This podacst is very helpful. It has really caused me to be honest with myself and realize I am not studying the right way. In addition to more rituals (waking up at the same time every day, writing out the main point/summaries/author's tone/structure of RC passages, etc) every day, I am going to be more involved with the 7Sage community. JY tells you to do this in the ciriculum, but I chose to do it alone anyway. Hearing the stories of people like Josh, David, and Riley really put things into perspective. A big thank you JY and to everyone who was involved in making these podcasts.

Thank you for hosting this webinar! I will be meeting with a professor from a school I am applying for and will now do some more specific research into their background and come prepared with questions about the class he teaches.

I vote for the Admissions Timeline and the Section of Personal Statement as the most useful. The Admissions Timeline is very easy to follow. I am taking the November LSAT, so it does stress me out a bit to see I should have started this process much earlier, but the timeline seems to show that it is still possible to get everything done.

@ Thank you!

The Gov is justified in preventing advertisements that encourage unhealthy practice

They should remain legal

How can they do both?

A) It SHOULD remain legal

B) They ARE justified in preventing

C) Should be legal (good)

Being morally responsible doesn’t resolve anything

D) They SHOULD try to prevent (good)

By means of financial disincentive NOT by making it illegal (Great!)

E) They are justified in preventing. This says they should prevent.

Congrats!

Flaw

Experiment:

500 people given books

500 people weren't (control group)

The people who were given books visited the doctors 20% less the next year while the other groups' visit stayed the same

book --causes--> fewer visits

[premise] improved family health --causes--> fewer visits

[conclusion] book --causes--> improved family health

A) yes, it's possible. descriptively accurate but does not describe the flaw

B) yes, it's possible. descriptively accurate, but does not describe the flaw

C) yes, the book can cause improved family health and the book can cause fewer visits. descriptively accurate but does not describe the flaw

D) Correct. The book causing fewer visits and improved family health causing fewer visits does not allow you to conclude the book causes improved family health.

E) Even if this is true, it does not describe the flaw. for example, let's say a certain state of affairs referred to improved family health. So according to answer choice E, improved family health leads to fewer visits and improved family health also makes it more likely that they have a self-help book in the homes. Which families in the experiment? Again, this does not describe the flaw.

There are times where I feel good about how far I've come with my LSAT studies. Other times, I feel like I'm spinning my wheels and am unsure of how to proceed efficiently after doing a blind review. On these days, I listen to the 7Sage podcast. My favorite episode so far has been #11 with 7Sager NotMyName. He really opened my eyes to how important skipping questions is. JY talks about it often, but for some reason, it took a long time for me to implement it during PTs. Another helpful point NotMyName discusses is how your strategy when PTing changes depending on what score milestone you are at. Give it a listen on your next drive to work!

Minimum Wage Levels:

Low

employers have more incentive to hire more workers

hire more workers-->productivity growth falls off

higher av living standards-->productivity growth

High

higher productivity

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Raising low minimum wage levels improve economic health more than hiring cutbacks would harm economic health

Why?

A) because productivity growth (which happens when you go from low MW levels to high MW levels) leads to an increase in job creation. So even though employers won't have as much of an incentive to hire new workers, there will still be eventual job creation.

Kind-->Prosper

Dislike-->/Content

/Dislike-->Kind

Chain:

Content-->/Dislike-->Kind-->Prosper

B) Content some /Prosper

MBF because we can conclude from the chain that Content-->Prosper.

borrow--winner [IR higher] received for loans to large financially strong companies

Bank:

if a company is not financially strong-->the bank will not lend

now--winner [lending to small/medium companies is less] 5 years ago

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

now-winner [total bank lending to all companies is less] 5 years ago

We need to find an answer that states the banks are lending less than they were five years ago to large companies or the same amount as they were five years ago to large companies.

A) Yes. IR are lower when receiving loans from large financially stable companies than to borrow so they banks aren't going to loan at all to the large financially stable company.

As for large, financially unstable companies, the banks won't loan to you at all. So currently, banks aren't loaning at all to large companies and they are loaning less to small and medium-sized companies. Therefore, total bank loaning is less than it was five years ago.

ME

ME--->FS and WRC

------------------------------------------

FS

B)

Closed

Closed--->FSC and /SC

------------------------------------

FSC

Thank you for doing this, David!

https://media.giphy.com/media/1Z02vuppxP1Pa/giphy.gif

I'd love to be considered for a lightning round to discuss my personal statement topic. I have been brainstorming for a few months now, and keep coming back to the same topic. However, I'm not sure what to emphasize as the learning/growing moment. I'm not dead set on this topic, but it is the only one I've been able to come up with an essay draft for so far.

Topic I keep coming back to: Scuba Diving

What happened? I went diving for the first time when I was 16 and gained a new perspective of the world and a new passion to pursue.

What I learned: Overcoming a fear opens up a world of opportunities? (not sure what to emphasize here)

Why I love diving:

-I’m an observer of a whole new ecosystem every time. Even if you do the same dive it's always different.

-the realization that we need the world but the world doesn’t need us

Thank you for your consideration!

-Aley

Weaken

Last year-increased amount spent promoting new drugs (usually done by sending reps to see doctors).

Two years ago - 640 visits PER REP

Last year - 501 visits PER REP

The promotion didn't work and doctors must not want to see reps. [conclusion]

A) There are more reps. Each rep has less visits and are able to spend more time with their doctor. Yes.

When I initially did this problem, I had trouble understanding why 'A' was correct. I thought the problem was saying the TOTAL amount of visits for every rep combined went from 640 two years before to 501 total visits for every rep combined. Now I understand the 604 and 501 are for a single rep average.

