Discussions

sirajuddinsyed192

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

General

•

Wednesday, Feb 22 2023

sirajuddinsyed192

Tackling Access to Justice.... Giving Back to 7sage

Hey 7sage community,

This post is going to be edited multiple times by myself over the next several days/weeks...

TLDR: Free Lsat RC tutoring and LSAT coaching. Ideal for students who are really early in their process of studying or what to revamp their approach/mentality. I am intentionally starting with RC because I want to challenge the myth (yes myth) that it is the toughest section to overcome. If that's what you think, then guess what, WTF are you going do in law school? Read below for more info!

Deadline for the Application: March 10th

Short Story / About Me:

First of all, if this is a violation of the 7sage discussion forum, admin please delete this. I have not been on this website in a long time and I understand 7sage now has a tutoring program.

A little bit about me - in my last semester of law school (Dalhousie University - Halifax - Canada) and my passion for the teaching the LSAT has not gotten away from me (https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/22608/giving-back-to-the-7sage-community-free-tutoring). Secondly, I am teacher by profession. Honestly, nothing made me more happier in law school then having one of my students get accepted into York University's law program (weird but it was the honest truth). I cannot believe I am about type this - > I think law school only increased my passion for the LSAT!

Reflecting back on my law school life (loool....I should write about this in another blog), I think the best way I can give back to my law schools Weldon Tradition (google it) is to alleviate access to justice by getting more people from marginalized communities into law. I really believe this is the best way of dealing with "injustice" in the justice system.

The LSAT - I cannot stress this enough - is a great exam for developing your skills to be a great law student and lawyer. Only if I knew this, or thought of the exam differently before hand (I actually did - but I decided to have a kid LOL and that destroyed my law school timeline). TBH - I am going to restart studying for the LSAT post April and want to take my final LSAT probably next year...don't know why but I really want to ink down 170+ on my LSAT transcript. Its always been a weird passion of mine and I do not want to let this dream go (I know I am weird).

To get my free RC tutoring & LSAT coaching - DM me with the following (the more detail - the more it will help you!)

How long you have been studying the LSAT?

What is your LSAT mentality?

Why do you want to be a lawyer?

How do you want to give back to the 7sage community?

Location & Time Zone

What is your dream LSAT score?

Other things about yourself....

My goal is to create a group of three students - to teach you how to read RC (perhaps 7 to 8 sessions it may take) and then create a new group of three students, and continue this process. Also during this journey I want to coach you on your general LSAT journey.

.....

Stay tuned for my next LSAT post: The LSAT mentality!

P.S. I am not sure if other alum feel this way, but writing posts while being in law school about the LSAT is weirdly therapeutical LOL.

General · Canadian Law Students: What do you recommend to prepare for 1L?

sirajuddinsyed192

Sunday, Jan 02 2022

learn how to type really fast for your exams LOL

General · My journey with the LSAT (146 —> 171)

sirajuddinsyed192

Wednesday, Jul 21 2021

so proud of u buddy!

LSAT · ⚖ Official June 2021 LSAT-Flex Discussion Thread ⚖

sirajuddinsyed192

Thursday, Jun 17 2021

Is the mueseum or econ game similar to any other tests?

General · Did anyone have a 140 Diagnostic and then improve? Please share your stories!! I need some inspo!

sirajuddinsyed192

Wednesday, Jun 09 2021

Started with a 143 and have minimum made a 20+ point improvment.

Study Groups · Study Group - Parenthood thru LSAT

sirajuddinsyed192

Tuesday, Jun 01 2021

Please DM .... would love to chat.

In the same boat! :)

LSAT · 144 (diagnostic, July 2019) -> 164 (May 2020) -> 165 (July 2020) -> 173 (!!!)(October 2020)

sirajuddinsyed192

Friday, Oct 23 2020

That's awesome & super motivating!

PrepTests ·

PT131.S4.P1.Q2

sirajuddinsyed192

Tuesday, Sep 29 2020

For Question 2 - I think its best to approach it from a process of elimination perspective.

For doing so B,C,E are immediate outs. Now you are down with A & C. With respect to this - I really tried to jump back to the question stem and focus on the analogy part of it. A - is not really analogy, is probably a good explanation for parallel computing systems. With respect to C, I think its the analogy:

Large group of ants working together = climate trends (climate trends are large, complex, so many small parts have to come together (ocean & atmosphere info).

