Hello All,

If I want to create a few LR practice set, how should I break it down according to what the LSAT will be like? How many of each question type should I include?

Thanks.

I really don't like any of these answer choice, but I was pretty confident when I eliminated D. Can someone explain how D resolves the paradox? In my mind, it makes it weirder.

Right after the war, the area that had been subject to oil fires and oil spills had less contamination than prewar surveys indicated. The surveys also indicated that PAHs were low compared to those in more temperate oil producing areas.

What I am looking for: If the land had been contaminated with all of this bad stuff during the war, then how was their less contamination after the war than before? Maybe the survey was wrong? Maybe some people cleaned up the land?

Answer A: Who cares about the effects. We want to know how there was more contamination.

Answer B: I think this makes the paradox weirder. Shouldn't there have been more PAH compared to that in temperate regions?

Answer C: This is what I chose, but I didn't like it all that much. Even if this is true, this explains why PAHs were low compared to temperate regions, but it doesn't explain anything about before the war levels and after the war levels. What if after the war levels of PAH were higher than before the war, but after the war levels were still lower than the Baltic Sea regions? It fits the facts and makes the paradox weirder.

Answer D: I felt 110% confident eliminating this one, and I can't figure out how this does anything but make the paradox weirder/do nothing. If peacetime oil production results in high levels of PAH and oil dumping, then this could mean two things: 1.) this answer choice is talking about the period of time after the war (which definitely does not help the paradox since we want to know why all of this bad stuff was lower than before the war) or 2.) this is talking about before the war. But if this latter case is what this answer choice is talking about, then wouldn't we need to have the relative contamination effects of oil dumping, oil fires, and oil spills? So yes, during the war, oil production declined (line 4), but a ton of bad contaminating things still happened. How is it OK to assume that the contaminating things in answer choice D (prior to the war) had a greater effect than the stuff that happened during the war? What if they actually had a lesser effect on the environment than the fires and spills during the war? This is a plausible occurrence, consistent with the facts in the passage and facts in the answer choice; this would make the paradox weirder, right? I used this same type of reasoning (coming up with a scenario consistent with the facts) to eliminate C.

Answer E: OK, but why was the contamination less after the war? Wouldn't this imply that the damage wasn't as bad as it could have been, but there was still an increase in damage?

I missed this one during the timed exam, and I didn't change it during BR since I didn't see how A fully explained the facts.

Over the past five years, the number of car thefts has decreased while the likelihood of someone being convicted of stealing a car has increased.

What I am looking for: What if the technology to catch someone has increased so much that people are deterred from stealing a car and those that do get caught easily/have a lot of evidence against them? What if all of the "good" car thieves have been caught, and just a few really bad/easy to catch car thieves try to steal cars?

Answer A: The first part definitely explains the fact that the number of thefts have decreased: there are fewer thieves. I don't really see how the second part has anything to do with the conviction rate, though. So what if they abandon the car later? What does that have to do with conviction? Not sure about the LSAT's logic with this one...

Answer B: I picked this originally, but when I read it during BR, I really didn't like it all that much. Since I still didn't like A, I kept this during BR. The car alarm idea might explain the lack of car thefts superficially, but if people ignore them, why are there fewer thefts? The thieves probably wouldn't be dissuaded.

Answer C: This might make the situation weirder. If police resources are not used on car thefts, then how has the conviction rate increased? Wouldn't thieves try to steal more cars often if the police don't spend their time on such crimes?

Answer D: This also makes the situation weirder. This suggests that stealing cars is very profitable, so why would there be a decrease in the number of thefts?

Answer E: It's hard to see how there being more young car thieves helps explain the idea that car thefts have decreased in frequency. Also, the fact that they are given short sentences suggests that they will come right out and steal cars again.

As the title says, I was around -3 on LG when I stopped studying last year and now I'm -10. I would prefer not to go back into the studying materials. Does anyone have any recommendations for filling in that knowledge gap?

So I am taking the LSAT in September with the new revised model, so I am skipping the LG sections and focusing hard on LR and RC. I wanted to ask what is the best routine to integrate drills into the study session.

I hear a lot of the drills come from PT, and burning though Drills means come PT time, you have essentially already seen some of the questions prior (do I have this right?).

So I wanted to ask if this is the same for post August PTs aswell, and for those taking it without LR, how are you using your PTs and Drills

Any help is valued. Thanks!

Hey 7Sage,

12 days until the Sept exam, WOOT! I am seeking advice on what PTs to do in the next two weeks. I have already done nearly

all the exams. My only completely untouched exams are old exams -- 39 and 44. Maybe also 10 and 13. Thus, I don't think I should focus on those in the next two weeks, although they are new to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think I want to look at the newest PTs again, since they're nuanced compared to older tests. I have done 70-72 and 75-80 once each. I figure I will do 3 more before the 16th. Should I do 78-80? Does it matter? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

I find that I can overwhelm myself, when there is no reason to be overwhelmed, for questions dealing with a lot of different variables. They typically manifest in: studies consisting of numbers/percentages, rising/lowering of levels (usually these appear physiologically), etc.

For instance, I took PT 89 and completely overwhelmed myself on 89.S4.Q23 (strengthening question about turmeric). In BR I was kicking myself because, had I stayed calm, organized and kept track of all the variables...I could have gotten it right!

Do you have a different method of approach for stimuli where you feel there's 'a lot' going on?

I'm confused why the answer isn't x,y,z. Ik the Falafel truck serves 2 at a time but shouldn't it be able to serve all 3 if we cover all possible scenerios?

