I've been taking some courses from there but encountered some problems... (I purchased the mentor course but the site keeps saying I purchased the prime course).
I've tried to contact Larry many times but it seems like he is not checking his email... Is there anyone who knows how to contact him? I'm starting to get really worried...
Thanks!
Oh my gosh, it all makes sense now! So as long as there is F1 before G1 G2 can go either before or after F2!
Thank you so much for your kind and detailed explanation :)
Thank you for the sincere post. Your words inspire me so much! Let's kick this mf test's ass!
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-2-game-2/
Hey, guys I'm having a problem with understanding the first rule of this stupid game.
So the first rule goes 'Frank demonstrates exactly one task before Gladys demonstrates any of the task'
and JYP drew a sequence from this rule as this:
G
F (
G - F
It looks kind of weird but what this is basically saying F is both of Gs and the other F is after only one G
But when I first mapped this rule out I drew
F(G, )F
G
what I was trying to say is BOTH of Gs appear before the other F not just one G
I just can't wrap my head around why F should only follow after ONE G not BOTH of them especially given that Frank should appear exactly once before any of G.
But the way JYP mapped this out allows the possibility of something like F,G,F,G
and in this case for the latter G TWO Fs appear before it. Isn't this against contradicting what the rule says?
Hope somebody can help me out with this please!
Thanks for sharing guys!
Do you? If you do, what do you snack on? I usually have half of quest bar during the break but now I'm thinking about switching to different snacks and see which one works better for me, any suggestion?
Did JYP just say 'dildo' for real...I was listening to this explanation with the speaker on in the kitchen while my dad was making his tea and he gasped OMG I'm dying
@tylerjordan272471 I think it's really great that you started this BR group and I'd love to be a part of this too! Hope it's not too late though... can you please count me in?
Hello, my fellow 7sagers! These days I have been working on my lg bundle and realized that it takes much more time than I expected! I initially thought that it would take about 2-3 weeks to finish it according to the previous study schedule suggested by this site. But now I feel like it would take much more than that to finish the lg bundle if I properly follow the fool-proof method suggested by JYP :((
Is this normal or should I worry? I would really appreciate it if you guys share your lg bundle stories with me!
Thanks in advance :))
This is brilliant! I think this will be very helpful for us. Thanks for sharing :))
How can we know that the winning chance of this ticket is one in 1000? I don't understand....can someone please help me with this?
Thanks for your tip, Jon! I always love reading your posts. They are super helpful :))
thank you for this comment. It definately clear things up
Thanks for sharing this, it's fantastic!
I am looking for someone that I can study the LSAT with. I'm thinking of taking October or December lsat so it would be idealistic if my potential study buddy can share this similar time line. But it's still cool if you are thinking of taking June one since we can still motivate and help each other!
Please PM me or leave a comment if you are interested in being my study buddy!
I was planing to take Feb one but then realized that I won't get ready by then... so I want to cancel Feb one but I am afraid that it might leave a record or some sorts?
Can someone please answer my question?
Thanks in advance!
damn it, got this wrong because I read the question stem wrong... totally missed the 'rejected' part!
how do we know that petals are going to wilt within one or two days REGARDLESS? I dont think that there is any information that indicates that the petals are going to wilt no matter what... can someone please help?
I have a question regarding (B) - according to JYP, we can say that there are some people who are good at manipulating symbols and also have mathematical understanding.
But where in the hell can we find this information from the stimulus?
Hey, guys here is my two cents and summary of JY's explanation.
Hope this can help.
key point: Writers express their intended meaning by arranging words & sentences
(A) - Well, we know a function of style but dont know anything about its primary function. Plus, literal meaning? It's not same as 'intended meaning' from the stimulus.
(B) - yes, this is supported by the 2nd sentence
(C) - easier for listeners than for readers? This is not mentioned
(D) - Always be interpreted differently by different readers? This is unsupported
(E) - Aesthetic value of his/her writing? We have no information about this from the stimulus
Hey, guys, here is my two cents! Hope this can help some of you.
Leave comments if you find some of my explanation unclear.
What Stephen is actually saying is that~: it could have been Michelangelo himself who made later additions to the original fresco.
In this sense, if we strip away all the additions, it would damage the Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel fresco rather than restoring it.
(A) - this stimulus doesn't tell us that it's impossible to distinguish the original work and the additional one. Rather, even if it's possible to distinguish between them, it's not the point here.
(B) - correct answer
(C) - integral part? Who knows? Maybe it could have been. We don't know since it's unsupported.
(D) - important artist? We don't know about this since it's unsupported.
(E) - rarely satisfied? Not supported! We don't know about this since here in the stimulus, we are only talking about one of his works which is the fresco work in the Sistine chapel. So there is no way we can know about the general characteristic of Michelangelo's personality.
I think that the explanation for (E) by JYP is a tad different from my idea so here is my two cents.
JYP explains that (E) is wrong because it's irrelevant but I believe that (E) is wrong because it actually 'Weaken' the argument.
To be more specific, if (E) is true, in other words, if politicians (who are planing to provide more assistance once they get elected) are not elected, then we don't have to worry about government assistance (--> money --> tax --> government intrusion).
Thus, in short, if politicians who keep promises don't get elected, then there will be less government intrusion.
So this will definitely weaken the conclusion (the government intrusion will not be reduced).
Any idea?
Thanks Alex! It's always good to know that I wasn't the only one who struggled with this game :))