User Avatar
Bobby68
Joined
Mar 2025
Subscription
Live

Join the California LSAT Study Group!🌻

(All LSAT learners are welcomed!) 👇

https://discord.gg/sY5St5DGdN

Admissions profile

LSAT
Not provided Goal score: 180
CAS GPA
Not provided
1L START YEAR
Not provided

Discussions

LSAT · I'm a Sucker for Traps.....
User Avatar
Bobby68
2 days ago

same here 🤝, we got this though, the next one will be better. Trust your process too!

4
General · RC glitch?
User Avatar
Bobby68
5 days ago

@IvonneRosario Thank you 7Sage team! 🙌

3
General · RC glitch?
User Avatar
Bobby68
6 days ago

@AgnesAlojado Yayyy! Thank you! 😊

1
General · RC glitch?
User Avatar
Bobby68
Monday, Jul 13

OMG! It's happening to me too! Idk I think it's a Safari thing only because back then the site was on beta, it was happening to me all the time before they fixed it. I hope they fix it cause I like using my default browser. 🥲

I tried it on DuckDuckGo downloaded browser and it works fine on there.

1
LSAT · 149 PT score
User Avatar
Bobby68
Edited Monday, Jul 13

Something that helped me soooo much make it to the 150s was correctly identifying the question types. I would always misidentify and get them wrong for it...I still do here and there but it got a lot better!

Despite what some people say, there is a method to doing every question type, but how you should read the stimulus and be suspect of answer choices in how they relate to the conclusion and such should stay the same. Try highlighting every trigger words that may be important to build up your skill on paying attention ("should, could, must, if, a study shows, therefore, this argument is wrong! this argument is great! on the contrary, etc.).

Try doing untimed and reading the stimulus first, and identify the support and conclusion. Remember that some info is just fluff or context but may not be needed for an answer.

A lot of times an answer is wrong because it just ignores the main point of the author.

my favorite go-to: strong language, new terms! they make an argument very sus! A lot of answers touch upon these things!

for RC, something that saved me lots of points in highlighting/identifying author tone and main point...even some answers won't be main point, but their answer choices are on topic for the main purpose/point...for some reason just knowing author POV comes in clutch for main point, author most likely would agree, structure, etc.

6
PrepTests ·
PT12.S1.Q19
User Avatar
Bobby68
Edited Monday, Jul 13

Chat, I think I got it...I hope. 😭 I picked C my first time seeing this one, now I understand why B is the better answer.

I wrote my takeaways at the very bottom...because we can know an explanation but not know what to really takeaway from getting it wrong...MATH WON'T DEFEAT AHHH! ⚔️🤺🔥

There's a lot of moving parts here 😖:

  • use of safety seats by children aged 4 and under doubled! (2x)

  • children 4 and under that are killed while riding car rose 10%

  • serious accidents overall rose 20%

  • conclusion: increase of safety seats prevented children dying in accidents.

What we want: "increase has prevented child fatalities that otherwise would have occurred." Meaning it's ok if they don't show crazy changes, just not children being killed because of the seats!

---

A) Some of the automobile safety seats purchased for children under 4 continue to be used after the child reaches the age of 5.

  • we are mostly focused on children 4 and under

  • "some" = At least seat purchased...

  • but even if we extended it to a larger group of children who continue to use it after the age of 5, the number of children who use the seats remain the same, they are just older.

    • It's like if a prison claims that crime is decreasing with the increase of prisoners because and...oh, by the way, they are staying longer in prison...

    • I wished to know if the population increased/decreased to compare with the prisoners...but longer stays can indicate that they are the same people being used for the numbers

B) The proportion of serious automobile accidents involving child passengers has remained constant over the past 8 years.

  • proportion is another word for a percentage (ex: a proportion of 2/10 is 20%)

I think for this one we needed to...

  • treat the "total number of serious automobile accidents" as the big/total group. Meaning that the big/total group should be considered the whole pie of 100%. Even if it increased by 80% instead of 20%, the pie will always represent the 100% total.

  • Treat answer B as a subset (children involved in serious accidents) of that big/total group (total serious accidents). Answer B is a slice of that pie.

    • Answer B also includes the death toll! 😳 because the death of children is actually a subset of B itself (B is all children: those that got into an accident and lived, and those that sadly died...basically any child that got into a serious accident)

Let's put it all together!

