https://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/podcast-episode-91-the-august-2021-lsat-review/

I just noticed this go live in the last few minutes as I was checking two questions from PT 57, Game 4. I can now check the board, and then fast forward directly to the question I need.

THIS IS BRILLIANT. One more reason to love 7Sage.

I have taken three practice tests and my raw score gets worse each time I take it (stuck in low 150s). However, my blind review scores are consistently improving. I am discouraged because I feel like my blind review results won’t transfer to my actual LSAT performance. I think I perform about the same on LR and RC.

Any suggestions on how I should organize my studying?

I'm running into a situation where I get most of the questions that require formal logic right, but only after taking a good 5 minutes mapping out the logic in the stimulus. If I don't go through this exercise I need to guess the answer most of the time (unless the logic is as straightforward as a couple simple if/then statements). I will obviously not have the luxury of all of this time on the test. Any tips on how to get faster at mapping out formal logic?

Need someone to keep me accountable for the next two months. Want a study partner to just study in silence with. We don't necessarily need to be studying the same things, but it would help to have similar goals/workloads to keep each other motivated. I have taken the LSAT twice in 2022 and scored a 167 in November. I have stopped studying for a couple months now and hope to pick things up to get a mid 170. I am currently in school but is generally free all days except Tuesday and Thursdays, and I aim to devote ~50 hours a week to study. Add me on discord xtt#8183 if interested!

What LGs, preferably in/out games, are good for practicing embedded conditional statements and dealing with them when they pop up?

I find that in some strengthen/weaken questions, the right answers are some "other consideration" that influence the conclusion, but are irrelevant to premise. Consider this weaken question:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-26-section-3-question-06/

This phenomenon is also common in "shield" type of NA question. The answers are something that is not talked in the stimulus.

In these case, can we say that, we are not strengthen/weaken the support that premise giving to conclusion, but strengthen/weaken the conclusion independently?

Listen and subscribe:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify

There's a lot of information going around about the LSAT...so much that it's often hard to tell what's true and what's not. Fortunately, ZeSean and Henry are here this week to separate fact from fiction and break down some of the commonly-heard LSAT myths. Tune in to this episode for some LSAT myth-busting!

I can't for the life of me figure out why (A) is better and (E), any help?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-45-section-2-passage-1-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-45-section-2-passage-1-questions/

Hello!

As the January test comes around, I'm starting to get a bit anxious with my RC score. What used to be my strongest section is now my weakest, and I can't tell where I am going wrong.

Looking at the Analytics tab, Application Questions (Purpose of passage & "Consistent Principal) are where I am struggling with the most. Does anyone have any advice tackling this area, or is it just continuing to read & practice generally. Would really appreciate any insight people have gained on this section

Thank you in advance

I am and have been stuck at 165 for awhile now. I can see a big issue for me is I can't even do medium level conditional logic. I often make mistakes like not taking the contrapositive, applying the wrong translation rule, and not connecting my chains. How can I learn, practice, and master conditional logic? I have watched the 7sage material several times but it just does not stay with me.

I just took a diagnostic after 6 months of having taken one (no studying in between). I am now ready to start studying with a consistent schedule and take the September Test. The problem is that my diagnostic score 6 months ago which included the LG section was significantly higher than my score from today, which I did without LG. Should I register for the June LSAT and try to study these next 5 weeks (mastering LG) and take it with the LG section, or should I just forget about LG and take it in Sept as the updated test version and take my time partaking on the other sections?

I get extra RC practice in by reading articles that are a bit longer than typical LSAT RC passages and that also feature current events (makes it easier for me to be an engaged reader). Here's a good one in a recent WSJ regarding Maya Lin's light-drenched revamp of the library at Smith College. Happy reading! (Hopefully the link works) Don't forget to low-res on the way! https://emailshare.cmail19.com/t/n/d-l-44ffaf57962d11eba555e043580a8292-l-d-r-l/

Hello everyone! I’ve been improving on my reading ability on the RC section and have been absorbing and understanding the information much better in my drills. I find that my problem are the harder questions. Like I understand the passage well but the complex questions throw me off. Idk if that makes sense but does anyone have any tips on how to counter this?

Hello! Would anyone be down to take LR drills and review them together over Zoom?

Did anyone find a more simpler way to tackle game 4 in this pt?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-2-game-4/

I have not seen MP questions that begin with a question at the beginning before this one. I got it incorrect since I put B thinking the conclusion came after the word "Certainly" I am not sure how to get to the conclusion in this stimilus.

I wanted to see the reason why I got rid of B and D is correct.

B ) "The qualities enabling a person to be elected to public office" -

Descriptively incorrect. The premise never said her past antinuclear record is the quality that enabled her to be elected?

D) "It leads to the further but unacceptable conclusion that any project favored by major smith should be sanctioned simply on the basis of her having spoken out in favor of it"

Descriptively incorrect. Premise did say we should build the nuclear plant not because Mayor smith favored it but because Mayor Smith "who supported antinuclear record" favored it.

Admin note: edited title

Economic growth -> Increase agri (+ keep biodiversity) -> abandon conventional agri

Conclusion Econo growth -> abandon conventional agri/modify agri

SA?

A. Increase biodiversity -> /Increase agri

Increase agri -> Reduce biodiversity this is not what the stimulus is saying so non sequitur.

