Hi everyone,

I took a couple RC (and even LR) sections recently, and noticed that I made 70% of my mistakes because I did not fully understand the meaning, or alternate meanings, to key words in the passages or question stems. I'm an English major, so I thought I had a strong grasp of vocab but now I just feel kind of stupid. I've started noting down these words and will try to expand my vocabulary on the side, but I was wondering - have any of you encountered this problem? Are there any techniques you could suggest to overcome this?

Thank you so much for any advice!

Why A? And why not E?

I think I misinterpretted "addressing" in option A to mean that "referring to the..." Instead, by "address" I now think he means "considering and potentially implementing the critics claims doesn't matter yet cause now we need money."

In regards to "E" I interpreted it to mean that, "giving the report a single focus ('coherent vision of future') is less desirable than the critics claim seeing as we need some effing money." However, the true translation is "the author thought the critic's idea wasn't that awesome."

Did I just totally misread what was said? Is my misreading completely unwarranted (Am I cray)? Any strategies on how to not to misread?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-2-question-21/

Hello! This is my first time posting a question. I am having trouble understanding why e is the correct answer. Is it correct because to if it's unpopular with the teachers than we have to modify and the word modify implies adopt a new policy? So to make the students happy we should adopt a new policy? Because isn't adopting a new policy the necessary condition for it being unpopular with the students? not the teachers?

Hey Fellow 7Sagers,

Just wanted to ask you a question about something that I've been seeing throughout Logical Reasoning questions and oftentimes, answer choices as well. What's a good way to remember what testmakers are talking about when they say "Confuses _____ for/with _____"??

For example:

B) LSAC confuses a necessary condition for a sufficient conditions.

Does this mean that what is meant to be a necessary condition is being mistaken by LSAC as a sufficient condition?....or vice versa...?

So should I remember this as whatever comes after "Mistakes/Confuses a _____" to be what is correct and that the author is mistakenly thinking of it as whatever comes after "...for a ____"?

Sorry for the extremely confusing explanation and wording....

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-3-question-08/

I think I may have answered this question myself, but can you guys chime in on this one? I chose D instead of A because "their investments" didn't have to be true. They could make a profit from someone else's investment, right? However, since this is an inference question I should be taking all of the answer choices to be true and then seeing which one can be proven from the stimulus? True, meaning that all of the answer choices are true, but only one can be proven from the stimulus. Does that make sense? I chose D because I didn't feel that there was anything in the stimulus that specifically stated, or even implied, in my opinion, that the investors were making investments only from "their" investments and I took "most" from the first sentence and "majority" from the last sentence to seem the same. If A hadn't included "their" it would've been my choice. I hope I didn't confuse anyone because I think I just confused myself!

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-2-question-13/

I wonder whether this is really necessary assumption question.

Isn't this most strongly supported question or anything else?

There's no clear conclusion in the stimulus and although I negate (D) I am not sure if I can entirely wreck the argument.

I got this question right, but just wonder whether this question is properly categorized.

Let me first start off by saying I am going to become a junior this fall semester at my university. I have never prepped for the LSAT prior to taking my diagnostic and I scored a 146. A month into studying I took another prep test and scored a 152. After blind reviewing and checking up on the trends of my exams, I realized I may need to take a look back at the fundamentals of logical reasoning section, which I have. I take a prep test tomorrow and I am hoping to get in the high 150's and my overall goal is to get in the 160's by the time of the October LSAT. If I don't reach my goal of averaging in the 160's by the end of august should I reschedule my LSAT or is there any other advice someone is willing to give. I get very nervous during my exams which I believe may have an impact on my grade. Please help me with some advice!

So, I took my third PT today, PT 37, and it seemed like I was doing well with RC, until I got to the last passage. This passage was too difficult, so I kind of ended up guessing on those last few questions.

When I finally scored my test, I saw I only got six questions wrong. That's a good score for me anyways, but four of those six questions were on the last passage.

Is it possible I just was lucky with those first three passages? I have gotten that few wrong in the past, but the questions I got wrong were more scattered throughout the section.

There's been a lot of concern about weird game types appearing or potentially appearing in this era of LSAT. I think it's a healthy concern, and is perhaps the hallmark of this "era" of tests. Future LSATers will likely look back at the PT's in the 70's and say "Oh yeah, that's when LSAC started bringing back those weird game types."

There have been a good number of weird games. Some of them are potentially very useful (namely if we learn something from them that could apply to other weird games, even if not of exactly the same type).

If we have a decent list of weirdos, then those of us who want to prepare for/mitigate the risk of future weirdness will at least know that we've covered our bases.

What weird games have you come across—and what have you learned from them?

When you post your selection[s], please include the link to JY's video for that LG since those are free and accessible to everyone! Or if you don't know exactly which game it was, describe it, and we will try and help locate it for others.

Hi everyone. I took the June LSAT after taking an in-person Blueprint course. I did well but not as well as I wanted to or think I could. I've now put off starting to study again for the October re-take way too long, but here I am. I was thinking of doing 7Sage Premium somewhat selectively, focusing on my problem areas (definitely LG and a bit of RC), and then supplementing with something like the Cambridge bundles since I've heard 7Sage's problem sets aren't great (and only easy ones available in Premium). Note I also bought the Blueprint LG book and I've heard good things about the LSAT Trainer, but I don't want to overwhelm myself with too many things. I work in tech and have a full-time, demanding job. Any advice on the best approach here would be thoroughly appreciated!

