@ said:

I think he'll be posting a webinar soon!

Hey congrats! would you mind sharing the quizlet for the flaws that you studied?

What’s the name of this flaw?

@ said:

@ said:

Hey would you happen to have a weekly study structure you follow? I've been generally studying based on my gut recently but some solid structure would be nice

Usually did at least a section of LG every day, except PT days (just 1 game and some LR for warmup before PT). Usually spent 1 long day or 2 normal study days doing BR. Still did LG foolproofing for old games on BR days.

I was working on correcting poor timing habits later on in my prep, so I spent the rest of the week doing timing drills for LR and mixed in a section of RC every other day. Blind reviewed all those practice sets and sections. Foolproofed games from that week’s PT.

All that work usually took 5-6 days, and depending on my schedule I would take a new PT or take a light study day and limit myself to LG practice.

I recommend listening to the early 7sage podcast episodes for specifics on blind review methods and study routines.

Thank you very much! I started listening to the podcast already very helpful.

In the same exact situation. Following.

@ said:

I was wondering how bad the stylus would be. How sucky is sucked on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being ulimate suckage?

It’s trash it’s one of those stylus u get from 99 cents store that’s at the ends of pens. It’s the ones with circular rubber tips

@ said:

I don't think the visiting countries was real. I had 2 LG's. I had one with soup.

Do u rmbr the other sections other than soup?

@ said:

@ said:

Water treaties was the real RC. I had two LGs. The first involved a game about visiting different countries, and the second involved a monarch’s birthday presents. Any idea which is real?

The visiting different countries one was real, that was my first section. That game was a bit tricky, the rest weren't too bad.

Do u rmbr anything about the other games aside from the recipe game?

@ said:

@ said:

I had two reading comprehension sections, one with water treaties and one with jazz composition. Definitely did better on one of them than the other. Any idea which one was the real one?

Water treaties was the real RC. I had two LGs. The first involved a game about visiting different countries, and the second involved a monarch’s birthday presents. Any idea which is real?

First game is the real one is what I’m hearing..aside from the recipe game, so u rmbr anything else about the other Games?

Mine was LG LR RC LG LR

The second LG for me was tough and first was rlly Easy...hearing the second is the real one

@ said:

I took about 30, some people take them all. Don’t sacrifice quality for quantity, but if you do end up taking a huge amount of PTs (with thorough review) you benefit from recognizing cookie cutter structures. Get the fundamentals down first and develop a good timing strategy, because if you take a bunch of PTs with bad habits those habits are harder to correct later on.

Hey would you happen to have a weekly study structure you follow? I've been generally studying based on my gut recently but some solid structure would be nice

nice, thank you

@ said:

I think it depends on the schools you plan on applying to. If you have aspirations for schools that have hard deadlines in February, January is probably too late. A lot of those schools require your LSAT score to be from 2019.

Plan on knocking the November test out of the park, but if you need a retake you might be a little late with a January score for some schools. If that's the case, it isn't the end of the world! You would then have 6 months to study before next cycle's June exam and would be applying at the very beginning of next cycle. I was in this exact situation last November and I'm glad I waited until June/July for my retakes.

Thanks for the reply! I decided to go ahead and get the January LSAT. I am trying to get into some of the more local schools in NYC and figured even if I do well in the November LSAT I could use a potentially higher score in January as scholarship negotiation bait. Definitely hope to knock it out of the park for November though, like you said!

@ said:

I'm in the same boat! I decided to sign up for January to give myself some peace of mind and know that there is another option for me even though it is a little later in terms of applying than I hoped. If it helps I think you should take the November as if that's the score you are going to apply with (also feel out how you think you did after the test and kind of predict your score) then spend some time after the LSAT working on your personal statement/applications and everything. By then you will know if you need to take the test again in January but at least you will have started working towards completing admissions applications. That way, if you do end up needing to take the January lsat you will have all the materials ready to go and submit.

