I've been averaging in the mid-150s on the prep tests and I don't know what to do. I have been studying fiendishly for the last two months and my scores haven't improved. I really, really need a higher score and with test day only a month away I'm having a hard time keeping my spirits up and my head in the game. Does anyone have advice for how I could maybe approach this in a new, more useful way? Thanks, guys.

I think the error that author makes is false equation (population # = # of library users) but can someone explain answers (B) and (E) in further detail? Thanks in advance! :)

I'm having a hard time understanding how this answer choice follows logically from the premises.

Greetings, fellow 7Sagers and JY Ping fanboys (or fangirls). I'm hoping to use your collective brilliance to help solve a small dilemma I have regarding how to proceed in my studies. If you were slated to take the June 2016 test date, would you:

(A) Complete all of the 7Sage coursework and then take ALL of the prep tests (PTs 36-76) before the June test date. The goal here is to get as much practice as possible before the big day in June so that re-testing in Septemberis unnecessary. Let's call this the "eggs all in one basket" strategy.

(B) Complete all of the 7Sage coursework and then take MOST of the prep tests (PTs 36-65) before the June test. The goal here is to retain the remaining PTs (66-76) for practice, just in case I don't like my June score and want to improve by taking the LSAT again in September. Let's call this the "hedge your bets" strategy.

(C) Some other wonderful idea I have yet to think of (and of course, feel free to give that strategy the proper moniker of your choosing, as well).

Thanks in advance for all of your advice!

Hi all!

I seem to be struggling with main idea question on the RC portion. I usually narrow it down to 2 answers, but almost always choose the incorrect one. Did anyone else struggle with this? And what strategies did you use to overcome it?

I'm sitting for the Feb test, and if I could consistently get games to -1 or -0 as so many people say is possible then I'd be hitting 175+ on almost every test. I've read the games bible twice, I've done almost every game from preptests 7-38 several times with 7sage explanations, and yet I still can't seem to adapt to new wrinkles when I see a game for the first time. Time is an issue, as I constantly have to mechanically refer to the rules to check my work on questions. Diagramming any type of slightly unusual game is a huge problem. I'm particularly bad at seeing spatial patterns within games.

I don't know if I should stick with the strategy of repetition or what. Maybe the games will just get easier as I do the newer tests? I just have no confidence on this section whatsoever because my performance is so unreliable.

Any suggestions?

If A most are B and B most are C is it correct to say A most are C ?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-2-question-18/

18. Editorialist: The positions advanced by radical environmentalists often contain hypotheses that are false and proposals that are economically infeasible. But there is a positive role to be played even by these extremists, for the social and political inertia that attends environmental issues is so stubborn that even small areas of progress can be made only if the populace fears environmental disaster, however untenable the reasons for those fears may be.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the editorialist’s argument?

(A) The little progress that has been made in improving the environment is mainly due to the fear created by radical environmentalists.

(B) Radical environmentalists, by promoting their views, stimulate progress on environmental issues.

(C) Social and political inertia is most effectively overcome by an extremely fearful populace, regardless of whether its fears are well-founded.

(D) Radical environmentalists often put forth untenable positions in order to produce the fear that is required to bring about moderate reforms.

(E) Radical environmentalists advocate positions without regard for factual support or economic feasibility.

I am debating between A and B...

Why can't A be the correct answer choice? Is it because of the word mainly? or is it because answer choice (a) is saying that fear is the sufficient condition for the little progress to be made while the stimulus is saying that fear is the necessary condition for the progress?

Also, D seemed a little bit tricky but I eliminated that since we don't really know from reading the stimulus alone that environmentalists purposely said false things to create fear.. Is this the right way of thinking?

The correct answer choice is B, by the way. Thank you in advance!

I had it down to A and D and chose D. With that said, can someone destroy my reasoning for why A is not the right answer so that this sticks...

Ok, so what if pollen is transported from one region to another by wind, and human movement, we would have to assume that the pollen transferred is indistinguishable from the pollen that is KNOWN to have been unique to that area.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-49-section-4-question-08/

I place a because after the statements of interest in the stimulus and the statement that makes sense with a because coming after it I deem to be the conclusion. Is this an ideal strategy for argument labeling and mp questions?

I'm confused how to write the conditional logic for this. Can somebody please explain this? When I see how the video skipped over labeling the first sentence like a premise, I got confused why he then uses it in conditional logic (TMU---> IASC)? I also got confused with what to do with the third sentence. I thought its a conclusion because of the keywords thus, until I got to the last sentence. I understand how he got the conclusion as /TMU.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-15/

I wrote out my conditional for answer choice E as this:

Independent--> (/TF and EB)

Is that ok?

The video wrote Independent and /TF--> EB.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-19/

I'm doing really badly on this question type. I am going to rewatch the videos and lesson for this question type, but does anyone have any advice on how I can improve?

When I did this question type in the past, I got frustrated and skipped to the next question type, but this time I want to master it and do well on it. If someone could give me some constructive advice, I would be most appreciative!