Take away - with an analogy question.... go big picture!

LSAT · Has there ever been a wkn str right AC with "some?"

sirajuddinsyed192

Thursday, Sep 10 2020

PT 48 LR sections have them!

LSAT · 7Sagers from Ontario, CAN: LR study group: CANCELLED

sirajuddinsyed192

Thursday, Aug 13 2020

I am in Markham, Ontario...I'd love this!

PrepTests ·

PT120.S3.Q7

sirajuddinsyed192

Wednesday, Aug 05 2020

Weakening Question: Recommendation

When you get a recommendation, as in the commentators conclusion "we should instead" do X, the LSAT loves using a weakening AC of which we assume the recommendation and then show there is an issue with it.

The recommendation proposed by the commentator is that we should set a max level that is acceptable to use for each chemical. AC B is perfect because it assumes that if we take this recommendation, then guess what - another issue arises, which is in this case the several chemicals acting together to still induce cancer. This is perfect because the legislators goal is that he wants to minimize the cause of cancer.

Notice the overall structure to pick up this point:

Person 1: Has a causal recommendation that is very strong (must stop the use of all foods that cause cancer)

Person 2: Gives a recommendation to person 1 of an alternative to the overall blocking of the cause

Person 1: Going to come back and say your recommendation does not block the cause.

AC Analysis:

A. Great to know, but does nothing. Many a times you get this irrelevant standard AC in weakening and strengthening questions. Remember they don't do anything.

C. This is just dumb and immediate knock out.

D. Great to know, but why do I care of the benefits of the chemical.

This is also great to know. But could you tell me if the substitutes cause cancer or not.

PrepTests ·

PT120.S1.Q21

sirajuddinsyed192

Thursday, Jul 30 2020

The overall flaw was easy to see whole to part. However, not being sensitive of the details in this question can be a pain in the ass.

Paraphrasing the flaw for myself:

I have something called X that is better than any type of X than anyone else has.

The bestest X that I have is the bestest ever LOL.

AC B: Yes the either tricks you, but work perfect.

X or Y is the most demanding.

Therefore, some subset of X or Y must be the most demanding of X and Y.

PrepTests ·

PT120.S1.Q16

sirajuddinsyed192

Thursday, Jul 30 2020

PT 47 - 1 - 16

This is a great MSS question to learn in terms of patterns for this question type on the LSAT.

Few things to consider:

1) Most correct AC for this question type are rarely prescriptive. Meaning the LSAT loves conservative ACs. For example a prescriptive AC could be "the only way I can eat food is by using my right hand", whereas a conservative AC would be "when eating my food I don't use my feet", or "when eating my food I use either hand".

2) From a method of reasoning perspective - they give you what happens on either side of "X". This is very important to note. X here is "hyprocosy" and either side of X is "when it is exposed" and "when it is not exposed". When the LSAT does in this question type, get ready for AC that will sum up what is happening. In this case, the thing that is happening when hyprocosy is either being exposed or not is that people are acting better/doing good things.

3) Now going back to AC analysis and point 1 of mine from above - note how each AC is prescriptive in nature:

A: "encourages people to"

B: "encourages people to"

C:"encourages some people"

D: "better way"

E: "is no stronger"

Then what do you do at this point? This is a good sign that the LSAT has probably used "synonym.com" to change "acting better/doing good things" into something very close. Remember this and take this forward. Hence, AC B is fits this. Curve breaker questions mimic this very much.

G'luck and hopefully this was helpful.

PrepTests ·

PT120.S1.Q11

sirajuddinsyed192

Thursday, Jul 30 2020

This a recommendation strengthener question in which an issue is presented and the conclusion ends with a recommendation. Very common LSAT pattern in strengthener and weakener domain.

E pretends to be a strengthener but has nothing to do with the recommendation in this case. Hence, its out. D is perfect! Has to do with the recommendation & it patches up the issue with tracking expenses by stating that the cash-flow statement tracks monthly and overall expenses.

PrepTests ·

PT120.S1.Q1

sirajuddinsyed192

Thursday, Jul 30 2020

Doing this live - I thought C was it because of the generalization it was hinting at. However, D is the better weakener here.

With C - what is the sample size? How is a sample size even presented in the argument? At best, I would say maybe an example, but not a sample size.

