I noticed on PT 74 and in previous PTs that passages can vary in terms of difficulty and at least # of questions.

I was pretty married to the idea of just going in order - even if easier ones are earlier (emphasis on if), I wanted to get easy points out of the way.

But now I'm reconsidering changing the order of passages. If not based on predicted difficulty, then based on doing the ones with Most Questions first. Thoughts?

Hey Everyone,

Got this question right when I did this initially, but having a tough time ruling out answer (D). I know at first glance it seems out of scope, but here's my reasoning why (D) could be right. If all scientific investigators don't receive any grants for which they apply, then they face no restrictions (ignoring anything that doesn't directly bear on the funded research), and therefore serendipity can still play a role. I know (D) sounds far-retched, but why can't it be a NA?

I know I've gone wrong somewhere in my thinking and I'd appreciate if anyone can help me out. Thanks!

Hello all,

I tried to post a photo of my idea to save copies, but failed! This really helped me keep track of my progress for the Fool proof method and has been working really well. New games have become a lot easier. Anyways, here's my layout:

Ex. On a full LG section, I drew a chart under each game as follows:

# Date # of Mins. Out of ( )

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

On the last game I expanded my chart:

# Date # of Mins. Out of ( ) Total time (35) Total Out of ( )

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

I then cut scratch paper in half to use as my space for game boards and to place my answers on. If you want to go to great lengths, you can write out answer choices on the scratch sheet, so you can track what you eliminated without writing on the master copy. If someone posted this idea already, oh well! Enjoy

Hey guys,

I am struggling with weakening questions, SA questions, and NA questions. I bought JY's starter package, and I am currently on the weakening questions section, and I am missing something, I just do not know what it really is. If it helps I am struggling more on the ones that are slightly hard, and just plain out hard. I know the term "hard" is so subjective, but I guess what I mean is that I am not struggling with the ones that are obvious. Is there something I can do to improve on this section? or if you guys can give me any pointers that would be great. I currently study about 4-5hrs sometimes more, about everyday, and if I am not studying I am reading online on how to approach certain questions, and how to progress in my understanding of the LSAT. What I am trying to project is that I am dedicated, motivated, and I really want a 99th percentile score. I do not like to be average, or just above average. So please, if you guys have any hints, tips, suggestions please let me know, anything that can help is greatly appreciated.

So the other day I got a crazy difficult game (curse you subzones) and I kinda panicked and sat there for the next 9 minutes. I wasn't sure what to do the whole time or even how to make a game board, which totally killed my score on what would have been a decent test.

I was just wondering what you all do you when get a crazy difficult game (other than panic). I know J.Y. talks about taking a step back and look at the questions but in this case it didn't work for me. Please share any strategies that you have when this happens to you. Thanks!!

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-39-section-2-question-12/

hello, I just want to make sure weather my reasoning was right.

It was infer question type.

summing the stimulus, it says A-> wrong.

but in the right answer choice, it says A is not right.

clearly, in my opinion, not right is not equal to wrong.

It is okay to say not right for wrong in 'infer' question type? or it is neglected because other four choices are utterly wrong.

I want to type the whole stimulus, but I'm not sure it is okay to put up an actual question here..

please help me,, many thanks!!

So we have a week left to get ready and I was planning on using my last week to complete PT 50-60(thats as far as i will have gotten). Are the newer PT's significantly different that i should be focusing on them instead of just completing up to PT 60 for the exam?

I am consistently getting perfect on the LG's and my LRs' are between -16 to -5 (least to most recent) and RC are between -8 to -4

So, is any section on the newer PTs harder that i should be prepping with those instead?

I just hit PT 65 and 66 and something definitely feels different with LR. Different enough that I have seen a few point dip in my score.

The questions aren't much more difficult, but some of the earlier questions in the sections are definitely trickier than they were in the 50s and early 60s. (For example, PT66, S4, Q5 -Q7: what is with these questions? They're not super difficult, but I wasn't breezing through the first half of the section like I have been the last preptests).

Has anyone else noticed this shift as well? LG and RC seem comparable to the other PT, but I've been getting more LR questions wrong than usual.

Do you guys have any advice on deciding when to map out all possible game boards after reading the conditions (for sequencing games) and when to tackle the questions and make inferences as they come? I've found that my intuition is awful with this - I never know when to map everything out or when I should just go straight to the questions. I usually start by trying to make some inferences and set up alternative game boards but sometimes it works and sometimes I get stuck. Then when I watch JY's explanation videos, he'll sometimes have set up like, 6 different boards for a game I didn't bother doing at all in the beginning, or it'll be the opposite where I've set up a ton of different boards in the beginning (and it's a time killer) and he just went straight to the questions. Any tips would be appreciated!

I keep missing two types of questions, "Which would the author most likely agree with" and "what is the author's attitude towards X". Other than that, I do very well on the RC section, how do you guys attack these particular questions?

