160 posts in the last 30 days
Hey guys! I have just started going over the lessons for the games and am feeling discouraged. I always don't make enough inferences and have difficulty solving the problems. How long did it take you guys to start doing well on them? Thanks!
I currently own pdf copies of prep tests 37-67. With test day nearing, I want to purchase prep tests 68-75.
For those of you who have taken the lsat or know how the real test looks like, would I be better served buying the pdf copies and printing them out or buying the booklet paperback form on Amazon?
I am mostly concerned with similarity to the actual test.
Thanks!
I was out for a run yesterday and crashed and burned - hard. It was really only a matter of time before I managed to lose a little skin in the name of fitness, but I never imagined that I would end up with a broken elbow, which is what the urgent care doc diagnosed. So, I'm in a sling and temporary cast (and doing everything with one hand...) and while I likely won't need surgery, I will probably be in a cast come October 3. I've never broken a bone before and would appreciate any thoughts or insight about what test day might look like.
While Ive been working through BRing Reading Comp passages in the past week, Ive been using outside explanations to help me understand where my gap in reasoning lies. While I think it might help in the long run, its inevitably extremely difficult to remember the logical reasoning behind every single question. That being said, would I be better off figuring out the logical reasoning on my own or continuing to use outside explanations for right/wrong answers? My concern is whether I am cheating the process by possibly not fully thinking it through on my own. Any tips will be helpful! Thanks!
Okay so I'm pretty much at my wit's end here with the last 2 or 3 tests I've taken.
As background, I used to be incredibly consistent on the Logical Reasoning section. I would typically miss 1 or 2 per section and would never miss more than 3 overall in both sections combined. This was the case for most of the PTs I took. Then PT50 happened. I thought I was just having a bad day, and ended up missing 5 LRs that test. Then on PT51 I missed 3 (not more than usual) but then today on PT52 I missed 5 again.
Ironically, I'm at the point where I'm getting 180s on nearly every single Blind Review I do. I'm overall pretty accurate at never missing questions that I don't circle, but now I feel like just as I've gotten really good at understanding how to answer nearly any LR question and answering them all accurately and not falling for any of the tricks (untimed) I've also gotten way worse on the actual timed PT. This is hugely frustrating for me since, before this started happening, I was consistently scoring around 174-175 and was weakest in the RC section (with LG nearly always at -0). I spent a week or two and really drilled RC hard and was able to get myself down from nearly -4 or -5 to -2 or -3 each time. But now LR has gone off the rails! I feel like I can't win!
At first I thought it was my strategy for balancing time on LR. Previously, I would skip almost any question I didn't immediately feel comfortable with or thought would take a while (even if they were easy MBTs that I just didn't want to diagram out). Now, I've tried to spend more time just going through the test a bit more linearly so that I don't feel strapped on time having to go back to a bunch of skipped questions at the end of the test. I thought this would be a good strategy but it seems now like I'm missing more questions anyway.
So I'm not sure what to do. On today's test it was hugely disappointing that 2 of the LR questions I missed were incredibly trivial and had more to do with the fact that it seems like I rushed through the question because of time than that I didn't understand it, and, again, I'm able to correct every mistake in Blind Review.
Not exactly sure what to help me improve at this point. I feel too confident to review basic lessons on LR questions (again, I get nearly a perfect score in blind review, so I obviously understand the concepts, its just that something mysterious happens on the timed tests) and I don't really know what else to do other than to look back at questions that I got wrong, but seeing as they're spread pretty evenly across different question types randomly, not sure how good that would do me either. Anyone experience anything like this before?
So Ive been using the BR method strictly on reading comp for the last couple of days and my accuracy has improved tremendously but EVERY time Im incorporating time into the process, my accuracy goes down significantly. Im currently aiming at 3.5 min for reading and the last 4.5-5 doing the questions. Any suggestions? Also, any passage that has 7-8 questions immediately has meant I wont get through all the questions. It freaks me out haha
http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-05/
After reading the answers, I think I can see how this one justifies the argument but still a little unsure about how the answer was found.