----

serious automobile accidents involving child passengers out of/vs total number of serious automobile accidents (100% of the pie):

year 1: 4% children serious accidents / 100% serious accidents

year 2: 4% children serious accidents / 100% Serious accidents

...

year 8: 4% (includes the 10% increase that were killed) children serious accidents / 100% serious accidents

This downplays the possibility that the proportion of children in accidents increased, which would have made the argument look really bad...imagine year one being 4%/100%, but then by year 8, its 50% (+10% of children who make up that 50% that died 💀😭! that's a large percent!) /100%). Remember, we want to make it look like the seats prevented deaths, not caused them!

------

C) Children are taking more trips in cars today than they were 8 years ago, but the average total time they spend in cars has remained constant.

  • Outliers! 🚩

  • I had a hard time ruling this one out but I suspect it could maybe be labeled under illusory answer...

  • Also how many more trips? just one more?

    • if I got 5 apples, but then added 1 more, I still can say I have more apples. ✨🌻

  • Average in LSAT means "at least one person above the mentioned number" meaning meaning it could be 9 children who don't go out much, and that 1 child from a wealthy family that takes road trips frequently 🚗🏕️...forcing the average time to appear to remain constant (could be that the actual general population of children don't go out, weakening the idea of increased frequency).

D) The sharpest increase in the use of automobile safety seats over the past 8 years has been for children over the age of 2.

  • Even if the usage increased specifically for a subgroup of the children from 4 years old and under, I'm still asking how this made children safer?

  • I would want to look for an answer that addresses the safety rather than the trigger of supposed safety (seats).

  • I would prioritize the aftermath of using the seats, like the accident rates for children. We know the usage doubled...but having another premise about the increased usage doesn't directly address how it makes children more safe.

E) The number of fatalities among adults involved in automobile accidents rose by 10 percent over the past 8 years.

  • E introduces an extra group we aren't arguing for and need extra assumptions for.

  • How would the increase number of adults being killed in accidents help support that safety seats help children avoid being killed in car accidents?

  • Maybe E assumes the group of children who got into accidents is smaller than the adults? but however I try to connect E, I'm bringing in assumptions on how this affects the children who got into accidents or those that died from the accidents.

----

Takeaways:

  • Be suspicious of averages when coming between answers. They can have crazy outliers!

  • Proportion, Percentage, Fraction, Rate, Share fall under the "Relative family", we will never know the actual number...

  • %/Proportions with %/proportion answers are ok! Don't rule out an answer because we are trying to find an absolute answer choice to solidify our answer).

  • As always, don't bring in extra assumptions for weaken/strengthen, and don't assume the best possible outcome for answers that can also go the other way.

1
PrepTests ·
PT127.S1.Q9
User Avatar
Bobby68
Saturday, Jul 11

🌻 Quick note that helped me on this one...because yes there is a way to get these, and it took me a while to really get the hang of them. These questions won't fool us anymore chat!

I got my list of things I keep in mind when doing these certain EXCEPT questions (not all of them might show/come in handy but its a good thing to think about in my opinion):

1) is it factors that would affect the same timeline?

  • Notice how the 4 other right answers talked about factors or actions that needed to be accounted for before the experiment, while the wrong one is an action that would impact during or after the experiment.

  • Like I'm not sure how picking up the phone would impact the action of the person who needed to trigger the event first on calling the phone. 🤔☎️

2) Is it addressing the groups we are focusing on?

  • notice the wrong answer isn't directly addressing a factor regarding Group A or B? Its more of a factor of the group of researchers that are holding the experiment who are interacting with Group A and B...

3) Extra assumptions = bad 😖

  • If I got an easier time knowing how the right answers would impact the experiment but am thinking too hard about a certain answer in how it impacts, I wouldn't select it...

  • I have a hard time thinking how B impacts the experiment without me making up a story/assumptions for it...

    • When I start to say "maybe if", that's a bad sign...

1
LSAT · Highlighting on 7Sage now matches LawHub
User Avatar
Bobby68
Saturday, Jul 11

@mmatherne Wait I thought those settings were gonna be given during test day (seems like it on LawHub), are they not? 😭 I like having large letters and violet background. 🥲

1
LSAT · Highlighting on 7Sage now matches LawHub
User Avatar
Bobby68
Edited Friday, Jul 10

chat! I took a PT today, it wasn't too bad actually, I actually was mad when I woke up to this, but give it a chance before you panic (if you hate it still...I'm so sorry, I also hate the unnecessary changes since it was good enough!)...I still have to get used to it more...

they even gave me a blue highlighter!!! Which is great for RC since I used to underline examples and was hard to see...so now I can use blue for those!

