- Joined
- Mar 2026
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
Let’s say that 20 years ago, there were 100 ski injuries. Of those, 11% were knee injuries, meaning there were 11 knee injuries.
Now, the number of injuries has decreased by 50%, meaning there are now 50 injuries. Of those, 16% are knee injuries.
How much is 16% of 50? 8 injuries.
So, which percentage represents the lower total number of knee injuries: 11% or 16%?
Of course, it’s 16%.
An increase in the the proportion of knee injuries does not mean that the total number has not decreased.
This is the All-Before-Some invalid type of argument:
bad <--s--> fc or fc <--s-->bad
good --> fc
--------------------------------------
good--> fc <--s-->bad
good <--s--> bad or
bad <--s--> good invalid
In simple terms:
A <--s--> B
C ---> B
---------------------------------
C ---> B <--s--> A
C <--s--> A invalid
Hey,
Thank you so much for the advice! I totally agree with you. I sometimes try to write down the stimulus and the ACs in my own words, and it has helped me a lot with understanding difficult stimuli.
Thank you so much! I keep a wrong answer journal, and I even try to write down the stimulus and sometimes the answer choices by hand. It really helps me understand the information better. I’ll definitely need to do more drilling though!
Absolutely! I’ll let you know if I come across anything helpful. Wishing you all the best with the November LSAT! :)
I actually hadn’t thought about accommodations. I’ll look into it and see if I qualify.
For drilling, would you suggest doing 5–10 questions at a time, or does the number not really matter? I’m just curious about what worked best for you and what you found most effective.
Thank you for the comment! Would you be able to share your tutor’s contact information?
To answer your question, I get most Level 1, 2, and 3 questions right under time pressure, but I struggle the most with Level 4 and 5 questions. For some questions, time pressure is the main challenge, and as soon as I blind review them, I realize how much easier they actually are without the time pressure.
On the other hand, there are certain questions that I’ve spent more than half an hour on and still got them wrong during BR. I think part of this might be because English is my second language. For example, sometimes I come across unfamiliar words that makes the question much harder than it would be if I knew the meaning. However, I know that vocabulary isn’t always the issue.
Hi,
Thank you for the comment!
Do you think two weeks would be enough to spend on the book, given that I already have gone through 7Sage foundation curriculum?
Thank you so much!
I’ve actually noticed that my foundation isn’t that bad. For example, when I work on questions with invalid arguments, I usually can identify the assumption or flaw, or figure out how to weaken or strengthen the argument. I can also explain why the wrong answer choices are wrong.
Also, when I’m not under time pressure, I get more conditional and causal logic questions right. I get most Level 1, 2, and 3 questions right, but I struggle the most with Level 4 and 5 questions.
I do admit that I haven’t been studying consistently since completing the curriculum, and I think this may have affected my speed and the ability to apply what I’ve learned under time pressure.
Hi,
Thank you so much for your advice. I found it very helpful and really appreciate it!
I plan to take the LSAT in November. If things don’t go well, I’ll have no choice but to take it again in January. I’m just worried about my chances of getting into the schools I want.
I wish I had tried some other resources along the way, but even though it’s quite late, I’m still going to give The Loophole a try.
My weakest areas in LR are conditional and causal logic. With RC, I struggle most with inference questions, and of course, the time pressure makes everything much harder.
Thank you so much for sharing that! I would definately do that!
I find conditional and causal logic especially challenging and I know that I need to focus on those areas more.
I’ve only been using 7Sage so far. I’ve considered trying other resources, but I'm not sure if at this point, it is going to help due to lack of time.
Most of my studying now is doing sections and then going through the questions I missed or flagged one by one.
Hi everyone,
I could really use some honest advice.
I started preparing for the LSAT in late April 2026 with a diagnostic score of 149. I’ve been studying with the 7Sage curriculum for about five months, but unfortunately, I haven’t seen much improvement in my score. My last two PTs were 150 and 151.
I need at least a 160, and I’m planning to take the LSAT in November, which is only about a month away.
Has anyone been in a similar situation? If you were stuck in the low 150s, what helped you finally break through? Did you change how you studied, focus more on drilling, review mistakes differently, or postpone your test?
I’d really appreciate any advice or insight. Thank you!
I read the first sentence as if it is talking about "large adult frogs" while it is talking about adult frogs in general regardless of their size.
We know that adult frogs are vulnerable to dehydration which means they are better in wet climate, or moistured environment.
We also know that large adult frogs can live/survive in arid(dry) climate, but small adult frogs can not.
If large adult frogs can survive in arid climate, they would thrive in wet climate due to their permeable skin. So, we can conclude that they can live in more areas( arid and wet) than small ones.
@Hanifa
E is too generic of an AC:
The approach to problem solving typical of industrialists is fundamentally flawed.
It sounds like Madden claims all their approaches to problem solving are flawed while that is not true.
"Industrialists address problems by simplifying them, but in farming that strategy usually leads to oversimplification."
Madden is not criticizing the industrilists for simplifying the problems in general. She is saying that approach, if applied in farming, is not going to work, but would make things more complicated.
I got this question wrong during timed and BR.
Wrong interpretation of AC B
I interpreted B as if it is saying that there is no known natural cause that would account for the craters referred to in the stimulus. If that is the case, then it would eliminate Volcano and Meteorites both.
What AC B actually means
The keywords in B is "meteorite craters" .
It is telling us " look, if you think those craters are caused by meteorites, let me tell you something: there is no known natural cause that could have caused eight meteorite craters of different ages forming a straight line. So no, it was not caused by meteorites. Probably it was volcanic events."
It is important to notice that the stimulus is saying smoking in bed is the main cause, but it is not stating that it is the only cause. Maybe other causes that even though happen less are deadlier than the main cause which is smoking in bed. With this in mind, ACs A and C are out.
I think the argument would have been better if it was saying:
In each group, most of the volunteers said that they preferred sparkle cola to the competing cola tasted.
Even with that, you should be giving Sparkle Cola with the same competing Cola to each group so that you can conclude that most of the volunteers preferred Sparkle Cola. If you give each group a different competing Cola, the responses would be different, too.
I really like the running analogy! I used to run in the past but have stopped now, and the analogy totally makes sense to me. Thanks so much for sharing it!