There should be an FAQ on this ; )

7Sage and the LSAT Trainer complement each other well. There is no set consensus on exactly how to use them together. Some people completed the 7Sage curriculum before using the Trainer, while others did the opposite. Many people like to bounce back and forth between the two while studying fundamentals. In particular, I really enjoyed Mike Kim's (author of the Trainer) lessons on finding flaws in arguments.

In my opinion, you picked up the two best LSAT prep materials currently available on Earth. So keep up the good work!

@ the scores will be on the lsac website right??

From what I understand, yes. I think they will also email you.

Gotta love these oldschool LSATs ; )

B is wrong here because we know nothing who should and shouldn't adopt "low fat" diets specifically. The nutritionist doesn't discuss whether or not low-fat diets are ever a good or bad idea- maybe they're actually really good idea for everyone? The information we are given later on about insulin production and how our body deals with simple sugars isn't stated to be restricted to people on a certain diet.

D matches up perfectly with the line of reasoning in the stimulus. We know that two things can happen when we eat simple carbohydrates and our bodies overproduce insulin: energy is created when it is needed, or energy is stored as fat. Thus, it's not so far of a jump to say that, if you're eating way too many carbohydrates than what your body needs for energy at the present moment, you are going to store some of the excess as fat. So, according to (D), if you want to avoid gaining body fat, you should limit foods high in simple carbohydrates.

@ this conversation thread has convinced me to go with it!

Great! Order that book yesterday!

@ I get everything you said, but the purpose of us grouping games into categories is so that we can see how certain game types are similar to each other, especially in terms of making the inferences....right?

I wouldn't say that the purpose of grouping games into categories is for us to make rule-specific inferences for those types of games- though there may certainly be some nuances that you may pick up for certain types.

I'd say the most important point of our classification is to get a good understanding of the type of game board we need to be using, and how we can represent our pieces on that board. For many people, this amounts to an "Ah-ha!" moment while working through games. For example, you may stumble upon a game soon and say "This is a type of grouping game! I know how to diagram something like this!"

Of course, there will always be at least minor differences between game boards, even within certain game types. But the important takeaway is that you are able to identify, lets say a double-layer sequencing game as such, and be able to quickly and effectively begin to diagram your setup.

Hmm, when I think of sequencing games "with a twist" I usually think of double-layer sequencing games.

It's hard to say that a certain type of inference is going to appear in logic games consistently, but much of the difficulty in these types of games (as in all games, really) typically involves taking inventory of your game pieces correctly and trying to draw inferences from your rules. A double-layer sequencing game can often seem to have many possibilities, but once you start plugging pieces in on both levels things can narrow down quickly to only a few possibilities. Of course, like all logic games, this is not always true, but it's a good learning exercise to try when you practice.

Hey man, glad you are feeling good about your progress.

Make sure to take care of your health tho! The test will always be here!

Again, good job on the progress. I hope you reach that 176.

No problem Mike, glad I could help.

Don't give up hope on UCLA/USC. Take the February LSAT if you don't score high enough on the December test. Work hard on your personal statement, and write a convincing addendum for both schools on why you want to go there. Good luck.

@ I'm mostly interested in sport law and entertainment law (in that order), but it is my understanding that big law is the most common and most beneficial first step before finding my niche. I'm mostly looking at ASU right now, as they offer a sport law and business emphasis. All schools I'm looking at (except USC @) rank between 26 (ASU) and 34 (BC UNC Georgia OSU all tied). If you say it doesn't matter then you recommend I base my decision on where I want to work after graduation, as opposed to the rankings/courses they offer?

Hey Mike, figured I'd chime in here with my opinion.

Outside of the T14ish schools, desired region of practice should be a, if not the, top factor in choosing a law school. It's cool that ASU offers a program on sports law, but the real question should be whether the program will help you find employment in that field.

You should go into a non-T14 school with an expectation to practice in that general region. While it is certainly possible to make it from, say ASU to practice in San Francisco, without ties to the region it may be difficult to do so. Some regional schools do have more national reach than others, though.

A good source you can use is the ABA's employment summaries. You can find them on most law schools websites or the ABA's website. Here's one for ASU Law. Note that the state where most graduates found work was Arizona. (The next most common state of employment was California, where only 12 graduates went to work). https://www.law.asu.edu/sites/default/files/aba_employment_disclosure_form.pdf

Also, anecdotally, I have heard USC and UCLA are great options to pursue entertainment law from. This is assuming you want to work in California initially.

I'm just going to talk about D and E here, since those are the 2 answer choices you seemed to struggle with.

The author is arguing that if the educational campaign included information on ways to make vegetables more appetizing, the campaign's effectiveness would be increased. Why should we believe that? Well, most people dislike the taste of most vegetables.

First, we must define "effectiveness" here. The goal of the campaign is to get people to eat more vegetables. So I'm going to equate "more effective" with "people start eating more vegetables."

The gap here, quite simply, is that we don't know if people will actually EAT more vegetables just because they KNOW HOW to make them more appetizing.