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-43-section-4-game-4/

Hello,,

I am trying to make sense of why I would get -14 on one section and -4 on other section of same PT..

This was from PT 75.. Has anyone experienced this score difference?

Hi everyone! I am a little confused on this question, specifically on Answer Choice E.

Because it is a Pattern MOR Q, I broke down the logic in the stimulus too:

B -> D or J

D or J m-> QP

B probably QP

I represented the conclusion with probably because I believe it is important, as the question does not fully claim B must be QP.

Working through the wrong answers:

A: Incorrect, talks about Mercedes Identifying most trees, but that does not really fit with the structure we need

B: Incorrect, assumption required between creaking gate and hearing somebody break into house.

C: Incorrect, similar to our argument, but does not include most, and includes a negation our argument does not have

D : Correct: M -> L or K m-> MD Conclusion: M probably MD. Direct mimic of Q Argument

E: This is the one I am struggling with why its incorrect.

Laying out the logic for this one I have:

T -> D or S

D or S m-> CS

T probably CS

I know I am missing something, but all I see here is an argument that also mimics the Qs argument. Maybe because the conclusion comes first?

Thanks for the help!

any last minute RC advice? my problem is not timing, but i can't seem to figure out what it is.

Hey just wondering if I should complain about my proctor interrupting me. I really can't tell how much it threw me off. I feel like my concentration wasn't there, but I did finish on time. I don't know if I want to cancel... not sure what to do.

Hi. I'm planning on taking the test in October or November ! And I'm in need of a study buddy in the Charlotte area that is open to meeting up and doing zoom calls as well.

Antidepressants are an example of how the brain is affected by neurotransmitters to relieve depression

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question

Hi!

According to your explanation video, the tutor said the cause here is 'technologically superior' and the effect is 'lower infant mortality' but i still can't understand why.

What I thought is the reversed version of that. The cause is 'lower infant mortality' and the effect is 'tech superior'.

And answer choice (A) suggests that the cause can be actually the effect of the other cause, which breaks the causal relationship between 'lower infant mortality' and 'tech superior.' So basically (A) is saying the cause is 'broader access' and the effect is 'tech superior.'

Is my thought process ok to use?

Any North Carolina Study groups? Especially in the Raleigh-Durham area?

I have taken three practice tests and my raw score gets worse each time I take it (stuck in low 150s). However, my blind review scores are consistently improving. I am discouraged because I feel like my blind review results won’t transfer to my actual LSAT performance. I think I perform about the same on LR and RC.

Any suggestions on how I should organize my studying?

Did anyone feel like PT 92 logic games were a little difficult? I usually get -2 or -3 on each LG section but I got -5 for this one. I also couldn't finish it on time.

JY and a bunch of 7Sage tutors promote a quick pass of questions between passages A and B. What do you guys think? I feel like the time tradeoff to eliminate a few answers is questionable.

Listen and subscribe:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify

There's a lot of information going around about the LSAT...so much that it's often hard to tell what's true and what's not. Fortunately, ZeSean and Henry are here this week to separate fact from fiction and break down some of the commonly-heard LSAT myths. Tune in to this episode for some LSAT myth-busting!

Hello all-

Can someone tell me what PT the following LG is?

A group of seven friends – Harriet, Ingrid, Jasper,

Katie, Linh, Mercedes, and Nate—are deciding which

of them will compete in next week’s Chili Cook-Off.

The friends make their decisions consistent with the...

HELP ADMIN

Thank you SO much!!

I really need to solve this game and having a difficult time so would like the explanation.

Omg guys I am freaking tf out. I was in the middle of taking my exam and during the intermission I grabbed my phone to put it in the other room and when the proctor had me rescan the room she cancelled the exam because I touched my phone. What are the chances of the LSAC letting me retake my LSAT for January?? This was supposed to be my last LSAT before applying for the cycle so the next test that I would be able to sign up for would be in March which might be too late for this cycle. Ahhhhhhhhh I feel so stupid but does anyone have any insight???

I don't understand why answer C can not be correct. Wouldn't the fact that sicily was/was not cold affect the idea that the cold in China had nothing to do with the eruption? If you determine that it was not abnormally cold in sicily that would automatically mean that the eruption was not the cause of the cold in China.

Hi, could someone who understands this passage thoroughly translate paragraphs 3 and 4 with me? JY's explanation video for this passage zoomed through the last paragraph and I was still left pretty confused.

I do understand that overall, this passage is detailing Meyerson's critique of CLS and Paragraph 3 gets at one of her main issues with a key tenet of CLS, namely that just because we have two equally compelling solutions to a legal question, it must therefore mean that any choice between the two must be random or irrational and I get that she clearly doesn't agree but what I don't understand is why M would choose to bring in an "utterly unreasonable answer" to help decide between the two solutions. Like how would that help?

And for the last paragraph, is that first sentence just a really long-winded, abstract way of saying that the legal process is not necessarily moral? I also am confused about the whole who endorses the rules of the game in the final three sentences. What is the actual point of all this?

And I get it, during timed conditions I cannot hope to understand every detail but I'm reviewing right now and would like to try.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-3-passage-3-passage/

So I was utterly confused after reading the first sentence. I just didn't get how they were able to use the color of gazelle teeth to tell whether a group of humans were nomadic or not. I just don't understand how this "support" supports the conclusion that N was nomadic but C were not. How would the color of gazelle teeth tell you anything about human lifestyle?

What are you even supposed to do after reading an argument like this and being utterly confused? I can skip but that just delays the inevitable. I have to come back it. How do you talk yourself out of confusion?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-c2-section-2-question-17/