User Avatar
tutordavidlevine115
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free

Hey Gang,

LSAT can knock you down sometimes. When that happens there’s only one thing left to do.

https://pastorboller.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/fall-down-calvin.gif?w=760

Friday, November 4 at 12PM ET: PT76

Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219480381

I’ll be there every Friday to discuss the 70s tests. Can’t wait to hear you there!

Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.

United States +1 (571) 317-3112

Access Code: 219-480-381

The Full (and now REVISED) Schedule

And if you’d like to see the full schedule for upcoming reviews, here it is: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=h14k4idvt1lb4hp5ujds97qt7k@group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/New_York

Note:

  • For everyone: take the PT under timed conditions; BR as you are able on your own; then join us for all or part of the call—everyone is welcome.
  • Note: For the purposes of the call, we like to check our group blind review score together at the very end of the call :) So at least don't say ... "No guys, really, it's D, I checked it.” KEEP THE CORRECT ANSWER TO YOURSELF. Win the argument with your reasoning.
  • These groups work best when folks from ALL stages of prep and with all different goals join in! Not just for "super-preppers" and definitely not just for the casual LSATer (does such a person exist?).
  • The only expectation anyone has for these calls is for you to have fun and ask questions as you desire. We are just a bunch of LSAT lovers who gather via GoToMeeting and intellectually slaughter each test.
  • User Avatar
    tutordavidlevine115
    Wednesday, May 31 2017

    @ you're absolutely right about everything, answer choice E being a tantalizing trap answer---it just "feels" like a correct NA answer, while answer C with its "every" "feels" too strong to be an NA (That's why it's so important on NAs to have iron-clad understanding of the stimulus)---- and a good discussion ----- the purpose of this forum. I've spent many a keyboard click arguing this way or that about a particular answer choice, and each one contributed to my overall understanding of the test. Thanks and so happy to have you with us.

    User Avatar
    tutordavidlevine115
    Tuesday, May 30 2017

    @ said:

    @ That's some good input but if you think about it the stimulus allows for there to be minor faults that don't produce earthquakes at all. If that is the case, then we would have the same problem for the conclusion that we would if potential sites were allowed to be away from any minor fault lines. Both of those potential sites would be less likely to have an earthquake than a site near a minor fault that produces earthquakes.

    Thank you, but I'm not sure how "minor faults that don't produce earthquakes at all' is relevant to this particular question since no answer choices addresses those kinds of minor faults. I think if there was an answer that addressed this issue, you'd be on to something, but alas, it's not. In other words, there's more than one possible necessary assumption. We can only go for the answers they give us.

    Thinking about this more I think that E is wrong because it's more of a sufficient assumption attempting to address the problem of minor faults that produce no earthquakes.

    If it was a sufficient assumption, then it would mean that we have a valid argument. I'm not sure how you come by that reasoning. Which valid argument type would that even be?

    We have a comparative conclusion that makes distinctions about location of nuclear reactor sites, but we have no premises to support that distinction. For E to be a sufficient assumption, it would have to address that deficiency. I hope that you can see that it clearly doesn't. A sufficient assumption would be something like this:

    "If minor faults in a geologically quiet region never produces an earthquake more often than once in any given 100,000-year period, then any nuclear reactor near a fault line that has produced an earthquake within living memory in a geologically quiet region is less likely to be struck by an earthquake than one that is not near such a fault line."

    " So I think the necessary assumption that we wanted E to be would have been "all minor faults in geologically quiet regions are capable of producing earthquakes".">

    On this, I whole-heartedly agree! That's why I surmised that she might have thought that E negated said, "Earthquake faults in geologically quiet regions can never produce earthquakes." It's the negation of your necessary assumption that we wanted. My bad on not being clear there.

    User Avatar
    tutordavidlevine115
    Tuesday, May 30 2017

    @ I've been off in 0L Prep-land and doing a ton of SAT/ACT/LSAT tutoring for their respective June 3/10/12 tests, so I've been a little MIA. After a vacation to CT in June 12-23, I plan to get more involved with 7sage again.

    I LOVE the idea of specifically defined study groups. I know at the end of my term running my particular study group, I tended to focus on the grammar difficulties and cookie cutter argument forms that the LSAT presented. After the June test, I'd be happy to throw my hat in the ring to lead a group focusing on this grammatical aspect.

    User Avatar
    tutordavidlevine115
    Tuesday, May 30 2017

    Agreed. This is great. I find that I mostly tutor grammar and argument forms with my students. 7sage's curriculum is more than sufficient for logic. What really throws people is understanding what the argument and answer choices are even saying.

    User Avatar
    tutordavidlevine115
    Tuesday, May 30 2017

    I'm not certain that necessity can be qualified. In other words, one necessary assumption is not more necessary than another. Admittedly, this is a very tricky stimulus that's both modifier- and referential-phrase-crazy, but I need to ask you a question: How would you negate answer E?

    It hard to surmise because I haven't seen your negation, but I think your negation would be something like this: "Earthquake faults in geologically quiet regions can never produce earthquakes." I realize I'm oversimplifying and I'm not trying to "straw man" you. I'm merely writing it this way because it would clearly be a necessary assumption. Unfortunately, that is not what the negation of answer choice E is doing.

    My version is that "earthquake faults in geologically quiet regions, if they produce earthquakes, do so after 100,000 years have gone by."

    Before I address why this negation doesn't destroy the argument and, thus, why the answer isn't necessary, I think I need to address this question's difficulty, which is in the wording. I'll attempt to clarify what the argument is saying, thereby making it clear (hopefully) why C is the correct answer and E is an incorrect answer.