#help (Added by Admin)

PrepTests ·

PT127.S3.Q20

sirajuddinsyed192

Monday, Jul 27 2020

This is another great curve breaker weakener/strengthening question that the LSAT writers love throwing in an LR section when we move 18+.

Now, the core of the logic of this stimulus is causal. However, if it was that simple, then simply we can apply our causation strategy and get rid of ACs via process of elimination. But in this case, notice how the conclusion states that vitamin C intake tends to make people more healthier than average. Notice an inference we cannot make is that whether vitamin C is the best option for this because when the author states average it is already implied that there are other things out there that could give the same result and could do so in even a better manner. Knowing this is super important in understanding why B is such a trick wrong AC.

B challenges the notion that guess what: there is something else out there (lets pretend brocoli) that gives the same results. What it is trying to imply that if there is something else, like brocoli that can give the same results, than vitamin C is not the best. However, the author never made this assumption.

D is perfect. It challenges the core of the conclusion. The author states that vitamin C makes people more healthier on average. However, D basically functions like: author are you sure this is the case because guess what it has some detrimental, negative impacts on human health.

This form of an opening in causal conclusion is really important to understand because the LSAT writers love using this!

Takeaway:

- If you got this wrong, notice the implication of the term "average" in a conclusion.

PrepTests ·

PT127.S3.Q10

sirajuddinsyed192

Monday, Jul 27 2020

Great question.

If you got this wrong, read the tether assumption that Dave Binghamton has posted on the forum. This is a comparison form that the LSAT uses in weakening, flaw, NA questions.

PrepTests ·

PT119.S3.Q26

sirajuddinsyed192

Sunday, Jul 26 2020

NA question with a strong conclusion.

The difficulty of choosing between AC B vs. C is a pattern that the LSAT throws in NA questions with a strong conclusion.

First of all, the premise here is coming from a science background - in which they microscopically examined the plant remains on the ape teeth. When we have a science background as support for the conclusion in an NA question, we are going to try and protect the accuracy of its procedure. One way of doing so is by blocking out the fact that the results, samples, sample size or methods in this microscope test is accurate.

This what exactly AC B does. It protects the "sample size" of the experiment by stating that guess what every type of plant that the apes ate, the remains of it appeared on the teeth. Then bingo, if you have a conclusion that apes only ate a specific plant, this AC protects this. I look at this as a block but I know some students would consider this a bridge.

AC C here is the "the always, never" AC trap that the LSAT writers love to throw in NA questions. Its great to know that the all the teeth showed and had the same plant remains. But this opens up the fact that what if other plants - say roses - the apes ate them and the remains of that showed up on the teeth. Then, this cannot help to lead to the conclusion that the apes ate only phytoliths.

Hope this helps!

PrepTests ·

PT119.S3.Q24

sirajuddinsyed192

Sunday, Jul 26 2020

I would consider this a conditionality SA or principle SA. However, the language here is something to wrap your head around.

A: Money Disappear

B: Universal Loss of Belief in It

C: Money Does not Exist:

Argument Form:

A - > B

--------

Our goal is to bridge B to C. Remember contrapositives are always fair game and should be in the back of your mind to check first especially when your in an LR section and doing questions 18+. This is the major curve breaker question on this specific section.

Now AC A i think does the negation of B a bit weirdly, but it works in this context.

AC A:

/C - > /B

Anything would exist and continue to do so (push back to the stimulus here - the subject matter would be money) even if everyone lost belief in it (in this case they are negating the fact that it is not 100% the case that B leads to C. Rather it could be 99% of the case LOL).

Tough SA for sure. Major takeaway from this question: note how they negated "B" and review the CC on the topic of how to negate all!

Hope this helps!

PrepTests ·

PT119.S3.Q23

sirajuddinsyed192

Sunday, Jul 26 2020

This flaw is purely one of an assumption.

We do not care about the law being passed. To clarify: we do not care about whether the law is good, what the purposes of the law or etc.

Rather, the assumption at play here is the author states that only people who are ignorant of history repeat its mistakes. To give a real life example of this - to really hit this home and make this takeaway - is that you may have noticed someone doing a silly action, or an act that you think is bad for many reasons. However, you acknowledged it but you made the same mistake in the future. This raises the question - do only people who see that mistake not repeat it? Your actions (from my analogy) shows otherwise. Bingo - same assumption being made here.

