Hi All,

First, thanks for your time. Secondly, I have watched videos, and supplement videos as well. I have completed all the “You Try” questions and got it all correct.

But, as soon as I attempt the drills, I am not doing very well. Any tips, advice, or notes you can provide?

Thanks in advanced.

When I read a Reading Comprehension passage, I always look for the main idea, like where the author’s opinion or argument stands. For Main Point questions, does the correct answer always show where the author stands? For example, if the first paragraph supports idea A, but paragraphs 2 and 3 support idea B, will the right answer for the Main Point question always reflect the overall support for idea B?

How would you translate a sentence into lawgic that has both negate sufficient & negate necessary indicators in it?

Ex: "No entry after 9 pm without a valid ID." or "One cannot bake a cake without flour."

Hi!

I'm less than a week out from the august LSAT test and am feeling burnt out and a little discouraged with my PTs. I know that I will most likely have to take the test again in October but still want to put my best foot forward. Does anyone have any advice leading up to the test? Any advice on getting over plateau I am at for Oct test studying?

I'm taking the LSAT this week, and I would just like to know when others are planning to do their writing sections. I'm trying to focus on the actual LSAT, but I can't help but feel like the writing section is looming over me. Are most people waiting to prepare and take the writing section after their August test date?

Consider this original statement: "Most people are white." Its negation is: "It's not the case that most people are white." i.e. 0-50% people are white. Isn't this the equivalent of "Most people are not white"?

In contrast, given: "Most people are not white" Its negation is "It's not the case that most people are not white." i.e. 0-50% are not white. In this case, I know the negation is not equivalent to "Most people are white". It's not a binary cut here. Compared to the first statement, what changed? I'm not sure how to think about this.

The question asks us to identify the best explanation for why these birds choose a wooden box. The given answer choice B only explains why the birds prefer the wooden box to "highly concealing woody vegetation" but fails to account for why the wooden boxes are preferred over open grasslands. Answer C seems to more fully resolve the question. Defensive behavior from 'nest builders' ( which I have taken to mean both the birds who next in highly concealing woody vegetation and open grasslands as the wooden boxes specifically wouldn't have to be a built nest.) Taking this assumption doesn't C answer the question more fully than B.

I get the issue is probably that my assumption goes too far. But the LSAT often requires us to make leaps in logic that feel much further than the wooden box vs nest builder assumption I've made here.

Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

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

I don't understand the meaning of this phrase when used in answer choices for questions concerning argument flaws. Like does it mean that the argument is flawed because there could have been stronger use of this aspect that was taken for granted? Does it mean the argument is flawed because it drew a weak/misguided conclusion from this aspect?

I'm taking my LSAT around August 10th. When is a good time to finish up my studying?

Hi,

I am reviewing my mistakes on Prep Test 108, and I noticed that there are no Explanations for sec 4. Seems strange since there were explanations for section 1 which was ungraded. In particular I'm looking for an explanation on question 26. Thank you!

Can someone explain why E and not B is the correct answer? I am not totally convinced by the explanation given here. This is because the idea that the work is split equally is not explicitly used as "one of the argument's presuppositions." However, the relevance of West's conclusion to the premises is directly implicated as he clearly does not use the relevant evidence (the proportion of correct decisions made by the quality control workers). Any help would be appreciated.

I have been scoring very consistently (plus or minus1) around a score that I am very happy with for a month and a half now, but yesterday, on my last planned practice exam, I just completely bombed the RC section, resulting in a score a whole 7 points before my average. I knew it while I was in the test. It felt like my short term memory was just gone all of a sudden. LR sections were consistent with my past performance, but I don't really understand what was going on with RC. Has anyone else experienced this sudden lapse in short term memory? It felt very specific, because, as I said, LR felt solid. Any thoughts on how to prevent this on the real thing next week?

I originally chose A but thought D aligned better with the last paragraph of the passage so switched to D. I can see how A is correct, but I'm still confused on how D is wrong. Could anyone please help? Thanks!

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

Really struggling with LR inference questions. Any advice?

I get confused when there's a double negative in a sentence. For example, "No duck doesn't like water."

Normally, I would diagram this:

/D --> W

Because I would negate the second term ("doesn't like water" becomes "does like water") and the sufficient condition would remain the same (no duck).

But when I think about it in English, I realize that the double negative cancels each other out so it's like saying, "All ducks like water" which would be diagrammed:

D --> W

Any suggestions on getting past this hiccup?

Thanks!

I know causal, conditional, analogy, but are there more?

Did everyone else just get a huge amount of content added to their reading comprehension section? For the entire month I've been using 7sage there has only been the science passages section, which I did think was weird. Have I been using the format wrong or was there just a big update..?

does anyone have an estimate for how many hours the new RC curriculum will take? i planned out my schedule thinking it would only be 8-10 hours but it's wayyyy longer now and i'm kind of freaking out about having enough time to get through it all

It seems like numerous sections have been added to the Reading Comprehension section of the Core Curriculum. Would love some further insight into the update, like what was changed and why. Also, each lesson says it would take only 1 minute, yet some lessons have videos that are 5 minutes or longer. Some clarity on what is happening would be great if possible. Thank you 7Sage team!

Hello!

As I am drilling various question types, I have noticed a pattern in how I'm getting questions wrong. My main strategy with LR is that I drill the questions I need to work on most and slowly increase the difficulty. I was drilling specific flaw/ descriptive reasoning questions and as I'm getting to the 4/5 level difficulty questions I have noticed the AC have become very abstract. Even though I'm getting the assumptions right, and understanding the stimulus and where I have to look I'm still struggling to make sense of what they mean and often times that is why I end up picking the wrong AC.

Does anyone have any ideas where I could practice this specific drill? Or any ideas of how to improve this skill?

Thank you!

I have realized that for certain NA questions, when I try to negate the answer choices, the answer choice gets even more confusing to understand. And I don't believe it is because I am negating it incorrectly, it just that when I negate the answer choice it does not make sense at all. Should I keep in mind that it is better to not use the negation method for certain NA questions or should I force myself to understand the negation of the answer choice?

Example question: PT101 S2 Q17

Does anyone know why A is correct here? There is no explanation video so I'm a little confused.

Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

I cannot find my notebook containing all my notes from the core curriculum, and was wondering if anyone had written down the recurring cookie cutter themes for the science passages (low resolution summaries). I vaguely remember there being like three separate themes with the one as follows: paragraph one containing two competing hypothesis then the second paragraph being an observation that might support one hypothesis over the other and so forth. If anyone could please help me out it would be greatly appreciated!!!!

Hello, I have not taken my first LSAT so far and I signed up for the August 2024 LSAt but I have not been scoring within my desired range. I am off by 15 points. I want to submit my applications by October. Should I reschedule for September or later?