I originally chose 'D' as my answer choice but after reviewing it, I can see where I went wrong. The stimulus describes a theory that had been rejected due to lack of proof/reasoning for the occurrence of the event. The stimulus goes on to say that the theory is now accepted despite not having reasoning/proof. But we accept this theory because we can see the event through observation( because of our technological advances).

A) This answer choice mentions the "aim of science". We are not concerned with the "aim of science".

B ) This answer choice mentions a "mathematical description". The stimulus only says "force". We can't assume that "force" and "mathematical description" are related. Or even technology. If we accept that "science has become far more accurate at identifying underlying forces", our stimulus wouldn't make much sense. It could be weaken because they didn't accept Wegner's theory on the basis of force.

C) Eliminated. Technology and measuring instruments are not the same. Even if it were, the theory isn't harder to work out. The author never mentions this phenomenon.

D) "Employing statistics and the laws of probability". No.

E) "When the event a theory postulates are detected" or when we can observe an event..."the theory is accepted without even an explanation" Yes. It is the correct answer and it matches the example in the stimulus.

Please critique or reply with your line of reasoning.

Hi everyone! I scored a 158 on the July LSAT with about a month of prep. I'm taking the September LSAT and am seeking a tutor to help bring me into the 160s, willing to pay, let me know if you can help :)

I am confused by question 8. I was down to C and E, ultimately chose E, but only due to pure luck.

I don't know why C is supported but E is not.

The potential support for C is in line 23, where it says "one problem in studying the effects of drilling waste discharges..." But it just says there is a problem in studying. It doesn't say that the study is done. Perhaps the study wasn't done due to the problem. Who knows? Another potential support is just the whole second and third paragraphs of Passage B. They tell us that WBM is less harmful than OBM to the environment. That potentially implies that a study was done?

The potential support for E is in line 32, where it says that Drilling mud is normally released during the drilling phase of a well's existence. We know that the mud is discharged, although we don't know if it is continuously discharged into the sea.

To me, C and E both have weak support. I don't know why C is more supported than E.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-1-passage-2-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-1-passage-2-questions/

Danino has expressed dissatisfaction that many genetic studies have attributed the ‘spread of agriculture’ into the subcontinent to migrations. Just to be sure that no one thinks that the practice of agriculture is in the genes, I would like to point out that the spread of the technology of agriculture was associated with the movement of people; agriculturists who took the technology to new regions and taught it to the locals in the new region. Movement of people implies movement of genes. Some migrants ‘export’ their genes to a new region by taking spouses from the new region and producing children with them who stay in the new region. We can never be sure that the attribution of agriculture having been introduced to the Indian subcontinent by migrants is fully true. However, genetic data do support this model, especially of the spread of modern, organized agriculture.

Having said this, I must also emphasize, once again, that collection of more extensive data is always more helpful in understanding our past and of the spread of our inventions and innovations. A Y-chromosomal signature, haplogroup J, was shown to be associated with the spread of modern agriculture. This signature has its highest frequency in the Fertile Crescent region – the region comprising the present-day countries of Syria, Lebanon, Turkey – where the technology of modern agriculture was invented about 7,000–10,000 years ago. Collection of deeper data showed that this signature is quite heterogeneous and is composed of at least four sub-signatures, one of which – haplogroup J2b2 – is confined to the India–Pakistan region.

This sub-signature arose over 13,000 years ago and hence its introduction into India could not have been by migrants who introduced modern agriculture into India. We showed that the haplogroup J2b2 possibly arose in India, because the highest frequency of this haplogroup is found in India. We discovered multiple epicentres of this haplogroup in India and interestingly these epicentres neatly coincided with the seats of introduction of early forms of agriculture in India (as evidenced by the study of fossilized pollen grains by Fuller and his team). It is unlikely that haplogroup J arose independently multiple times in geographically separated places. It probably arose in an ancient population who had spread themselves in geographically separated regions and they invented rudimentary forms of agriculture independently in multiple geographical regions. However, it is notable that these early forms of agriculture remained largely confined to India and Pakistan region.

Question:

Danino believed that genetic studies, which “attributed the ‘spread of agriculture’ into the Indian subcontinent to migrations,” are:

1)incorrect because migrants did not introduce agriculture into the subcontinent.

true because it was indeed migrants who introduced agriculture into the subcontinent.

only partially correct as early forms of agriculture were indigenously developed in the subcontinent.

originally results of expert intuition but later validated by an improved ability to decipher evidence.

