Hello peeps, I will be taking LSAT in January. I have been struggling with RC. I am mostly getting -16 to anywhere -20 and I am finding it difficult to improve on it. Any advice or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Hey all! I have been studying for a few months now and take my test here in October. I am SO close to a breakthrough but my issue is… on so many LR questions I am stuck between 2 answer choices. I choose one thinking it right and then it’s the other one that I thought about. I keep making the same mistake but I can’t seem to shake it. I feel like I review well and I know what I’m doing wrong but obviously I don’t if I keep choosing the wrong answer out of the 2 I think. Any tips or recommendations??

Hi, so I was wondering if someone could tell me the difference between pseudo sufficient assumption - find the rule, questions versus principle questions? and if you can tell me how you identify the question type from one another please??

Thankyouuu in advance!.

An easy willingness to tell funny stories or jokes about oneself is the surest mark of supreme self-confidence. This willingness, often not acquired until late in life, is even more revealing than is good-natured acquiescence in having others poke fun at one.

Which one of the following inferences is most supported by the statements above?

A A person who lacks self-confidence will enjoy neither telling nor hearing funny stories about himself or herself.

B People with high self-confidence do not tell funny stories or jokes about others.

C Highly self-confident people tell funny stories and jokes in order to let their audience know that they are self-

confident.

D Most people would rather tell a funny story or a joke than listen to one being told.

E Telling funny stories or jokes about people in their presence is a way of expressing one's respect for them.

I can understand how A is correct in that it completes the pre-phrase "a person who exhibits confidence will enjoy telling and hearing funny stories about themselves". However, I got rid of A because I assumed that they are not discussing the correct group that was discussed in the stimulus. It's a pattern and common wrong answer choice l've seen in other question type, where they are discussing the wrong group in the answer choices to trap you. For example, if the stimulus discusses only the group in a survey who love cheese. Then the wrong answer choice will try to trick the test taker and talk about those who do not love cheese. And that is where you are supposed to catch that and say " the stimulus only talks about the group who do love cheese not those who do not, therefore not needed for the argument. I don't understand why that doesn't apply here? If I were to do a fact check test and use the stimulus to support the answer, nowhere does it discuss a person who lacks self confidence or what makes a person not confident" . It only talks about what makes a person confident, not what doesn't make them confident. So would it be fair when approaching future questions to assume that if they are talking about a different group it could still be correct?

I have been studying since June full time and have been doing pretty well. My highest PT which was only about 3 weeks ago was a 160 which is what I am aiming to get for the real thing. However I am now seeing a huge decline in my scores and I am getting -8 and -11 on sections that I typically get -5. I am getting really stressed and discouraged considering the October test is in 2 weeks. I am also registered for November so i just don't know what I'm doing wrong and what to do about it now. Also , is it bad that I am going to take october and november back to back? Should i change my october test date to november and then take november and january instead? im getting overwhelmed.

scores come out a week from today and i can't stop stressing about it. i genuinely do not know what to expect which is a little scary because i'm also registered to take the october test and i don't know how much studying i should be doing before i know if i got a score that would be good enough to withdraw from october. how is everyone else feeling? what are you doing to calm nerves in the next week? is anyone else in the same boat with the october test?

I am having trouble with the lawgic. My take away was:

WD m→ feature art

/comfortable→/WD

comfortable→SI

My thoughts for chaining...

contrapose comfortable→SI to become /SI→/comfortable

Therefore the chain...

/SI→/comfortable→/WD

So if /WD then... /WD m→/feature art

Can someone please explain why this is incorrect?

I appreciate the help!

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

Hi friends! I need some advice on how to improve my RC section. While I feel confident in LR, I am scoring much lower on RC, missing about 10 or 12 questions per RC section. I am scoring about 158/159 overall, and all I want is to score a 160.

My issue with RC is when I try to do low-res summaries, I run out of time. But when I try to read quicker, I forget passage details. When it comes to questions I missed, I always review and understand why I missed the question, but still end up missing similar questions on my next PT. Another issue is that I have a hard time getting through all four passages.

I feel stuck and not sure where to go from here. Even some kind words would be appreciated! Oh, and by the way, I am registered for the October LSAT. Am I doomed?

I work full time and I am looking for someone who can help me grasp LR and RC. I didn't do too great on the August LSAT so I am trying to change my study approach.

Looking for anyone that may have an old copy or extra copy of the Loophole that they are willing to sell. Will pay for shipping costs etc! Would really like to get my hands on this if possible so let me know!

Thanks in advance

As the title said i am only breaking into the 170s when i take the 130s? i am in the 165-168 range in other tests, does anyone have any idea why this could be ?

Hi! Taking the August LSAT, there were a couple questions that IMO ended up effectively being small logic games. I won't go into specifics, but I was wondering on strategy for these types of questions-- I wasted lots of time on one question and still couldn't figure it out. I would love to DM if anyone feels similarly!

Looking to find people to work with on PT review and drilling for November LSAT. Preferably evenings (full-time college student) currently testing in high 150s looking to get to mid-high 160s.

Howdy y'all! I just joined the 7Sage platform to study for the October test, which I didn't expect to be taking. Just took September (after Blueprint's 170+ live class) and I don't know if I actually broke 170, so here we go again.