    The argument's conclusion is making a comparison about the likelihood of being struck by an earthquake:

    (1)Nuclear reactor sites located near a fault that has had an earthquake within living memory in geologically quiet region

    vs.

    (2)All other nuclear reactor sites NOT located near a fault that has had an earthquake within living memory in a geologically quiet region.

    In this case, quite simply (1) beats (2) in terms of being less likely to get hit by a future earthquake. Why is it making this comparison? Because minor faults in geologically quiet regions NEVER produce an earthquake more often than once in any given 100,000- year period.

    Answer C is correct because it rules out the possibility that a (2) nuclear reactor, though still in a geologically quiet region, isn't hundreds of miles away from any faults. period. Because if it weren't near a fault, we can't conclude that (1) beats (2) in terms of being less likely to get hit by a future earthquake.

    Answer E, instead of addressing where the nuclear reactors are located like C does, addresses the time it would take for an earthquake to hit. In other words, it's not addressing the key distinction made in the conclusion: its location. The time it would take for an earthquake to hit addresses both (1) and (2) nuclear sites equally and would have no impact on the distinction that the conclusion is making.

    This is a very tricky question, but I hope this helps you see how E isn't necessary .

    User Avatar
    tutordavidlevine115
    Tuesday, May 29 2018

    This is about as great as it is unsurprising. I can remember working on the LSAT with you in 2015, and I think you had already put in a good amount of work. This is so well-deserved. Big congrats, my friend, and I hope that you will hire me when you rule the world. :)

    User Avatar
    tutordavidlevine115
    Thursday, Jun 29 2017

    Excellent choice! Congrats, Daniel!

    Hmm, 2 tutors named Daniel, 2 tutors named Dave. It looks like we need another Josh to become a tutor. Then, we'll have 3 sets of name-pairs.

    Here’s the schedule this week:

    BR GROUPS

    Tuesday, Mar 29th at 8PM ET: PT 59

    Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219480381

    Thursday, Mar 31st at 8PM ET: PT 75

    Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219480381

    LSATurday, April 2nd at 8PM ET: PT60

    Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219480381

    June BR Group Schedule: http://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/6171/june-test-takers-group-br-schedule-updated

    You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.

    United States +1 (571) 317-3112

    Access Code: 219-480-381

    HOPE TO SEE YOU THERE!

    Be sure to announce in the comments which group(s) you’re planning on attending.

    Fine Print (NOTE: you all want to be lawyers; reading fine print is what lawyers do, so READ IT!)

    BR GROUP NOTES:

  • If you want to attend these sessions, you MUST click that link.
  • Here’s an FAQ on GoToMeeting.com: http://www.gotomeeting.com/meeting/online-meeting-support
  • Then, download the application (for your computer or mobile device).
  • For everyone: take the PT under timed conditions; BR as you are able; join us for all or part of the call—everyone is welcome.
  • Note: For the purposes of the call, we like to check our group blind review score together at the very end of the call :) So at least don't say ... "No guys, really, it's D, I checked it.” KEEP IT TO YOURSELF. Use your reasoning.
  • These groups work best when folks from ALL stages of prep and with all different goals join in! Not just for "super-preppers" and definitely not just for the casual LSATer (does such a person exist?).
  • The only expectation anyone has for these calls is for you to have fun and ask questions as you desire. We are just a bunch of LSAT lovers who gather via GoToMeeting and intellectually slaughter each test.
  • Let's bring some magic for the final countdown to February 4.

    http://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/gob-trick.gif?w=650

    Hope to hear you there!

    Wednesday, February 1, 2016 at 12:00PM ET: PT78

    Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219480381

    Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

    You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.

    United States +1 (571) 317-3112

    Access Code: 219-480-381

    The Full Schedule for Feb Test Takers

    12pm EST, Thursday, January 26, 2016 - PT 79 (please note the date change from 1/25)

    12pm EST, Wednesday, February 1, 2016 - PT 80

    Google Calendar: Coming soon! Not gonna happen! :)

    Here's a link to get PT 80 (no promises that it will arrive on time): https://www.amazon.com/Official-LSAT-PrepTest-80-Dec/dp/0998339709/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1485665344&sr=8-1-fkmr1&keywords=LSAT+PT+80

    Note:

  • For everyone: take the PT under timed conditions; BR as you are able on your own; then join us for all or part of the call—everyone is welcome.
  • Note: For the purposes of the call, we like to check our group blind review score together at the very end of the call :) So at least don't say ... "No guys, really, it's D, I checked it.” KEEP THE CORRECT ANSWER TO YOURSELF. Win the argument with your reasoning.
  • These groups work best when folks from ALL stages of prep and with all different goals join in! Not just for "super-preppers" and definitely not just for the casual LSATer (does such a person exist?).
  • The only expectation anyone has for these calls is for you to have fun and ask questions as you desire. We are just a bunch of LSAT lovers who gather via GoToMeeting and intellectually slaughter each test.
  • User Avatar
    tutordavidlevine115
    Sunday, May 28 2017

    Love to see you all keeping this going. Well done, everyone!

    User Avatar
    tutordavidlevine115
    Wednesday, Jun 28 2017

    I do an LG per day as a warm-up before I tutor or do some 0L prep (I've got PT 18, game 3 up for today). I too think I will continue this practice into 1L. It's the perfect warm up.

