Discussions

siyao0215737

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

Admissions · Upcoming Admissions Webinars + Edit Giveaways

siyao0215737

Sunday, Nov 03 2019

For candidates who have lower-than-median LSAT or/and GPA figures, what would you find that makes you really want to admit that person - their special experiences, or some traits you found by reading the personal statement? Hope to get some examples, if possible. Thanks a lot for holding the webinars!

General · PT scores went down before the real test

siyao0215737

Sunday, Oct 27 2019

@eugenewrotethis726 said:

Sounds like burnout. Do everything you can to relax the next two days and go in fresh on Monday. You might even go out and do something fun just to relax and avoid worrying. Clearly you're ready.

Thank you! I actually did not believe in burnout before, but I literally cannot figure out another reason why I consecutively lose 7 questions in a single LR section (while in the other LR section, usually -2 or -2) in the last 3 PT this week. Will definitely relax today ~

General · PT scores went down before the real test

siyao0215737

Sunday, Oct 27 2019

@paigestroud97862 said:

I'm in a similar boat - for the past two weeks or so, my PT scores have been drifting lower. I haven't been studying quite as much as you, but still doing my fair share. I am taking the October test Monday, and at this point I just plan to go back to the basics. I'm going to review some fundamental logic skills, go over flaws, etc. tomorrow so that I don't freak myself out by grading more problem sets or PTs. At this point, you've given it all you've got, so I'd try to relax and review some easy stuff - just so you can remind yourself how much you've mastered (helps me with confidence boosts). Good luck Monday!

Thank you very much! I am going to check out my test center and briefly review my error journal. Good luck to us :wink:

General

•

Saturday, Oct 26 2019

siyao0215737

PT scores went down before the real test

Hi 7sagers,

I am preparing for the October test. Scores of my PTs went down from lower 170 ~ 175 two weeks ago to 168 (PT56) yesterday, and 167 (PT57) today. The differences mainly come from LRs. Previously I missed 3~6 questions in total in LR, while yesterday and today, I lost 9/10 points.

Really don't know why this happened and have no clue about what I can do today/tomorrow to avoid this in the real test. Anyone had the same experience before? Any tips on coming back to the normal/higher range?

I guess one possible reason of this is I am a little burnt out. Have been studying really hard with a lot of pressure in the past three weeks, and would do 1 or even 2 PTs everyday with some other basic drills. I have reduced my study this week to avoid getting burnt out, although I still spent 6+ hours in the library for LSAT everyday ..

Any advice is highly appreciated! Thanks!

PrepTests ·

PT139.S1.Q22

siyao0215737

Friday, Oct 25 2019

This is similar to Q22.2.23 - they are all about an interesting concept of "pre-correlation."

How to establish a valid correlation? when [a], there is [b]; when /[a], there is/[b]

What is pre-correlation? Most [a] are [b].

However, under pre-correlation, we know nothing about what happens when the situation is /[a]. It leaves room for "when /[a], there is still [b]." In this scenario, there is no correlation at all.

-----

We know it is a common type of flaw to conclude causation based on correlation. It is actually a more severe flaw to conclude causation based on pre-correlation. The 1st mistake is "pre-correlation does not necessarily mean correlation," and the 2nd mistake is "EVEN IF there is a correlation, maybe not causation."

General · Our Free Logic Game Videos

siyao0215737

Wednesday, Oct 23 2019

Sorry to hear that. I learned about 7Sage from those free youtube videos, and I am sure it has helped tons of LSAT students. :wink:

General · Recording yourself while practicing.

siyao0215737

Monday, Sep 30 2019

Hey @akikookmt881

I was watching J.Y.'s Live Commentary videos and thought of recording myself as well. But is it still necessary considering that we now have digital PTs, which automatically shows how much time we spend on each questions?

(Sometimes I got into a question, stuck there, and stop actively thinking because I don't know where to continue to think. That's when time flies by. That's one of the issues I am trying to solve by recording myself. )

@akikookmt881 said:

@shermankrs21 said:

How do you approach watching the playback of the video? I can't imagine that you are spending 2.5 hours just watching yourself take the test, on top of the BR, and the review of the test after BR. Do you specifically skip to areas of the video on questions you struggled with, or questions you marked (I use a star) that you spent a lot of time on?

Any insights or strategies on how you are actually reviewing the video is helpful! I work full time so I have to be smart about how I use my time to study and review.

