Discussions

devinbalut560

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

devinbalut560

Friday, Jan 30 2015

How much time the paper distribution and formalities takes, though maybe you'll be used to waiting around if you have been PT'n authentically, I hadn't taken a PT at that point so was unprepared. I barely found the place in time so I was pumped full of adrenaline when I got in. 20 minutes later when we started it had all vanished lol

General · PT63.S1.Q05 - an employee of our company must be impartial

devinbalut560

Wednesday, Jan 28 2015

This is a bit tricky for the same reason a lot of these 'find the missing link' questions are. That is because they seem like they make sense already. Try to remember though that LSAC is god, and whatever they state as fact is fact, and that in most cases only what they tell you explicitly can be taken for granted.

I'm not sure if this is allowed so if it isn't please edit out this comment, but I'm going to try and make a question that follows similar logic.

Architect: The design of an Art Deco building should always show a holistic blend of traditional craft motifs and industrial imagery. Thus support pillars for such buildings should be mixed with some traditional and some industrial pillars because past pillars have been made in both styles that inspire Art Deco.

That's not a perfectly similar example, but hopefully the logic in it will be close enough to be helpful.

So basically we have the concept (word of god) that Art Deco buildings should show a holistic blend of x and y. Then we have another statement that seems to follow that goes like 'some particular aspect of the building needs to be both something like x and something like y'.

Now two important considerations:

1) x and y don't exactly match the original x and y. (In your question there is only x but same idea)

2) Putting half x and half y doesn't necessarily make a holistic blend of styles x and y.

So we need something that links the premise and the conclusion since the conclusion isn't fully supported.

A good bridge (heheh) would be:

"In the selection of pillars for Art Deco buildings a mixture of industrial and traditional styles helps to create a holistic blend of craft motifs and industrial imagery."

Again it's not a perfect comparison but the idea is that just because you shoved the two styles together doesn't mean that it surely holistically blend. You need another statement to equate the two, or you'll always be left wondering... Will It Blend?

LSAT · PT57.S1.Q05 (G1) - on a particular saturday

devinbalut560

Wednesday, Jan 28 2015

The question is asking for a rule replacement that still yields the same possibilities (no reduction in possible states, no new states, the exact same set of possibilities). It's likely that such a rule would be identical (the contrapositive of the first rule) or have the exact same effect on the rule board if it were to allow the exact same possibilities as the original rule. So yes when you don't want to effect the game by changing a rule, then the question is probably asking you to find a rule with an identical effect.

LSAT · PT16.S1.Q18 (G3) - on an undeveloped street

devinbalut560

Tuesday, Jan 20 2015

Okay just trying the set up from the start.

So we have houses 1, 3, 5, 7

Across from houses 2, 4, 6, 8

There's 3 types of houses. r, s, and t.

Adjacent houses (13, 35, 57; 24, 46, 48) cannot be the same type.

Opposite houses (12, 3,4, 56, 78) cannot be both s.

If a house is a 'r' type than at least one house next to it will be a t (any corner r has a t next to it).

3 = r

6 = s

5 cannot be a s (6 across from it is a s). 5 cannot be a r (3 next to it is a r). Therefore:

5 = t

---

Okay so last question takes away 6 = s, which therefore takes away 5 = t so we can only go through options one by one.

a - impossible, r with no t next to it.

b - possible, the few restrictions in place allow this.

c - possible

Ah I'm an idiot it's a simple misreading. You're correct in saying A is impossible. But the question is asking what can't be true, not what can be true. So A is right because it's wrong.

LSAT · Drawing out conditional sentences in LR

devinbalut560

Tuesday, Jan 20 2015

I only bother writing anything on the LR section on questions with stupidly confusing presentation, especially where you need to compare arguments and find similar ones when the original presentation is very complex. Generally I agree that if you understand the logical principles you'll come to an answer quicker just reading the question. More often I'll underline key words and relationships, but usually find formal logic slows down answering the question.

General

•

Thursday, Jan 15 2015

devinbalut560

LR. Worried I might break something... Advice?

Hi 7Sage! I love this forum, sorry to pester you all again with walls of text.

