http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-2-question-20/

B is the answer, and the only reason I did not choose it is because it required me to make an assumption that 1. Plankton are not fish (which would require some background knowledge of what plankton are), and 2 particles from the from the mud did not contain fish. Can someone explain this question to me from a different perspective please. Answer A is easy to come by if I knew I was allowed to make such assumptions.

How long into your prep did you start to add time, and become strict with time? and how did you get good with timing besides practice?

My plan is to take every single PT(1-75) under timed conditions, BR every single questions on every single PT, designating notebooks to BR, meaning write out an explanation for every correct, and incorrect answer. With this, however, I will not be doing timed sections, rather my timed sections will be PT's. After every 5 PT's I was planning to create my own PT with the questions I got wrong from all 5 PT's, as well as games I did not score a -0 on. Do you guys think this is a good idea for studying, and perfecting my abilities to dominate this test? I know this sounds like a bit much, and the burn out is prob real, but I feel like to truly get a 180 you need to transfer all of your energy into this test, and this is what I am planning to do. I should mention my LSAT administration is in December.

The second thing I wanted to ask about is the SuperPrep by LSAC. Is it worth purchasing?

So I was planning to take my LSAT in December, but I was scoring in the 150's with BR's in the 160's, no where near my goal, so I just finally said I don't want to put myself under so much pressure for the December test, and postponed my test until Feb. I am feeling a bit stressed out considering my parents and everyone around me is nagging me to death to take the December administration so I don't take a year off, but I know this score is just way too important, considering this determines school, job prospect, and how much scholarship money I will get, to just allow their nagging to overpower common sense.

From your perspectives, do you guys fee like my decision was reasonable, or was I just paranoid and actually had enough time to study and score in the 170's by December?

I had it down to A and D and chose D. With that said, can someone destroy my reasoning for why A is not the right answer so that this sticks...

Ok, so what if pollen is transported from one region to another by wind, and human movement, we would have to assume that the pollen transferred is indistinguishable from the pollen that is KNOWN to have been unique to that area.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-49-section-4-question-08/

I am getting really flustered to be completely honest. I am not getting much better at this test due to the fact that I just tend to overthink every single thing. There are so many drawbacks to that 1. I run out time because obviously if I am overthinking everything, I will never have enough time 2. Because I am over thinking I am almost always changing from the right to the wrong answer because I wrongly make wrong answer sound right by doing this overthinking process. It sounds practically insane to ask someone how to get over this "overthinking" mindset, but I am going to ask anyway. Has anyone ever gone through this experience, or is going through this experience, and how did you, are how are you, getting over it. This over thinking process is very prevalent in my BR where I have unlimited time to think about the answer.

Hey guys, just wondering, I have the LSAT starter from 7sage, and I was thinking of upgrading to ultimate, but my dilemma is that I am only purchasing the ultimate for the PT explanations, I already own all of the pt's from 1-75. Is the purchase worth it just for explanations?

Hey guys,

For a while now I have been working through the earlier PT's 21-38, concentrating on accuracy and applying the proper methodology to the questions. I recently discovered that I was unable to purchase PT's 39-48 because they are unavailable in the form of the 10 PT's. I decided to purchase PT's 48, 49, 50, 51 and I already have 52-75. I sat down to do timed sections with PT 48 and everything just seems way different from the PT's I have been practicing with; Questions are asked different, and the games in this test were weird, and I could not identify what type of games they were. Is it like this for all the newer tests and it is just something which I need to get familiar with, or is this test just weird? When I took the 07 PT the games were not this weird, so I am not sure what is going on.

The logical negation of "At least some rhinoceroses whose horns are periodically trimmed off will be able to attract mates," is "none of the rhinoceroses whose horns are periodically trimmed off will be able to attract mates." correct?

What should I be doing to ensure that my time studying is utilized in an efficient manner? After finishing the 7sage course I took 4 PT's 19-22 I am averaging in the 150's with BR's in the 160's. I do not want to waste PT's. What should I be doing at this point, drilling, or continue PT'ing? I currently stopped PT'ing and decided to drill my LR weaknesses as well as logic games. My logic games is still terrible, but I just recently started getting into deep Logic games drilling and understanding. I am using the fool proof method and getting better, but I am def still terrible.