    User Avatar
    tutordavidlevine115
    Tuesday, Jun 27 2017

    At the risk of reiterating what Dave brilliantly has said, you never stop foolproofing. Even when you get down to -1 avg on your LG. I guarantee you'll foolproof PT 57, 62, 68 and many of the 70s no matter how good your LG game is. LG is like a yoga practice. Even a yogi master never stops practicing. You just keep honing your LG habits so that today they are 1% better than they were yesterday.

    For example, are you neat and organized rather than messy and haphazard while you are working through the game? Are you constantly trying to push rules up against other rules making inferences (i.e. thinking) rather than just copying the rules down on paper? Are you using probabilistic reasoning about which answer choices to start with depending on whether it's a MBT, MBF, CBT, CBF question rather than just brute forcing your way through the answer choices? These are just to name a few.

    Nevertheless, congrats on your tremendous improvement thus far. Be proud of what you've done. And then try to be 1% better tomorrow. :)

    Let's bring some magic for the final countdown to February 4.

    http://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/gob-trick.gif?w=650

    Hope to hear you there!

    Thursday, January 26, 2016 at 12:00PM ET: PT78

    Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219480381

    Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

    You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.

    United States +1 (571) 317-3112

    Access Code: 219-480-381

    The Full Schedule for Feb Test Takers

    12pm EST, Thursday, January 26, 2016 - PT 79 (please note the date change from 1/25)

    12pm EST, Wednesday, February 1, 2016 - PT 80

    Google Calendar: Coming soon! Not gonna happen! :)

    Note:

  • For everyone: take the PT under timed conditions; BR as you are able on your own; then join us for all or part of the call—everyone is welcome.
  • Note: For the purposes of the call, we like to check our group blind review score together at the very end of the call :) So at least don't say ... "No guys, really, it's D, I checked it.” KEEP THE CORRECT ANSWER TO YOURSELF. Win the argument with your reasoning.
  • These groups work best when folks from ALL stages of prep and with all different goals join in! Not just for "super-preppers" and definitely not just for the casual LSATer (does such a person exist?).
  • The only expectation anyone has for these calls is for you to have fun and ask questions as you desire. We are just a bunch of LSAT lovers who gather via GoToMeeting and intellectually slaughter each test.
  • Hey Gang,

    BR group is in the daytime.

    http://cdn.history.com/sites/2/2013/11/Halloween-Hero-1-A.jpeg

    Come dressed up for BR Group!

    Friday, October 28 at 12PM ET: PT75

    Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219480381

    I’ll be there every Friday to discuss the 70s tests. Can’t wait to hear you there!

    Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

    You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.

    United States +1 (571) 317-3112

    Access Code: 219-480-381

    The Full (and now REVISED) Schedule

    And if you’d like to see the full schedule for upcoming reviews, here it is: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=h14k4idvt1lb4hp5ujds97qt7k@group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/New_York

    Note:

  • For everyone: take the PT under timed conditions; BR as you are able on your own; then join us for all or part of the call—everyone is welcome.
  • Note: For the purposes of the call, we like to check our group blind review score together at the very end of the call :) So at least don't say ... "No guys, really, it's D, I checked it.” KEEP THE CORRECT ANSWER TO YOURSELF. Win the argument with your reasoning.
  • These groups work best when folks from ALL stages of prep and with all different goals join in! Not just for "super-preppers" and definitely not just for the casual LSATer (does such a person exist?).
  • The only expectation anyone has for these calls is for you to have fun and ask questions as you desire. We are just a bunch of LSAT lovers who gather via GoToMeeting and intellectually slaughter each test.
  • User Avatar
    tutordavidlevine115
    Thursday, Mar 23 2017

    Woohoo!!!!!

    User Avatar

    Monday, Jan 23 2017

    tutordavidlevine115

    Deliberate Practice: Food for Thought

    I like James Clear.

    He's one of those people who's constantly trying to improve himself. I get his emails once per week, and they always challenge me to ask myself, "Could I be doing this better?"

    This is his guide to Deliberate Practice (I've also provided a link because many of the ideas he writes about are hyperlinked to sources.) I think there's a lot here that could be applicable to LSAT. Take a read a let me know what you think. Maybe you have some specific ideas of how to deliberately practice the LSAT.

    http://jamesclear.com/beginners-guide-deliberate-practice

    The Beginner’s Guide to Deliberate Practice

    by James Clear

    Read this on JamesClear.com

    In some circles, Ben Hogan is credited with “inventing practice.”

    Hogan was one of the greatest golfers of the 20th century, an accomplishment he achieved through tireless repetition. He simply loved to practice. Hogan said, “I couldn’t wait to get up in the morning so I could hit balls. I’d be at the practice tee at the crack of dawn, hit balls for a few hours, then take a break and get right back to it.” [1]

    For Hogan, every practice session had a purpose. He reportedly spent years breaking down each phase of the golf swing and testing new methods for each segment. The result was near perfection. He developed one of the most finely-tuned golf swings in the history of the game.

    His precision made him more like a surgeon than a golfer. During the 1953 Masters, for example, Hogan hit the flagstick on back-to-back holes. A few days later, he broke the tournament scoring record. [2]

    Hogan methodically broke the game of golf down into chunks and figured out how he could master each section. For example, he was one of the first golfers to assign specific yardages to each golf club. Then, he studied each course carefully and used trees and sand bunkers as reference points to inform him about the distance of each shot. [3]

    Hogan finished his career with nine major championships—ranking fourth all-time. During his prime, other golfers simply attributed his remarkable success to “Hogan’s secret.” Today, experts have a new term for his rigorous style of improvement: deliberate practice.

    What is Deliberate Practice?

