If anyone is interested in doing proctored mock exams in the GTA-Mississauga/Toronto area contact me!!!

I took the Dec test but did not feel I aim my goal. Will re-take, looking for a study buddy to do PTs together for January. I am close to Emory. And prefer to do PTs in the morning testing time.

[I am posting on behalf of a 7Sage user. Please feel free to leave your comments below. Thank you for your help!]

I've been studying with 7Sage for about a year now and I have a question regarding embedded conditionals. I know there's already a lesson on how to translate an embedded conditional; however, I found a weird conditional while studying the LSAT and was wondering how you would go about translating this one as it's the opposite of the embedded conditional.

What is taught in the embedded conditional module on 7Sage is that when you see, "If A, then /B unless C" you just translate it to, "A and B, then C"

I understand this. But while studying LR, I found an unusual type of embedded conditional that goes the other way around. How would you go about translating this? The embedded conditional, I forgot what specific PT/ question, said something along the lines of: "/A unless B, then C." Just confused on how to translate this as this is not the same as the former example provided by J.Y. Would it still be the same translation? I don't think it would, right?

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/mastery-embedded-conditional/

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/mastery-embedded-conditional-proof/?ss_completed_lesson=1107

Hello! I wanted to ask how do you guys do drilling, and how many questions should I do for drilling? It would mean a lot thank you!

So guys, I found a strategy that worked for me on logic games and this may not necessarily work for everyone.

But with days before the test day, for those of you who are struggling with logic games this MAY help you out. The sections I struggle with the most are RC and LR, hence I spent a lot of my time on these sections to improve my score while I neglected LG a bit since everyone was saying it's the easiest section to improve on.

I went from scoring -6 on LG to 0/-2 in only a few days.

This is what I did. Last week, I reviewed all the CC logic game videos (ie. I watched JY do the diagramming/questions for each type of game type not including the problem sets). I already did the problem sets in the past but it was a while since I touched logic games and I wasn't scoring as high as I would like.

Logic games is one of those sections that you can improve on. People on this forum aren't lying!! Thank you to everyone who helped me out with games btw!

After going through all the CC videos, I would recommend doing some of the games on the CC if you found it pretty hard to follow along with JY's inferences/diagrams etc. I know the miscellaneous games can be pretty nerve-racking but honestly, those games all involve the basics that we have been taught with logic games. Diagramming for misc. games might be the most difficult part but I would honestly recommend visualizing the scenario in your head. This helps a lot with diagramming, especially for me. I feel like once you dive into the game.. they aren't actually that hard since they involve the same type of questions etc. Reviewing the CC videos again just refreshed my mind with the possible types of logic games and I tried to draw the same types of inferences that JY was drawing. The games are really repetitive hence why I think this approach worked.

After I had re-watched the CC logic games videos, I printed 1-2 copies of PT 60-82 sections. I did all the sections timed and then re did the games or sections that I really had trouble with timed. I can honestly say, this process has helped me so much with logic games.

I obviously am pretty proficient with the conditional rules, diagramming, etc. so I found majority of the games to be pretty easy.

Again, this worked for me and may not work for everyone but I think it was worth sharing!

Feel free to ask me questions below incase I missed anything!

Good luck on the December test everyone!

Just took my first digital lsat prep test and my score suffered greatly because i have trouble reading from the tablet and overall just underlining and highlighting was difficult from my ipad. Anyone else have a similar issue?

I've been taking some Practice tests for a while, but when I do them, my LSAT scores are pretty low, around 150. However, my Blind Review scores has been improving up to 160-164 consistently. I can't seem to bridge the gap, and want to know how anyone else fixed that problem? When I do BR's I usually choose my second choice, which is always right, instead of taking more time to actually read the question I just click that one and move on, so I'm not sure if timing is the problem? I would also like to see how to choose my second choice on the real test first. If anyone has any tips, please let me know.

Now you can mention another user in a group chat with `@`.

We've got more features for chat in the works…

Does anyone notice that on newer PTs, there have been more instances of themselves comparing answer choices in LR and asking which is the better one? (Especially with strengthen/weaken questions.) This is just something I've noticed myself doing more often on the newer PTs, whereas in the older ones, once in a while there might be a question that makes me do that, but most of the time the wrong answers have a very definitive reason as to why they're wrong.

Would love to know if this is actually a trend with how the LSAT is changing.

Goodluck everyone!