So, I am finally finished with the 7sage course, this is when things start to get interesting. I would like to know what you guys recommend I should do. Should I do a PT or two first and drill based on the scores of the PT's? or, should I drill a bit first and then take the PT's? I also want to mention that I have little practice with time. As I was working through the course I just kept track of time on a stopwatch, but essentially gave myself unlimited time to work on accuracy, and understanding.

So, I have been wondering about this for sometime now. Is it really THAT important to graduate from a T25 Law School vs. graduating from an ABA accredited law school ranked in the top 50? Do you think it is that much harder to get a job, and that much harder to make a six figure salary? I had a Prof who graduated from temple law, and she was the corporate council of my town, and we were talking and she was explaining to me how she had Harvard, NYU, and Columbia graduates working for her, and she said all they knew how to do was read, and write, hardly ever able to speak in public, I mean she said they were smart, but that's as far as it went. What are your opinions on this?

BTW no I am not in it for the money, however I do not want to graduate with 250K of debt, and then work making 50K a year.

PT12 S1 Q24- I Have no idea how the writers of the test came up with this answer. I lack understanding of why C is wrong. (I purposely left out the answer just in case someone wanted to do it on their own first.)

PT14 S4 Q9- I Just plain out do not understand how to approach this question. can someone explain?

PT9 S2 Q22- Does the answer to this question rely on the distinction between the term "city-wide" and "city residents" or is there something I am not seeing?

PT11 S4 Q19- I got the answer to this question right, but only because of POE, but I want to know why this answer is right. Can someone please assist me in articulating why this answer is right?

What was/is the question type(s) that you struggle with? How did you get over your struggle? What word of advice can you give to someone struggling with the question type?

Not sure if such a post was already attempted before, but I think this would be a good thread to start to get different question types perspectives, and ways to get over the difficulty of a question type.

So, let me begin. The most difficult question type for me are assumption questions. I did not really get over my struggle yet with NA but with SA I got over my struggle by first mapping out the conditionals, and with that practice I just began to see what needed to be linked up for a valid argument. My advice would be practice with a purpose, and understand what you are doing wrong, and why you are not getting to the right answer. Look for what terms need to be connected to make the valid argument, and understand which is the premise and the conclusion.

I currently suck at this question type. I mean I do not have a clue on what I am doing even when applying the negation test. what is a good strategy to get over these woes?

I have been kind of looking around posts with advice on what to do, how to do it, and in what time range, and I see a lot of "don't do this," "no, you can't do that," or my favorite, "it take more than x amount of time." I feel as if some people take that as a predictor of what is going to happen. I want to clarify something for everyone who misunderstands posts of guidance, ONLY YOU CAN DETERMINE ANYTHING, whether it be it length of time, what your approach should be, how to do something, or anything that pertains to, not just this test, but anything. Let me clarify a bit. I am not saying do not listen to ANY of the advice, what I am saying is take everyone's advice with a grain of salt, and rely on yourself, and be confident in yourself no matter what it is that you do. I read something on another site, and someone was asking if they could reach 170 in 4 months with a 150 diagnostic, and a few people outright said it was near impossible. Nothing is impossible if you work hard, only failures, and people who lack self-confidence think anything is impossible. Just work hard, trust yourself, and don't sell yourself short.

So I am in the section of the curriculum where I am doing Logic Games, and I wanted to get your opinions on my strategy of tackling the practice problems. What I have been doing is doing the games on my own no matter how long they take until I figured out every inference on my own, sometimes it takes really long, sometimes I get the inferences in seconds. I do not watch JY's explanation until I am done with the game. Is this what I should be doing to get better at inferences, or is it better to just watch the game explanation if I am unable to make the inference?

I feel like I am not grasping the fundamentals properly, I am rarely able to predict what the answer choice will be until I get to the answer choices, although I have this general idea of what could be wrong with the argument. I am also missing a ton of level 4 and 5 questions. After 4 PT's I have narrowed down my weaknesses to Flaw, NA, SA, and even though it does not happen often MBT questions. I want to add that even when I am BR'ing I don't I still lack the ability of choosing the correct answers for those questions. Do you guys think this is a fundamentals issue, or it is lack of experience since I have only done 4 PT's?