Maybe have/do some type of study group? Idk about y'all, but I do and focus a lot better that way.

Would anyone be interested in a BR group for question types instead of PT? I thought this might be useful for those of us not quite ready to BR full PT or those of us that are still making our way through the curriculum. I also thought it would be a good way to keep me accountable and on track. If anyone is interested please let me know. Thx!

Since the beginning of this month I've been spending around 5 hours per day studying for the LSAT. Mainly I'm doing LR questions all day everyday. I do these untimed. I've seen a big improvement from when I first started doing them to now. I'm getting between 20 and 22 per section right consistently. However, today I took a practice test (timed and proctored) and only got 12 and 13 respectively right. I don't understand how I can be making so much improvement untimed and when I do this timed I revet back to only getting a 12 answers correct.

Do you think that allowing myself to do this completely untimed is actually hindering my improvement on a timed test? What do you think I should about this? The test is 3 weeks away and I'm consistently scouring well below what I want to be scoring. If it helps, when I take the test untimed I score between 164 and 166 every time. When I take the test timed (I've done this 3 times now) I only get a 149.

If any of you have any ideas I'd love to hear them. I devote my entire day everyday to this and I've gone through 7sage already and completed almost all of the lessons. Given that I can do reasonably well untimed, I think I have the foundation and basics of how to do the questions but for some reason I can't do any of this timed.

How would you guys write this out... Exactly one ambulance will reach the scene in time.

Wondering how relevant old logic games are for current LSATs. Is it best to do the logic game bundle (1-35) first so I don't "burn" through more recent logic game sections?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-1-question-17/

Conclusion: Hans purple was probably created by accident while someone was trying to make white glass.

Reasoning: Hans purple uses the same chemical ingredients and a similar process as making white glass.

When I first came across this question, my eyes immediately made their way to answer choice D. D states that the ingredients involved in making Hans purple and white glass were easily obtainable during the relevant time period. I reasoned that if the ingredients were easily obtainable, then people may be less cautious, and thus, an accident is more likely to occur. I guess I was just focused on the word, "accident".

But A is correct because it ties the two creations geographically. I understand this is a "hidden assumption"--if Hans purple was made on accident while someone was trying to make white glass, then it helps if the two come from the same place.

How did you guys fare on this question? Did you spot the problem immediately? I was also thrown off by the phrase, "small geographical region" in answer choice A. I thought to myself, "Who cares if it's a small region? Irrelevant."

I'm a little unclear on a few things. Perhaps you can help me out.

1. Is the idea to do one passage again and again for practice like the LG method? I ask this because it seems like the marginal returns will begin to diminish quite quickly. I suppose I'll be able to answer my question here empirically once I start doing this in earnest myself; but hey, what are these forums for if not to free ride a little bit?

2. If the answer to my first question is no, then why only 6-8 passages? Why not, time permitting, do this with literally every single passage that one doesn't plan take in a PT?

Hi everyone,

I just wanted some input from the group. I have been studying for months now and I am still not improving nor reaching my PT goal. Should I take my June test for the experience even though I'm sure I'll end up with a low score or just delay it to October? I've been delaying my LSAT several times so I feel like rather than pushing it behind yet again, taking it at least once now would be better. But by reading other forums lots of people say if one is not Pt-tng around their goal, then delay it. I'm aiming for a Canadian law school so many law schools just look at the highest LSAT score. Not sure it they will take into consideration of my other LSAT scores, for example I get a 141 on the June LSAT but for the October one I get a 167. Would love some feedback, thank you!

I have watched this lesson at least five times. I tried to do the questions but I can't weaken the argument. I don't know how to apply the Causation Theory and Strategy to each question. When I try to solve the questions all I think is the answer with the alternative cause is the correct one. Help.

Hey y'all.

Took PT62 this morning. Here's one thing I did differently in RC—and I think it helped quite a bit.

1) Read passage; make mental note of MP's, box key terms/people; mark pivots with an ">" in the margin. Follow each line with the tip of my pencil.

2) Notate MP1/MP2/Op (or AV) after the first read through.

I found myself MUCH less distracted by notations and able to retain considerably more of the passage doing this.

Hi 7Sagers!

I have noticed a number of times on PT's that every now and then, I run into a time sink on a game. When I check the 7Sage explanation, I discover that it was actually a rather simple game, that I've conquered much more challenging ones with way less feeling of oh-god-what-the-hell-is-this. So that's good news, but after reviewing the Logic Games Boards Cheat Sheet while watching explanation vids (a helpful tool to connect general theory to particular cases in games, as patterns start to emerge), I realized what was tripping me up every now and then on what should have been easy points for me: there was a RED HERRING in the game that was deliberately put there, ostensibly, to make me think there's an additional layer in my game board that I was missing. The test writers seem to like spending a fair amount of unnecessary words on a simple, not-that-restrictive distinction between players or something, but then they don't give you enough information to actually incorporate that distinction into your gameboard (at least for me to do so, and if I could, it would take more time than I have to comfortably finish the test).

