Hey guys,

I was just looking for some specific PTs, mainly the newer ones, that are available for download and discovered that Cambridge is still licensed to sell PDFs of every PT. They also have some awesome Bundles including one for all Logic Games from PTs 1-70 for $90 (instead of $295 for purchasing them separately). If you don't need all of those but want to do JY's method for the games using PTs 1-35/38 they also have a bundle for that, which is only $42.

Just wanted to share this since I was driving myself crazy using the copy machine every time I wanted to make extra copies for a game from one of the 10 Actuals books I have, which incidentally don't include PTs 1-6, 8 or 17.

Hope this helps!

Happy studies :)

I’m taking the November 2021 LSAT which is coming up in about 2 1/2 weeks, yikes! I keep averaging a PT score of 151 but my goal is to get to a 160. When reviewing I go back through the whole test to pin point my weaknesses and review those topics again.

Does anyone have any helpful tips that may help me in improving up my score?

I have been missing a bunch of these questions lately and I am wondering if there are any tips/patterns that can help me improve? Started to panic as the Jan test approaching

I chose answer choice (D) for this question, because the passage definitely mentions benefits of advertisements near the end of the text:

"If there is a real need for emotional fulfillment, and if we can freely and authentically choose our means of obtaining it, then free, informed individuals may choose to obtain it through the purchase of commodities or even through the enjoyment occasionally provided by advertisements themselves."

Yet the video explanation says answer (D) is wrong because there are no benefits to advertising? How? People obtaining the desires they wish to fulfill, while enjoying the entertainment of ads. How is that not beneficial?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-1-passage-3-questions/

https://www.canva.com/design/DAEtC7E8FVI/8w2eOp9LgJhpO4aB_AJDUw/view?utm_content=DAEtC7E8FVI&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link&utm_source=publishsharelink

Hi everyone! I feel like I heard someone mention in the comments or maybe in the 7sage podcast that there is a way to foolproof LR, but I can't remember where I heard that or how to do it. Does anyone have any ideas?

Hey guys! This is probably a pretty obvious question, but I'm just confirming something. I took the LSAT for the first time last September and completed a writing sample for it, as it shows on my LSAC account. I am taking the test again next week, and on the LSAC website listed above my previous writing sample it says that for this upcoming LSAT, I need to complete the writing sample "as soon as possible." To my knowledge, we only need to have one writing sample on file, so I don't need to complete this one as well, right? I'm just confirming so I don't have any issues next week. Thanks! :D

There is no explanation for this question on 7sage, so I'll just post a discussion that includes my reasoning on how I got this wrong in timed conditions and later right in BR. If anyone finds it useful, great!

RRE question.

In jurisdictions where the use of headlights is optional when visibility is good, drivers who use headlights at all times are less likely to be involved in a collision than those drivers who use headlights only when visibility is poor.

Record shows that making use of headlights mandatory does nothing to reduce the overall number of collisions.

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Why is it that drivers who use headlights at all times are less likely to be involved in a collision than those that only use it when visibility is poor? If in any case, the record shows that making it mandatory does not reduce the number of collisions.

Sometimes repeating the stimulus in a question form that directly addresses what the gap is between the 2 statements is what helps reach the link the gap of what is missing. It is also important to do this in a confusing stimulus because you do not want to lose sight of what you are trying to reconcile.

It is also good to prephrase (try to picture the flaw in a question before moving into the ACs). In this case, because maybe what causes the collision is not necessarily the headlights and perhaps there is another factor that plays a role, and the headlights are just correlated with this.

<><><><><><><><>

AC C: I picked it but I switched to E on timed conditions (wrong decision). C sounds kind of irrelevant but in reality, it directly addresses the question stated above. Why is it that there is a difference between the drivers who use headlights at all times and those who do not? Because the former are more careful, which might explain why they get into less collisions.

AC E: This sounds good at first, but it fails to reconcile the statements. It just gives a reason to maybe why the jurisdiction implemented the law. It does not explain why those drivers that use headlights at all are less likely to be involved in a collision than those who use it when is poor.

I understand why the correct answer is correct but I’m still iffy about answer choice A. Every website I check has different reasons for why it’s incorrect. I’ve read that it’s because the choice says beverage which doesn’t necessarily include coffee but is that a legitimate reason? It seems like nitpicking to me but if I’m wrong I’d like to know. I picked A because I thought the different levels of exercise could explain the discrepancy in arthritis between the two groups. Looking back I think I misread A as saying people who drink decaf are more likely to exercise than those who drink regular coffee. Would that make the choice correct or no? Why or why not?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-69-section-1-question-05/

I choose A, I thought it was a Sufficente/ Necessity error confusion, but I can understand that the suttle part is when the argument give us an example of a recent research where flexibility works better than tighten groups if a common purpose is shared, but what if not? That means the sufficient condition is not meat and we lose the necessary condition, so we don't have an argument.

Are we supposed to assume that these chemicals are initially "harmless" or that the dilution process caused them to become harmless? There is nothing in the passage discussing whether or not the chemicals are harmless.

No other answer choice makes sense, but Answer choice A requires some form of assumption to be made.

some insight please.

Hi. Its been over a year since I first went through the LR part of the 7Sage Curriculum and I have taken time away from studying in the interim. I am going to take the LSAT again to try to up my score, as I've taken a few PTs recently and scored 2-5 points higher than I used to score, consistently - trying to get every last scholarship dollar available.

