Subscription pricing
I saw this clip on YouTube about the death penalty and I thought it was really interesting and something us future lawyers should think about...
PT Questions
andresxavierwang676
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
andresxavierwang676
Saturday, Mar 30 2019
andresxavierwang676
Thursday, Nov 27 2014
I think this goes for everyone: Take PTs early in the morning because that approximates better actual testing conditions.
andresxavierwang676
Friday, Feb 27 2015
@ - me too. @ and @ - it's emphasized in the course that you rarely will have time to draw or map out the lawgic when the clock is ticking. You have to go with your gut because you don't have time to do it for every single question. But the only way to improve your gut instinct is to like @ and others said to draw it out when you're Blind Reviewing.
And what @ said, lawgic is absolutely essential to the LSAT. Cool title by the way, I don't think I've seen "Mentor" before.
andresxavierwang676
Friday, Mar 27 2015
Way to go @.hopkins!
@.j.kwon You can see J.Y. do the games from PT 71 live:
http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-71-section-2-game-1/
Don't look at it though if you haven't already done PT 71 cause you'll ruin the game. But it's true that the way he does the games is not exactly the same as the way he teaches the games.
andresxavierwang676
Friday, Mar 27 2015
@ PT downloads work fine for me. If it doesn't work for you, let @ know.
@ If your objective is to obtain as many PDFs of the PTs, then now's the time to get the Ultimate course.
andresxavierwang676
Thursday, Mar 26 2015
@ Ohhhh yeah, if you add up all the paper I used it'd probably amount to a big tree having sacrificed itself for my LSAT studying and whatever thing printer toner comes from.
But seriously, girl, or dude, you can't go cheap on the printing. Use the extra paper! It makes a difference.
andresxavierwang676
Thursday, Mar 26 2015
@ Oh I see. Well, that's all I got. :)
andresxavierwang676
Thursday, Mar 26 2015
No, unless you manipulate the PDFs.
It's better to practice them on two pages b/c that's what you'll get on test day.
andresxavierwang676
Wednesday, Mar 25 2015
I'm not sure if this is a loophole but I can get to RC explanations via the Logic Games page. For example:
http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-1-section-2-game-1/
[Edit: I'm logged into my Ultimate course.]
andresxavierwang676
Wednesday, Mar 25 2015
Try to wake up early and study first thing in the morning like @.hopkins
J.Y. wrote about it here:
http://classic.7sage.com/lesson/the-three-worst-lsat-mistakes/
The point I would like to add is that waking up early in the morning actually means going to sleep early at night. It doesn't mean go to bed at 1am and force yourself to wake up at 5am... that doesn't work and I'm speaking from personal experience.
andresxavierwang676
Saturday, Mar 21 2015
As far back as 2011 research has shown that Netflix dramatically reduces piracy. Why? It's simple. If people have convenient and affordable access to legal content, they don't pirate. Conversely, if people don't have convenient and affordable access to legal content, they do pirate. If we want something, we'll find a way to get it.
Our analogue of Netflix is 7Sage (or LSAT Blog), offering convenient and affordable access to legal content. If LSAC takes this away from us, what do they think we're going do? "You know what it really was way too damn convenient to print out my PTs. I want inconvenience in my life."
No. Actually, even though I'm done with the LSAT, I might just pirate some PTs out of spite / to increase the number of seeds. Just kidding @, that would be un-sagely of me to do.
You'd think a company that places such a high value on logic (I'm talking about the LSAC) would understand the incredibly simple logic behind this argument (also know as reality). But likely the people who write the questions are not the people who run the company.
andresxavierwang676
Thursday, Dec 20 2018
@ that's PowerScore's terminology the "mistaken reversal" and "mistaken negation" right? Just want to be clear because I don't think 7Sage uses those names.
Given a conditional statement S: if A then B, the logically equivalent statement is if not B then not A. That's the contrapositive of (S).
The converse of (S) is if B then A. "mistaken reversal"
The inverse of (S) is if not A then not B. "mistaken negation"
But note that the converse of (S) and the inverse of (S) are contrapositives of each other, meaning they're logically equivalent statements. They each imply the other in other words. I think that therefore if an argument assumed a converse, it also assumed an inverse, and vice versa?