    Deliberate practice refers to a special type of practice that is purposeful and systematic. While regular practice might include mindless repetitions, deliberate practice requires focused attention and is conducted with the specific goal of improving performance. When Ben Hogan carefully reconstructed each step of his golf swing, he was engaging in deliberate practice. He wasn’t just taking cuts. He was finely tuning his technique.

    The greatest challenge of deliberate practice is to remain focused. In the beginning, showing up and putting in your reps is the most important thing. But after a while we begin to carelessly overlook small errors and miss daily opportunities for improvement.

    This is because the natural tendency of the human brain is to transform repeated behaviors into automatic habits. For example, when you first learned to tie your shoes you had to think carefully about each step of the process. Today, after many repetitions, your brain can perform this sequence automatically. The more we repeat a task the more mindless it becomes.

    Mindless activity is the enemy of deliberate practice. The danger of practicing the same thing again and again is that progress becomes assumed. Too often, we assume we are getting better simply because we are gaining experience. In reality, we are merely reinforcing our current habits—not improving them.

    Claiming that improvement requires attention and effort sounds logical enough. But what does deliberate practice actually look like in the real world? Let’s talk about that now.

    Examples of Deliberate Practice

    One of my favorite examples of deliberate practice is discussed in Talent is Overrated by Geoff Colvin. In the book, Colvin describes how Benjamin Franklin used deliberate practice to improve his writing skills.

    When he was a teenager, Benjamin Franklin was criticized by his father for his poor writing abilities. Unlike most teenagers, young Ben took his father’s advice seriously and vowed to improve his writing skills.

    He began by finding a publication written by some of the best authors of his day. Then, Franklin went through each article line by line and wrote down the meaning of every sentence. Next, he rewrote each article in his own words and then compared his version to the original. Each time, “I discovered some of my faults, and corrected them.” Eventually, Franklin realized his vocabulary held him back from better writing, and so he focused intensely on that area.

    Deliberate practice always follows the same pattern: break the overall process down into parts, identify your weaknesses, test new strategies for each section, and then integrate your learning into the overall process.

    Here are some more examples.

    Cooking: Jiro Ono, the subject of the documentary Jiro Dreams of Sushi, is a chef and owner of an award-winning sushi restaurant in Tokyo. Jiro has dedicated his life to perfecting the art of making sushi and he expects the same of his apprentices. Each apprentice must master one tiny part of the sushi-making process at a time—how to wring a towel, how to use a knife, how to cut the fish, and so on. One apprentice trained under Jiro for ten years before being allowed to cook the eggs. Each step of the process is taught with the utmost care.

    Martial arts: Josh Waitzkin, author of The Art of Learning, is a martial artist who holds several US national medals and a 2004 world championship. In the finals of one competition, he noticed a weakness: When an opponent illegally head-butted him in the nose, Waitzkin flew into a rage. His emotion caused him to lose control and forget his strategy. Afterward, he specifically sought out training partners who would fight dirty so he could practice remaining calm and principled in the face of chaos. “They were giving me a valuable opportunity to expand my threshold for turbulence,” Waitzkin wrote. “Dirty players were my best teachers.”

    Chess: Magnus Carlsen is a chess grandmaster and one of the highest-rated players in history. One distinguishing feature of great chess players is their ability to recognize “chunks,” which are specific arrangements of pieces on the board. Some experts estimate that grandmasters can identify around 300,000 different chunks. Interestingly, Carlsen learned the game by playing computer chess, which allowed him to play multiple games at once. Not only did this strategy allow him to learn chunks much faster than someone playing in-person games, but also gave him a chance to make more mistakes and correct his weaknesses at an accelerated pace.

    Music: Many great musicians recommend repeating the most challenging sections of a song until you master them. Virtuoso violinist Nathan Milstein says, “Practice as much as you feel you can accomplish with concentration. Once when I became concerned because others around me practiced all day long, I asked [my professor] how many hours I should practice, and he said, ‘It really doesn’t matter how long. If you practice with your fingers, no amount is enough. If you practice with your head, two hours is plenty.’” [4]

    Basketball: Consider the following example from Aubrey Daniels, “Player A shoots 200 practice shots, Player B shoots 50. The Player B retrieves his own shots, dribbles leisurely and takes several breaks to talk to friends. Player A has a colleague who retrieves the ball after each attempt. The colleague keeps a record of shots made. If the shot is missed the colleague records whether the miss was short, long, left or right and the shooter reviews the results after every 10 minutes of practice. To characterize their hour of practice as equal would hardly be accurate. Assuming this is typical of their practice routine and they are equally skilled at the start, which would you predict would be the better shooter after only 100 hours of practice?”

    Image

    The Unsung Hero of Deliberate Practice

    Perhaps the greatest difference between deliberate practice and simple repetition is this: feedback. Anyone who has mastered the art of deliberate practice—whether they are an athlete like Ben Hogan or a writer like Ben Franklin—has developed methods for receiving continual feedback on their performance.

    There are many ways to receive feedback. Let’s discuss two.

    The first effective feedback system is measurement. The things we measure are the things we improve. This holds true for the number of pages we read, the number of pushups we do, the number of sales calls we make, and any other task that is important to us. It is only through measurement that we have any proof of whether we are getting better or worse.

    The second effective feedback system is coaching. One consistent finding across disciplines is that coaches are often essential for sustaining deliberate practice. In many cases, it is nearly impossible to both perform a task and measure your progress at the same time. Good coaches can track your progress, find small ways to improve, and hold you accountable to delivering your best effort each day.