Background: I started studying the June 2007 test. I did well on the RC/LR sections but only got halfway through the second game of the LG section before I hit 35 minutes. I think I got three wrong so ended up 6/23 for the section. Since then my entire focus has been on logic games. I've probably printed out some 40 games and completed them under timed conditions, and I've read the entire Powerscore LG Bible. I still can't complete 4 games in 35 minutes consistently. It's easily my weakest section despite putting all my focus on it.

I knew there was no chance I could study for the February exam with school going on so I decided to take last December's while I was traveling so I could see where I was at. I missed an entire game on the LG section (filled in all Ds for it so I might have gotten me a point or two) and scored a 166.

Since then I've taken 4 timed PTs and scored very well when I complete the LG section in time (172, 175) and worse when I don't (166, 167). Generally I lose very little on RC/LR (they're about equal losses for me) and that hasn't really changed since I started taking tests. That said I think the only way I'm getting accepted into a decent law school in Canada with my abysmal GPA (the program I'm in is terrible for GPA but that's another story) is with a T14 level LSAT. So I know that in all likelihood if continual drilling of LG sections is not improving my speed anymore I really need to be able to count on a -0/1/2 for each of the other three sections.

BUT I also know that reading about LGs dramatically changed how I approach them and how I think about them. In some ways it's good, in some ways I think it's actually slowed me down (surely a lot of my improvement can be chalked down to repetition). I am very nervous about studying RC/LR extensively only to destroy some innate logic I've developed before the LSAT or to slow down my reasoning as I usually finish those sections with 1-2 minutes. I'm also worried of making my logic formulaic (as stupid as that might sound), because the way I approach RC/LR right now feels pretty organic, and the way I do LG feels totally formulaic.

Of the questions I've gotten wrong, no type stands out. The only similarity between them is that they were all 4/5 star difficulty questions, but I have no types of question to drill/learn about specifically. So for anyone who has been at the point where they average -3/-5 or something like that on LR/RC and wanted to take that down to consistent -0/-2 did you manage it? And how did you go about doing it? Or if anyone found LR/RC came naturally to them did you find studying those sections specifically was actually detrimental? And if anyone thinks it's worth studying LR/RC, what would you say I should start with material wise? As for LG, is there any better speed improving strategy than to drill?

Sorry this is so long or if it all comes off as paranoid. I'm just feeling a little nervous after talking to schools and finding out the level of score I'll have to get to be accepted anywhere decent and am kind of lost on how to move forwards from here.

General · What do you guys think about powerscore bibles?

devinbalut560

Thursday, Jan 15 2015

My initial attempt at studying was just to try the June 2007 LSAT, redo it, and then scrounge the internet for random 'LSAT-like' questions. I do not recommend this. I can say that the Powerscore LG Bible helped me improve what was obviously my weakest section, mostly by giving me ways of diagramming problems I didn't really know how to start with or had inferior/less efficient ways of presenting.

It's a fairly quick read and I found it improved my scores. That said I'm not enrolled in any 7Sage program, so I'm not sure if they are less effective or even counter-productive (as some people are suggesting here) when being used with a wide variety of prep materials.

LSAT · Just Read It?

devinbalut560

Monday, Jan 12 2015

That's still using logic, just internal logic. If a statement is complicated enough it can help to write with propositional logic to clarify what argument is actually being made. That said, calling the logic taught in lsat courses as lawgic, or implying it's some lsat-specific nonsense serves you badly.

If you're getting the right answers without writing it out, it's just because you're reaching the right conclusion using the same understanding of arguments. Unless you're doing better than -3 a section it would probably help to learn it.

LSAT · Need your help -- Still struggling

devinbalut560

Monday, Jan 12 2015

I think maybe my situation is different though, it looks like Canadian law schools don't care about the LSAT nearly as much as American ones. I'm not sure their rankings even use it, they certainly don't like to post about it if they do. I hate how GPA matters so much. It makes sense for a lot of reasons, but they all fall apart if every undergraduate degree from every school is treated the same... which for feasibility reasons pretty much has to happen. Standardizing stuff makes it all so much simpler.

LSAT · Need your help -- Still struggling

devinbalut560

Thursday, Jan 08 2015

About that - does it really make any difference if you're an extreme splitter? Do most schools value a 3.2GPA 175 that much better than a 3.2GPA 170? I don't think I'd be getting money either way so I'm just curious from an acceptance standpoint.