I know that my biggest weakness is conditional/formal logic in LR... I have the basics down but kinda freak out when there's a 5-6 sentence stimulus that you're expected to diagram to find the missing link or what must be true.

Anyway... for the seasoned 7Sage studiers... what lessons/content do you recommend?? I don't want to go through the whole curriculum; I just want the full-fledged 7Sage take on complex diagramming LR questions. Tips/Recs? What materials should I read/watch/review?

In advance: THANK YOU!!!!

I feel like I have been struggling a little bit with these questions, especially with the new core curriculum compared to the old one. Does anyone have any advice on how to approach these questions, especially when it comes to causal logic?

I am and have been stuck at 165 for awhile now. I can see a big issue for me is I can't even do medium level conditional logic. I often make mistakes like not taking the contrapositive, applying the wrong translation rule, and not connecting my chains. How can I learn, practice, and master conditional logic? I have watched the 7sage material several times but it just does not stay with me.

Hi,

I am currently at a plateau of 152 and I noticed that in timed conditions I struggle quite a bit with pre-phrasing, especially with inference-based questions, NA, WSE and RRE. I find that with WSE and RRE specifically, it is very difficult to pre-phrase because there is such a wide range of responses, and somehow I get quite a bit of NA questions wrong in timed conditions. Sometimes also, I just look at a question and struggle to see the "loophole" or the inference. I tend not to diagram because it slows me down too much and confuses me more in MBT/MSS questions. Sometimes I even "pre-phrase" an inference and then find it in the answer choices and it was wrong.

Also, I noticed that I perform consistently and significantly better on timed sections than on full PTs. I make more mistakes in full PTs than in timed sections -- especially in the first 2 sections of the test. Any ideas on why this may be?

I am aiming for between 157-160 and would appreciate any advice on pre-phrasing strategies, getting better at coming up with the right inference and consistency in test performance.

Here's the link that a bunch of other 7sage members and I have! Looking to kick it off this week.

https://discord.gg/JCKBH4BkEp

Hey guys, so I graduated undergrad about 2 years ago, and a majority of my classes ended up being online at the time due to Covid, although I have already emailed a few Professors I had in person asking if they would be willing to write me one, I have gotten denied. At this point I feel really stuck and Im not sure what to do. I could ask an old boss but I have only worked retail jobs during my gap year or didnt work at all. Any advice? Is it possible to apply without any letters? I know its a stretch but im freaking out.

So I’m getting ready to take the October LSAT and I’ve realized I’m not even close to ready. My entire time drilling, I’ve only ever done LR. I’m in a bad spot. I’ve barely touched on RC but I am hoping my stride for mastery of LR will help my skills on RC. I suppose this leads me to ask what is my best strategy to getting prepared for this test? How many questions should I be drilling per day? To add to the frustration, I’m not sure I’m getting much better at the question types that I most struggle with. I’ve only done a few practice tests since I feel like drilling would be more effective because it’s targeting my weaknesses. Any advice is appreciated.

If anyone can help explain this I would truly appreciate it!! I've been trying to understand it for the past hour but still can't grasp why the right answer is right. I've watched the explanation video on 7sage and read power score's explanation but don't understand their conditional diagrams.

Conclusion: Thus, without increased funding from sources other than profit-driven institutions, the chemistry department is unlikely to gain the prestige that only achievements in basic science research confer.

Evidence/Premise:

Diagram explained by Power-score:

Premise: Advances in basic research -> More money

Premise: Gain prestige -> Advances in basic research

Conclusion: Gain prestige -> Money from sources other than Big Pharma.

Assumption/Pre-phrase: More money -> Money from sources other than Big Pharma

This is my new Diagram while reworking the problem:

SABR = Significant advances in Basic Research/ Only achievements in basic research confer

SFBR = Secure Funding for Basic Research

GP = Gain the Prestige

IF (NP) = Increased Profit from Non profits and non Pharmaceutical companies

Premise 1: SABR -> SFBR

Premise 2: GP -> SABR

Conclusion: GP -> IF (NP)

So here is where I am lost. I originally only had Premise 1 and the Conclusion diagramed because I thought "that only achievements in basic science research confer" was a part of the Conclusion. But I am assuming because of the necessary indicator "only" we need to add another premise and thats where premise 2 comes in? But I'm confused where we connect the pre-phrase/missing link/assumption because there are 2 "GP's". If anyone can please help explain because I know understanding this will be helpful towards future questions with the same difficulty and concept. I tried understanding it without conditional diagrams as I would approach it like any other NA question, but that was difficult as well.

I have been doing a couple of NA questions and I have noticed that the right answer choice sometimes sounds stupid but most of the time is linked to something said in the conclusion. Would this always be the case? Is the right answer for NA questions always linked to something that was mentioned in the conclusion?

Does anyone know how the exact strategy for weakening questions? I've listened to every approach but continue to get the the most easiest Weakening questions wrong.

I feel like i have been getting these confused. Could someone explain the approach to solving these? I know the NA has to be true but what does that even mean I think im overthinking these questions.

Hi I am looking to start a group chat with people who are interested in having study buddies/accountability partners for the November LSAT. The discord link is right here: Hi sorry I have been bad at responding I made a group me link feel free to join. Right now there aren't any members in it but it will fill up super soon as I have a lot of ppl interested! The group me link is right here: https://groupme.com/join_group/103075166/sH9h2wYR