@ said:

@ If I understand correctly, you're looking for all MSS questions from PTs 1-35 that you can print out, right? If that's the case, then I think @ is pointing you in the right direction.

The printable e-docs are here:

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/lr-drills-preptest-01-to-09/

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/lr-drills-preptest-10-to-19/

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/lr-drills-preptest-20-to-29/

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/lr-drills-preptest-30-to-39/

Yes, that's exactly it, thanks JY! I wasn't looking hard enough, so I didn't realize that the LR drills went up to PT 79.

This'll definitely be much easier than using the Question Bank!

@ said:

@ have you checked the archives? Someone posted how they created their pkgs a while ago. I don't recall, but I'm sure it involved some program on their computer to copy and paste so that they could fit 4-6 questions on each pkg just as the Cambridge pkgs. I'm not sure what you would search. Try Cambridge. Of course, you would have to have access to the PT to do this.

Thanks for the head's up! I will try to search that up and see what I find.

@ I agree. That's how I interpreted the stimulus. The dietary practice being advocated, according to the stimulus, is NOT "eat carrots with just some fat." The practice being advocated is eat carrots "with at least some fat" (literally quoting the stimulus here).

The AC implies that it's the former, but I feel as though that's a subtle inference we have to make, not necessarily what the stimulus is actually saying. I also feel that there's a distinction between the two.

Thanks for the help guys! I actually went through all 12 of the MSS drill sets under the MSS section (and got too many wrong), but I will try your suggestion Freddy_D!

I also had trouble with this (though I answered it correctly the first time). I think I was also confused by the difference between "reason for adopting a dietary practice" and "reason for moderating a dietary practice."

Aside from that, I also think my confusion lies in the double use of "reason." So:

"It is mentioned as a reason (fat is unhealthy) for adopting a dietary practice (eating carrots with only some fat) that the dietician provides a reason (that fat is unhealthy, again??) for not carrying to the extreme."

Do I have that right?

Oh wow, that's interesting. I've actually read the opposite—that the LSAT score is usually a better indicator of how well a student does in law school than GPA or other factors. I wonder where their data is from.

Hey @ could you give a link to their website where they say that? Just curious.

To clarify, a higher curve usually means the exam was more difficult, and a lower curve means it was easier, right? Or do I have it the other way around?

Also worried about these. Thanks for the really helpful post @ Never Die

Great, thanks for all the help guys!

Congratulations! Which section did you improve the most on, and how did you do it?

For Weaken and Strengthen questions, I think prephrasing may be difficult because there are so many ways to weaken and strengthen the bond or link between premises and the conclusion. Going into the ACs, it's more important to be aware of the bond rather than a specific way to weaken/strengthen, precisely because there are so many ways to weaken/strengthen. As for assumption questions, I think this is also sometimes (but not always) expected. Both Manhattan and PowerScore classify necessary assumption questions that are not supporters as "defenders." These are usually the kinds of assumptions that are totally out of left field and are harder to anticipate either because they're so basic or because they're so random. JY also went through these in the CC but did not name them as defenders, if I'm remembering correctly.

Just wanted to bump this thread up. I've recently been going over the PowerScore LR Bible and it has a section on these questions appropriately enough titled "Numbers and Percentages." I haven't read the entire chapter yet, but so far it's been very helpful in getting a handle on what to look out for when faced with these kinds of questions.

The two statements (A(-s-)B and B(-s)A) are actually the same statement. This is why some prep books, such as PowerScore, use the double arrow (---) when diagramming some statements (JY, if I remember correctly uses it sometimes too). So, no, they're not contrapositives. A contrapositive involves both a negation and a flip. You've flipped the two variables, but no negation has occurred.

So to answer your question, yes it's just a different way of stating the same thing. But a contrapositive's definition is not "just a different way of stating the same thing." A contrapositive needs to have both a flip and negation.

I had always assumed that Filipinos were subsumed under the general umbrella of "Asians" such that they would not receive a URM boost even though Filipinos are clearly an underrepresented minority in law (as well as other fields), which, as rightly pointed out above, does not consider the disparities within the extremely broad category of "Asian." Basically, my understanding is that URM is a specific label that only applies to blacks, Native Americans, and Latinos. Is this correct?

The article is interesting. If it is true, then perhaps Cornell also looks at ethnicity, and not just race, when assessing applications?

Is there usually a field where one can specify one's ethnicity in law applications?

I've only gone over the LR section and skipped its LG section entirely. I think most people would agree that its strongest sections are its LR and RC sections. For LR, I found that its section on flaws was pretty good (again, this seems to be the consensus as well). However, there are definitely some things that it doesn't cover, such as conditional logic. As an example, it goes over a question where the correct AC is something along the lines of "No effective law is unenforceable." This statement also means "If a law is unenforceable it is not effective." I don't know about you, but that did not come intuitively to me, and the Trainer, in its explanation for that answer, kind of glosses that over and just assumes that the reader would know that translation. It wasn't until I came across 7Sage and went over the conditional indicators that that statement clicked for me.

Finally, I didn't find its strategies for inference questions that helpful.

EDIT: My post sounds overly negative, but I want to reiterate that its sections on flaws is quite good, and I think it was still worth reading!

Does their tweet mean everyone will get their scores within that 2-hour time span? Or will some still have to wait until tomorrow morning/afternoon?

Hmm, I'm a bit new to all this. Can someone explain what this curve means? Is it referring to the maximum number of answers you can get wrong to achieve a 170 in any given LSAT (this is what I managed to gather from that PowerScore link). If this is the case, why 170? Just an easy benchmark to use?