What were the steps?
Hi there,
I was wondering if anybody could clarify (please) why the Substitution and Equivalence section was placed at the end of the PTs ( i have the 2nd package). Is this because these types of questions only appear on later LSATs?
I just started PT-ing so i'm at 37.
Please let me know what you guys think.
Thanks :)
http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-49-section-1-game-1/
Can someone explain question 7 of this game to me?
I get how there are three possible worlds: _ _ N G I N ; N _ G I N _ ; N _ _ G I N
The question asks "...then a film in Norwegian must be shown on". Why is it JUST day 1 and 3. I mean, it could also be shown on day 5 (per the second option above) or day 6 (per the third option above). Why is option "Day 1 and 3" correct as opposed to "Day 1 and 5", which is incorrect?
http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-2-question-20/
I got this one correct by POE, but I am having a lot of trouble explicitly understanding why E is correct (I was wishy washy with A, but I get why it's wrong). Here is my analysis:
This is a flaw/weaken question.
If it's music, then it has a temporal element since parts of the song are presented over time. However, a painting has no temporal element since parts of the painting are not presented over time. Thus, the viewer's eye has no one path to follow in order to "read" the painting [the "" on read are kind of weird, I think]. As a result, a key difference between listening to music and viewing a painting is that music has a time element while looking at a painting doesn't.
What I am looking for: This argument seemed (at least to me) pretty decent. Temporal order is a necessary condition for music, but it is not for painting. So that seems like an "essential" [necessary] difference between the two. The only flaw that I could see was relating "path" to time. That didn't seem like very good evidence to me.
Answer A: This was my trap answer. I didn't pick it, but I wasted a lot of time eliminating it. The argument doesn't say that you need to be conscious of the passage of time. The passage of time (in and of itself) is the necessary condition for music and not one for a painting. Also, time is an element of the painting and not of the viewer. It is possible that the viewer is looking at his watch the entire time while looking at a painting; that doesn't change the fact that the medium of art (painting) itself doesn't have a temporal element.
Answer B: Who cares about the definition of music/differences between styles.
Answer C: Who cares about their commonalities? Our conclusion is about differences.
Answer D: Is "reading" a metaphor? Maybe. However, the substance of this answer choice is to say that the flaw is circular reasoning. The argument is not. The "reading" analogy is evidence in support of the conclusion, not a restatement of it.
Answer E: This is it by POE. However, I still am having trouble seeing how this actually attacks the relationship between the premise and conclusion. This answer to me juts flat out contradicts the "path" premise and not the substance of the argument.
This might seem a bit silly, but in after doing the translations into lawgic exercise...do we always diagram logic whenever we see it in any LSAT question? For instance pt 27 st 1 q 17, I started reading the stem and noticed the logic and diagram quickly but then I didn't really need it. Is that a special case? Does anyone have a recommendation? Thanks!
Is there a particular strategy that is recommended for these two types of questions? I feel with MBT questions, it's easier to come up with a more concrete prephase that will resemble an AC closely, whereas this is a lot less likely with MSS. Either way, what's a good mindset to get into in order to consistently answer these types? Is it just absorbing and analyzing the stimulus, trying to prephase, and POE? Are there any tips or insights beyond that?
Mods - is there anyway to access LRs and RCs explanations or are those not prepared?
If anyone is interested in doing proctored mock exams in the GTA-Mississauga/Toronto area contact me!!!
http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-4-question-15/
I'm not sure how to understand why the right answer is right. The business student in me says E is the most right but I can understand why it's not 'the' right answer.
I'm trying to figure out why a product who's frequency is not able to be increased means that a rebate isn't ideal.
http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-2-question-16/
Hello, I was wondering if someone could help me understand why D is incorrect? Thanks! :)
Hey all,
I've been doing pretty well on my PTs, but I'm finding that on the logic games, I'm consistently making 1-2 silly mistakes on the section. I know that test taking anxiety and feeling rushed are causing me to misread questions or answers, and it's painful to see these mistakes when I correct the section. I'm wondering how frequently others are making these kinds of mistakes and what they are doing to fix it. I've been getting better - taking more time reading the questions and answers, but it's still a problem. I'm wondering what your experience has been.
