Hey 7Sagers,

Here's the official February 2024 LSAT Discussion Thread.

REMINDER: Under your Candidate Agreement, you may not discuss the details of any specific LSAT questions at any time. For the February 2024 LSAT, general discussion of what sections you had, or how difficult you found a given section, or speculation about which sections were scored or unscored, is prohibited until after 9pm ET, Tuesday, February 13th.

Posts that violate these rules will be taken down and may result in disciplinary action from LSAC. Let’s work together to ensure the test is fair to everyone, and not share information before everyone has taken the test.

Some examples of typical comments:

✅ The following comments are okay 🙆‍♀️

❌ The following comments are over the line 🙅‍♂️

Good luck to everyone taking the February 2024 LSAT!

**Please keep all discussions of the February 2024 LSAT here!**(/red)

Hi,

Do any of you have tips for staying motivated with prepping after getting questions like the ones for the Weakening question drill sets in the Core Curriculum wrong? I always write down why the correct answer choice is right and why I got it wrong, but I keep missing the level four questions.

Eric

Hi, I've been doing the question sets for the LR question type lessons and I've noticed during my fourth set that my brain starts to get foggy and I can't seem to focus on reading the stimulus. I almost bombed a section because of this and only managed to get a 4/5 because of blind review. How do you deal with brain fog/mental fatigue when studying for the LSAT?

Hello everyone,

So I started my LSAT prep with Powerscore books and then got 7Sage for prep tests. I am struggling with LR, and I have heard a lot of people talk about how the Loophole has helped them a lot with Logical Reasoning. I just wanted to ask if it is worth purchasing the Loophole if I already have my Powerscore books + 7Sage? I just don’t want another thing to buy if it’s going to restate things I already know/can get access to with the LSAT resources I already own.

ALSO, I haven’t gone through the 7 Sage CC since I studied with the Powerscore books. Would you guys say it’s worth it to go through the LR 7 sage CC since I am still struggling with this section? I am not sure I have enough time to since my exam is in October.

Thanks everyone in advance for any advice/tips!!

In a nutshell, the developer says there is a country whose strict regulatory rules ban personal property holders from erecting buildings on their plot if any rarified animals in danger on the land. These rules render the existence of those animals a serious fiscal burden on them as their hands are tied businesswise. By virtue of those sacred beings, the proprietors feel reluctant about sheltering them and shielding them from harms. Therefore, endangered species would very likely not be jeopardized, if not better served, if the bureaucratic red tape is peeled off for good.

(A) is not the one we are looking for. Because the author is not mixed up between the absence of a condition or the presence of a condition that is no longer in effect which was designed to protect the endangered species from the outset but would be revoked on the assumption that its absence would not likely to harm them and a condition that would be obliged to avoid the endangerment of those rare species on the land.

B) is somewhat irrelevant. Above all, there is no morality-bound call or moral verdict grounded on fact-based assertions or accounts. In my opinion, a value judgment is like this: it is not ethical for humans to endanger those rarified species further by not protecting their subsistence. But this argument is the opposite of the developer's conclusion. Based on the factual grounds, he/she thinks one could go back on this duty because his assessment projects that this dispensation/waiver/relief does not likely harm those species. It rationalizes a claim based on the alleged facts without a value judgment.

(C) is the guy we have been searching for. This Mr. Right has it all. It, all of a sudden, somewhat irrationally, snubs any probability that even if some factors are prone to engender a presumed effect, they might be likely to beget more powerful countermanding/offsetting effects too. Then the final outcome could be more harm to those animals.

For instance, this suspension of the rule application might put those animals out of harm's way if those landowners just do not do anything about this roll-back except feeling happy about the exemption of the financial liability. However, what if there are other hyenas lurking around to capitalize on this repeal? They could be poachers eager to snare those animals to make money out of them. It could backfire on those animals which are be supposed to be protected in the absence of those rules.

(D) is a bit weird-do. No need to zoom in on those landowners to play a blame game. Those landowners could indeed enjoy the removal of regulatory rules in a different way than anticipated. For instance, once those regulations are rescinded, they decide to turn those animals into their cash cow to rake in dollars. Sure, it is possible. But it is not a flaw that is the most noticeable in his argument. The principal perp is his negligence about considering the side effects or backlash from the revocation esp. from the perspective of those animals meant to be protected by design. That was what his/her conclusion was about.

(E) is a total jerk and a typical A-hole wasting my time. This argument has no bearing on those landowners on whose tract no endangered species live.

Manifesting 180's for everyone taking the test this month!

Lets get it!!

Doesn’t the right answer [E] confuse necessary for sufficient?! Maria satisfies both of the necessary conditions but that doesn’t make the sufficient condition (being eligible) trigger. If we can't conclude that she's eligible JUST from satisfying the two necessary conditions, then how can we say that she should be granted leave? I thought that was the "oldest mistake in the book." Here's how I diagrammed:

Eligible for leave -> applied at least three months before leave period starts and have one year of paid employment

Eligible for leave -> granted leave

Doesn't [D] just strengthen the premise that scholars are more likely to study successful businesses than unsuccessful businesses? Can someone explain to me why it's right? It doesn't seem to strengthen the support that being more likely to study successful businesses -> overestimating successes of past businesses.

I chose [E] because it seemed to directly relate to the support. Just because scholar are more likely to study successful businesses doesn't mean that they're overestimating the successes of past businesses... what if they're also including setbacks that those successful businesses had along the way? [E] seems to guard against this potential weakness by saying that historical records actually don't allow historians to infer those setbacks. Why is [E] wrong?!