Source : https://www.imsindia.com

Need help in finding POV!

Correct Answer is 3 .

But I find AC 1 more suitable because 1st line of passage "Danino expressed dissatisfaction....."

Hi guys,

After finishing the CC and taking a few practice tests, I decided that I'll need to slow down and first drill individual LR question types before diving into more full PTs. I've been using the question bank and doing individual questions timed then leaving one full 35 minute section of JUST that one problem type to do. Afterwards I review the questions. But I still find that I'm struggling and average -8 per section, section of just one problem type that is (which i feel like shouldn't be happening cause I literally did just so many of the SAME question type). I'm wondering how you guys went about this? How did you drill Q types for LR? What helped?

Thanks so much!

looking for people who plan to Study Group Online together no test date just to study

.

Hi everyone, I am posting because I recognized that I had actually blacken 29 ovals for the reading section and I am wondering whether I should cancel my score. Given that there were only 25 questions in the reading section, I must have repeatedly blacken several ovals. However, I cannot recall whether I made this dreadful marking mistake early on or not, but I feel like my entire response for RC is misplaced and the worst scenario is that I may score nothing for my RC section.

I am extremely anxious right now because the September exam is my fifth and also the final shot. I took my first exam last year and canceled the grade because RC smashed me. I score in the lower 150 twice and my highest score is 158 so far. I was hoping to use the September exam to boost up my score and get application done, but now all I want to do is to cancel my score...

Do you have any suggestion? Should I cancel this time and apply with the 158? Or should I keep it and retake in November? If I decided not to cancel this time, will a extremely low score hurt my overall application? Thanks so much and any help is appreciated!

Hey everyone! I am looking for some awesome strategies on improving timing for LG. I noticed that most of the time, I can do LG to complete perfection in blind review or when I practice untimed (bad habit, I know). But during timed conditions, I ALWAYS run out of time from spending too much time up front on the first game. The only thing that has made somewhat of a difference thus far is doing all of the "if" questions first and then going back and doing the other questions that don't present new info. So if anyone has any time-saving tips I would be forever grateful!!!

Hello All,

I have taken the LSAT a number of times, and most of the time my score is unsatisfactory in comparison to what I had been PTing. Most recently, I scored a low 160 when I had been averaging 170+ the last 7 or so PTs previously. Any advice on what I could be doing wrong?

LG I have down to -0 and RC I know I can improve. I think most of the issue is LR, where I feel like the questions I PT are so much different (and easier) than the ones that show up on the real exam. I don't strictly recreate exam day conditions during PT, but maybe even less than ideal conditions (people walking around, visual/audio distractions, etc.) and yet I still do well on PTs and not on the official exam.

Any help is greatly appreciated, thanks y'all

For question 19 of section 3 on the october 2008 test, the stimulus reads: "Bureaucrat: The primary, constant goal of an ideal bureaucracy is to define and classify all possible problems and set out regulations regarding each eventuality. Also, an ideal bureaucracy provides an appeal procedure for any complaint. If a complaint reveals an unanticipated problem, the regulations are expanded to cover the new issue, and for this reason an ideal bureaucracy will have an ever-expanding system of regulations."

Answer choice A reads "An ideal bureaucracy will provide an appeal procedure for complaints even after it has defined and classified all possible problems and set out regulations regarding each eventuality."

In negating this answer choice, I believe that the clause "even after it has defined..." all the way to the end remains constant in both the answer choice and its negation. If this is the case, how does it not break the conclusion of the argument that "an ideal bureaucracy will have an ever-expanding system of regulations."?

Hello everyone! I took the November LSAT, and while it wasn’t exactly what I hoped for, I scored a 155. I’m scheduled to retake the test in January and would love to connect with someone local who’s in a similar score range to study together.

For reference, I’m currently scoring between 155–160 and blind reviewing at 166.

I’ve taken a month off, so I might be a bit out of practice. If you’re planning to test later, that’s fine—I'm in the same position. I won’t be applying this cycle, so I’m hoping to connect with someone to study and stay motivated together.

P.S. I am a 23-year-old black female and would feel most comfortable studying with another woman.