    For additional ideas on how to implement deliberate practice, I recommend this interview with psychology professor Anders Ericsson, who is widely considered to be the world’s top expert on deliberate practice.

    The Promise of Deliberate Practice

    Humans have a remarkable capacity to improve their performance in nearly any area of life if they train in the correct way. This is easier said than done.

    Deliberate practice is not a comfortable activity. It requires sustained effort and concentration. The people who master the art of deliberate practice are committed to being lifelong learners—always exploring and experimenting and refining.

    Deliberate practice is not a magic pill, but if you can manage to maintain your focus and commitment, then the promise of deliberate practice is quite alluring: to get the most out of what you’ve got.

    ImageImage

    FOOTNOTES

    Interview with George Peper. GOLF Magazine. September 1987.

    Hogan’s precision with the golf club allowed him to play the game in a different way than most. Once, another golf pro came to him for advice and said, “I’m having trouble with my long putts.” Hogan simply replied, “Why don’t you try hitting your irons closer to the pin?”

    Ben Hogan was relentless in his quest for improvement. According to one New York Times article, Hogan once received a shipment of golf balls before a tournament and examined each one carefully with a magnifying glass. “Some of these balls have a little too much paint in the dimples,” he said.

    The Making of an Expert by K. Anders Ericsson, Michael J. Prietula, and Edward T. Cokely. Harvard Business Review. July-August 2007 Issue.

    Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this email, please forward it to a friend and tell them they can join my free newsletter at jamesclear.com/newsletter

    Happy Holidays!

    https://media.giphy.com/media/arCXRwHsvsohO/giphy.gif

    Hope to hear you there!

    Wednesday, December 28 at 12PM ET: PT74

    Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219480381

    Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

    You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.

    United States +1 (571) 317-3112

    Access Code: 219-480-381

    The Full Schedule for Feb Test Takers

    Wednesday, December 28, 2016 - PT 74

    Wednesday, January 4, 2016 - PT 75

    Wednesday, January 11, 2016 - PT 76

    Monday, January 16, 2016 - PT 77

    Thursday, January 19, 2016 - PT 78

    Wednesday, January 25, 2016 - PT 79

    Wednesday, February 1, 2016 - PT 80

    Google Calendar: Coming soon!

    Note:

  • For everyone: take the PT under timed conditions; BR as you are able on your own; then join us for all or part of the call—everyone is welcome.
  • Note: For the purposes of the call, we like to check our group blind review score together at the very end of the call :) So at least don't say ... "No guys, really, it's D, I checked it.” KEEP THE CORRECT ANSWER TO YOURSELF. Win the argument with your reasoning.
  • These groups work best when folks from ALL stages of prep and with all different goals join in! Not just for "super-preppers" and definitely not just for the casual LSATer (does such a person exist?).
  • The only expectation anyone has for these calls is for you to have fun and ask questions as you desire. We are just a bunch of LSAT lovers who gather via GoToMeeting and intellectually slaughter each test.
  • User Avatar
    tutordavidlevine115
    Sunday, Jul 23 2017

    It's not that there are no other gases. This question leans on the distinction between proportion and quantity. A proportion or ratio tells us the relationship between items without telling us the quantity or value of those things. For example, if an ice cream shop always carries a proportion of 2 popsicles for every 3 snow cones, we have no idea how many snow cones or popsicles the ice cream shop has until we know the quantity of the other.

    It's that the PROPORTION of the gas relative to all other gases is determined by how readily that gas vaporizes from ice to gas. There can be other gases present, but in order for the conclusion about the QUANTITY of the gases to follow, Nitrogen needs to be 1st (Gold Medal) in readily vaporizing on Pluto, carbon monoxide needs to be 2nd (Silver Medal) in readily vaporizing on Pluto, and methane needs to be 3rd (Bronze Medal) in readily vaporizing on Pluto.

    Answer C makes sure that methane wins the bronze medal. If we negate it, then some other gas wins the bronze and then it's impossible (given the direct relationship between proportion of gas and how readily the gas vaporizes) for methane to be the third highest abundant (QUANTITY) gas.

    Hope this helps.

    User Avatar

    Friday, Oct 21 2016

    tutordavidlevine115

    Interest in the Daytime BR Group

    Hey folks,

    We’ve had some nice intimate BR sessions during the daytime on Fridays, but it’s possible that people are missing the discussion posts. The brilliant @nessa.k13.0 reminded me that the also brilliant and newly-minted Sage @"Cant Get Right” used to tag all those interested in BR group every time he posted a forum discussion blast. So if you have any interest in the daytime group and would like to be tagged when I post a discussion, just go ahead and let me know in the comment section. That way, you won’t miss anything. Thanks and have a great weekend!

    You can either try to get a deal spending Black Friday doing this:

    https://i.makeagif.com/media/6-30-2015/BGd606.gif

    Or get a great deal on LSAT doing BR group.

    Friday, November 25 at 12PM ET: PT79

    Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219480381

    I’ll be there every Friday to discuss the 70s tests. Can’t wait to hear you there!

    Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

    You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.