Check out this example:

PT#55 Oct 2008 Game 3 - Sequencing Pure

The game starts off by announcing the first distinction: night vs. day shift. So now I'm already anticipating an IN/OUT set up. Next, it gives us the six players and a ranking task, suggesting sequencing. Okay. Got it. But I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop on the IN/OUT issue. The very next sentence feeds into that, by again highlighting the night/day distinction. I get what feels like valuable information for a game of IN/OUT with a sequencing task. SO, G T or S H are going to be the night, and the other 4 will be the day. So I'm thinking... okay, so it's IN/OUT, slots determined and sequencing task in subcategories. I've already bought into the time sink the test writers set up for me.

In an 8 line blurb before the list of sequencing rules, FIVE of those 8 lines were spent describing things in terms of this night/day distinction. Heck, the very purpose of the whole scenario the game describes is to COMPARE TWO GROUPS. No matter.

On a good morning, when I'm feeling like an LSAT baller, I would have wondered at first if I'm about to get an IN/OUT set up, and then gotten to the rules and seen that what I can draw is a sequencing board, with the typical sequencing rules, jot down a note of the two pairs that I'm told are night shift (in case I'm told what to do with that in a question), and call it a day. I'd have been on a mission, to get where I'm going, which is to the questions, where I can pick up points with the information I do have, and a mental footnote to remember the cliffhanger that may or may not require me to reconsider my set up (I hate when that happens, but accepting the possibility and moving on to find out would have been a lot quicker than getting stuck in a time sick of anxiety because I can't tolerate the uncertainty of that nasty little what-do-I-do-with-this-night/day-issue cliffhanger, staring at the page as I waffle over my setup, looking for something that, lo-and-behold, is not there).

On a bad morning, when I wake up feeling groggy and resenting the fact of this overinflated poriton of my law school app process, I am more like a new driver waiting to make a turn onto a busy road, sitting at a full stop with my blinker on, watching the cars go by, along with 2, maybe 3 solid opportunities to make the turn comfortably.

When I check my answers after a more or less demoralizing testing experience (which only reinfored the antipathy I had for this being something I need to do, because at some point I realize I'm distracted by my own hesitation as I move through the test, losing me points that could be the difference between a high 160's and low 170's - ugh), I am just kicking myself because the thing that stalwarted me the most was a freaking 5 minute standard sequencing game - one of the skills I can do almost reflexively. I'm normally happy to see those!

Moral of the story: another benefit of practice, beyond the level of certainty that comes with familiarity, is getting comfortable with red herrings. Zero in on them, and compare them to the kind of game that ACTUALLY has the issue you took the bait for in another game. Don't just say after watching the video, oh god, I can't believe I missed that, what an easy game, and then move on. Revisit your own thought process, because when something THAT easy sunk you THAT much time, you probably were tripping on the LSAT, who loves to be a tease. Find out what lured you in, and compare it to a similar game where the issue you anticipated actually activates.

I'm on the look out for a game that I can compare to the one I discussed in this post, and I'm sure it won't be hard to find a few given the issue tags marked on the list of games explanation videos. I'll post back when I find some. If anybody sees a game that could compare well (i.e. one where in/out and sequencing issues are both actually activating in the set up stage), I would love to hear from anyone so I can check it out.

Best!

Clarissa H.

Has anyone successfully used highlighters during an actual test. I have begun using highlighters and they certainly increase my understanding of the passage but also takes more time to get through the passage. I am using 3 colors right now , maybe I should switch to 2.

I'm quite confused about Q.16.

I thought B and C could be right answers too, but I am still not sure why they're wrong. And I don't get why E is a better answer.

(B) The first and second paragraphs talked about outcomes analysis (Zirkel and Schoenfeld were enthusiastic about and criticized traditional legal research by using it.) Besides, L 13~15 also talked about the two scholars. So that's why I thought C could be an answer too.

(C) Because of L 2~6, I thought C could be an answer too.

What's the differences among E (which is the right answer), B and C?

And why is E is a better answer than them?

Please someone enlighten me.

Thanks in advance!

I can't remember what JY says about this, but when I read the LR Powerscore Bible they strongly emphasized reading every single answer choice. I'm scoring in the mid to high 160s now and I've gotten pretty good at knowing when I'm certain it's the right answer and when I'm not so sure (I used to not know what I didn't know lol). Once or twice per section, I know the right answer immediately without a doubt. Do you think it's still necessary to read through the remaining answer choices? If I skipped reading the remaining answer choices, I could devote 5 - 30 seconds checking another question or devoting more time to a harder question. What do you guys think: still read all the answer choices or don't bother?

What are some important things to do during the last month of the LSAT...?