How can I properly drill my LR. Should I go up in difficulty as time goes on, or should I mix the difficulty up? Should I focus on one question type at a time, or should I again mix up the question types. When should I do full sections timed? For context, I have been studying for over a year now and have already taken the exam with LG games, Now trying one last time either September or October.

Listen and subscribe:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify

7Sage Live Instructor Max shares the changes that transformed his prep, from sharpening his conditional diagramming to tightening his grammar skills. Learn how you can apply his techniques no matter where you are in your LSAT journey.

I just scored a 164 on PT133.

Anyone have any tips for improvement/strategizing? Context I am sadly juggling a full-time job, so my study schedule is either an entire section or drill before work in the morning, blind reviewing that section /drill after work. I usually take a PT on Saturday. My blind review is 2-3 days of me thoroughly reviewing each question, as I feel this the best space for growth. So in reality I only do 2-4 sections a week.

I have been slacking this week sadly as I am being made privy to the realities of working at a law firm (immigration, fun times :)) and have almost 0 energy in the morning, but I will get back on it tomorrow morning. I wanted to know if any tutors or anyone in general had thoughts or any advice in general based on what they see above, as well as navigating full time job + lsat prep, even though I know this question has been beat to death.

Further context, I delayed to apply next cycle, so I'm trying to take the February or April exam, aiming for a 172. Thanks for any help!!!

When we violate a principle, are we essentially negating that principle?

PRINCIPLE: If you intentionally misrepresent someone's beliefs, then you do so in the interest of another person.

VIOLATION: If you intentionally misrepresent someone's beliefs, then you DO NOT do so in the interest of another person.

I am basing my example off of LSAT PT 140 S1Q19.

I had a really hard time understanding the answer choices, which is why I missed this one. I don't understand how D is the flaw.

Determinism is the belief that everything has a preceding cause sufficient for its occurrence. This belief is wrong since we cannot know the complete state at any given time since we cannot accurately measure both the position and velocity of a subatomic particle at the same time.

What I am looking for: Is knowing the complete state relevant? Why can't a complete understanding of the state of the universe be beyond our understating and determinism still be correct? Next, is not accurately measuring position/velocity of subatomic particles evidence for not knowing the complete state of the universe?

Answer A: This isn't the flaw in the reasoning. Just because we can't know at the same time doesn't mean we can't know them independently.

Answer B: This is what I chose, and I chose it because I couldn't figure out what D actually said. I guess this isn't the flaw since the argument isn't saying "since we can't know the complete state of the universe we can't know the states of the particles." I think this statement is backwards since the lack of knowing the states of the particles is used to support the idea that we don't know the state of the universe.

Answer C: Isn't this exactly the same idea as A? Skip.

Answer D: I don't understand how this is the flaw. Where does the argument claim that there is "no complete state of the universe?" The argument only says "it's impossible to know the complete state of the universe" because we don't know the complete state of the subatomic particles. The point of the argument is that determinism is incorrect, but I don't see how saying determinism is false means that there is no complete state of the universe. Why can't determinism be wrong since the preceding cause isn't sufficient for the occurrence, or for some type of negation of the necessary conditions provided in the first 2 sentences?

Answer E: I don't really know why this is wrong other than it just "feels" wrong.

I find myself getting stuck on a lot of weaken/strengthen questions in RC because I just don't know how to approach it. In LR I always tell myself to look for assumptions and overlooked possibilities, and in general think of making the premises less supportive or stronger support for the conclusion, and also staying away from trap answers that independently attack the conclusion or deny premises. However, in RC there's not really clear premises or reasoning so I find it hard to wrap my head around how we're supposed to then strengthen or weaken an author's argument, and whether we should consider ACs that seem to independently go against their position or give an independent reason to strengthen it.

Any suggestions on how to think about these questions?

I got everything wrong on the three-question set. I don't know what I should to improve

Any help is appreciated

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 took the exam in Asia, so I believe its a non-disclosed exam. It's my first write and unfortunately, I completely lost track of time because of exam nerves (completely my fault, I know) and ending up having to guess the last page for both reading comprehension and logic games. Honestly, like a random guess, not even an educated guess. This sucks and I know that I shouldn't have let it get to me, but I would be lying to say it didn't affect my performance at all for my later sections. I feel like the material itself was not extremely difficult and quite similar to my practice tests, but I guess the whole "realness" of the testing conditions scared the living crap out of me so I messed up. I think this is definitely something I can work with, by setting up more realistic practice test taking conditions. The question is, I want some confirmation whether I should cancel or not. I would love some advice. The law schools I'm planning to apply to take my highest only, but I feel like because I bombed this one so hard I want kind of a somewhat "clean slate" for my next write. Hoping for the best.

