I would highly recommend it. The reading you would do on the LSAT and on other material is different and those lessons help a ton.

I have read some of the comments and I understand a lot of the confusion that people are having. NGL through out my LSAT studies, I have seen how stubbornly annoying English can be. This is just how I understand predicates to be so take everything I say with a huge grain of salt. Feel free to correct me.

The way I understand predicate to be is that it the main word that is connecting the main subject to he main action. verb, or being of the subject. So for example it can be short as:

"I ran," "Kyle talked" or "dogs bark."

Unfortunately, the LSATs and the reading matter if were are to practice law is not that easy. Don't automatically assume that because you see a verb it is the predicate because it can also be modifying the subject. Additionally, predicates can be words like "has, is, are, were." I words that are similar "to being" if that makes sense. From my understanding, these are terms that are present-tense.

Here is the definition of present tense: the tense of a verb that expresses action or state in the present time and is used of what occurs or is true at the time of speaking and of what is habitual or characteristic or is always or necessarily true, that is sometimes used to refer to action in the past, and that is sometimes used for future events (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/present%20tense)

Below are some examples of using words like "is" and "are" as predicates to show how they can be the predicate.

.

the kids laughing unstoppable are going to love the movie.

The dad running with the stroller is tall

the kids playing basketball on the green court were ranked as some of the best players in the state.

#feedback

Would some be able to explain why there is no argument in 9.3? I do not think the "However" makes it not an argument as some have suggested here because 1.3 and 1.3 along with maybe a some other examples have "however" in it and the answers say they are arguments.

Additionally, 9.3 is similar to 9.1 and 9.2 in that in the first sentences we learn that a monetary increase is having an effect on a specific group. In the following sentence we are told that such increase has introduced a barrier to the group affected by the monetary increase - on that makes inaccessible. I just do not see how 9.3 is different than from some of the other examples.

I tend to get overwhelmed when I see questions like these that have long stims and long answer choices. Does anyone have advice on how to not feel overwhelmed?

I hope that most students who are having trouble with the LSAT, read this comment. This question is a great example of why the "fundamentals lessons" and in addition why there is an emphasis on learning things such as quantifiers, subjects and predicates. I implore you to take your time with those lessons until you fully grasp what is being taught because essentially this is an exam that is testing us on the precision of language. Moreover, there is a ton that we have read in the course of over 2.5 hours.

Thank you so much 7Sage for providing this type of curriculum because from the materials that I have accessed so few, if not, none go into details about teach the nuance of grammar, conditionals, quantifiers, among other stuff you folks have taught. Even if I never do the LSATs, go to law school, or become a lawyer, it has certainly improved my reading comprehension in general. Because of these lessons, I have better understanding of the stimulus and most of the questions.

#feedback

One of the things that helped me with visualizing conditionals with quantifiers will be below. IDK if I am right so I welcome feedback. This is based on my understanding from the lessons on here and two videos I saw on YouTube.

With chaining the quantifiers is that when it is a quantifier before all, we are trying to see if there is a relationship between the two supersets. These must be connected by a common subset. And in all cases but one, one of the conditional relationships must be all:

X's → Y's

(all/most/some) X's → Z's

the inference will always be X's ←s→ Z's because we do not how big Y or Z are.

The one exception is most

Most X's → Y's

Most X's → Z's

Inference: Some Y's

The other one is a straight chain like A→B→C. Like we learned about the subset → superset lessons, I will call B the sub-superset because it acts as both and IDK a proper word for it. The reason why the quantifier needs to be before the all in the chain ( how its actually written does not matter) is because if we say all of A is B and most of B is C, we do not know how big A or B are.

However, since all of B is in C, even if A is just 0.1% in B, A is the same amount in C. Therefore, the relationship between the subset and the superset will be the same as the subset sub=superset. So, the sub-superset needs to be all in in the superset. If this relation unfolds, any relationship between A and B will be the same between A and C so long as all of B is in C.

@ I was going over some of the lessons on Inferences/MSS. They have an example here of "will only" if you want to see an example in the lsat in action

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/mbt-lesson-1-pt61-s4-q07/?ss_completed_lesson=23918

I am not fully in your shoes but I have been studying for this exam for over a year. I have not been studying in the best manner but can empathize with your want to get this exam over with so you get your law school started. I live in Canada, so we have to apply for law school between November and the beginning for next year - I believe. If I apply this cycle and get in, then I would be starting law school in September 2025.

I am 28 and have had a lot of ups and downs in my personal live during the time I have been studying for this exam. It has been a time of a lot of personal growth and growing pains associated with it. I want to go into law for so many reasons. The money, some personal goals, and several others. I have spent so many hours studying but just feel like time passing is passing me by. and I cannot lie there is the seeds of doubt in my mind of many kind during this process many that still remain to this day. I do not know if this a similar stress that you are currently feeling. But we also got to be positive that regardless of the outcome things will be alright. It does not say anything about who we are. During this time I have been going to therapy and one of the things I am trying to learn is that we have plenty of time. Many people in their 30s, 40s and 50s are going to law school.