I don't know what @akikookmt881 does, but what some people (including myself) do is to make a timing sheet of a PT like this:

https://imgur.com/YPQJDb9

For LG and RC, I actually fast forward the part I am reading the passage/making inferences.

PrepTests ·

PT153.S2.Q18

siyao0215737

Tuesday, Sep 24 2019

Got this question wrong for 3 times .. Oh man .. Finally got it clearer.

First of all, after reading, we recognize that this is a cookie-cutter [phenomenon - hypothesis] argument. We can provide additional examples consistent with the hypothesis to strengthen it.

Then, to make our goal clearer, before diving into the ACs, we need to make it clear what the hell is the hypo --- at first, young harbor seals avoid all; then, they learn to ignore those that do not eat seals.

[Avoid all --- learn Ignore some]

(E) is wrong because it does not fit this hypo. According to (E):

(1) the attacked seal "does not avoid at first, and learn to avoid after the attack,"

[Ignore -- learn to avoid some]

(2) the unattacked seals "do avoid all the time."

[Ignore -- Ignore]

(E) is tempting because it shows a similar "change of conduct" pattern (learn to avoid). If we do not grasp the hypo in the stimulus (learn to ignore) closely, it's really easy to fell for it.

(C) is correct. I thought it was wrong initially because it is talking about "mature harbor seals," and I thought we only care about "young harbor seals." However, the conclusion mentions "then learn to ..blabla.." and that's how "mature harbor seals" are related. They learned!!

How to prevent the mistake from happening again? Actually I don't know what to do except for reminding myself to read more closely ... but it's sometimes out of control > < . Any advice?!

#help

admin. note: added #help

PrepTests ·

PT150.S1.P1.Q1

siyao0215737

Tuesday, Sep 17 2019

#help For Q1 I was down to (C) and (D). The reason why I eliminated (D) is "major cause" - I am sure it's a cause, but is it a major cause? I referred back to the passage, but did not find any similar words ... am I being to strict?

General · The Loophole in LSAT Logical Reasoning

siyao0215737

Sunday, Sep 15 2019

I got it from Ellen's own website: https://elementalprep.com/products/the-loophole-in-lsat-logical-reasoning

PrepTests ·

PT152.S1.Q17

siyao0215737

Friday, May 31 2019

I feel the AC of this question is a combination of SA/PSA and Disagreement ... (Why you do this to me, LSAT Writers???

PrepTests ·

PT145.S2.Q6

siyao0215737

Wednesday, May 29 2019

I spent pretty long time to figure out this Q during timed condition and got it correct by POE. During blind review, I figured out that I did not realize, by saying "thinks B is guilty", it also can be said as "don't support B." This is the tiny jump I did not able to make at first.

PrepTests ·

PT128.S2.Q8

siyao0215737

Tuesday, May 21 2019

The live commentary is helpful. I always check the remaining ACs even after I am pretty sure about the AC I picked. It's sometimes really hard to control myself due to the concern that "what if I lose some points on these easiest questions?!!"

Time to change the habit (wisely).

PrepTests ·

PT143.S1.Q15

siyao0215737

Sunday, May 19 2019

Under timed, I was hesitated between (C) and (D). By giving them a closer look, I think (C) is not a good option because it says "... by a close encounter with some other objects." While in the stimulus, the premise is "... by close encounters with planets orbiting our sun."

Thus, under (C), it's possible that many comets orbiting our sun was thrown into oval orbits by a plastic bag in the space. Apparently, this cannot support our argument.

Because of this mismatch, (C) becomes very weak.

PrepTests ·

PT146.S1.Q13

siyao0215737

Saturday, May 18 2019

(E) is wrong. We know from the stimulus that this special fish has 2 characteristics: (1) unusual body shapes: fins, tails; (2) do not breed true. (E) implies that one characteristic causes the other. We were never told anything about the relationship between these two traits. Totally unsupported.

PrepTests ·

PT146.S4.P3.Q15

siyao0215737

Monday, May 13 2019

The live commentary actually helps me a lot!!

J.Y. has mentioned a lot about "pushing back," but it's kind of a vague concept, and I always fail to do it when practicing. After watching the live commentary, I now understand how to do it.