I've spent most of my time since resuming studying working on LGs, but recently as I've started to work on grouping and in/out LGs, I've realized that I need some help going back over translating words into logic language, especially when dealing with negations, negative, or double negatives. Could someone point me to where in the 7Sage Curiculum I could get a quick crash course on logic translations for "or", "not both", and just basic logic translations to get me back on track as quickly as possible. I'm hoping to get back on track rather quickly and knock this (hopefully) final attempt of the LSAT out of the park.

Hi, folks

I came to cross PT 70 sec1 Q11, and started to wonder what proportional propositions imply.

Let’s say “The more A, the more B” is given as a Premise, not Conclusion

Does this mean that the Only contributing factor to B is the A, regardless of any other factors?

Since it literally means the more A, the more B, if A goes up, then B should go up, right?

Then as long as A is more, then other factors doesn’t matter?

OR is the proposition imply that “if all other factors are equal”? So even if A rises, if the other factors are not equal and offset the proportional relationship between A and B?

Can someone explain question 21 from section 1 prep test 5 for me?

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Sitting for the October exam this weekend but will be retaking in December. Looking for a few people to study and blind review together in person or via Skype. A little about where I'm at, drilled all LR and LG from1-38. Took PT 39-45 and 55-60 averaging around 167-172.

Does anyone know if there's a filter to look for sets vs. supersets type questions? Or is there a place in the core curriculum that deals with these issues? I'm not talking about just the valid vs. invalid inferences from existential relationships, but more like the more recent PT questions that have stimuli like "most mammal species of ... are not, but most individual mammals are ..."

Does anyone have any advice on how to systematically (with a process) attack these problems? I usually do them based on my intuition, but I find that can just be very nerve-wracking. Sometimes, I draw circles/Venn diagrams, too, but I never quite know what to do with them/it's hard for me to infer anything from them.

Inbox me if interested * Brooklyn Latina*

[Admin edit: Please don't post titles in all caps.]

Hi, for those you who have scored 170 and over on the LSAT, do you recommend doing untimed drills instead of timed drills when you’re in the core curriculum? I just started learning about logic in the curriculum, but I would do timed drills with the time and a half accommodations and get 2-3 questions wrong. Though I would get more correct once I did blind review, and I did that for every set, and wrote down why I got each question wrong and why the right answer was correct. I would appreciate any help!

NVM I FOUND IT, for anyone looking for a difficult RC passage it was PT 67 S1 P2.

Hey guys! I'm looking to locate a specific RC passage and really don't have much to go on - guess I'm hoping someone else will be able to recognize it lol.

I believe it was in the 60s or 70s and it was written like a journal or about someones journal or something, I think it was about a Chinese author? Anyways that's very limited information, the reason I'm looking for this passage is because it was ABSTRACT AF. Like there was BARELY any structure and it was notorious for this.

If anyone recognizes the description and wants to share any passages that it might be, do comment down below!

I realize this isn't a lot to go on so thanks to anyone who comments!

I honestly didn't see the flaw when I first did this question and am wondering how people who did see the issue manage to go about solving these questions.

Are these two questions basically twins? Or are they different? If they are different, how are they different? I honestly got them mixed up and got both incorrect and I think a large part of it was because of my pre-phase. My pre-phase going in was just all because you have an imperfect correlation doesn't mean there is NO causal relationship. For the question in PT 62, I narrowed it down to A and B and was unable to tell the two answers apart.

I also watched the video explanations for these so there's no need to put the links here, admin!

Citizen's Sufficient Condition: Interest in helping the economy

Citizen's Necessary Condition: Building a business park

That is to say, if one has an interest in helping the economy it is a given that they would build a business park; if they do not build a business park then there is no way they have an interest in helping the economy.

Question is NA, focus on the above necessary condition when looking at answer choices - If she did not believe that building a business park would help the economy, then fail necessary -> fail sufficient implies she has no interest in helping the economy, which disagrees with the assumption that she does not believe that the business park would help.

In other words, if she does not believe a business park would help she could still be acting in the economy's best interest by doing what she believes would help. This is why it is required for the citizens to assume she knows that building a business park is better than the highway.

Looking for Similar Logic Games to Practice that are hybrid type with a ton of variables kinda like PT 5 Game 4 or PT 89 Game 4. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Been finding Net Effect Questions to be a challenge. Anyone have tips on how to identify these questions. and then how they approach them. Cost-Benefit Net Effect questions are pretty straight forward its the more nuanced net effect question types that give me more of a challenge at the moment

How are you guys approaching RC when doing low res? Since LSAT is digital, you can't write in the margins of the passage. Should we just commit to memory the low res of each paragraph? Or are we supposed to write them down on scratch paper?

Very interesting question. Chose C like a moron cuz I was thinking hmmm how would irritation in the lungs and pollen has anything to do with death? No way people die to pollen allergy?

AC A is the correct one. The fact that population increased does not mean anything to the argument. I can't even identify the trap here and my theories are that first, it is trying to trick the taker by hinting at that the death rate rose was just due to the population increase instead of the inhaler. But death rate has already taken into account of total population, so if death rate rose, the total urban population doesn't matter: it simply means that the percentage of ppl within a given population dying to asthma has increased. My second theory is that the test writers want to make test takers mistaken "population" as "pollution," but idk.

AC B is a direct reference to the part where the question stem mentions that the ability to count asthma patients has not improved. AC B bolsters that part of the argument, making it more likely that there is something else other than the increased accuracy of data collection.

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