Hi! I've been studying for approximately 6 months - I scored a 157 Oct 2023, then a 155 Nov 2023 (my fault, I was burnt out by the time I did the Oct that I wasn't mentally prepared for Nov). My highest timed PT has been a 163, but it fluctuates from 156-163, yet my BRs are usually 165+. Timing seems to be my kryptonite. It's not really a matter of running out of time, it's a matter of rushing and missing vital information whilst timed. Any tips on improving my timed score? I usually spend 2-3 hours per day studying, and on weekends I try to do 3-4. Despite that time allocated, I feel like I barely get any practice in, as BR and review takes up a chunk of time. I believe I understand the concepts, but it all fades away when the clock's ticking.

I've been doing 3-section PTs from the PrepTests section, and plan to do a simulation LSAT 4-section PT (1 experimental) this weekend. I've tried timed and untimed drills, but haven't noticed any improvement. Please let me know if you other methods to improve timing!

LR and RC are the consistent sections throwing me for a loop when timed.

When I do logic games, I usually follow these steps:

I realized one thing I neglect to do is thinking about the structure of the base. This is a bad move on my part! Thinking about what kind of base we are dealing with helps clarify the game! Below I’ve detailed the 3 main types of bases in logic games.

1. Sequenced Bases

The only difference between the bases is the order in the sequence.

Example 1: PT01S2G3

The game is a pure sequencing game. It is telling us the order of the partners joining the law firm during the years 1961 through 1968. Therefore, our gameboard is going to be 8 slots, with each slot corresponding to each year.

Example 2: PT13S1G3

This game is a sequencing game with grouping elements. We have 2 lectures, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, on 3 days. Therefore our gameboard will have sequenced days (1, 2, and 3) with lecture spots for the morning and afternoon on each day. Each day is equal. It is the lectures that are different and have rules attached to them, which affect the days.

Example 3: PT01S2G1

This game is unusual at first glance, but after understanding the setup, we can see how it’s just another sequencing game. The trade reps are sitting around a circular table in sequenced chairs. This is just another sequencing game with the caveat that chairs 1 and 6 are next to each other, which the LSAT writers have explicitly mentioned! Each chair is the same as the chair next to it, except for its order in the circle.

2. Distinct bases

These bases are different from each other. They can show up in both grouping and sequencing games.

Example 1: PT14S1G1

This is an example of a grouping game with distinct sequenced bases. Our groups are the different positions of the employees: president, manager, and technician. The groups are sequenced because an employee must be supervised by a position that is different from the employee’s position.

Each group has a different characteristic. There is only one spot in the President group. The employees in the President and Manager groups have differing supervising rules. An inference is that the employees in the Technician group do not supervise anyone.

Example 2: PT09S3G2

All in/out games have distinct bases! One group is in and the other is out. Here, we have 7 people and exactly 4 can be in the in group. Therefore 3 must be in the out group. These requirements for the number of elements that must be in the two groups help us determine where the elements can go.

Example 3: PT14S1G4

This is a great example of a game where the differing requirements for the different bases are the key to splitting. Our bases are fall, winter, spring, and summer. Each of the bases are different because Nikki and Otto are limited to playing different sports in each season.

3. Interchangeable bases

In this category, the bases are independent and have no relation to each other.

Example 1: PT15S4G4

This is an in-out game and while the in and out groups obviously differ (with one being in and the other being out), the in group has interchangeable subgroups. Let’s focus on that part. All we know about the in group is that it is composed of 4 teams with two elements each. The four bases here are the four interchangeable teams with 2 elements each.

SPOILER WARNING: There aren’t too many examples of these in PTs 1-35. This is why I’m including PT 62 as Example 2.

Example 2: PT62S3G2

We are tasked with figuring out the colors for 3 stained glass windows. The three windows are our groups and they are totally interchangeable. From figuring this out, we can start placing elements in our groups. This is because the order in which the elements are placed doesn’t matter and we can focus on placing the elements down as is required by the rules of the game.

Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions/corrections and thank you for reading!

I've

I don't see how D seriously undermines the hypothesis. How do we know anything about the death of diatoms? For this answer to work, you have to assume that Antarctic diatoms die near Antarctica (why can't they move or float away, or the death shells float away?) Lastly, don't you have to assume that the sediment left by the death shells would be indicative of a population increase? Aren't life and death two totally different ideas?. How are we supposed to know that these are OK assumptions?

Take for instance A (just for the sake of argument, I understand that A is incorrect). I think A would work if you assume diatoms of today are similar to diatoms during the ice age. You would also need to assume that the "unusually large amounts of ferrous material" that does not exist today would not promote a further increase in their population today. How are these assumptions less reasonable than the ones needed for D to be correct?

Thanks in advance and I hope this helps other people as well. (I watched J.Y.'s video, but I would like to see more strategies that work).

Anyone else get messed up by this when they PT'd this test? I got owned pretty bad. Watched the video that J.y. put up though

Looking to meet up a few times a week.