B. This would place biodiversity back in the loop and make it relevant by connecting the pieces of the structure

C. But this is alr listed in the stimulus

D. We dont know this

E. Modify agri -> increase agri this flips the lawgic

@JR For the sake of maximizing my study material, is it best for me to take the old practices right now on classic.7sage before LSAC pulls them? Or should I just switch over to the new platform and start taking the newer tests?

I personally find this the hardest LR question in PT 14; it is (1) bizarre on the level of content, (2) very long and overloads test takers with information, and (3) at the very end of the fourth section, thus hitting you at a point of the test where you already spent 2+ hours intensively thinking about stuff and are mentally exhausted.

In paraphrased form, the stimulus says:

(1) Phenomenon: In the Peruvian desert, there are different sets of lines in the sand. These lines occur in different layers: On the top layer, there are lines that branch out from a single point. Beneath that, there are lines that form a bird figure.

(2) Hypothesis: An investigator argues for the conclusion that both of these sets of lines were brought about by aliens, who supposedly used the Peruvian desert to land their space ships. To support this conclusion, the investigator evokes the premises that the lines in the sand would have been useless to Incas.

The first thing to do here is to figure out what the stimulus is even about: The phenomenon itself is not immediately clear – it is crucial to note that there are TWO sets of lines, not just one –, and the investigator’s hypothesis is counterintuitive to a degree that it becomes all too easy to disregard the glaring selective attention fallacy in their reasoning (Aliens or Incas, not Incas; therefore aliens). So the first hurdle here is to even figure out what is going on, and to throw out one’s common sense intuitions out of the window (How can you even identify the different layers of ancient lines in the sand? How did the lines stick around for so long? All of these questions become irrelevant).

The next hurdle then is the question stem, which again seems bizarre: Here, the test writers tell us that we seek to establish the conclusion that the lines are supposed to refer to astronomical phenomena, and that we are supposed to block an alternative hypothesis to the effect that the lines are non-astronomical. So at this point this seems to become a sort of strengthen question. The question stem is unusual to an extent that it becomes hard to pre-phrase or anticipate how a right answer might look like. Thus process of elimination seems to be the best approach:

(A) North American natives arranged stones in ways that allow for the measurement of astronomical phenomena. This seems to strengthen a little bit in that it points out a seemingly analogous case (It is not only in South America but also in North America that people used geological means to keep track of astronomical phenomena). However, it seems unclear how this answer choice would also have the blocking effect that the question stem is asking for. Thus keep around as a candidate but expect that one of the other answer choices might well be better.

(B) The straight lines indicate positions at which astronomical events could have been observed ‘at plausible dates,’ and the bird lines could represent a constellation. This gets at both sets of lines and associates both of them with astronomical phenomena. The answer thus is fairly specific. Furthermore, the answer itself postulates its own plausibility (‘plausible dates’), which seems like a massive hint, though again unusual. Like the rest of this question, (B) thus again seems wildly counterintuitive, but in the scenario we are supposed to explain, (B) arguably makes the most sense. In particular, (B) approximates the desired function more than (A). Thus far this thus is the least bad answer choice.

(C) The lines form patterns. This answer choice is worse than (B), due to its lack of specificity and its apparent disconnect from the question stem. Worst answer choice thus far.

(D) Central American Natives used rocks to measure astronomical phenomena. This answer choice seems almost identical to (A) and thus provides good grounds to dismiss both (A) and (D): There can only be one correct answer choice, two virtually identical answer choices thus are likely to both be false.

(E) The bird lines might be older than the straight lines. Again irrelevant; (B) must be right.

Takeaways: This seems to be a question where the LSAT really tries hard to make test takers focus exclusively on reasoning structures, not on common sense intuition or plausibility. In this sense, the question is similar to other early LR questions that seem weird content wise but make syntactical sense on the level of formal logic. Focus on getting a clear understanding of what is going on in the stimulus and the question stem; I spent four minutes on this and still felt overwhelmed. Get a clear grasp of what the phenomenon is, what the explanation attempt from the stimulus is trying to say, and how the two alternative explanatory directions from the question stem relate to another. Then use process of elimination to get through the answers.

Whenever I do a standalone section with 26 questions, I am not able to get the allotted time to 35 minutes. Anyone have that issue?

I am doing ok on the logic games for the most part, but I am really struggling with the in/out games. Is anyone down to maybe have a study session on this sometime?

Hi everyone! I took the LSAT in February and got a 171. My goal was a 174, which is above the medians at the schools I want to apply to, but I was still happy. I was going to take it again in April but my scores went down so I ghosted the test. I haven't studied since. In my practice tests, my average was 172, but I realized that each test I got 7-8 questions wrong, and sometimes I was lucky and that was a 175 or I was unlucky and it was below 170. Does that mean I never really improved? How do I get to a place of consistently scoring less than 7-8 questions wrong per test? Or have I reached my limit? How did people break out of a score they were stuck at? Especially when there is no pattern in the questions I am getting wrong. Thanks! Hope everyone is doing well!

This seems like a waste of time....? It's literally the exact same section, but 7sage said it's a section designed around my priority areas of focus. Am I suppose to redo a section because I did poorly...? Feels confusing to be relooking at questions I half remember answering.