Main Point

Candidates send out material to influence popular opinion.

Ebsen's campaign sent out too few materials to effectively influence popular opinion.

Ebsen's materials were sent out to test their potential influence. [conclusion]

The materials covered a wide variety of topics. [support]

Ebsen's campaign spent a lot on follow-up of effectiveness. [support]

Answer: C

I was having trouble with this question and decided to rewrite the sentences to try and make it more clear to me where the support is. The only support I found was for the fact that Ebsen's materials were sent out to test their potential influence. I wasn't very confident that I understood what was happening in the stimulus. Once I listened to JY's explanation, it made much more sense. The author is telling us what usually happens in campaigns and that this isn't what Ebsen's campaign did. They, instead, sent out the materials to TEST the potential influence.

I only write this out to remind myself (and others) that just because you circled the correct answer, doesn't mean you fully understand what is happening. If you have any doubt as to why you circled the answer choice, write it out!

[conclusion]hard surface makes for greater running speed

[premise] hard surface causes runner's foot to be on the track for less time

[correlatin] hard track causes the foot to be on the track for less time and causes the runner to run faster

Find a 3rd alternative to why the hard track causes the runner to run faster

A) so?

B) we care about the foot to track time

C) Correct. This is a 3rd alternative explanation

D) so? Why does the hard track, itself, cause the runner to run faster?

E) we care about the hard track

Thank YOU 7Sage. And thank you @ for your contributions. They have cleared things up for me more than a few times.

This is so generous of you! Please let me know if you still have availablitly and what they best way to contact you would be. Thank you!

Premise-

One hand signal elicits one response from two dolphins sometimes. Other times, the same hand signal elicits a second, different, response from the dolphins.

Conclusion-

These are not learned responses.

Dolphins are capable of higher cognitive functions that may include language and forethought.

Why does the author think dolphins are capable of higher cognitive functions?

A) Because mammals can resemble each other with respect to bodily function and brain structure. No.

B) Because dolphins exhibit complex new responses to the hand signal. Yes.

C) Because dolphins are given food incentives during training. No.

D) Because dolphins interact differently toward each other than they do with people. No.

E) Because some of these behaviors are exhibited in their natural habitat. No.

OPA:

Premise-

Poaching is rife in many areas.

Conclusion-

If the ivory trade continues, elephants will become extinct in Africa.

Author’s Statements:

Banning ivory trading would probably prevent extinction.

Zimbabwe objects to such ban. The problem is the conservation policies of other countries, not the ivory trade.

Zimbabwe has virtually eliminated poaching.

Zimbabwe relies on culling elephant herds that have become too large.

Why does Zimbabwe object to the ban?

A) Because measures to correct a problem shouldn’t adversely affect countries not responsible for the problem. Yes.

B) Because freedom of trade is an agreement among nations. No.

C) Because respecting a country's power is more important than preventing extinction. No.

D) Because prohibitions affect multiple countries should be enforced by one agency. No.

E) Because the elimination of poaching requires effective conservation. No.

#help why is the conclusion the hypothesis? Could you not label the argument as follows?

Premise-

Conflicting information about the body’s motion to the brain causes motion sickness.

Astronauts see motion but their inner ears indicate they are not moving. (Their brain receives conflicting information)

Conclusion-

Therefore, they frequently get motion sickness.

A->B

A

---

B

Why are they getting motion sickness?

A) Because similarly, passengers who can see moving and can feel the movement, are less likely to get motion sickness than passengers who can’t see the movement and can feel the movement. Yes.

B) Because experienced people sometimes get motion sickness. No.

C) Because people in a car can see movement and feel the movement get motion sickness. No.

D) Because people who sit in aisle seats of airplanes and trains are as likely as people in window seats to get motion sickness. No.

E) Because some astronauts don’t get motions sickness after several days of orbit. No.

Premise-

Grow-Again reserves male, hereditary, baldness.

Use 5 drops, more than that doesn’t help.

Conclusion-

A rebate would not increase sales.

A rebate would not be profitable for a manufacturer.

I am working on strengthening questions and am trying a new method out. I’d love some feedback. I am taking the conclusion and asking why? And using each answer choice to attempt to answer the question. See 27.1.18 for another example.

Why would a rebate not increase sales and not be profitable for a manufacturer?

A) Because people believe using more is more effective. No.

B) Because the product is more effective on some than others. No?

C) Because the rebate would not attract people who would not normally purchase the product. Yes.

D) Because baldness is caused by a variety of factors. No.

E) Because the product doesn’t get cheaper when produced in large quantities. No.

[conclusion] The Antarctic ice sheet must temporarily have melted about three million years ago.

Why?

[premise] Three million-year-old fossils have been found in the ice sheet. These types of fossils are normally only found in ocean floor sediment.

A) We don't know what people are generally thinking

B) We aren't trying to attack the argument

C) Correct. It temporarily melted three million years ago.

D) Not the main point

E) Not the main point

Thank you, @

[premise] A well-run bridge program means spending $15 million/yr on maintenance because it limits reconstruction expenses to $10 million

[premise] City tried to spend less initially and is now faced with spending $400 million in 2 yrs on reconstruction

[conclusion] Metro City has only spent $1 million/yr the last ten years on maintenance - this is a prime example of fiscal irresponsibility

A) Correct. They only spent $1 million and now are faced with $400 million in reconstruction because of their fiscal irresponsibility

B) No, if they spent more on maintenance maybe.

C) Quite the opposite

D) We don't know this also not the main point

E) We don't know this also not the main point