If you're taking the January 2019 LSAT and your account is inconveniently set to expire a few days before the test date, you can get a free 14-day extension from this page: https://classic.7sage.com/free-extension/

For those of you who are expiring after, good luck on the LSAT! We here at 7Sage are rooting for you.

https://7sage.com/lessons/logical-reasoning/necessary-assumption-questions/na-lesson-1-pt64-s3-q12

Would someone correct my conditional logic steps that may lead to the condition that forms the answer:

Premise 1: "some gardening books published by Garden Path recommend tilling the soil and adding compost before starting a new garden on a site"

(domain) gardening books:

published by GPP <-s-> tilling AND compost (1)

Premise 2: "they (those same books) do not explain the difference between hot and cold composting."

published by GPP <-s-> / diff H&C composting (2)

Premise 3: "any gardening book that recommends adding compost is flawed if it does not explain at least the basics of composting"

(domain) gardening books :

/ basics composting -> flawed (3)

Conclusion: "some books published by Garden Path are flawed."

published by GPP <-s-> flawed (4)

(4) is the same as :

flawed <-s-> published by GPP (5)

combining (5) and (2)

flawed <-s-> published by GPP <-s-> / diff H&C composting (6)

based off of (6)

flawed <-s-> / diff H&C composting (7)

Combine (7) and (3)

/ basics composting ->/ diff H&C composting

contrapositive:

diff H&C composting -> basics composting

Based on the above D should be the answer perhaps?

Though certainly there is a flaw in there somewhere particularly with the <s> relationships inference etc.

Listen and subscribe:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify

Ever wonder which LSAT questions are really the toughest? In this episode, we dig into the data behind the hardest LSAT questions—breaking down the overall proportions of different question types and then zooming in on how those proportions shift within the notorious Harder and Hardest difficulty levels. You’ll get a clearer picture of which question types dominate the hardest tiers, how that compares to the test overall, and what that means for your study strategy.

Hi everyone. I'm realizing that a significant portion of my missed points comes from my RC section. When I do it under unlimited time, I get a pretty good score but under timed conditions, I usually miss 10-12 questions every time. When I get to the last passage, I sometimes only have 5 minutes, so I feel like I guess a lot of the last couple questions. Is there any practical advice that anyone can share for getting better with timing and accuracy that has worked for them...other than doing drills over and over?

Thank you!!

One of my favorite parts of this course was the opening statement about the mechanisms that ensure the test will have good questions, and we should therefore be less concerned about arbitrary distinctions. You say that there is a large board, review processes internally, and there are incentives for test takers to appeal problems since it will improve their scores.

I take issue with the last premise though. I took the LSAT a few months ago and had two really large issues with the administration.

For one thing it started 2-3 hours late and was administered terribly with lots of loud sounds and talking. I wrote a complaint to the LSAC about this and nothing happened. This hurts my confidence in the fairness of the test.

Second, I had a strong suspicion about one of the questions being incorrectly written, but since the questions aren't posted anywhere and there seemingly isn't a way to appeal for adjustments, I have a strong suspicion JY was wrong in his initial course. I do not think there is any way to appeal questions, which is such a shame since this is such an important test and it is developed by a private company with zero oversight and a profit incentive to crank questions out as cheaply as possible.

Hey guys!

I'm finding that I'm still having trouble really intuitively knowing when my job in Parallel Method of Reasoning q's is to mirror the lawgic/structure of the argument, and when we're being asked to carry that train of thought/conclusion/principle into the answer choices (please don't say it's always about structure; maybe I'm not articulating what I mean correctly, but it's defintily 100% the case (after watching many many of JY's videos) that we're asked to carry the salient claim/reasoning into our selection of answer choice. (Ie. PT17.s2.q24 from Problem Set 3; or PT28.s3.q26 also from set 3).

The second q stem reads "which one of the following arguments is most similar in it's reasoning to the argument above?" Both answer choices seem to emphasize an especially strong match with part of the argument, not just a simple structural match...but the stems don't really do all that much to tell us that.

But after going through the practice sets in the curriculum, I can't seem to accurately/quickly distinguish whether paralleling the pattern of reasoning will refer to finding a parallel conclusion, or more broadly, overall parallel structure.

So sorry if this post sounds beyond confusing--I realize my attempt to articulate my struggle isn't great--but I'm just a little surprised that (if this issue really does exist, and I'm not just creating problems....happens) that it's not distinguished/discussed in the curriculum "as a thing".

N.

A

I read the LSAT bibles and took a few paper tests for a month, and then I spent 3 months on 7Sage. Thank you to JY, 7Sage community, and @GrindMode . If you put your effort into LSAT study, you can make huge strides. Don't forget your spiritual, physical, and mental health along the way. Peace.