Help! I’m having a hard time ruling out B, C and E. Try to work with my analogy. I get overwhelmed after spending too much time with the stimulus.

Since Hillary Clinton always pays her political debt as soon as possible, she will almost certainly appoint Donald Trump to the supreme court.

Donald has wanted the job for a long time and Secretary Clinton owes President Trump a lot for his support in the last election.

I honestly did not know what to think and went straight to the answers. Any tips?

a. If Mrs. Clinton has no debt that is currently longer than the one owed to Mr. Trump, and it could be suitably paid with a seat on the court then, there the “almost certainly” holds. If we negate this, we’re saying Madame Secretary has owed Joe Biden, Kevin McCarthy much longer and they could be suitably be appointed to the bench. The id!ot in me stopped during BR and realized that if this is true, how can I convince myself that Trump’s appointment to the court is almost certain? Eliminate.

b. I eliminated this because the magnitude of debt doesn’t matter. Say maybe, Speaker Pelosi introduced Mrs. Clinton to her biggest donor at the time her campaign was at the brink of extinction, but Speaker Pelosi isn’t suited for the court (because she has no legal background).

c. Trump is the only person who Mrs. Clinton owes who would be willing to accept her appointment. So far, my reason to eliminate this would be that his willingness to accept the appointment could have no bearing on her appointing him. Maybe she wanted to go after Obama, who wouldn’t willing accept it as first hand but could be convinced to. This doesn’t make the assumption a strong one. The acceptance could have zero relation to her decision of appointment.

d. True. Heck, he became president.Negating this and viewing him as a highly qualified candidate doesn’t do anything to the argument.

e. “The only way.” Absolutes are always a red flag for me on NA. THe stimulus says, the debt has to be paid. Whether is adequately done, sufficiently, insufficiently or unimpressively done is not my business. As long, as it’s paid.

I’ve spent 40mins on this question. Can someone please help me to see if I’m making sense. At this point, I’m googling everyday vocabulary I come across in LSAT cuz this test will make you question your understanding of words you use everyday. The whole stimulus has me confused so I attempted to explain it by anaology. Here we go:

Fashion insiders have defined a supermodel as a highly paid, Instagram model.

Ok, but these two do not go hand in hand so what’s the tea?

A 90s model can be highly paid-doesn’t make her an instagram model.

Correspondingly, you can be an instagram model and not be highly paid.

This definition then is wrong.

If the definition is wrong, does it mean we're trying to argue that both go together?

Whoa! Why such a hasty conclusion?

For such a conclusion to hold means there has been some kind of violation in defining what a supermodel is. It requires you to be highly paid, but if the author is concluding on the relevance example by 90s models, then it depends on the assumption that the definition requirements have been violated.

a. 90s models were never instagram models. For NA, I tend to steer away from absolutes but here, if this is true then the conclusion isn’t wrong. Why? Because we’ve covered what it takes to be considered a supermodel. So it’s not the assumption. I honestly don’t know how I’ll be able to rule this out under time constraints.

b. 90s often become instagram models. So? Often? How often? Even if very often, do we know about their instagram affiliation?

c. 90’s models who are highly paid and IG models. If i’m violating the premise here by saying these highly paid models were also instagram girls, this assumption supports my contention that the meaning of supermodel is wrong. If we negate this, 90s models who are highly paid are not IG models. Baby the conclusion isn't wrong then-which wrecks the arguement.

d. 90’s models who are instagram models are highly paid models. This is reversed.

e. Throw this answer in the trash. It’s wrong in all forms.

While you're here, drop me some good luck and positivity. I've been at this for a year and I still don't see the light. My entire life savings for 11 years is almost all gone because I decided to devote my all to this.

PT81.S2.Q22

Older tests actually tested logic. These new tests just rewards your ability to weed through a pile of sh!t and narrow it down to the least pile of sh!t. It's like the test writers are abusing the word "most weakens," "most support," etc...

It's like "hey, here are 5 horrible answers, choose the least horrible."

Now why would an answer about your twin justify as a weakner?

Is this some new strategy we're to expect?

In need of a moderately priced RC tutor. LSAT has ran me flatout broke so I can't afford any high-priced tutor. I was really improving and then when I went back to CC, my average dropped significantly after. I can't tell if it's old passages or something else.

Is it just me or PT1-20 RC are all over the place? I hold a study average of -5 on 60+ but start bombing on 1990's PT. 4th attempt any now my confidence is all over the place.

The questions i'm getting wrong on LR aren't because I don't know what I'm doing. They're because I keep missing minor details in the stimulus. Any tips on how to overcome this?

Hello,

Looking to build a small group. Aiming for January here. No rush. This group will have a shared google docs where we will upload our scores. We will track and target each other's weaknesses. I've designed a format that will evaluate the effectiveness of this strategy. We will also work on writing our own LSAT questions on reading comp. Lawd knows I hate that section to the bloodstream. We will also take full PTs virtually together. I'm no LSAT expert. I bombed my first test 150. I want to master consistency and discipline.

What do you guys feel about taking an extended break?

I student 6 days a week (3, 2-hours sessions). Sometimes I'll do games for fun if I'm not tired or dabble with some weird LR question, or an untimed 90's ruthless passage- which can be a total of 7 hours per day. I've heard people who've had positive experiences taking about a week off. In my experience, the 6 days a week with sundays off works. Granted, I'm not as motivated as I am on friday & saturday as I'll be on a monday but I get through it. While I'm not burned out, I'm considering trying the extended off days to see if it'll impact my work. While there is some improvement, it no way reflects the work I'm putting in. I've become numb to the experience and treat it as a job. I don't excited to study but I don't put it off because I don't want to. I just stick to schedule.