Downsides I hate:

The slight delay (maybe it's because I'm using Safari?) is a little scary...I keep thinking...will it highlight what I selected or not? 😭

I love the violet/lavender accessibility settings for my eyes but LSAC got really bad colors imo...I think I have to either switch to white setting or learn the new highlight colors (WHY IS THERE PURPLE AND MAGENTA ON TOP OF PURPLE?!) 🫠

3
PrepTests ·
PT112.S4.Q15
User Avatar
Bobby68
Wednesday, Jul 8

@rayaniiic No problem! Glad it helped (I struggle with these ones so much 🥲)

But we shall persevere! Onward! ⚔️🔥

2
PrepTests ·
PT135.S1.Q19
User Avatar
Bobby68
Edited Tuesday, Jul 7

@alexfbaird adding to the list: don't drill while sleepy 🫩 (I picked D this time around)

1
LSAT · First -0 LR section
User Avatar
Bobby68
Thursday, Jul 2

See we knew you could do it homie! 🏅🥹

2
LSAT · Can anyone find an Question Example
User Avatar
Bobby68
Saturday, Jun 27

Just throwing this out there but could it be PT141.S2.Q18? ^-^

2
PrepTests ·
PT118.S4.Q16
User Avatar
Bobby68
Edited Thursday, Jun 25

I've seen this question 3 times before and got them right, but today I got it wrong noooo! >_< Because I am being picky with how it matches up my diagrams, but this time I didn't diagram it out right.

My first three times I did this I thought its ok to always infer that if we got most having something, there are a few people who are the opposite. Which is fine if that's what got us this, but question goes deeper than that and other questions might take advantage of me thinking so...

My 3 mistakes this time:

  • not trusting myself to know that Most people in modern society was not a conditional quantifier (did not make a most arrow) and I needed to treat it as the domain/overarching group we are talking about...I knew we couldn't contrapose "most" statements...so I ruled out E!

  • not knowing that "Fewer than a majority" means "most are not" (not "some are not").

  • not knowing we can contrapose "some" and "most" statements if there is strong conditional words within the statement (if, all, any).

I won't chain the entire stimulus here but you can chain the first sentence to make it more complete and clear why E is right.

If we diagram the second sentence:

Most people in modern society, however, can achieve a feeling of indispensability only within the sphere of family and friendship

it's "kick-it-up to the domain" version:

Most people in modern society: IndispensabilityNeeded --> family and friendship

or the long way...

Most people in modern society can achieve feeling of IndispensabilityNeeded --> family and friendship

WE CANNOT CONTRAPOSE A SIMPLE MOST ARROW STATEMENT 😭 We can only do it this time because it's a nested conditional (included strong conditional within the same sentence)/kick-it-up conditional. Some comments confused me.

If we contrapose this statement, we keep the domain in the front of the sentence:

Most people in modern society: /family and friends --> /IndispensableNeeded --> /Happy (first sentence)

(family and friends doesn't become an or because "sphere" was the actual subject we negate)

Meaning: If you don't have a sphere of family and friends, you are not happy...

Because Fewer than majority means "Most are not", we got Most people in modern society that do not have family and friends --> /IndispendableNeeded --> /Happy. Which is the same as E but rephrased: Most of the majority of people in a modern society that don't have family and friends (interpersonal relationships) can find happiness.

Hope this helps someone who is into conditionals like me ^-^

1
PrepTests ·
PT107.S3.Q12
User Avatar
Bobby68
Saturday, Jun 20

@yogibearboba Omg you found me! ^-^

1
PrepTests ·
PT148.S1.Q19
User Avatar
Bobby68
Edited Thursday, Jun 18

I did this one in a class and just had to come back to it! But for those that were stuck between A and B, hopefully I can add something to the convo so we can pay closer attention to certain words 💙

---

Notice how there is comparative language involved in the conclusion: "better" (different than just arguing for "good leader")...which means we do not know whether these candidates are good or bad, but we only know that Thompson is being argued for being "better" on the scale.

If the conclusion was arguing for what makes a "good leader", then B would probably be the stronger answer.

----------

B is a conditional statement for the criteria for "good leadership", but maybe Thompson and the other candidates are all "good leaders", just Thompson is "better"...or that everyone is just a bad leader, but just Thompson is slighter better, but still considered a bad leader. Similar to how many people believe that every candidate just is bad in an election, but they have to vote just for the better/best one out of the bunch to lead the people.

A is the stronger answer choice in that contributing to good leadership matches the comparative language we have, in that we are giving the extra ingredients and energy that pushes Thompson to be the better leader. Like if everyone was on the same level of leadership (whether good or bad)...Thompson needs something to make them special to be better, and the argument is saying that Opposing higher taxes is that special thing to push them to a higher level, but if we take that away, and make it irrelevant...than Thompson just goes back to being on the same level as everyone else, and we can't say they are better.