I struggle with these questions too!

@ Great suggestion. I went through the entire page (http://lsatblog.blogspot.ca/2009/06/lsat-logical-reasoning-spreadsheet.html) and came up with the following list. For some reason it doesn't include the questions mentioned already in this thread. He may have skipped the first few PTs? The numbers in brackets are the page numbers where you can find them in the official LSAC books. But I may just continually update this post with links to 7sage video explanations for each question:

Flaw

PT 12, S1, #14 (155)

PT 13, S2, #24 (197)

PT 14, S4, #18 (245)

PT 16, S3, #24 (307)

PT 19, S2, #7 (21)

PT 21, S3, #19 (101)

PT 22, S2, #25 (133)

PT 23, S3, #16 (168)

PT 26, S3, #5 (267)

PT 26, S3, #19 (271) (numbers/percentages)

PT 27, S1, #2 (288) (numbers/percentages)

PT 27, S1, #23 (294) (numbers/percentages)

PT 30, S2, #13 (57)

PT 30, S2, #17 (59)

PT 33, S1, #12 (155)

PT 36, S3, #21 (276)

PT 37, S4, #17 (312)

PT 44, S2, #21 (24)

PT 47, S3, #16 (29)

PT 50, S2, #3 (19) (overgeneralization)

PT 50, S4, #22 (36)

PT 51, S1, #4 (10)

PT 51, S1, #18 (14)

PT 51, S3, #4 (25)

PT 52, S3, #16 (26)

PT 59, S2, #20 (10)

MBT/MSS

PT 12, S1, #8 (154) (MBT)

PT 13, S2, #18 (195) (MSS)

PT 14, S2, #16 (228)(MBT)

PT 15, S2, #9 (264) (MSS)

PT 16, S2, #9 (294) (MBT)

PT 16, S2, #20 (298) (MBT)

PT 18, S2, #20 (332) (MSS)

PT 20, S1, #24 (57) (MBT)

PT 22, S4, #12 (141) (MSS)

PT 26, S3, #15 (270) (MSS)

PT 27, S1, #9 (291) (MBT)

PT 27, S4, #14 (312) (MBT)

PT 30, S4, #22 (76) (MSS)

PT 32, S1, #18 (124) (MSS)

PT 44, S4, #3 (31) (MSS)

PT 46, S3, #11 (28) (MBT)

PT 55, S3, #12 (29) (MSS)

NA

PT 10, S4, #4 (104)

PT 16, S2, #14 (296)

PT 19, S2, #13 (23)

PT 20, S1, #3 (50)

PT 20, S1, #11 (52)

PT 54, S2, #9 (20)

PT 54, S4, #24 (37)

Weaken

PT 16, S2, #16 (296)

PT 26, S3, #24 (273)

PT 28, S3, #11 (336)

PT 58, S1, #24 (16)

PT 59, S3, #13 (16)

SA

PT 12, S1, #22 (158)

PT 14, S4, #7 (242)

PT 19, S2, #18 (25)

PT 19, S4, #11 (38)

PT 29, S1, #20 (21)

Parallel Reasoning

PT 14, S2, #25 (231) (flawed)

PT 49, S4, #24 (36) (flawed)

Strengthen

PT 7, S1, #23 (22)

PT 12, S1, #19 (157)

PT 30, S2, #4 (55)

PT 34, S3, #21 (207)

PT 46, S3, #22 (32)

Resolve the Paradox/Explain the Phenomenon

PT 16, S2, #1 (292)

PT 18, S2, #11 (329)

PT 22, S2, #21 (131)

PT 24, S2, #18 (199)

PT 58, S1, #17 (14)

Method of Reasoning

JN 07, S2, #20 (12)

Principle

PT 44, S2, #17 (23)

EXCEPT

PT 9, S2, #17 (62) (could be true) (numbers/percentages)

PT 43, S3, #15 (31) (resolve the paradox)

Main Point

PT 30, S2, #23 (60) (structured to lead to which conclusion?)

Point at Issue

PT 30, S2, #10 (56)

Alternatively, you can go here for all LG solutions: https://classic.7sage.com/logic-game-explanations/

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

I agree with everything already stated. The Webinars on 7sage are amazing.

Many people that I have spoken with also recommended The LSAT Trainer, so I just recently bought that. I am a hard copy, highlighting type of learner and I have found that just having the Trainer as supplemental reading has helped me brush up on things and think of certain questions in different ways. I feel like each learning method works differently for each individual, so it depends also on what works for you. I love 7sage and also believe if I had to pick one, I certainly would pick 7sage. However, the Trainer is also a small price to pay for some extra material. I hope this helps!

Is there a place where I can watch these webinars or ore you guys referring to ones that occur live?

Indeed! https://classic.7sage.com/webinar/

My favorites are any by Sages who share their journeys to the 170+ promise land! Also the one on Skipping is A1 :)

Oooh nice, thanks! I'll check those out.

@ said:

I agree with everything already stated. The Webinars on 7sage are amazing.

Many people that I have spoken with also recommended The LSAT Trainer, so I just recently bought that. I am a hard copy, highlighting type of learner and I have found that just having the Trainer as supplemental reading has helped me brush up on things and think of certain questions in different ways. I feel like each learning method works differently for each individual, so it depends also on what works for you. I love 7sage and also believe if I had to pick one, I certainly would pick 7sage. However, the Trainer is also a small price to pay for some extra material. I hope this helps!

Is there a place where I can watch these webinars or ore you guys referring to ones that occur live?