Hello 7sage warriors.

I've posted in a different discussion with regard to my recent troubles on putting the 7sage curriculum into practise however, I would like to hear some thoughts on whether or not some type of different strategy would help.

Basically, I am shooting for the Oct. LSAT date (and a 138 ->160*ish improvement) so I can hopefully enrol into 1L for next 2016. I have the rest of the summer left with no large distractions (taking 1 summer class twice a week); have put in already 1 month worth of the curriculum (33% of ult. complete) at roughly 5-8 hours a day. Long story short, I have ups and downs, correct answers and misses throughout the lessons, yet when it comes to the PS I find myself struggling to complete these and really gain any confidence in my skills and abilities.

As far as scheduling, as stated I go MON-SUN and study for as long as possible (or until I get to the point of negativity and frustration emerge) and I take a break, or take a day off, workout, etc. I have been writing detailed notes on many of the problem types, and have done most of the PS scheduled in the curriculum (the changeover kind of messed me up, but I've done most of them). I am also just starting the Logic games portion of the LSAT Trainer, and have been doing at least 1 lesson a day of that for the past 2 weeks.

Some of you have messaged me with support and advice, and I'd like to thank those who have taken the time. With that being said, I am starting to acknowledge that perhaps this will take me a little bit more time than others to fully grasp some of these strategies and problem types; should I continue on in the curriculum with these troubles in mind, finish the curriculum, and then go back for a round 2 so to speak? Should I schedule my day's in smaller blocks of studying? Have other's felt this sort of 'quick-sand' feeling, where, after a month - no concrete or tangible improvements have been acknowledged?

As I said, I've got work-ethic on my side and I'm not going to quit... but damn would I love to see some improvements or signs of skill building. Thanks,

Matthew

Hey All,

Just working through some problem sets', and this particular question stumped me big time! Managed to successfully answer the other 4, but, this one gave me some trouble.

I parsed out a (P) + (C):

(P): Nobody wants the job more than Josh (but he doesn't want it)

(C): There will be no applicants (no matter how high salary)

From here, I couldn't really push out a flaw. Furthermore, I didn't see any opportunity to translate into lawgic/logic, to help clarify.

Knowing what the correct AC is and comparing it to the stimulus, it is definitely the most comparable. However, I was looking for a more detailed explanation of how to solve this question if possible.

Help? Thank you!

Hello sagers.

I have begun my journey of taking strictly-timed PTs and am currently working away at the BR (PT 41). I have some questions in which I would appreciate some insight on, regarding the BR process and, how I can become more efficient during the BR process in terms of time-management, proper strategy, and utilizing this time effectively so that improvements occur!

As stated, I just finished PT 41 and have been BR'ing for the past hour and a half. I am just finishing Section 1 (LR) of that test, and am wondering what the "right balance" of searching for the perfect answer (or getting every answer correct) and pushing through to complete the BR process in a more practical manor, with the context in mind that I am not at a very strong point in my understanding of the test. I have completed the majority of the curriculum, and have attempted at least 1 of the PS for each QT. I found I got bogged down in the curriculum at times and, in an effort to stay focused and positive, I moved on to the next section of the curriculum without completing every PS.

Even though I felt my timing has improved a little bit (compared to diagnostic and 2 other PTs I have taken) I recognize that my fundamentals are still not yet developed to the point where I understand exactly: what type of question I am attacking; what I am looking for in the right answer, and perhaps most importantly - why the other 4 answers choices are wrong. Essentially, the BR process so far, feels as if I am merely taking another PT (without the time restrictions obviously) where I am relying on a whole lot of intuition, and not really understanding what the question wants.

My plan is at this point, to complete my BR which seems will take more like 6 hours (seems a lot), and then really focus in on the video explanations tomorrow of the incorrect questions (there will be many). After about 5 PTs I was going to take a look back at the analytics, and really start focusing in on what questions (if not all) I can improve on more so than others, while also going back over the PS' of Logic Games provided in the curriculum that I have both completed, and have yet to complete.

To conclude, I ask if I am overdoing it with the BR at this process? Should I break it up into a 2 day review, instead of PT - break - BR/videos? I acknowledge that it is perhaps the most important part of the development process, so is there a better strategy I can use? I'm thinking of drilling question types every mourning, and reviewing the notes I have on different question types and how to attack them - do you think this would benefit my growth? I appreciate all the help and insight provided; please PM me if that works better. At the end of the day, I am not feeling like the BR is helping me grow, and would love to hear about how I can change that! Thanks everybody.

Hello everybody,

I was wondering if anybody could help clarify something for me.

I am currently reading chapter 18 on the trainer re: SA and P questions, and there are some exercises and lessons on the conditional indicators covered early on in the 7sage curriculum. Mike Kim states that "unless" is used as a necessary indicator (vs. J.Y negate - sufficient method) and that "no" is a sufficient indicator (vs. J.Y negate - necessary method).

Example: "No duck likes water". My translation using 7sage method would be:

"No"= negate necessary category

2 idea's: Ducks; (liking) water

translation: pick and idea, negate it, make it your necessary condition

=> W --> /D

Mike Kim's answer is = D --> W.

Am I butchering the simple translation rules? Translating and "seeing" the logic, is something I feel that holds me back from progressing through the logical reasoning section/question types.

Thanks everyone.

Hello everyone,

I was wondering if somebody would be able to provide their thought process on how to best attack this question. I was not sure how to even start it, but was able to get the correct answer choice on the other 4 questions on the problem set using more intuition and POE.. I see some progress, but still have lots of work to do!

I came to the conclusion/my thought process was that AC's: B,C, and D really did not have anything to do with the QS, and did not choose A because it was talking about private funding - which I didn't understand where that should/would fit into the AC?

Thank you.