I am relatively slow at RCs (33/34 mins for 4 passages) and this makes me afraid of running out of time. So I just cannot persuade myself to stop to look back the previous paragraphs, even though I know it's sometimes really important for a good comprehension. Watching how J.Y. did his job makes me feel a lot more comfortable with this (tho I am still a lot slower than him lol)

PrepTests ·

PT126.S3.Q17

siyao0215737

Monday, Apr 29 2019

I think (A) is tricky because it's not a direct matching, but with a little bit revisions.

The argument: when selling a home and when it involves large appliances assumptions, the home seller has 2 choices: remove or indicate.

AC (A): when selling a home and when it involves large appliances assumptions, and the home seller did not remove, then he has to indicate.

PrepTests ·

PT149.S1.Q11

siyao0215737

Friday, Apr 26 2019

I read "nonverbal cues" as context, or habits (the stimulus mentions that "this example is typical of how conversation works.") and had a hard time hesitating between (A) and (C). I picked (A) in the end because I think it's slightly safer.

PrepTests ·

PT134.S3.Q23

siyao0215737

Wednesday, Apr 24 2019

One more reason why B is wrong: the most common species of birds in this region are migratory ≠ most of the birds in this region are migratory (we need this to match the stimulus.)

For example, let's say there are 4 types of birds in the region and they account for 40%,30%, 20% and 10% respectively. Suppose Migratory is the one who takes 40%. Now we can say "migratory is the most common one," but we cannot say "most of the birds are migratory" because it's lower than 50%.

PrepTests ·

PT134.S3.Q18

siyao0215737

Wednesday, Apr 24 2019

I interpreted the lawgic of the 2nd principle differently from J.Y. because of the "in addition" - I think it is introducing a second sufficient condition for the 2nd principal.

Principle #2: operation of a business + potential evidence --> justified

For the correct AC (B), it does mention "consulting firm" and "fraudulent business practices," which satisfy a part of the sufficient condition. Also, (B) mentions the "potential evidence" thing, and thus satisfy the other condition. Therefore, we are safe to say "it's justified."

PrepTests ·

PT117.S2.Q20

siyao0215737

Tuesday, Apr 23 2019

1. I got this question right because I understand (B) as attacking the validity/credibility of the premise, instead of attacking the premise directly, which is commonly thought as an impermissible way to weaken an argument.

To be more clear, in my understanding, (B) is NOT saying "there is no such a correlation," but that "the way in which the author draws the correlation is problematic" and thus weakening the supporting relationship between the premise and conclusion.

2. Another point I want to make is that I am sure I have seen this type of "attack the validity/credibility of the premise" weakening AC in other PTs, and got it right by thinking in the same way as mentioned in 1. Although it is definitely not a common weakening method, I still think it can be said to be "cookie-cutter."

PrepTests ·

PT124.S2.Q26

siyao0215737

Thursday, Apr 11 2019

I think reading the stimulus with the purpose of finding the flaw really helps me with this question.

P: + speed limits, both groups improve the actual speeds

C: + speed limits, - highway safety.

If I think of the argument with the purpose of catching a flaw/gap, I will naturally think "wait .. who says it has to be the case that 'higher actual speed is bad for highway safety?' Maybe there are other explanations/factors!"

Although I cannot provide an answer as to what other explanations/factors are, I know what type of an AC I am looking for. AC (B) provides a specific reason, which is consistent with the direction of the AC I need.

PrepTests ·

PT152.S2.Q21

siyao0215737

Tuesday, Apr 09 2019

I wrongly interpreted "[x], if A and if B" into "A --> [x]", and also "B --> [x]" ...

PrepTests ·

PT132.S2.Q8

siyao0215737

Wednesday, Mar 27 2019

I missed this question simply because my eyes did not catch "at any given stage," so that I thought (A) does not make any sense and tried to look for a correct AC among (B) -- (E). When comparing Q8 to Q7, it's interesting to see how the lsat writers hide the exact same flaw in a more perfect way ...

PrepTests ·

PT142.S2.Q15

siyao0215737

Friday, Mar 22 2019

I was hesitating between B and C and finally picked the wrong one. The reason why I did not go for B is that I am a little uncomfortable with "similar adaptations" - what if they need big eyes (e.g., 5 cm radium) to survive, and an animal with 10-cm-radium-eyes needs to make its' eyes smaller while another animal with 3-cm-radium-eyes needs to make it larger?" I thought it was "similar adaptions" because the direction of the adaption are different... Seems like I am thinking too much.