    United States +1 (571) 317-3112

    Access Code: 219-480-381

    The Full (and now REVISED) Schedule

    And if you’d like to see the full schedule for upcoming reviews, here it is: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=h14k4idvt1lb4hp5ujds97qt7k@group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/New_York

    Note:

  • For everyone: take the PT under timed conditions; BR as you are able on your own; then join us for all or part of the call—everyone is welcome.
  • Note: For the purposes of the call, we like to check our group blind review score together at the very end of the call :) So at least don't say ... "No guys, really, it's D, I checked it.” KEEP THE CORRECT ANSWER TO YOURSELF. Win the argument with your reasoning.
  • These groups work best when folks from ALL stages of prep and with all different goals join in! Not just for "super-preppers" and definitely not just for the casual LSATer (does such a person exist?).
  • The only expectation anyone has for these calls is for you to have fun and ask questions as you desire. We are just a bunch of LSAT lovers who gather via GoToMeeting and intellectually slaughter each test.
  • User Avatar
    tutordavidlevine115
    Tuesday, Mar 21 2017

    You're right about there being a LOT of assumptions. But most of the assumptions that D makes, C ALSO makes. But D makes the comparison of current prices. That's one less assumption than C makes. The clue that you need to use this form of analysis is that the first clause is identical between C and D. This won't go away in future tests, so this is a great question to keep around for a while to remind you that you may need to make comparisons between two similar answers and to pick the least assumptive answer.

    User Avatar
    tutordavidlevine115
    Tuesday, Mar 21 2017

    Tough distinction to make here. What are the different bases of comparison between (C) and (D)?

    For (C), what if the price of natural oil rose? (Answer (C) leaves that possibility.) Then, the likelihood of a significant switch to oil is still uncertain, at best. (D) addresses that issue by comparing the two prices of heating gas vs. oil.

    I think that's enough for you, but feel free to follow up.

    For the next couple of weeks, we're moving to Monday. Yay?

    https://media.giphy.com/media/26hirUelXr2LTw4us/source.gif

    Hope to hear you there!

    Monday, January 23, 2016 at 12:00PM ET: PT78

    Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219480381

    Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

    You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.

    United States +1 (571) 317-3112

    Access Code: 219-480-381

    The Full Schedule for Feb Test Takers

    12pm EST, Monday, January 23, 2016 - PT 78 (please note the date change from 1/19)

    12pm EST, Thursday, January 26, 2016 - PT 79 (please note the date change from 1/25)

    12pm EST, Wednesday, February 1, 2016 - PT 80

    Google Calendar: Coming soon! Not gonna happen! :)

    Note:

  • For everyone: take the PT under timed conditions; BR as you are able on your own; then join us for all or part of the call—everyone is welcome.
  • Note: For the purposes of the call, we like to check our group blind review score together at the very end of the call :) So at least don't say ... "No guys, really, it's D, I checked it.” KEEP THE CORRECT ANSWER TO YOURSELF. Win the argument with your reasoning.
  • These groups work best when folks from ALL stages of prep and with all different goals join in! Not just for "super-preppers" and definitely not just for the casual LSATer (does such a person exist?).
  • The only expectation anyone has for these calls is for you to have fun and ask questions as you desire. We are just a bunch of LSAT lovers who gather via GoToMeeting and intellectually slaughter each test.
  • User Avatar

    Sunday, Jun 19 2016

    tutordavidlevine115

    Happy Father’s Day!

    Happy Father’s Day to all you non-traditional students/fathers out there.

    Be sure to take a break from your tireless LSAT studies to appreciate the reasons why you work so hard.

    Be well!

    User Avatar
    tutordavidlevine115
    Sunday, Mar 19 2017

    All correct. Well done!

    On the shortest day of the year, who wants to spend 3 of those precious hours of daylight BR-ing PT 73? Sounds like fun to me!!

    http://img24.dreamies.de/img/443/b/6vcuraqq5q6.gif

    Wednesday, December 21 at 12PM ET: PT73

    Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219480381

    Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

    You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.

    United States +1 (571) 317-3112

    Access Code: 219-480-381

    The Full Schedule for Feb Test Takers

    Wednesday, December 21, 2016 - PT 73

    Wednesday, December 28, 2016 - PT 74

    Wednesday, January 4, 2016 - PT 75

    Wednesday, January 11, 2016 - PT 76

    Monday, January 16, 2016 - PT 77

    Thursday, January 19, 2016 - PT 78

    Wednesday, January 25, 2016 - PT 79

    Wednesday, February 1, 2016 - PT 80

    Google Calendar: Coming soon!

    Note:

  • For everyone: take the PT under timed conditions; BR as you are able on your own; then join us for all or part of the call—everyone is welcome.
  • Note: For the purposes of the call, we like to check our group blind review score together at the very end of the call :) So at least don't say ... "No guys, really, it's D, I checked it.” KEEP THE CORRECT ANSWER TO YOURSELF. Win the argument with your reasoning.
  • These groups work best when folks from ALL stages of prep and with all different goals join in! Not just for "super-preppers" and definitely not just for the casual LSATer (does such a person exist?).
  • The only expectation anyone has for these calls is for you to have fun and ask questions as you desire. We are just a bunch of LSAT lovers who gather via GoToMeeting and intellectually slaughter each test.
  • User Avatar
    tutordavidlevine115
    Sunday, Mar 19 2017

    So that would be diagrammed out as:

    Not (know about events ---> ~freely performed)

    Which I was told turns into:

    (Know about events ---> freely performed)

    This is incorrect. When you negate a conditional relationship, you create new intersectional relationship.

    The logical equivalent of "Not (know about events ---> ~freely performed)" is

    "know about events (-SOME -) freely performed" (Sometimes, we can know a lot about the events leading up to any action and regard that action as freely performed)

    Now to answer your question 1: you can! Why? I ask you a question: What does it mean to say A is a sufficient condition of B? It's saying that the presence of A guarantees or triggers B. Another way of saying it is that if A exists, B must exist as well. By negating the conditional relationship we are essentially saying that sometimes when A happens B does not happen.