What do you guys think about taking a week off? Have you tried it? How did it impact you?

Is there a specific section in the CC that teaches diagraming? I can do brain gymnastics pretty well but conditional diagramming isn't my thing. Any help will be appreciated.

Can we get a feature where we just adjust the times for taking sections and prep tests. 5 mins increments/decrements in time are more useful than jumping from a timed section to a time and half.

Could someone explain what I’m not seeing here? While I get why C is right, A is supported as well. The video explanation just ruled it out without offering an explanation.

The question is about what the author will be more like to agree with. A is basically saying that we are unlikely to assemble a jury capable of rendering an impartial decision due to the flaws in voir dire.

The author should agree with this because:

He claims the way the questions are phrased by the judges are problematic

Jurors don’t answer truthfully because they don’t want to participate in jury duty

There are those who overestimate their ignorance of a case.

The entire paragraph is about a judge’ favorite that is flawed-thus making the selection of a jury that will render an impartial decision a daunting task

These are valid reasons to draw such a conclusion-voir dire is flawed in a way that it is unlikely to select a jury that is capable of rendering an impartial decision.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-3-passage-1-questions/

I'm registered for January but I might cancel because I've invested over a year on my life in this LSAT to study to settle for anything less than 170. My PTs are very inconsistent; the last 3 have been 171, 154 (I damn near died) and 169. Reading comp. and LR are my issue. I can do any game you put in front of me in my sleep.

I've switched study habits and training for skill (the overkill route lol)- I can spend a good hour doing 5 questions. I'm looking for a few people who are willing to commit and ride through with me until test day. Please, only consider if you're able to devote the time.

Can someone break this down in terms of approaching a stimulus.

For some reason I get these kind of questions correct. Even on the hardest LR questions, I'll resort to POE and somehow get it right. How? I don't know. They are extremely confusing in approaching a stimulus. Thanks.

I want to try using tougher non-lsat passages to create questions. Each member will be assigned a question type to create with the same passage. Only message if you are serious and willing to commit, as this will require a group chat and a virtual meet-up to discuss approaches. If you can't turn your camera on to engage, and can't commit to meeting times, don't message. Personally I average -5 and this group will be more effective if the average gaps are very wide. From explaining answer choices to approaches, and sharing different way to tackle question stems, diverse averages will actually work best. Planning to sit for June but will reconsider if I'm not ready

I have a diagramming problem. I can fly through a complex question stem without diagraming, particularly on parallel reasoning and other LR questions but some harder former questions require diagramming and I can diagram for the live of me. Any tips on the cc?

how do you flag questions in law hub and how many timed should do you recmmend before test day. I've scheduled 8. is that enough? I have the fundamentals in the bag, my average (untimed) is -0 RC, -2, -0 LG. Can I start taking full-pts. My main issues are seconding guessing myself and taking too long on a question and building stamina. I be sleepy!!!!

Please don't forget my answer on flagging questions

These 90's games are ridiculous. Should I be concerned I can't maintain my average games pt 30 and below. The wording be having me think if a dumb b!tch exists somewhere in me and comes out from time to time.

"Kurt stocks the only aisle between the two aisles the Manny stocks which are neither end aisles."

Ma'am whett????

Maybe it's just me but also my honest feedback having been a 7sage student for months now. Some of these explanation videos can be frustrating. It assumes I have the same mindset, thinking or approach to J.Y. and doesn't even address remaining answer choices. "This answer is obviously wrong;" "Answer E is just crazy;" "once you figure it out C becomes obvious;" "there's no need to go over the other answers."

I mean they (wrong answer choice) clearly aren't that obvious if I chose it for my final answer.

You sure the answer is crazy? Cuz I was convinced it was the right answer lol.

It would be great, (especially) for LR if we get explanations as to why the wrong answers are wrong. For some of us, they may not be as obvious.

I'm unable to select problem sets with the new function. Help

Does anyone have a wrong answer journal sample they can share for LR & RC and explain how they incorporate it in their studies?

The shocking moment you're going through a passage, and totally certain you're going to get at least half the answers wrong but end up getting a perfect score. I closed my laptop and went to bed.

Is anyone able to take a look at Q23, RC?

I kindly ask not to be referred to the explanation video as it doesn’t answer my question.

The question asks us what happens when X is substituted with Paranthion with all conditions remaining the same. But in the experiment, only one group had predators- “line 42)“predator-free.”

A infers a change in the condition because it requires assuming both groups have Typhlodromus. It’s the only thing I have against this answer. Is there anything I’m missing?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-4-passage-4-questions/

For the 174 people who do a retake, I'm curious to know why you decide to take again. I saw a post of a 174 who was aiming for 177. HYS have a median of 171-173

Is there are lesson here on diagramming? I've skated through maintaining a -5 average without diagramming on LG but it's become difficult to break the plateau. I don't even know which goes first with ifs, only if, would not it etc.....

I'm fairly good at LSAT and can pretty much -0 my way in any section on a good day. The moment the timer goes on, it can drop to as low as -11. I've been at this for 10 months; full-time devotion and looking back, I feel grossly disappointed in myself. This was the first time I really took a chance on myself; committed 100% to something. Yet, my score doesn't improve. I'm running out of PTs. I haven't had a good sleep since I started about a year ago {because that's how bad I want it }and now I feel like it's slipping out of my hands. How do you decide, "I'll just settle with what I have and take the test?" I'm not too sure because the timed sections aren't representative of my potential-but the reality is that it's a timed exam with added test day pressure.