Greetings everyone,

I just wanted to see what you guys thought f the passage I mentioned in the title. I had a very hard time understanding it. Some feedback would be great.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-67-section-1-passage-2-passage/

Hi there. I received my Sept LSAT score (167) last night and scored substantially lower than my prep-tests (avg173). I knew walking out of the test that my score would be lower as I screwed up the timing on my RC section pretty substantially and ended up rushing through the last passage, barely reading and answering the questions. My top school is NYU -- I was planning on applying ED and for the RTK scholarship. I am going to retake in December, but this eliminates the opportunity to apply ED and for the RTK scholarship ( I think?).

I guess I'm wondering if there are any other options-- is there any point in applying ED with my Sept. LSAT score and allowing my December score to come in later? Or is it possible to apply to the RTK scholarship with a Dec LSAT score (the application is technically due Jan 1st. but Dec. LSAT score release date is Jan 4th).

Applying as early as possible is something that has been emphasized so much by advisors that I guess I'm feeling apprehensive about a December retake, but I am confident that I can raise my score by at least 3 pts.

Any Advice would be much appreciated.

Hey all!

I just scored a 156 and BR'd a 164 on PT 82 (the Flex version) this may not seem like the best score to a lot of people but my first diagnostic last year was a 142 - so to me, this means the world because it means progress!

I am still very anxious as my goal is a 160 for the January Flex test, so I would like to be scoring between a 161-163 (or higher lol) for going into January. My weakness lies in RC, I've come a long way but just can't seem to find any consistency in it.

Wondering if anyone knows anything about this RC section (is it an easier one or is it average?) Also wondering what study tips were most effective for you in RC. I've been doing as many passages as I can, blind reviewing, and going through the answers in JY's videos. I've found this to be really helpful but as always I'm open to suggestions! I also scored -10 on this LR section which I think is unusual for me.

Yay to progress and staying positive!

Hi everyone,

I am Leon, a new 7 Sager. Hope everyone did or will do well on the March LSAT!

As the March LSAT just ended here (in Taiwan), I knew I was not fully prepared so will go for a retake. I have some concerns about which 7 sage package I should choose. I am currently around 155-160 and aims for high 160s (yeah a low 170s will be great but I am trying to not give myself too much stress). As my time is ticking and my budget was somewhat limited (I worked full-time while studying LSAT). So I am considering between the basic package and the premium one.

My concern was to what extent the core curriculum was different between these two packages? (LR part only)

When I used the 7 sage schedule planner, the two schedule showed different courses corresponding to my selected package. I thought the starter also cover all the courses and the differences were more about other parts like question crack tips. (My strongest part has been LG (-2 to -4). As to RC, the result of my whole-day internet research suggested that RC was not what most people recommend when they choose 7 sage package. So for now my main focus was about the LR courses in each package.)

Should I manage to go through the LR courses or I should focus on on thorough BR reviews and doing PTs?

On a LR section, I usually got -8 on average with a 2 pt variation. In BR, it's usually about -5 (for I was sometimes overconfident for some type of questions so I even did not notice my lack of skills/understanding on certain easier questions; other times, I missed some basic level questions because I misread the given stimulus.) Thus, I felt my weakness was not on a particular Q type of question (esp. from Q 1-12, my errors were always here and there.) But it was more like an overall LR weakness.

I have finished the bible, manhattan, and the trainer. Also, I made a sheet for my attack plan on each question type. But, somehow the question stimulus can always gave me difficulties and ACs could be really confusing regardless of how much I tried to refine my attack method. I am guess it was because I was not paying enough attention to dissect and REALLY understand each stimulus and its argument types and structure. I want to go thorough all of the 7 sage LR courses, but it might cost me too much time. Then I won't have time to really plow through a good amount of PTs. But I am also not sure about how helpful the LR courses were in helping my LR scores.

Would really appreciate any advice/suggestion since no one I knew studied for LSAT here!

Thanks a lot.