How extensive is your reasoning for eliminating wrong answer choices? Do you just write something small like "no evidence" "does the opposite of correct answer," or do you go deeper? I feel like I need to BR better sometimes I just feel like I cannot reach 100% certainty on questions when I am BR'ing.

I am interested in knowing what people, who had/have the 7sage curriculum, did during the curriculum. I am particularly interested in if those individuals drilled during the curriculum. I also do not mean drill as in doing the 5 questions at the end of every section, I mean full on drill a section of those specific question types then BR them. I recently purchased the 7sage ultimate, and I am now at 40% finished with the course, however the only reason I am not further in the course is because when I had the starter package I went through most of the curriculum without having the extra problem sets that come with the ultimate. Essentially, I was about 70% done with the core curriculum when I had the starter. Now, however, I have to go back and do all the other problem sets that come with the ultimate package. I do not mind doing this at all, however I was thinking of finishing the core first, which I do not have much of, and then going back to do all the rest of the problem sets as drills. Is this a good idea? I just feel that I will truly never finish with this course if I continue to drill in the midst of learning the core. My drilling is too precise, I mean I can literally take about 4hrs to understand every nitty gritty detail of a 5 question problem set for LR, as well as LG,this includes the ones I already understand, which means finishing this course will not happen anytime soon, and although the fundamentals are extremely important, I am not going to get any better at this test if I do not start drilling sections, and PTing. What advice do you guys have for me?

I can't really believe what I a going through right now to be honest. I studied diligently for 8 months...did the 7sage course did practice questions, timed sections, about 5 timed PT's and I cant even get past 140's on my timed tests....IDK what happens during timed tests...everything just flies out the window I guess? My last blind review was a 160...not the best but it at least means I understand something about this test....on my BR I am usually -5 to -9 on each LR section -5 to -9 on RC and -0 to -3 on logic games...Why am I not getting this on my timed tests? I have never ever studied so hard for something to see little to no results...to be honest at this point I just want to at least score in the 150's to move on with my life. I have never been a good test taker, but I always did either average or slightly above average, but with this test I just get no where. This test is of no indication what so ever to my future capabilities as a lawyer, or my intelligence, but for some reason it is truly making me depressed with a feeling of hopelessness.

I know posting things like this on a forum is inappropriate, but I def need to talk to fellow test takers because every time I talk to someone about my feelings with this test they just say "its only a test, and one bad test wont ruin your entire future."

Sooooo, I just did Pt 27 S2 G2 which is the lizards and snakes game. That was challenging as hell. Did you guys struggle with this game as well? Also I am a bit flustered by the explanation of this game. JY makes the claim that the 1st premise of this game means that each habitat has 2 slots, but how do we know that if the rule just states MAX 2 PER SLOT? Max 2 does not mean every habitat has 2 slots. Also, during the exam you are not going to "ignore certain elements of the game." How did you guys go about solving this game?

I am now on timed PT's and still struggling with MBT questions and SA questions. I have only taken 3 PT's so far 19,20, 21. I'm BRing in the 160's w.o BRing RC if I were to be BRing RC, I would be in the 170's. Do you guys have any advice for me regarding MBT and SA? Also, is it worth BR'ing RC? When I do untimed RC passagesI don't really struggle considering I have all the time in the world.

I always wonder how the individuals taking this test coped with this specific logic games section. The second game on this was not difficult, but time consuming as hell, and the last game is like "wth is this?"

I hate these questions, they truly are the bane of my existence, and study. I am not sure what I am missing, but I am just not accurate with these questions. How did you guys better understand this question type? what was your technique, and what made them click for you? In on of JY's videos, he claims that for 170+ target scorers there is not enough time to conditionally map out the question, but for me, the harder ones just seem impossible without mapping. Also, sometimes mapping is difficult due to my inability to identify which is the sufficient, and which is the necessary condition. With the latter issue, there are no conditional words for guidance. How does one become better at identifying the sufficient/necessary condition without the trigger words being present (aside from just practice of course because once I finish the 7sage course, practice is all I will be doing).