In graph form:

  • Politician's argument:

Better Leader|🤵Thompson with opposing taxes📈

Good Leader...|...........................................🤵‍♂️_🤵‍♂️(everyone else)

Bad Leader......|________________🤵‍♂️________

  • Answer choice A:

Better Leader|

Good Leader...|🤵opposing taxes don't matter📈🤵‍♂️...🤵‍♂️

Bad Leader......|________________________🤵‍♂️___

Notice how I placed some of the other people in being a "good leader", we just need to focus on weakening what makes someone a "better leader".

3
PrepTests ·
PT125.S4.Q19
User Avatar
Bobby68
Edited Wednesday, Jun 17

@SlippinJimmy2026 I know this is a super late reply to the question but maybe can be helpful to anyone else also seeing this... ✨

I actually found this question to be sneaky because "some", can mean at least one, and that one, can be last year's winner. 😖 So having the possibility that last year's winner may not have exceptional lung and heart is something the author ignored. If typically (word used in the stimulus) I go to the store to buy ice cream, does that mean that I will 100% the next time buy an ice cream? Mostly/usually/typically leaves room for change.

To your question:

Most doesn't guarantee that "some are not" since most can mean 100% (very weird I know 😳)...I think the "Not all" and "Most but not all" 100% guarantee that there's a group that is the opposite.

I learned in classes that the "overlooks the possibility" type of flaw questions can also be treated as a weaken. E might actually end up strengthening/agreeing with the author since if lung capacity and exceptional heart functions are relative to cyclists...then I am probably more likely to believe that the likelihood of a last year's winner will have an exceptional lung capacity. In flaw questions, I need to somehow doubt the conclusion that the cyclist must have an exceptional lung capacity.

A few takeaways for anyone also reading this is:

  • "some" can mean one to all

  • "most" can mean 50% to all.

  • Overlooks the possibility/fails to consider flaws can have an extra test of weaken (like NA negation test).

    Hope this helps ^-^

    I am also learning flaws and got a few wrong before this question on this drill 🫠

1
LSAT · Finding Split-Passage RC Drills
User Avatar
Bobby68
Monday, Jun 15

I got you! You can use the comparative tag on 7Sage!

In case it doesn't work I got the list here too 😊

--------

PT 123.S4.P2

PT 124.S4.P3

PT 125.S1.P2

PT 126.S2.P2

PT 127.S4.P3

PT128.S4.P4

PT 129.S4.P3

PT 130.S2.P4

PT 131.S4.P1

PT 132.S1.P3

PT 133.S4.P4

PT 134.S4.P3

PT 135.S3.P3

PT 136.S1.P2

PT 136.S3.P2

PT 137.S1.P3

PT 138.S1.P4

PT 139.S2.P2

PT 139.S3.P3

PT 140.S4.P2

PT 141.S1.P4

PT 141.S3.P3

PT 142.S3.P3

PT 143.S2.P3

PT 146.S4.P1

3
PrepTests ·
PT112.S4.Q15
User Avatar
Bobby68
Thursday, Jun 11

@StevenShan Oh I see! And I also agree! I had the similar thoughts about everything you said 😅

1
PrepTests ·
PT112.S4.Q15
User Avatar
Bobby68
Edited Wednesday, Jun 10

@StevenShan I think this question is tricky because it's way different than a lot of strengthen/weaken we run into. They gave us two things we are saying are bad in the first sentence: very large and very small classrooms. They talk a lot about the big ones throughout the stimulus, but then they want us to forget we were also arguing about the small ones because the stimulus never gave us any premise about it! 😭

So having an answer choice about small classrooms closes that gap and is supporting instructional quality/what's good for a university.

1
PrepTests ·
PT112.S4.Q15
User Avatar
Bobby68
Edited Wednesday, Jun 10

I don't comment on the modern PTs, but I think I see some confusion and questions I also had when looking at this one, so I hope to maybe add something here to support the convo 💙.

Very short breakdown: So the stimulus is arguing that BOTH very large classes and very small classes are bad. We get some info supporting very large classes, but nothing for small ones.

I thought to myself: Ok, so either the answer choices will support what's already been said for large classes, or add a premise about small classes. Then seeing all the answers, all of them were about small classes, just gotta pick the right one now 🥲.

  • ‼️avoid assumptions/story telling: if an answer makes you think "maybe this/maybe its because...", that's a bad sign for an answer...or if you are making up a story to make it fit, its a bad sign. Good answers give you helpful words that reduce the amount you have to assume...like the right answer here.

A) Professors who have very light teaching loads tend to focus their remaining time on research.