I guess I can see why PowerScore wants to call it a "mistake" but there's nothing inherently "mistaken" about those statements. They're fine, leave them alone. Just don't confuse if A then B with if B then A.
@ said:
I thought the flaw was stating that since neutering usually leads to improper bone development and that definitely ("in turn leads to" implies a causal result every time) leads to arthritis problems later on, then concluding that, "not neutering will solve this problem," is flawed logic, since there could be other reasons for why a dog has arthritis problems (i.e. there could be more than one sufficient condition).
Causation ("reasons") and implication ("being a sufficient condition of") are very different things, though they do share similarities. An implication is far stronger than a cause in a sense and completely orthogonal to it in some other sense. In our world, smoking does cause (is a reason for) cancer but smoking is not sufficient for (doesn't imply) cancer. One plus one implies two but one plus one does not cause two.
The stimulus contains only causal premises. It's true that there may be multiple causes for arthritis. But that's accommodated by the soft language of "protect." The conclusion is where a conditional is present but we can understand that by merely postulating a world where a dog owner wants to protect their dog from arthritis and evaluate whether in that world the causal premises support the consequent, i.e., the "necessary condition."
andresxavierwang676
Wednesday, Dec 19 2018
I thought it could be made clear by changing the conclusion to "Thus, if you want to protect your dog from arthritis you should not neuter your dog in early puppyhood."
Then it feels like the argument is no longer vulnerable to criticism. Yes, what (E) says about other ways to get arthritis is still true, but it doesn't much affect our argument.
andresxavierwang676
Monday, Mar 18 2019
This is a strange question and definitely feels like an older LSAT! I'll say upfront that I cannot satisfactorily address your question. I think it's just weird that the LSAT thinks we should know what counts as "hazardous waste." But anyway, here are my two cents.
I think the key inference is this: when the stimulus says that the mussels improve water quality by removing hazardous wastes, we can infer that either the wastes (1) stay in the mussels (trap), or (2) the mussels transform them to something harmless (neutralize). But the mussels cannot simply discharge the waste unchanged back into the water. If they did, they would not have improved water quality.
In (E), option (2) is explicitly ruled it out so we're left with just option (1), the hazardous wastes stay inside the mussels.
Now, your question:
@ said:
Why would it not be possible for the mussels to absorb some of the hazardous waste, but not necessarily become hazardous waste themselves?
I think this is a part-to-whole inference issue. Sometimes part-to-whole inferences are fine, sometimes not.
You can think of an all-star NBA team where each player is great, among the best, but the team is not so great because the players don't normally play together and so just suck at playing as a team. Other examples include emergent phenomenon, like how each individual ant is rather dim, but a colony of ants exhibit intelligence.
But then you have situations where part-to-whole inferences are okay to make. For example, if the each and every piece of a shack is made out of wood, even the nails, then it's fine to say that this is a wooden shack. In fact, I think even if the nails were metal, it's still fine to say that this is a wooden shack.
So we take the claim that since the mussels (whole) absorbed hazardous waste (part), and they're not neutralizing it, does it mean that the mussels must be regarded as hazardous waste? I don't know. It's not a must be true claim, but then we're not doing an MBT question. It's an MSS question, so I think it is okay to say that sure, we'll make the loose inference. It's like in RC, you have to make these kinds of loose, MSS-style inferences.
andresxavierwang676
Friday, Apr 17 2015
http://classic.7sage.com/get-the-lsat-trainer/
andresxavierwang676
Monday, Mar 16 2015
I agree with @ about having a more forgiving schedule. June will be tough for someone who's full time devoted to LSAT studying and wow you have a lot on your plate already! For example, it took me a full school year plus the summer plus part of the new school year.
Definitely enroll here (7Sage) if you haven't yet. If you need something else beyond that (your probably won't), then consider the Trainer.
No Powerscore.
andresxavierwang676
Wednesday, Dec 10 2014
So it sounds like a crap shoot for what do they charge now $1,300? Seems like a bad deal to me.