AC E - people who are not ignorant of history make the same mistakes!

PrepTests ·

PT119.S3.Q22

sirajuddinsyed192

Sunday, Jul 26 2020

This is another great curve breaker weakener/strengthener that the LSAT throws in LR sections when we hit question 18+. In my timed run, I passed by AC A very quickly because I thought it was just pure garbage. I did not really sit down and assess how this AC impacts the premise support for the conclusion. However, ACs B-E pretend to do something, while in actuality that is not the case.

I think a great way to analyze this is by looking at this question from a resolve-reconcile-explain (RRE) lens.

The conclusion is a phenomenon here: that in this town, the population of individuals age 65+ has spiked. When I read this, I wanted to ask myself how does the author know this? What is the support.

Premise: Guess what the average age of the town shifted from 52 to 57. When I read this, I wanted to challenge the author by stating that this is the average and that an average increase can be even done when the town's population aged 60-62 increases. When I was able to ask myself this question I realized the support of the premise to the conclusion was not going to be great. I wanted to choose an answer choice that really - even though it may at face value look terrible - forces the notion that the town's demographic aged 65+ must have increased.

Wrong AC Analysis:

B - trick AC. This AC is playing to the notion that an alternative hypothesis is eliminated, but does not really address "average" increase. I consider this a could be strengthener or weakener, in which I could use this "deletion of an alternative" hypothesis to challenge or support my conclusion. When you come to really difficult 5star questions like this, when you see you can do this function with an AC - like use it both in the context of strengthening and weakening then eliminate it. I would only select this AC if everything else was eliminated.

C - I think this one is an easy one to eliminate. As I mentioned above with AC B, you can easily see how this decrease in town size creates a volume of questions: 1) What age population got impacted? etc. Questions like this when analyzing an AC is a great way to know this should be a knock out.

D - Same as above two ACs. How do we know what was the age of those moving into the town? Since we can come up with multiple answers to that question, this is a good litmus test to know to knock this AC out.

E - Easiest elimination out of the bunch this AC set. So what if this is the case. We only care about this town.

Correct AC Analysis:

A - Now, at face value, this AC looks pure garbage. If the towns demographic between the ages of 18+ increased, then would it not be the case that the average age of the town instead of going from 52 to 57, rather perhaps go from 52 to 50. Notice how in this AC, the premise of the stimulus has somehow been challenged. But in reality, this challenge actually forces the conclusions existence even stronger. Because we are assessing a towns average age, average age would decrease if the town population was actually younger. However, the stimulus states as evidence this was not the case. This pushes the idea that the only way this could have happened is if the conclusion did exist. In other words, the average age went up because the town population had to have a surge of people aged 65+.

The takeaway from this is that notice this strengthener question from an RRE perspective. The author states a phenomenon happened but does not really give an explanation of how. Merely, gives evidence of the phenomenon occurring. The AC that LSAT chooses comes in and functions not like an explanation of the phenomenon, but rather as "challenging" the evidence, which pushes to the notion that the conclusion must have happened (or in other words that the phenomenon must have occurred). This sort of strengthener and weakener comes up in the 50 series - so pay attention to this phenomenon approach.

Hope this helps!

PrepTests ·

PT119.S3.Q1

sirajuddinsyed192

Sunday, Jul 26 2020

The twist in this plot that has to be explained is that the deers eat the turtle but somehow cannot digest meat. So the question that arises, if they are eating the turtle but cannot eat meat, what are they eating then of the turtle? The shell, nails, eyes lol?

D is the trick AC here. It is pretending to give a reason of why the turtles are being eaten by the deer, but it does not give a solution to the dilemma of why the deers still eat the turtle but not the meat. AC is A is perfect. Guess what they do eat the turtles, but not their meat but bones instead.

LSAT · LG: Almost at -0 Need Advice

sirajuddinsyed192

Monday, Jul 20 2020

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/24043/logic-games-the-road-to-0

Thats my post from last week. DM me if you have any questions!

General · Logic Games - The Road to -0.....

sirajuddinsyed192

Thursday, Jul 16 2020

Sorry for my abstract comment I meant PT 38 game 4. Sorry about that!

General · Logic Games - The Road to -0.....

sirajuddinsyed192

Thursday, Jul 16 2020

Bumping this LOL...

Hopefully this helps someone!