Mystery loves company....I don't really study with people but it will be great to have a study buddy to hold each other accountable. We could meet up in public areas like cafes...library (preference)....etc. DM me if interested. Please only serious ppl...no crazy ppl. : )

I did not understand how and why he figured out which parts of the sentences he could use to make conditional statements from the video. He did not use conditional logic for the first sentence even though it had key words "not" and "are".

His diagram had:

LECC--> ELCI

ELCI--> LCI

LCI--> IH

I don't understand how he took from the sentence, "many people would do so" and instead wrote LCI. I'm just confused.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-06/

This question really baffles me. How can B be correct? If the probe reveals that the light reflected is much less, how would that support B? Please help, I'm so confused!

I understand now that the answer is A, but I am having a difficult time seeing why B is wrong. Answer Choice B says Theodora is ignoring the research cited by Marcia. Which I agree with since Theodora mentions people loosing their jobs in the meat industry and can't afford nutritional diets due to people becoming vegetarians. This shows Theodora ignoring Marcia's claim from the research.

I got confused because I feel there are two separate ideas being discussed. The first idea is in the first sentence in Marcia's argument and the first sentence in Theodora's argument. Which talks about whether vegetarian diet lead to nutritional deficiencies or not. Then there is the second idea, which is the second sentence in Marcia's argument and the second sentence in Theodora's which is lengthier. Marcia's second argument is vegetarians can get nourishment from nonanimal foods. Theodora argues by ignoring Marcia's research and claiming something else. Theodora gives the example of the people loosing their jobs and not affording nutritional diets. Since the second idea from both women's second sentences was lengthier from Theodora's argument I felt that was more important and chose answer choice B. How should I have approached this problem? I fail to see how the strength of the language in Theodora's first sentence vs Marcia's first sentence can be lead to the analysis and picking of answer choice A.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-61-section-2-question-08/

I did not understand the explanation in the video.

I diagrammed the following based on my understanding.

ES and PIL ---> OS

PIL ---> OS/e

Therefore, /E and PIL

I chose answer choice A thinking the only part that is missing from the premise to the conclusion is ES---> OS.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-61-section-2-question-03/

Given the LG section tests efficient use of time to accurately complete all four games within 35 minutes, what criteria do you use (if any) to determine when to template hypothetical diagrams (or not)?

An observation not judgement: JY in his videos tends to err toward mapping out possibilities early, which can recover time later on via more rapid answering of the questions. Equally important, the process tends to systemically reveal deeper inferences - absolutely critical to LG success.

On the other hand, there exists some point of negative returns on time invested. Too many hypotheticals take more time, can add clutter rather than clarity, and in the end not all were necessary. An alternative is to build hypotheticals "on the fly" specific to each question, and thereby build understanding along the way.

Clearly arguable trade-offs exist, but also for each LG (examined in hindsight) an optimal path. So my question to everyone (since we are not armed with hindsight) going into a new LG: What is your criteria and, most importantly, for each criterion what is your reasoning for doing so?

I translated the following into lawgic:

ES and SPIL --> OS

SPIL---> OS/e

/E and SPIL

Therefore, ES--> OS

I don't understand why in the video explanation the second sentence is dismissed. What does JW mean when he mentions it is not a necessary condition? So he strikes it out along with part of the last sentence and I don't understand why he does that either.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-1-question-03/

When it comes to CAUSATION strengthening and CAUSATION weakening questions, I know how to do them, but I have a hard time determining if causation is in the conclusion, which is needed to approach these questions correctly.

Can some please tell me what to toll for in order to do the correct?

I still don't understand why answer choice E is wrong. My understanding is, iIf stress is a symptom of a weakened immune system, then wouldn't that mean that symptoms such as stress then lead to or cause the weakened immune system?

stress as a symptom---> weakened immune system

I don't understand how and why Jon explained it that a weakened immune system is the sufficient and stress is the necessary? And that the causal relationship is flipped.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-1-question-07/

When I do the SA quizzes, I do exceptionally well. Actually, I have gotten all of the problems correct. However, when it comes to actually doing the SA problems on the test, I have a hard time transcribing the majority of the SA problems.

Can someone please give me advice on how to overcome this.

Very frustrated!!!

Admin note: Please don't post your title in all caps.

So LG3 rocked me, and I don't feel good about LG4 either. Usually my LG is near perfect. I'm talking -2 for an oversight and a rule substitution question. However, I think I did very well on RC, which I usually bomb on. LR neutral.

Benefits and drawbacks of a Feb retake? NEED a 160 for all of the schools I care to attend, and even if there is a healthy curve, I'm not sure I'll score in that range.

Anyone else in a similar boat? Need to vent? Need to retake? Not sure if I should be planning on waiting two more months before I can send apps. Might really hurt me. SO LOST.

When I do the SA quizzes, I do exceptionally well. Actually, I have gotten all of the problems correct. However, when it comes to actually doing the SA problems on the test, I have a hard time transcribing the majority of the SA problems.

Can someone please give me advice on how to overcome this.

Very frustrated!!!