You might get into law school or you might not but I hope you do. At least you are trying. At least you have taken the exam while many have not.

I think if LG is your weakest, its not the worst idea to wait till 2025 to do your law school since you have only 2 more exams. It could take the stress away. It also helps to vent so if you ever wanna went my DMs are open.

@ you're welcome - best of luck in your studies!

#feedback

I believe there is a small grammar mistake on questions 3.2 and 3.3.5 under the "not both rule" section. It states: "They rule here only prohibits opera from scheduled on both of the days."

I believe it supposed to say the and not they

#help

I am reviewing these and was wondering if for number 18 we could put more things up the domain.

"Any journalism that provides accurate information on a subject about which there is considerable interest is good journalism."

To me it seems like there are three sufficient conditions

1. It has to be journalism

2. it needs to be accurate information

3. there needs to be considerable interest

So since it states that if is accurate information, and if it is a subject on which there is considerable interest, under the domain of the journalism it is sufficient to say that it is good journalism.

Hypothetically, if there was no considerable interest, then it we could not tell if it was good journalism or not.

For those stating that they wish they could see the whole answer before doing the video, the URL provides with the test number, section, and question. To sign up for these lessons you need a Law Hub subscription. You can always look it up that way first and then do the video.

I think you have the date wrong. This Saturday is the 22nd not 27th.

You did not put PT number or which PT it is. So its hard to know which PT you are referencing to.

@ thanks for your response - but I believe in cases with "only will" it modifies the second part of the sentence. I try to see which clause/sentence "only" is modifying. This would be in all of its uses. However the examples below are ones I try to use for "will only"

Lets take this simple sentence and later translate it to a "will only:"

"_If you play for the Lakers, you are in the NBA_."

Being in the NBA is something that is necessary to be in the Lakers.

To translate it to a "will only"

_You will only play for the Lakers if you are in the NBA_.

_You will only play for the Laker when you are in the NBA._

What helps me is knowing that not every NBA player plays for the Lakers, Almost a majority of them play for a different team. So seeing which one is the subset and which one is the superset makes it easier with this example. It cannot be that every NBA player is in the Lakers, so it has be If Lakers then NBA. With this example, it made it easier for me to understand a bit more how "will only" works.

Regarding the tutoring example above that was taken from the lessons, asking who will only be tutored helped.

High school teachers who teach AP courses will only tutor students they believe to be in danger of failing

In this example, we see that there are two conditions. The first one is tutoring and the second one is "those they believe to be in danger of failing." We might not be able to use the same tactic as the NBA one since we do not know the numbers but which one makes more sense?

if in danger of failing then being tutored

or

If being tutored then in danger of failing.

What I also do is ask what is the only referring to? In the case of " will only tutor" you can ask well who are they only tutoring? it would be students that are in danger of failing.

I guess you can also ask "who will the tutoring be only applied to?" to break only away from will.

This is how I was able to make some sense of it. I am not 100% sure if it right but if anyone wants to correct me or improve upon it I will greatly appreciate it.

@ https://discord.com/invite/ekGwWsJN

Here is a link - it's not only limited to a readying study group.

Long ago i started one and have people on there but I am terrible at managing it. We have it all set up and with templates. LMK if you are interested in it and want to talk a look to either copy or help mange it

Just when I thought my brain was slightly recovering from trying to understand English, I see question number 8 and then question if I want to be a lawyer hahaha

#help

For Number 4, how important is to state the inference that it was sent to the lab? Am i being lazy by just saying that it was not a naturally occurring strains of wheat?

I think you are confused with:

A-->B--->C

This would make it : A+B -->C

The one you wrote is A--> B and C. If A happens than so does B and C. There is nothing in your formula that indicates that B triggers C. It could be the case that B happens but not C if we look at the CP - which is if not B or C than not A.

Thank you for sharing your story. I have been studying for over a year now and haven't felt like I have move forward but this gives me some hope!

interested

I am confused because I am under the impression that we are using the conditional rules from the previous lesson about the right to keep a pet. So since in that phrase, we are told that if those conditions are met, you will get to keep the pet. However, no such thing was stated in the premise of the Percy example. Since it was never mentioned in the premise, is that why the conclusion is invalid?

Are we not supposed to use the information for the previous example?

My question: when people use the word "the fact" or "evidence" they are referring to the premise in the stimulus?

I would like to ask about use of the phrase " the fact" in answer choice A. "the fact" that is interpreted in this answer choice is the wrong interpretation of what was stated in the stimulus from my understanding. The "real fact" is there was no causation stated -- just a correlation.

However, the author interprets this as causally relationship to create a causally conclusion. That is my interpterion of answer choice A based on what other have said above as well as from reading it again. I just want to know for future reference on how to interprets words like fact or evidence in answer choices.