LSAT · Need your help -- Still struggling

devinbalut560

Wednesday, Jan 07 2015

As far as I can tell you're already there if you're averaging 176. Figure out what questions STILL take time for you and drill them since you're at the point where it doesn't look like you have any new questions left to attempt. It sounds like you did everything right, I could only really say might as well perfect the last few problem questions ones if you're this serious.

The new LSAT LGs have trouble being THAT different than anything you've seen before, I know they throw in an oddball most tests but if you know all the previous ones inside out even the tests with radically different games you'll have less trouble with. When it happened in the test I took I panicked, in retrospect it wasn't that bad to set up once I stopped panicking. Focus on the layout you could use for that question, don't try and determine if it's perfect, jot it down without making the inferences and quickly see if the next couple questions would work well with this model. I find having a model already written with the questions really puts the game into perspective and identifies what model should be used if it's not the one you did take (and 90% of the time you do choose the right one). Spending 2 minutes deciding a model sucks, this lets me get to inferences quickly. The good thing about the oddball tests is that in those tests the curve is likely to be higher - the bad thing is that might mean nothing at 175 where people are likely still -0'n it.

I would highly recommend not attempting independent test makers questions. I did that for (especially RC/LR but LG as well) in the beginning and there are questions that just suck. I'll hand it to LSAC, they're tests are almost always immaculate. Almost no ambiguity when taken completely literally, rules that are almost always used at least once each, fairly consistent logical jumps at the high end questions. In my experience this has not been the case for independently made questions. I found them for the most part too easy to feasibly practice with (currently you're likely losing points on the last question of sets and on the hardest set of the section when you do -5 right? No point training yourself for easy tests) and often requiring stupid reasoning or interpreting somewhat open statements as if they had stated something rather than implying something open-endly. Maybe you can find another resource that's decent for LGs, but I wouldn't recommend it. I think some of the LSAC packages include previously released tests (international, February, etc). If you're really thirsting for new questions this might work, but do keep in mind stuff from 1990 probably isn't much more useful than a 2011 test you've already done.

And yeah if you're completing quickly, don't do that. I wish I could complete LG quickly, it's my slowest section and while I don't screw up questions very often, I also can't complete it consistently. Having 5 minutes at the end is nice, but it's not like RC or especially LR where it makes sense to skip a couple hard questions, or best guess them, and then come back to them at the end. Unless you're a machine (in which case I imagine LGs would be your best section) coming back to questions in the LG section is very difficult. You have to return to a question you had trouble with after familiarizing yourself with the problem and the rules, totally blank, and make insights that don't forget any of the restrictions. I would strongly advise you take as long as you need to answer the questions well, and make sure you adjust for the fact that you'll have passing familiarity with most of the ones you attempt at this point.

For test day questions I wouldn't even advise skipping within a set since LSAC often seems to set up a set of questions so that previous ones will force/help make inferences that later questions will need. That said if you have to skip a local question early on in the set, coming back to it after you have tackled your global problems can be a big help because global problems sometimes help point you towards an inference about the general game that often helps with the trickier questions.

Sorry if this is all old hat. You've been at it a lot longer than me and with better results (though I did butcher my LG section), so don't know what I can mention usefully.

LSAT · Study Group in Vancouver, BC

devinbalut560

Wednesday, Jan 07 2015

I'd be interested in joining.

LSAT · Finally reviewed my errors from PT 74

devinbalut560

Wednesday, Jan 07 2015

Yeah I got an empty sheet in IRR. Well that sucks, but makes a lot more sense. Thanks for letting me know.

Should I expect that the released PT 74 won't correspond to the test I wrote then? I have lots of unused recent PTs, don't really wanna bother buying it unless I can check what I got wrong on the real thing.

General · Tips for improving speed?

devinbalut560

Wednesday, Jan 07 2015

Writing the LSAT is kind of like making an analogy. In all likelihood your first few analogies will suck. You will spend a long time just to make poor comparisons that fail to illustrate anything interesting or insightful. Over time you will learn to recognize the patterns of differences and similarities that make analogies work and eventually you'll be able to make decent ones, and quickly. You'll even be able to make them between things that don't make any sense at all, or to illustrate exceedingly simple concepts like "practice improves accuracy/speed" in increasingly strange and convoluted ways!