Hi guys,

I've just made a new schedule for myself and I wanted your opinion on it. I've been studying for the LSAT for about a year and have already read the LSAT Trainer once and gone through the 7sage curriculum twice. Currently, I've gone through most PTs in the 30s and 40s. With the remaining time, I was planning on starting on PT 52 and doing two PTs a week, and doing up to three a week in September when I'm on my annual leave from work. This is my third and last attempt at taking the LSAT, so I thought it'd be a good idea to go through all of the remaining PTs and save the most recent for last. As I go along, I was planning on reviewing key issues and doing some drilling, as needed.

Do you guys think this is a good study schedule or do you think it would be more useful of my time to just take one PT a week and start with more recent ones? Thanks for sharing your thoughts/advice :)

I started studying in February (Taking the October test, fees paid ;) I've completed all of the course material and now am working through the PTs from oldest to most recent. My average on my PTs is 163 which I'm okay with. 153 on my first diagnostic. I've taken 11 PTs now so It's a pretty solid average I believe (159 worst -166 best). My question is for those who have taken a recent test... I've heard that the tests are changing, especially the logic games with the reintroduction of maps, circles etc., Has anyone taken a recent test that can compare it to tests in the 50-60 range? I'm confident in my abilities as long as they haven't gone and introduced something crazy that my fundamentals haven't prepared me for. I'm saving the 70s tests for the last two weeks. Just trying to get some insight into what lies ahead ;) Cheers

Could someone explain why the answer is C? What does attending a college of choice have anything to do with it?

Hey all,

Do you have any suggestions for preventing careless mistakes? For example, after you've completed a few questions, all of a sudden forgetting one of the rules, or one of the inferences. Is this just something you have to hone by practice? Or perfecting set-up and notation habits? Specific practical advice would be wonderful :)

Thanks!

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-3-question-19/

Why is A incorrect? Is it because having the tallest peaks in the region doesn't mean it has the absolute tallest peaks?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-04/

I got this question right, but not perfectly clear why (D) is correct.

Could you elaborate the answer choice (D) - why is it a clear-cut answer?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-2-question-20/

B is the answer, and the only reason I did not choose it is because it required me to make an assumption that 1. Plankton are not fish (which would require some background knowledge of what plankton are), and 2 particles from the from the mud did not contain fish. Can someone explain this question to me from a different perspective please. Answer A is easy to come by if I knew I was allowed to make such assumptions.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-2-question-20/

Hello guys, this MBT question actually comes from the MBT course video. Most people have the question about the last sentence "even its critics acknowledge." I have read all the replies in order to understand why there is tremendous public support, but I still don't understand. When JY explains this sentence, he dropped a period before "for the project", I don't know whether he indicated that "for the project" is not a modifier of "would be not tremendous public support", but rather of "even its critics acknowledge". Could someone kindly explain this? The grammar here is really hard.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-1-question-10/

I don't understand how this is not A?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-02/

Could anyone explain why the answer is C- All lawyers are cattle ranchers and not A- Some lawyers are cattle ranchers.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-23/

I'm having trouble translating the "not until" statement. Until is "negate sufficient" but the "not" cancels the negation from the until rule so then it reads just like an if then. Is it ok for me to go ahead and memorize that when group 3 and 4 indicators are used this way in the beginning of a sentence they cancel each other and it reads like an if then?

When we are reading the stimulus and separating the conclusion, premise, and context, are we supposed to ignore the context/"some people's argument"/etc, and then just focus on the Premise and Conclusion?

For example, in NA questions, it seems that after determining which sentence in the context, we can just ignore it and focus on the relationship of support to answer the question.

Am I right on this?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-2-question-07/

I initially picked C, probably making some bogus quick logic about how the new bus routes would actually cost the city more and therefore it would not be cheaper to build on the outskirts of town. However, I realize that the answer is B, but still need some more clarification/confirmation in my head to see how that'd be it for sure.

The conclusion is that the Brownlea's post office must be replaced with a larger one. The premises are - the present one cannot be expanded, land near the present one in the city-center is more expensive, and since the acquiring of LAND is where the major cost of a new post office would come from, the outskirts of town is the best place to build it -- because land there must be way cheaper.

B would be the answer because it says that a parking lot would be required if it is built on the outskirts of town and a parking lot would not be required if it is built in the city-center. So, ONE WOULD NEED TO BUY/ACQUIRE MORE LAND (aka more costs) if one builds the post office in the outskirts vs. the city-center. So, building on the outskirts is not necessarily cheaper -- because of the "more" land argument/parking lot which wouldn't be needed if it was built in the city-center.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-2-question-17/

The correct answer choice is B: "[t]he argument relies on the testimony of experts whose expertise is not shown to be sufficiently broad to support THEIR general claim."

I think this choice would only be correct if the "THEIR," the "experts" I assume being the referent, is changed to "its," the argument being the referent, because it is the hospital executive who's making a claim beyond the scope of the testimony of these experts.

Thoughts?

I know it takes a lot longer for LSAT than ppl think (at least a year indicated in the course) But the reality for me is I only have about 2 months between now and October test day. Wait, this is not the worst part yet actually, what's even more frightening is that I have NO fundamentals whatsoever. Completely new bee whose first language is not even English (Chinese)

Seems like I got two options here only:

1 Completely butcher the exam in October and die in shame.

2 Kill myself now before that shame comes

Which one you guys vote for?

Any advise much appreciated

Thank you