I still don't understand how we can keep a wrong answer journal during blind review if we have no idea what the correct answer is and if we got it right to begin with. I know it isn't the best practice to immediately look at the answers, but how are you even supposed to know what you got wrong and that you need to review it unless we look at the answers? It makes more sense to flag the question, do blind review, look at the answers and break down what you do/don't understand and then mark that question in the journal for the initial wrong answer and your explanation for the correct one. I've noticed others have similar questions and would like a clearer answer on how to properly conduct blind review in the way it is set up currently. #feedback #help
I am pretty sure that schools will see that you're registered for another LSAT in the CAS report and will hold your application until the score is released and part of your overall report. They will look at what you have right now, but will not make any decisions until the other score has been released. I was told this by an admission's representative after the same question was asked. You have to specify to the schools which score you want applied and if you don't then your application will be held until the final score is on your CAS report. I hope this helps! You can also reach out to admissions at the schools you're applying to and ask what their policy is for LSAT scores released after an application is submitted.
That last paragraph describing the scoops and buckets is one of the best visual/written explanations I have seen to explain relationships and intersectionality. If more examples had explanations like that that are easy to visualize, it will greatly improve test taker's understanding of the topic and why it is important. #feedback
Thank you so much!! I'm glad my comments were helpful. I'm always happy to assist my fellow law school peers in any way that I can!
Hello! I am new to 7Sage and am a little confused on the setup. I noticed there is an option to choose volume 1 or 2 and they each have different amounts of lessons and required hours. I did not realize there were two volumes of study material and have been going through logic games on volume 2, which has less material. Which one are we supposed to be choosing?
You literally cannot solve logic games unless you fully understand this lesson. I wish I would have started this wayyyy before I tried to take my first LSAT:(
According to this passage, I can infer that many people in our judicial system are neck deep in bullshit.
It's comforting to know that JY has the same internal thought process as I do when reading a passage that has unfamiliar components. I constantly sit there and just stare at the screen asking myself what the heck did I just read. Lol
I'm a bit confused about group 3 indicators for Unless, Until, and Without. In the explanation it says to choose one of the two topics and place it as a negated sufficient condition and the other is the necessary condition. In every single answer to those type of conditional statements on this exercise, it says only the necessary condition is triggered and there is no guarantee of the sufficient condition. So why do we choose one of the ideas to be a negated sufficient condition to begin with if only the necessary condition is triggered? The sufficient condition is completely ignored to say that it can validly infer the necessary condition and I am curious as to why that is and what I am missing in my understanding. The answer explanations seem to follow how Group 2 indicators are interpreted.
#help (Added by Admin)
Why have us try and change these statements into the If....Then structure when translating between Lawgic and English, when doing that changes the entire conditionality of the sentence? In the previous lecture, it states that a sentence using "only if" triggers a necessary condition and cannot validly infer a sufficient condition such as in the "Students are cited as late only if they arrive five minutes or more" example. Changing the statement to "Students are cited as late if they arrive more than five minutes late now establishes the 5+ minutes as the sufficient condition that can validly infer a citation will be made as the necessary condition. Switching statements into the "If...Then" structure creates a sufficient condition when the original sentence is only indicating that a necessary condition is triggered without any guarantee of an outcome. Am I correct in thinking that this is the wrong thing to do when group 2 indicators are present? #help #feedback
In the stimulus, the first sentence (the conclusion) talks about the nation being competitive, but doesn't say anything about the type of competitiveness that is. Only the last sentence adds the modifier of economic competitiveness. But in the explanations, the economic competitiveness is inserted into the first sentence's meaning. I am confused how the explanation is saying that the first sentence is expressing that pushing rigorous curricula to make the nation more economically competitive is a bad thing when it does not say anything about ECONOMIC competitiveness, just competitiveness as a whole. To me, I would interpret that as the author expressing any type of competitiveness in the first sentence, but then modifies it to be a completely different type of competitiveness that was originally the main intent. I see the argument as not really flowing very well because the author is not maintaining the same meaning throughout. Am I incorrect in thinking this or just overthinking it? #help #feedback
I noticed a typo towards the end of the lesson! "It says that the pather’s current habitat has reached capacity." Panther is misspelled.
The comments about Mace Windu are the best. I will always remember these Star Wars and cat examples throughout my studies. lol
Hello! I think I found a mistake. "Answer Choice (E) should help children learn the consequences of being bad. (E) isn’t exactly stated explicitly, but it’s very strongly applied". Is it supposed to say implied instead of applied? #feedback
A helpful tip for some people that still struggle to determine what the conclusion and premise(s) are: ask yourself why, because.
The why is the conclusion and the because are the premises that support it. When looking at an argument like the very first one given about blue eyes, ask yourself, why is it that it is more than likely that blue eyes are determined by genetics? Because a recent study found that most people with blue eyes have a relative with blue eyes AND those without blue eyes are less likely to have a relative with blue eyes. Sometimes I use this trick when I am really stumped because if you can't provide an answer for the because, then you know you don't have the correct conclusion figured out either. You can use this method as trial and error over and over changing what is the why and what is the because until it makes logical sense with LSAT logic and not our sense of "real world" logic.
Because many implies some due to the fact that some means at least one, it must be true that some of a thing is a valid inference to many of that thing. Most also validly implies some for similar reasons. But many cannot validly imply most because of how subset and superset are viewed for their relationships. The idea that there is many of something means its lower boundary (at least 3 or more) falls outside of the superset of most where its lowest boundary encompasses 51% or more of that thing. If it was entirely encompassed by the superset, then it would be valid to imply many→most. Most implies many because it does encompass its entire range of boundaries.
It all has to do with the fact that you can equate many to some as a falsehood to better see the relationship between them. Just because you have a large amount of something "many," it doesn't imply that you have most of that thing. The most relationship indicates a proportion of something, whereas many only has to be 3 or more. Few as a quantifier means some, but not many and typically implies "most not." You can't equate many and few with each other.
I like to use the example: Many people love the color blue. If many people love blue, then it is valid to say that some people like blue because there is at least 1 person that likes blue. It wouldn't make sense to say that because many people like blue, then most people like blue too due to the fact that "most" would mean that 51% of people like blue. We only know that at least 3 people like blue with the "many" quantifier. It must be true that some people like blue, but it COULD BE TRUE that most people like blue. For your diagrams, I think the one on the right is correct. If you still need more help, I can try to come up with more examples that may work better for you. Quantifier relationships are difficult and super easy to miss little changes, so I completely understand not quite getting it. I still struggle with it at times. lol
Hello! I wanted to point out a typo in the very first sentence. It should say experiment and not experimental. #feedback