Thanks Jenn, I decided to get the January LSAT ticket! I plan on studying right after my november test and even if I am pleased with the results (enough so to apply to all my schools) I can just use a potential higher january LSAT to negotiate some schollys

@ said:

Totally agree with skipping to save time on LR. To add to that piece of advice: It became more important to me to maintain my momentum in LR. For example, say I encounter lots of weaken/strengthen/flaw questions and I’m moving smoothly, then the next question is MBT or parallel flaw question that is often mechanical and will require me to diagram. If so, I just automatically skip it because I I don’t want to break rhythm. I’ll just get it alluring the second round,after knowing I’m done with most of the test. That takes away the pressure of thinking “shit it’s only question 16 and I’m burning almost 2 mins”

Another thing is to have clear and ready made strategies for as many LR flaws as possible. Say you’re given an argument by analogy and asked to weaken, you should be able to immediately default to ‘look for something that shows analogy is not so analogous’

There are also many many cookie cutter responses to flaw types.

Do this well and you can save time to use on more time consuming questions!

@ said:

Totally agree with skipping to save time on LR. To add to that piece of advice: It became more important to me to maintain my momentum in LR. For example, say I encounter lots of weaken/strengthen/flaw questions and I’m moving smoothly, then the next question is MBT or parallel flaw question that is often mechanical and will require me to diagram. If so, I just automatically skip it because I I don’t want to break rhythm. I’ll just get it alluring the second round,after knowing I’m done with most of the test. That takes away the pressure of thinking “shit it’s only question 16 and I’m burning almost 2 mins”

Another thing is to have clear and ready made strategies for as many LR flaws as possible. Say you’re given an argument by analogy and asked to weaken, you should be able to immediately default to ‘look for something that shows analogy is not so analogous’

There are also many many cookie cutter responses to flaw types.

Do this well and you can save time to use on more time consuming questions!

@ said:

Totally agree with skipping to save time on LR. To add to that piece of advice: It became more important to me to maintain my momentum in LR. For example, say I encounter lots of weaken/strengthen/flaw questions and I’m moving smoothly, then the next question is MBT or parallel flaw question that is often mechanical and will require me to diagram. If so, I just automatically skip it because I I don’t want to break rhythm. I’ll just get it alluring the second round,after knowing I’m done with most of the test. That takes away the pressure of thinking “shit it’s only question 16 and I’m burning almost 2 mins”

Another thing is to have clear and ready made strategies for as many LR flaws as possible. Say you’re given an argument by analogy and asked to weaken, you should be able to immediately default to ‘look for something that shows analogy is not so analogous’

There are also many many cookie cutter responses to flaw types.

Do this well and you can save time to use on more time consuming questions!

Would you happen to have a list of cookie cutters?

Hey I was really terrible in RC as well. I would sometimes get 80% right next day I’d get 50% right it’s my most unpredictable section by far. Then I got a suggestion from an LSAT instructor who said that I should try focusing on the three passages with the most questions first and this actually really helped because I understood the passages by far much more comprehensively and in result I got a consistent 75-ish percent correct which is fine for me that’s exactly where I wanted to be because just the way I work I wasn’t able to consistently be able to understand and read all four passages. You should give it a shot. It especially helped because I would always go in with no real game plan for RC but now there’s a game plan and gives me some confidence.

I'm interested as well

@ said:

Forgery art. And unfortunately for me that was my less confident RC section (I had 2) and it was my last section of the test. Wish the other RC counted lol.

Did you have an LR section with monkeys yawning or HDL LDL

I had one RC and it included the internet issue and also art forgery.

I had 3 LR sections I only remember that the last one had something about monkey yawning

My setup was LR LG LR RC LR

Will there be any sessions upcoming?

I messaged both of you. I have contacted 2 other 7sagers and have a BR going on this upcoming Sunday!

Which part of NYC are you in? I’m in queens!

A nice trick to simplify I learned is that if “AND” is in the outcome (If A then B AND C) then you can separate them to be:

A—> B

And

A—> C

If “AND” is in the trigger ( If A and B then C) then you have to keep them together

A and B —> C

Contrarily if “OR” is in the outcome (If A then B or C) then you have to keep the two together

A—> B or C

If “OR” is in the trigger (If A or B then C) then you can separate it

A—>C

B—>C

This should make negating a few easier.

Your example A—>B and C would negate into:

/B or /C —> /A

Or in other words:

/B—> /A

And

/C—>/A

For the ones that have to stay together it would be like this:

Original: A and B —> C

Negation: /C —> /A or /B

Original: A —> B or C

Negation: /B and /C —> /A

Hope this wasn’t confusing. Also typing on my phone so this was a bit challenging!

im in

I would be willing to join as well

Hey I’m open to studying together also