I was wondering if anyone is familiar w/ any subtle differences between the two? (I did my LR through the Trainer, where the 'justify reasoning' questions are known as 'sufficient assumption', while the 'justify conclusion' ones are known 'supporting principle -- they're in the same chapter, and for both types, you're supposed to "fill in the logical gap").
http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-3-question-18/
Ok. The explanation JY wrote is awesome, but I still don't understand why B is correct.
Please save the dummy!
For all of those taking the Dec. LSAT tomorrow evening we will start with PT 42.
If you would like to join please PM me your skype handle. Thanks!
@nicole.hopkins
Note on all groups
For all of those taking the Dec. LSAT on Sat. evening we will BR PT 43.
Note on all groups
Annoyingly (worryingly???) I have the most trouble on the law passages in RC. I'm not great with the law vocab and pretty terrible with the history of law. Especially those ones with things like the history the medieval British legal system. I'm like...what? I heard a great recommendation for law podcasts, but I really need something I can read and carry with me. Digital is fine too! Thanks in advance!
Hi,
I have been studying for the Oct. 2015 LSAT since (essentially) July 1. I work a full-time job, and have recently moved to a new city, and have been adjusting to that.
I had a very high GPA in college, which is why I am putting a lot of pressure on myself to do well this October. I feel like a score under 167 is unrepresentative of myself as a student.
That being said, I have taken 5 practice tests (I realize this is few, I plan to take 30 in total), and have scored two points lower each time I take them (162 down to a 158 yesterday). This have been PT 52-56.
I have been studying on my own, using resources given to me by friends who have scored in the 170s. I just recently found 7Sage, and have done only one BR.
I can't afford to sign up for the entire 7Sage program, and feel at this point, it is too late. I am a month out of the test.
I would really, really appreciate any feedback/reality checks. Because I work a full time job, I would REALLY like to be finished with this test after October, and get my applications in for this year. If December is necessary, so be it. I already feel burned out on studying... which is probably absurd giving how little I've.
Thanks for such a helpful community!
RW
So I've been studying the LSAT for a little over a year now, and I've got LR and LG down (-0 to -2 on each section)
My real worry is RC. I've been getting -7 to -13 per RC section for PT 56 and above. But when I BR the RC section, I can usually get -0 to -3
When I did the RC for PT 40-56, I finished the RC in time and stayed within -3 to -7/8. Somehow for the new tests, this is a real problem and it's gone downhill. I'm currently working on doing RC from older tests for practice while I work my way up doing full length tests (I'm currently on PT 62... RC-13,LR-3,LG-1,LR-0 ). My time for reading passages varies from 3-5 mins and my timing for the questions also varies quite a bit; overall timing seems to be my real problem where I sometimes spend way too much time especially on the questions and don't even get to answer some of the questions at the end.
The RC section seems to be the main one stopping me from breaking the 170 bound so any advice would be highly appreciated!
http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-1-question-22/
I completely understand the argument core and the correct answer. However, upon review, I am confused with the way a Manhattan expert eliminates (A).
https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/forums/q22-microbiologist-because-heavy-metals-t5572.html
(See the comment by rinagoldfield. Last post when I last checked. )
Is answer (A) strengthening the correlation between "metal resistance" and "antibacterial resistance" ? According to rinagoldfield, it is. She argued that (A) is incorrect because it strengthens correlation and not the causation. I am confused for two reasons:
1. I think that Mike Kim said somewhere in The Trainer that correlation, although can't prove causation, is perfectly okay to strengthen the causation. (I only glimpsed through the Trainer, let me know if I am daydreaming what this.)
2. I would have interpreted the correlation in (A) as between "not metal resistance" and "not antibacterial resistance" instead of between "metal resistance" and "antibacterial resistance" Am I missing something?
Thank you everyone in advance for trying to help!