What is the difference in this question between what is "inherently fair" and what "society deems correct"?

Hi,

Since this has no video explanation for it, I want to know whether I fell in line with the rest when I reached that conclusion. In this question, the author argues that butter manufacturers should be allowed to call their products "Can't believe it's not butter or Skim fat butter" to ward off any negative nuances from the term "Imitation butter". This person cites two reasons to back up one's allegation. A) People should be fostered to consume more low fat butter products because of their health concerns, arising from a high cholesterol level. B) This hostile naming like Knock-off/Ersatz could stave potential consumers off from those well-intentioned products owing to their aversion to the names. In that way, the industry could push people to indulge in more butterfat which could pose a threat to their health (esp. cardiovascular). In order to weaken this assertion, I thought it would be better off for me to claim that this aversion could beget more positive results healthwise for those buyers in the market. What if they, finding those suggestive names unbearably repulsive, decided to find the authentic low fat butter products which significantly slashed the fat content? For instance, they would rather find a real McCoy low fat butter, projecting an image of authenticity,instead of phonier butter substitutes, which happened to have less butterfat in it? People who voted for Trump would rather turn to him to gratify their desires, whatever they might be, in lieu of settling down for his miniature, Ron DeSantis, emulating his extreme creeds. I just thought that it was important for me to tackle the author's point that the negative naming could take a toll on public health because it deters people from purchasing the imitation butter which is healthier for them thanks to the low fat content in comparison with the regular ones. Thus, one of the ramifications was supposed to bear the unexpected consequence that made everyone more robust and hale: cutting off the consumption of butterfat more noticeably than what was expected from the fake butter. What are your thoughts on this? I would like to hear from other would-be legal minds. Thanks!

I’m trying to understand the methodology of doing a practice set of let’s say 2 games, then doing them the best you can , then watching the video for explanation. I just feel like I’m doing the same thing of struggling through a game , then watching the video , doing the game over and over again until I get all the inferences. But then I try a new set and I feel like I either do ok or I’m back to struggling. I’ve done so much practice I’m sure I still I haven’t seen all the types of games there are? Sometimes the way the games are worded confuses me where I take extra time upfront to understand the rules so I can draw it correctly. I’m at a standstill at this point and I want to get it right. :/

Hey, y’all! I’m taking the February LSAT next Saturday and was wondering what my study schedule should be. I’ve been focusing hard this last month on logic games as I think it can boost my score the few points I want to be able to get in. I’ve been doing about an hour a day or so drilling 3-4 games a day. Should I continue doing this? I feel okay enough about the other sections. My goal is a 150ish. Thanks!

Is there a way we can take an LSAT and get a valid score back. I am taking the LSAT in August so obviously there will not be LG on that section.

Hi! I am just wondering if I am supposed to complete all the problem sets as I am moving through the curriculum or if I should be saving some of them?

Heyyy ya'll! When LSAC released the decision of removing the logic games, I decided to hold off until August to take the test. That being said, I've been studying on and off for over a year and have been consistently studying while working a full time job since June. I finished the core curriculum and have been spending my time now drilling RC and LR, PTing, blind review, and wrong answer journal.

I'd love to know what YOU are doing if you are taking August LSAT! How are you divvying up your time? What are you focusing on? How often are you PTing? Any outside recources you are using besides 7sage? I'd love to know, thanks :)

Admin note: Edited title. Please do not post threads or comments in all caps. This is against the Forum Rules.

I started studying last June and took my first test this January and got a 149😔. I pushed it back from October because I knew I wasn’t ready with Powerscore. I got a tutor through them and got scammed and didn’t realize till last minute 🫠. I ended up playing catch up last minute before the test, which I feel definitely played a role in my score. I plan on taking the April LSAT and know I still struggle with LR. Are there any tactics or suggestions people can offer to support with this journey.

.

I just got my LSAT score back. Really bad as expected. I had a terrible November experience that the LSAC had to cancel my session as I was unable to complete the test which I think really threw me off and discouraged me for January. The whole month of November was a traumatic write off for me due to numerous things, so I really only had about six weeks to cram. Top that off with the holidays and a global pandemic exploding in my province. I made the mistake applying to law schools before my November LSAT as I was feeling confident only to be shattered and waste hundreds of dollars on applications.

So now what? Should I just restart 7Sage and write sometime in the summer?

Hi y'all,

Got my Jan Flex score back and it's bad news. I went down to a 163 after having scored a 168 on the July 2020 Flex, and consistently PT'ing in the 170s prior to the January Test.

Has anyone else experienced this kind of drop before? I have literally never PT'd that low in my life, so I'm really struggling with how to approach studying for the upcoming test, as I want to retake to get in to the 170s. What strategies would you recommend going forward?

I created explanations for the first LR section of PT 89. I also included cookie cutter take aways for each question. Hopefully this is helpful to some! Let me know if you have questions or alternative ways of reasoning; I would love to hear them!

Here is the link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NEb2hPezf10STZByj0fHHeWwuCGNFEQ5/view?usp=sharing

Enjoy :)

V1 seems to have a broader subject range than that.

Hello!

Could some explain to me why C is correct and how they arrived to the answer? Would also appreciate it if you could tell me why the other answer choices, especially D (which is what I chose), are incorrect! Thank you so much.

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

what am I missing

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

Does anyone know of similar games to those included in PT 94? #helpadmin

Can someone shed some light on remote testing? I scheduled for the exam and there isn't an option to select testing remote. the closest testing center to me is 100 miles away. I have a time extension accommodation but that wouldn't prevent me from testing from home would it?