if the stimulus goes "Dogs tend to poo more in parks than in sideways" actually RELEASE the poop as you are reading it. And do not try to come up with a conclusion or a possible answer before reading the choices (except for the predictable questions that you should easily recognize if you're about to take the june thing) or at least don't over-emphasize that part. Read attentively and go through the answer options and READ THE OPTIONS with care, NOT with relief. This will help you avoid a lot of mistakes related to traps in the answer choices, and shell game traps where LSAT plants an idea in your head that throws you completely the other way.

Basically, strap your balls on while you're reading the text in the stimulus and don't release them while reading the answers (not just yet anyway).

Peace and good luck everyone!

I took the LSAT last december (thanks to 7sage!) and scored 167. While my average on tests had been 165, I saw on my test results that I had actually missed a bubble on Section 2, pushing my remaining answers back! Fortunately it was towards the end, but I still missed out on 2 correct answers (argh!!). I could have had a 169.

I'm considering taking again. But I know it's a risk- I could score the same, or lower. It's also incredibly expensive in terms of time and money and I'm now working full time. I'd welcome any thoughts on whether a second try is worthwhile, or advice from anyone who has taken it more than once. Thanks!

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-69-section-4-question-16/

Hey test-takers! If you have PT69, care to discuss this question with me?

Upon review, the flaw is glaring and answer choice (B) makes sense.

During the timed test, I chose (C) and now I still can't see why the author did not make that error. H/she went from "salespeople" (whole) to "salespeople in major health stores" (part). This was the reasoning used to the reach the conclusion, so why is it not right to attack it?

Thank you!

Ecologist: It is true that the solution of the problem of global warming will require important changes in the way we use fossil fuels over the long term and that the free market must play an important role in making these changes possible. But these facts should not make us forget how crucial near-term limits on the emissions of "greenhouse gases" are to motivate these changes. When the issue was the limitation of ozone-reducing substances, it was short-term emissions limits that quickly brought the needed technologies to the marketplace. These technologies were not available until the international community had adopted specific limits on ozone-depleting substances.

By which one of the following means does the author of this passage make his case?

(A) making a careful distinction between two key terms

(B) questioning the accuracy of the evidence given to support the opposition's case

(C) using an appropriate analogy

(D) using the literal meaning of a word that could be construed as metaphoric

(E) using premises that are contradictory

What is the passage talking about? And why is the answer "C"?

For those getting 173/175 +... what's your breakdown per section?

I am having difficulty translating statements with both cannot and without. For example:

A business cannot change its core corporate philosophy without becoming a different corporation. Would I translate this as, [if a company changes its corporate philosophy-> then the company becomes a different corporation]?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-2-question-24/

i'm having difficulty with the following question:

ID THE FLAW: "studies have found that human tears...[redacted]"

CORRECT answer: argument "takes for granted that because certain substances are present...[redacted]"

i can understand why the correct answer is correct by breaking down the argument:

P1: tears have hormones

P2: stress has hormones

conc: so shedding tears must reduce stress.

assumption: hormones CAUSE stress. this is why the author is saying that ~Hormone --> ~Stress

my WRONG answer: argument "overlooks the possibility that if crying has...[redacted]"

but even though i can understand why the correct answer is right i'm having a hard time articulating why my answer (above) is wrong. i thought that the answer was touching upon the idea that there is a correlation, not causation (i.e., if stress is reduced when we cry, this may be because something other than crying causes stress levels to decrease -- so the effect is just a coincidence, not a true causation). could you please help?

thanks, as always! :)

blank

Hello,

I've got a common question about linking up a logic chain. I just re-watched the video lesson but it's not precisely the answer to my question. Any help is appreciated!

If you have:

Premise: A ---> B ----> C

-------------------------------------

Conclusion: D ---> C

Is it correct to try to make D ---> A and D ---> B (either one works, along with their contrapositives) OR would it be correct to make A ---> D and B ---> D?

My question is from PT 47 section 3, number 21. According to the video, it is the former method, but I remember doing it the other way sometimes. I got the Q right doing it in my head but it'd be great to confirm it. Thanks again

I started some preliminary LSAT prep, and on my diagnostic, I'm currently -5 on LG, -6 on LR, and -4 on RC. I know it's not great, but if I do the full course, is it gonna give me the bump I need? I know not a lot of programs do small bumps in each section easily.

Hello guys,

So I've been studying for the LSAT for about 3 months now, but not at all in the correct, intensive way that 7Sage shows us. As a matter of fact, I've been studying the wrong way...This course recommends that we prepare for a year maybe more, but with life and work that doesn't seem realistic. My fear about putting the LSAT off until a year from now, is what if I get discouraged or life gets in the way and I end up not taking the test.

That said, how long are you guys planning to prepare for before taking the LSAT?

Hi 7sagers!

I browsed all RC courses but I found that there's no specific video teaching what we should be aware while reading comparative passages.

And I also searched the Forum but didn't find any post concerning this question.

Does anyone has any suggestion?

Thank you very much.