- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
Hey 7Sage fam,
I just finished the core curriculum, and it felt like a big accomplishment! It took me three months, and things were starting to click in the lessons and drills. Then yesterday I started taking on some real sections, only to do considerably worse than before I started studying three months ago. Before studying at all, I was getting -6-7ish on LR sections, and now I'm at almost double that...help! Is this normal? What am I doing wrong? I really hope this is normal and I didn't waste 3 important months of study time :(
We made it to the end of the CC y'all!! You deserve a lil treat now
I really enjoyed the way Kevin's lessons all had a written version of the lesson below the video. That way we could read and analyze the passage on our own before watching the video. #feedback
How come I keep getting the easy ones wrong, but was able to do this with confidence in 30 seconds? lol
Yea, I got the last 5 star right, and then totally bombed this one for that same reason.
How did I understand this but not get the previous two right...*facepalm
This was a great exercise! I would love to see more like this sprinkled in the rest of the LR section #feedback
I'm so hot and cold on this section. The last question seemed nearly impossible to me but this one only took me 45 seconds and they're both level 4 difficulty. Whyyyy
After rewatching the video and reading the comments, I'm still not understanding why it couldn't also be answer choice B. If they both meet the conditions for rule 1, but Penn failed one of the qualifications for rule 2, wouldn't he still be ineligible to receive the award? Or are we supposed to assume that there's another way besides rule 2 that he could take to earn the award because he has an exemplary record?
Does anyone have a specific strategy for drills? Like do you do them on an easy level first and then work your way up? Do you move on only when getting 5/5 on the hardest setting?
For real. Maybe I'm just bad at this question type, but I thought it was way harder than some of the 5/5s I've seen so far.
I'm going to be honest...I'd probably just skip this one instead of wasting 5+ minutes trying to figure it out
E is very tempting, but if you break it down, it does not affect the conclusion. Think of it as saying "people are more likely to use sunscreen if they have a higher chance of getting cancer". Well this doesn't really strengthen or weaken the conclusion that "Sunscreen is unlikely to prevent skin cancer". They're two closely related but different statements, whereas B is actually in relation to the conclusion.
The problem is that C does not explain the whole phenomenon, but A does. C is saying that cars pull out slower when another car is present, which makes sense, but it doesn't explain the time discrepancy between cars waiting vs cars waiting who are honking.
I think you can essentially throw away the "over the truth" part and just think of it as: Which answer shows the most support for Wong and Tate's statements disagreeing
Should we repeat these drills until we're 100% every time, or is it ok to move on if it's not quite perfect?
I would love to know how this directly relates to questions we may see on the LSAT. I've read that you're not supposed to make any assumptions on the test, but it seems like all 4 types of hypotheses do just that?
It would be helpful if there were something in the lessons that showed how this will relate to questions on the test.
Can someone help me out with 6?
Acquiring knowledge requires information processing which requires computation which requires a computer which requires matter.
If Acquiring knowledge requires information processing, shouldn't that be:
Information processing → Acquiring Knowledge
Then the same for the rest of the chain, making it the opposite of what's listed. Confused by this one.
I'm pretty new to this, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I understand it is that:
If A is "Some cultivars of corn", B is "sorghum", and C is "most other cultivars of corn", the sentence is saying: A is more related to B than it is related to C. So the comparison is between B and C, not A, which gives us "sorghum" and "most other cultivars of corn".
Check out the LSAC site for the official schedule of when to sign up: https://www.lsac.org/blog/november-lsat-scheduling