Hi Bailey! Any chance 7Sage offers accommodations/alternative days for Sabbath keeping 7Sagers that are unable to participate on Saturday?

Great work!!! That is no easy feat, thank you for sharing.

Congratulations!!! What a story, thank you for sharing.

I'm dealing with the same situation. My plan is to try a few PTs where I truly skim with a low-res understanding and go with my gut so that I can get through all 4 sections. I'd recommend experimenting with both routes and see how well you can get by with just your intuition.

Hang in there, everyone! This test is brutal. I took it September 2022, then decided to retake it one whole year later this September. Come test week, I still wasn't seeing the results I wanted, so I rescheduled (and lost my money) for November. Now, I'm consistently scoring much closer to my goal and these extra two months have been a game changer. There are a lot of factors to consider in regard to rescheduling or even taking a gap year. Just know that no one path is the best for everyone. Go with your gut. Keep at it, hard work pays off.

It seems strange to assume that small animals know that their predators often leave their food in a hiding place before eating it (which seems like the only way the small animals could have such a "survival instinct") but I suppose (B) is still better than the others... I definitely fell for (A).

For (B), isn't it a bit of a stretch to assume that "water should be supplied by a government agency" implies that it should not be supplied by a private for-profit company?

For me, thinking of these questions in the "bridge the premise to the conclusion" framework makes it feel a bit like an RRE question. Imagine both sentences in the stimulus were just two statements of facts instead of an argument, and the question asks something like "Which of the following, if true, would best explain the two phenomena?" Well, if answer choice A is true, that would "explain" the phenomena, as it links them together.

#feedback I believe the written explanation for (A) may have some issues. After pointing out that the answer choice used "against" instead of "in favor of," it fails to switch back to the original wording for the next part. "It’s true that there is a lack of evidence in favor of that view. But that’s not something the author asserted." Maybe this explanation was intentional, but remember, this is the modified answer choice. There is no follow-up explanation for why the actual choice is incorrect with the original wording (and using the shoe factory as the subject).

Additionally, I think there is a typo in the final sentence of (A)'s explanation:

"...the author takes that to be proof that an opposing view (the shoe factory) is incorrect" should conclude with "...is correct."

No way, I can't believe they're actually doing it...

I had a very similar experience. Those newer tests really knocked the wind out of my sails. Following this thread for input.

Necessary assumption, sufficient assumption, and strengthen questions make me think of a "get your foot in the door" kind of analogy:

To strengthen an argument, you want to get the door open as wide as possible (even if it barely opens further, just a crack).

Sufficient assumptions swing the door wide open.

Necessary assumptions just keep the door unlocked.

Would it be accurate to say this stimulus was a biconditional rule? That is: endorsement ↔ certain conditions

It seems like the phrasing would imply that, and J.Y.'s explanation that it is both necessary and sufficient makes me think of biconditional rules from logic games. #help

#feedback I often have to refresh the page a few times before the option to adjust the speed of the video appears. This works fine, but I thought I would mention it!

This question is a nightmare. With so many vague, easy-to-conflate terms, I did not feel that the explanation sufficiently clarified anything. There is some good feedback in the comments, but I'm still lost #help

#feedback Just a couple of typos: question 4 explanation, "...but it think it begins at 95%" and question 6 explanation, "We are talk about..."

#feedback Possible typo in question 6, "peer reviewed" should be "peer-review."

#feedback The hyperlink for "nesting" on question 5 leads to a 404 error page.

(E) was super tempting for me. In blind review, I decided to eliminate it when I realized it's more like a necessary assumption than the conclusion itself. Think of it this way: in order for the conclusion to be true, it must also be true that the local newspaper’s treatment of Clemens is indicative of its treatment of public figures in general. But is that what the author is trying to prove? No, she's simply assuming it to be true (which sounds like a weakness in the argument, but that's not what we're after right now).

#help OK, I have a weird question. Doesn't the "proper inference" of (E) ignore the possibility that the children who misbehave (and were subsequently placed outside) all happen to have, say, higher-than-average self-esteem and projected adult confidence to begin with, and therefore the following reduction in what their adult confidence could have otherwise been simply brings their levels down to the average adult level of confidence? Essentially, it's a bad sample, because there could be other correlations in the two groups that are not factored in. That feels like a stretch, but can we really say with absolute certainty that (E) is correct and this hypothesis is not the case? Thanks!

This felt more like a strengthen question to me. In no way does the answer choice seem to guarantee the conclusion (it's doesn't appear "sufficient" at all). I picked the correct answer choice because it was much better than the others and I could feel that it strengthened the argument, but I thought I was missing something. On second look, the conclusion is very weak: "this thing may happen." What would absolutely enable this thing to be possible? Answer choice B.

For what it's worth, I took the November LSAT on late-morning Friday and had no issues!

I've had the same issue. I'm using an older Mac with Chrome.

Love watching these classes!

Does the "could have reasonably expected" premise rule out an answer choice that says someone "reasonably expected" something to happen? It sounds like J.Y. is saying that the premise implies that the mindset could have been there, but was not (by the wording's implication). But wouldn't the "possibility of something happening" automatically be met by it's actual occurrence? #help