    Pertininent Lessons.

    https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/advanced-negate-some-statements

    https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/advanced-negate-all-statements

    https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/deny-the-relationship

    https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/how-to-negate-statements-in-english

    User Avatar
    tutordavidlevine115
    Sunday, Mar 18 2018

    @ said:

    @ said:

    Almost every 1L in my class who lives on campus is in a 2-bedroom. They're pretty good at pairing pet-lovers with pet-lovers, and non-pet-lovers with non-pet-lovers.

    Glad to know that 7Sage is showing love for UCI. Fun fact: Pacifico (creator of the Logic Games Attack Strategy) attends UCI and is in his second year of his 4-year JD/MBA program.

    So it is very difficult getting one bedroom apartments?

    I think that's a fair assumption to make.

    User Avatar
    tutordavidlevine115
    Saturday, Mar 17 2018

    Almost every 1L in my class who lives on campus is in a 2-bedroom. They're pretty good at pairing pet-lovers with pet-lovers, and non-pet-lovers with non-pet-lovers.

    Glad to know that 7Sage is showing love for UCI. Fun fact: Pacifico (creator of the Logic Games Attack Strategy) attends UCI and is in his second year of his 4-year JD/MBA program.

    Hey Gang,

    BR group is in the daytime.

    http://opengameart.org/sites/default/files/Daytime_Background_1024x800.png

    Seriously, I’ve got no gif game. I’m 40.

    Friday, October 21 at 12PM ET: PT74

    Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219480381

    I’ll be there every Friday to discuss the 70s tests. Can’t wait to hear you there!

    Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

    You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.

    United States +1 (571) 317-3112

    Access Code: 219-480-381

    The Full (and now REVISED) Schedule

    And if you’d like to see the full schedule for upcoming reviews, here it is: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=h14k4idvt1lb4hp5ujds97qt7k@group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/New_York

    Note:

  • For everyone: take the PT under timed conditions; BR as you are able on your own; then join us for all or part of the call—everyone is welcome.
  • Note: For the purposes of the call, we like to check our group blind review score together at the very end of the call :) So at least don't say ... "No guys, really, it's D, I checked it.” KEEP THE CORRECT ANSWER TO YOURSELF. Win the argument with your reasoning.
  • These groups work best when folks from ALL stages of prep and with all different goals join in! Not just for "super-preppers" and definitely not just for the casual LSATer (does such a person exist?).
  • The only expectation anyone has for these calls is for you to have fun and ask questions as you desire. We are just a bunch of LSAT lovers who gather via GoToMeeting and intellectually slaughter each test.
  • Hey Gang,

    Less than three weeks to go! Ahhhh!!!!!!

    https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/55256315.jpg

    Friday, November 18 at 12PM ET: PT78

    Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219480381

    I’ll be there every Friday to discuss the 70s tests. Can’t wait to hear you there!

    Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

    You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.

    United States +1 (571) 317-3112

    Access Code: 219-480-381

    The Full (and now REVISED) Schedule

    And if you’d like to see the full schedule for upcoming reviews, here it is: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=h14k4idvt1lb4hp5ujds97qt7k@group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/New_York

    Note:

  • For everyone: take the PT under timed conditions; BR as you are able on your own; then join us for all or part of the call—everyone is welcome.
  • Note: For the purposes of the call, we like to check our group blind review score together at the very end of the call :) So at least don't say ... "No guys, really, it's D, I checked it.” KEEP THE CORRECT ANSWER TO YOURSELF. Win the argument with your reasoning.
  • These groups work best when folks from ALL stages of prep and with all different goals join in! Not just for "super-preppers" and definitely not just for the casual LSATer (does such a person exist?).
  • The only expectation anyone has for these calls is for you to have fun and ask questions as you desire. We are just a bunch of LSAT lovers who gather via GoToMeeting and intellectually slaughter each test.
  • User Avatar
    tutordavidlevine115
    Wednesday, Mar 14 2018

    Greetings, 7sage. Super busy with 1L (second semester is just as intense as the first). We're all pretty stoked about the rankings here at UCI and, at the same time, just doing what we're doing.

    I know that UCI encourages us not to do summer study, but I agree with @'s reasoning. A lot of this is because each professor has a good deal of discretion in choosing which parts of the doctrine to teach. But there are fundamental doctrines that every American law student will have to take; you're all going to need to know Offer and Acceptance, The Equal Protection Clause, and Intentional Torts no matter where you go. Also, most of these courses teach how to brief cases properly, where a students breaks down a case into. Let me be the one to tell you right now. Briefing cases, as a long term plan in law school, is a huge time sink, and gets in the way of doing things that will help you get better grades. I recommend that once you understand the mechanics of briefing, you immediately stop doing so.

    I created a study group with a few people, and we went through Larry's Issue Spotting course and read Short and Happy Guide to Torts, Civ Pro, Con Law, Contracts, and Criminal Law so that we were familiar with black letter law. UCI doesn't offer Property as a 1L course but instead offers International Legal Analysis. There was one other person in my study group who goes to UCI, and we both did very well (3.7-4.0 range) in the first semester. We both have summer jobs. I'm working at the California Court of Appeal. I know of a few other members of the study group (who didn't go to UCI) that are working as summer associates at big law firms (making $$$$). You all know from the curriculum that correlation does not imply causation, but I can say that working during the summer at least demystified much of law school for me. The learning curve just wasn't as steep as it was for my fellow classmates who went in cold.

    For another take on Larry, check out this: https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/10600/per-daves-request-0l-pre-1l-prep-advice

    Nicole is 7Sage royalty.