General · Length of test

devinbalut560

Saturday, Feb 07 2015

All I know is that in Tokyo which was insanely efficient in everything, it was nearly 9:30 before we started the first section. If you're not fond of asking someone for a phone I'd give an estimate of 2:00PM to be safe. 1:30PM if they don't mind possibly waiting around.

General · 7Sage Changes and Updates

devinbalut560

Saturday, Feb 07 2015

Thanks for the quick answer. This is such a well run site it's insane.

Screw it I love you guys, I'm gonna buy a course for June's test this weekend - broke or not.

As for rankings I only noticed it because the discrepancy was within the same test (PT 42). Is the normalization also done between game sections? Makes a lot of sense for stuff like J07. Probably looked like the hardest test in existence before that.

LSAT · Finally reviewed my errors from PT 74

devinbalut560

Wednesday, Jan 07 2015

Thanks! Sorry to hijack your thread but within my account I'm not able to see the answers to my MC Questions/Answers. While I can see my written submission, my percentile rank and my score in separate pdfs the one for the actual answers is not there to be clicked.

Any ideas on this? I'm thinking I may never have those answers released because I took the exam in Tokyo and they may have a different copy of the test to reduce the possibilities of cheating with someone who took it in an earlier time zone. As far as I know they only release one copy of each term test. Any ideas on this?

LSAT · Finally reviewed my errors from PT 74

devinbalut560

Tuesday, Jan 06 2015

I still can't understand how people are checking their answers. I don't see PT74 offered anywhere and I don't see the correct answers in LSAC. Where do I find this?

General · Hi Guys, I have troubles again. Any advice will be appreciated.

devinbalut560

Thursday, Feb 05 2015

I have no idea if this applies in your case, but most of the people I know who got stuck in low 150s after working hard at the LSAT had a problem with accepting that they were wrong. Not on a question by question basis, but in a fundamental line of reasoning sense. They defaulted on "well I kind of get why it's right, but I still think what I picked worked too" or something along those lines. I noticed it especially from people confident in their own abilities, and a couple tutors have mentioned it on 7Sage as well.

Being on 7Sage you'll hear that every LSAT question has 5 answer choices and 4 of them are absolutely 100%, indefensibly wrong. My only gains (small though they are) on LR/RC have been from embracing this mentality and affixing in my mind exactly why each choice is wrong or right.

Now your case might not have anything to do with that (and if it isn't know I mean no offense, I only thought it'd be helpful if it was), but what I keep hearing here is that LSAT mindset is all about mindset. When you're smart (I'd think a 3.8-3.9 would say that), but after dozens if not hundreds of hours you're testing in the low 150s I'd agree it's more likely a fundamental concepts thing. And if your BR still leaves 7 questions wrong per LR section despite the efforts you've made I think you have to look really close at those misses. A tutor might help hit key areas.

So yeah what other people are saying. Work on fundamentals. Hyper-analyze your mistakes for patterns. Don't be discouraged. People here make phenomenal gains. You're obviously smart but you're having some setbacks and working through a language barrier so it might take a while, but I'm sure you'll get the score you want if you continue to work as hard as you have.

LSAT · coffee

devinbalut560

Wednesday, Feb 04 2015

I didn't even think about it. I guess I just got lucky being in Japan when I took it. Their schools have vending machines and their vending machines have coffee (yeah ikr).

I'd check with the particular test center, I've been hearing some inconsistencies with rules that aren't directly stated. The three watch thing sometimes not being allowed in particular, but a couple random other things too.

General · 7Sage Changes and Updates

devinbalut560

Wednesday, Feb 04 2015

About the 'difficulty' rating, how is it calculated? I see some questions 54% of people got right are 4 star questions while some 5 star questions have as much as 57% correct. So far what I've looked at fits certain % thresholds based on correct responses divided by answer responses where the 4/5 difficulty split is about 58% (ignoring skipped questions actually made the difficulty system consistent) but I haven't used that system on a lot of question and as I based it off one PT worth a questions the fact that it models that PT well might not actually mean that's how it's done.

Sorry I know this probably isn't the place for it (feel free to delete this post). Just curious. I'm doing some data gathering because I wanted to test if despite the LSAT having similar -x for varying levels of scaled scores if maybe people's claims that LR/RC was getting harder and LG was getting easier (other than oddball games) was true not just from a 'things are different' standpoint, but also from a percentile correct one. No worries if you can't provide that.