Also, I really don't like that they make you stay for many many hours at a time to listen to someone (with varying degrees of competence) lecture at you. Just why...
andresxavierwang676
Tuesday, Mar 10 2015
@.hopkins Great attitude! Be careful not to invert your commitments. Highest level commitment should be to actually see improvements and learn from your PTs (meaning you have to BR BR BR BR BR). A much much lower level commitment is # of PTs/week.
I'm talking about Mistake #2:
http://classic.7sage.com/lesson/the-three-worst-lsat-mistakes/
andresxavierwang676
Tuesday, Mar 10 2015
I agree with @
(1) All Apples are not Carrots
v.
(2) Not (all Apples are Carrots) = Some Apples are not Carrots. Note that that statement allows for the possibility of something being an Apple AND a Carrot. That's something sentence (1) does NOT allow.
andresxavierwang676
Wednesday, Apr 08 2015
@
said:
It’s like magic – the theory just appears when it’s needed, and is tucked safely out of mind when it’s not, ready to be invoked again on a moment’s notice.
That's a good way to put it.
andresxavierwang676
Monday, Sep 08 2014
To add to what joegotbored said, I think JY also meant that there are trap answer choices that sound like they deny the conclusion.
Example argument:
Batman has to be a billionaire to afford all the cool toys. Warren Buffett is a billionaire. Therefore, Batman is Warren Buffett.
That's not a good argument to begin with. Having done tons of LR flaw questions, it's quick to see that the flaw is sufficiency/necessity confusion. Just because WB satisfies a necessary condition for being Batman (having $$$) doesn't mean that he's Batman. There's more than 1 billionaire in the world.
So the way the LSAT would want us to weaken (or wreck) this argument is to reveal just how little the original premises support the conclusion. Or as JY likes to say "take away the support" / thin out Goku's beam. So I think here, we can say something like "You likely have to younger than 40 to be Batman and WB is 84 years old." That's a classic weakening answer b/c it is entirely consistent with all premises and the conclusion. Yet, now we see how little the original premises support the conclusion.
I think a trap "wrecking the conclusion" style answer - sorry I'm obviously not an LSAT writer - would be something like "WB is Spiderman". That sounds like it's contradictory to the original conclusion. It's just baity enough for us to presume "Oh obviously if WB is Spiderman, he can't be Batman." But... why not? Couldn't he be both?
andresxavierwang676
Friday, Sep 05 2014
Second Allison's suggestion. I think JY mentioned somewhere to get this watch:
http://www.amazon.com/Casio-MRW200H-7EV-Sport-Resin-Watch/dp/B005JVP0FU/
I get a sketchy vibe from LSAT Max.
andresxavierwang676
Wednesday, Nov 05 2014
I think J.Y. would say that our motivation would be misplaced: it doesn't matter what we got on this PT b/c it doesn't count. What counts is how much we learn from this PT and that's in BR.
We should train ourselves to separate doing the PT from a feeling of accomplishment. Doing the PT is not the accomplishment. The accomplishment is doing the BR. I think of the PT like buying the groceries. It's preparatory work. BR is making the meal.
I wouldn't try to connect "vibes" to my score. On actual test day, I expect my "vibes" will be off the charts because I'll be under intense pressure that I've not felt before.
andresxavierwang676
Thursday, Apr 02 2015
Initially I'd skip these - time sink - but later on in my studies I started "see the shapes" in my head. I actually think that a good number of the Parallel Flaw questions especially the ones that use Lawgic are fairly straight forward meaning they're often Common Invalid Argument forms.
One thing that helped a lot was BR and painstakingly translating into Lawgic or mapping out every single answer choice.
[Edit]
Lesson citation:
http://classic.7sage.com/lesson/7-common-invalid-argument-forms/
Yeah, I think if you're targeting around a 160, then it might be okay to systematically skip these.
It does feel like a shame though since when they click, they click and you're counting the points! :smiley:
I just checked analytics and in the most recent 12 PTs, there were on average 4 PSA and 3 SA questions per PT. That's a lot of points to give up!