  • I wasn't sure what to assume for research, is it a good thing? A bad thing? I have no words that help indicate if this is a negative or a positive.

  • Even if I didn't get any indicator words, as a student who experienced professors ignoring students to do research, I might have that bias to say this is bad, but for "what's good for a university" as the author is arguing, lots of research is a good thing! More money, more prestige 💸💙 So more time for research is a good (not a bad) thing.

B) Classes that have very low numbers of students tend to have a lot of classroom discussion.

  • This was the answer choice that I had liked before seeing C because I thought maybe lots of discussion is a bad thing...more distractions, etc.

  • But similar to A, I would be bringing in my assumptions as to whether or not this is a bad thing. Discussions can be distracting, like those we see in the movies, but on the other hand, classroom discussion, as in the helpful type where the professor says "now talk to your neighbor about what we just learned" type of thing, would be aligned with being educational. So having more educational discussions id a good (not a bad) thing.

C) Very small class sizes or very light teaching loads indicate incompetence in classroom instruction.

  • This one had me thinking a bit more about it but I realized that out of all the answer choices not only does this answer choice indicate that small classes are bad, but also makes the least assumptions about why they are bad.

  • I don't have to be guessing why small classes are bad, since the word, "incompetence" is a negative word that gives me that negative feeling that answers A and B and E are missing.

  • I thought "indicate" was pretty weak, but after doing lots of strengthen/weaken questions, anything in this case that would give me doubt that something being good/give hope to something being bad is enough to strengthen the author's argument, even just slightly, can be a good answer.

    • As LSAT learners, we stress over our Law school applications because if anything on our application indicates something bad/incompetence, we could be rejected for it! Even if its an indication, the admissions people make decisions on such indications...🚩

    • Similar to cloudy skies indicating a rainy day, which makes me want to not bike outside...it might not rain at all! but I still make my decisions based on these indications.

    • Whoever this author is trying to convince with their argument, an indication of incompetence would be a red flag/persuading info to whoever is making a decision about these class sizes and support the idea that small classes are bad.

D) Very small class sizes or very light teaching loads are common in the worst and the best universities.

  • This answer choice doesn't help me because if small classes are in both the best and worst universities...it gives me the idea that small classes doesn't impact the school...

  • As a person making a decision about class sizes and my university isn't doing too well, I might say, hmm...I mean, small class sizes also are a thing at the best universities, I think we should keep them...maybe my problem isn't with class sizes. 😳

E) Professors with very light teaching loads have no more office hours for students than professors with normal teaching loads.

  • Similar to D, having "no more" than something else for me translates to "less or the same", where having less or the same office hours doesn't really do much to impact the actual quality of teaching.

  • Similar to A and B, I also don't know if this is a good or bad thing...I'll have to be assuming they are.

  • Having less office hours might be a good thing, maybe there's more time for research or teaching (many of my professors rush out of class just for their office hours), which is good for the university. Maybe its a bad thing, where less office hours, there's less time students can seek support, bit I can't tell how this impacts the quality of teaching when its the actual class time...I have to be assuming a lot here.

2
User Avatar
•

Edited Wednesday, May 27

Bobby68

😊 Happy

LSAT Discord Group (repost)

I don't want to spam here, so I share this every few months or so. :)

I'll keep it short this time too 😅 Here is the link to the LSAT discord I moderate 💙

Hopefully I continue having people who wish to help other's learning in a positive way.

https://discord.gg/eq7QSHKQnn

  • all LSAT scores welcomed!

  • free of ads and promotions (to avoid scams and keep learning accessible)

  • resources and chats for LR and RC help.

  • Daily LR everyday at 5PM PST / 8PM EST

I'm also doing my best to keep the server friendly but am grateful that folks in the discord have been doing their best to help facilitate this space to be this way.

It's named "California LSAT" as I originally wanted to have people in PST time zone, but everyone here is welcomed to join ✨💙

Thanks y'all!

3
General · 🎉 $50 Community Lottery May Winners 🎉
User Avatar
Bobby68
Monday, May 18

@LukaDoncicForMVP 🔥💜 LIGHT THE BEAM!!!

1
General · 🎉 $50 Community Lottery May Winners 🎉
User Avatar
Bobby68
Edited Monday, May 18

We did it chat! 😼🔥

Congrats everyone!!! 🎉 Thanks 7Sage team!

(I also hope my question breakdowns continue to help fellow 7Sage learners ☺️📚)

5
General · 🎉 $50 Community Lottery May Winners 🎉
User Avatar
Bobby68
Edited Monday, May 18

@TheBigFatPanda omg, you're here!!! 😄 Congrats!

1

Confirm action

Are you sure?