Answer choice D strengthens the argument nicely. So most of the population doesn't like vegetables- we know that. Well, D says if they knew HOW to make them more appetizing, they would eat more (ie- the campaign would be more effective).

The author is arguing in his conclusion that if we included information on ways to make vegetables more appetizing, than people would eat more. By giving them this information (telling them hey, you know HOW you can make broccoli taste awesome- throw some cheese on it!) D says that giving them the information will actually make people eat much more. It fills the gap almost perfectly.

E is wrong because, first of all, I don't like the use of "the only" here. It just feels wrong to be so restrictive in this type of strengthening question. But primarily, E is wrong because it ignores the problem in the argument. We still don't KNOW that if we provide information to people on how to make broccoli more appetizing, they will actually learn to find broccoli appetizing. What if most people in America won't find broccoli appetizing no matter how much cheese you put on it? Maybe everyone who doesn't like vegetables will only eat pizza and hamburgers.

@ I understand what you're saying. My line of thought was if you expose yourself to a couple five star questions during warmup, then your confidence won't be as shaken when you encounter 6 or 8 of them during the test. It's just a personal preference of mine.

That's reasonable, but your confidence should already be high entering the test. No amount of questions you get right on a warmup should really impact it. If you get them right, maybe you get a slight boost. But what if you get 2 of those 6 unfamiliar and hard questions wrong on the warmup? Are you going to do another section to validate your skills?

It's cool if you want to warmup like this during practice tests, but when you take the real thing, I'd urge you to reconsider.

Hi,

In my opinion, you may not need to practice until perfection at first. Work until you are comfortable identifying game categories and are confident in your ability to understand and apply the strategies and diagraming tools unique to each, than move on. It's not necessary, and may even be counterintuitive, to 100% master sequencing-type games without say, ever learning how to do grouping games. Some games, particularly on the newer LSATs, are hybrid games that require you to use a large variety of skills.

After all, you can always come back to types that you struggle with later on in your studies.

@ I tend to disagree with easy questions. We perform like we train.

It isn't training- it's a warmup. And the last thing you want to do before you start a test is be thinking about why your logic game skills weren't strong enough for that 5 star difficulty game you just tried to tackle.

Hi,

As answer choice C states, the stimulus is providing *evidence* that high cholesterol contributes to heart disease. This evidence is provided in form of a correlation: High cholesterol levels are associated with the development of heart disease. While as we know, a correlation is not sufficient on it's own to imply causation, it can provide evidence toward causation. Answer choice C does not imply that causation does in fact exist, it merely affirms that there is evidence towards that relationship from the association of the two (correlation).

My questions to you would be: what schools are you applying to? And what LSAT score and GPA do you plan on applying with?

This may be going against the consensus, but.. If your goal is a regional school and you are confident you can score well above their 75th percentile, I'd say go for it. Most would probably be glad to have you (even with a scholarship) despite it being late in the cycle.

If your goal is a T14 or T20, I would probably either take the December test or sit out a year. There are just too many good candidates applying for most of those schools for you to have a good chance of acceptance and/or scholarship money that late in the cycle.

A small warmup is nice, but make sure they are easy questions else you risk damaging your confidence.

Also, keep your warmup consistent so when test day rolls around you are not trying anything new.

@ I also am trying to improve my RC score which is usally -10 to -15...

Are you having a lot of trouble finishing RC sections?

DeeJayGee,

That is a great resource to have for sure. If you are not seeing improvements from drilling, maybe you should go back and assess your grasp on the fundamentals? Have you finished the 7sage course and/or tried a supplementary text such as the LSAT Trainer?

I usually drill questions depending on what I am struggling with at the time, but honestly I did not drill any other question types until I had a solid grasp on Flaw questions.

I think it's a solid plan, but I think you may need to leave extra time each day for addressing areas you may struggle with. Maybe plan on doing LG and RC one day, and then the LR part of your plan the next. That way, when you actually identify weaknesses through your drilling, you have extra time to address them that day.

@

said:

Will increase number of PTs per week as we get closer to December)

I would actually REVERSE this is you are dead set on taking in December. Heavy PT work should not be done close to test day.

@.busis Is an outstanding personal statement editor, I would recommend him 100 times over if he is available.

I would absolutely take the time to attend this seminar. David is outstanding at what he does.

Ran out of ink to print tests with today guys, so no BR tonight for me =(

I was bored and did a few more for some other strong schools. It seems like the formula we are using churns out slightly higher numbers than the "Large Firm Score" that LST posts for these schools.

Notre Dame- 37.4%

Boston College- 36.6%

Boston University- 36.2%

GW- 32.4%

WUSTL- 31.4%

Emory- 29.1%

-12 for 170 sounds reasonable.

@

said:

My issue is: am I trying to be too methodological about this? Should I just drill timed sections, and then move forward with PTing 35+?

You're being too methodological about this =P

From PT35 on, you've got about 40 Preptests to work with. That should be more than enough to help you reach your potential. Consensus seems to be to use the older tests for drilling- of course you can do a few PTs and BRs with them if you'd like.

Also, might I suggest picking up the LSAT Trainer if you haven't already, given that you finished the 7sage curriculum.