    Anyway, I'm happy to chat in more detail with you during Admitted Students Week if you want. I'll be the big bald guy (just like my picture except my eyes won't be glowing).

    For the next couple of weeks, we're moving to Monday. Yay?

    https://media.giphy.com/media/26hirUelXr2LTw4us/source.gif

    Hope to hear you there!

    Monday, January 16, 2016 at 12:15PM ET: PT77

    Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219480381

    Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

    You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.

    United States +1 (571) 317-3112

    Access Code: 219-480-381

    The Full Schedule for Feb Test Takers

    12pm EST, Monday, January 16, 2016 - PT 77

    12pm EST, Monday, January 23, 2016 - PT 78 (please note the date change from 1/19)

    12pm EST, Thursday, January 26, 2016 - PT 79 (please note the date change from 1/25)

    12pm EST, Wednesday, February 1, 2016 - PT 80

    Google Calendar: Coming soon!

    Note:

  • For everyone: take the PT under timed conditions; BR as you are able on your own; then join us for all or part of the call—everyone is welcome.
  • Note: For the purposes of the call, we like to check our group blind review score together at the very end of the call :) So at least don't say ... "No guys, really, it's D, I checked it.” KEEP THE CORRECT ANSWER TO YOURSELF. Win the argument with your reasoning.
  • These groups work best when folks from ALL stages of prep and with all different goals join in! Not just for "super-preppers" and definitely not just for the casual LSATer (does such a person exist?).
  • The only expectation anyone has for these calls is for you to have fun and ask questions as you desire. We are just a bunch of LSAT lovers who gather via GoToMeeting and intellectually slaughter each test.
  • Here is promotional material for Larry Law Law's webinar on his course KTCOOLS (Kick the Crap Out of Law School)

    March Prep for Law School - Before It Starts

    (And HOW To Prep)

    So, as I promised, I have advice for you 0Ls -- those of you who got into law school (or are still figuring out what law school to go to).

    I know you may be juggling other things -- picking a school, weighing scholarships, etc.

    But it is NOT too early to be thinking about preparing for law school itself.

    In 6 years of tutoring law students, I learned one big thing: my best students (straight A students at T14 law schools) got started before law school.

    That is worth repeating and putting in bold and in just 5 words: To get As, start early.

    (As you already know, top grades mean everything in law school and to your future -- even if you get into your dream law school.)

    If you have doubts about starting early, watch this video:

    Law School Study Tip: Prepare Before Law School In the Summer (Or: Help, I'm Scared!)

    If this helped -- if you thought that this was wicked smaaht -- do me a favor:

    Don't just watch the video -- ACTUALLY APPLY this advice to your life.

    Forward this emails to friends! (And if you

    In the mean time, let me know if you have any questions. On anything in law school. I read every email.

    Best,

    Larry Law Law

    P.S. As I promised, if you want to learn about all the secrets to law school success, I will be hosting a FREE webinar on Tuesday, March 14 at 9pm Eastern. I'll answer any and all questions you have about how to ace law school. Here are the deets:

    Time: Mar 14, 2017 9:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)

    Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://zoom.us/j/989220914

    Or iPhone one-tap (US Toll): +14086380968,989220914# or +16465588656,989220914#

    Or Telephone:

    Dial: +1 408 638 0968 (US Toll) or +1 646 558 8656 (US Toll)

    Meeting ID: 989 220 914

    International numbers available: https://zoom.us/zoomconference?m=7HSOZE0w02-Fs8Nz_xsz5MTDRvS48PiQ

    Hope to have you there!

    https://media2.giphy.com/media/aAkNru67Hh40E/200_s.gif

    Wednesday, December 14 at 12PM ET: PT72

    Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219480381

    Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

    You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.

    United States +1 (571) 317-3112

    Access Code: 219-480-381

    The Full Schedule for Feb Test Takers

    Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - PT 72

    Wednesday, December 21, 2016 - PT 73

    Wednesday, December 28, 2016 - PT 74

    Wednesday, January 4, 2016 - PT 75

    Wednesday, January 11, 2016 - PT 76

    Monday, January 16, 2016 - PT 77

    Thursday, January 19, 2016 - PT 78

    Wednesday, January 25, 2016 - PT 79

    Wednesday, February 1, 2016 - PT 80

    Google Calendar: Coming soon!

    Note:

  • For everyone: take the PT under timed conditions; BR as you are able on your own; then join us for all or part of the call—everyone is welcome.
  • Note: For the purposes of the call, we like to check our group blind review score together at the very end of the call :) So at least don't say ... "No guys, really, it's D, I checked it.” KEEP THE CORRECT ANSWER TO YOURSELF. Win the argument with your reasoning.
  • These groups work best when folks from ALL stages of prep and with all different goals join in! Not just for "super-preppers" and definitely not just for the casual LSATer (does such a person exist?).
  • The only expectation anyone has for these calls is for you to have fun and ask questions as you desire. We are just a bunch of LSAT lovers who gather via GoToMeeting and intellectually slaughter each test.
  • User Avatar
    tutordavidlevine115
    Saturday, Dec 09 2017

    Thanks @ for the notification.

    Hello 7Sage. It's been a while.

    I am happy to answer any questions you might have about UCI Law.

    Some general rambling thoughts:

    The graduate student housing is pretty darn good. It's at most a 10 minute walk to the law school.

    If you have a family, I'm not sure you really can beat UCI. The Irvine School District is one of the best.

    If you're on the young side and looking to party a lot, Newport Beach and Laguna Beach are the next towns over. But this is law school, so good luck with that.

    The faculty is top notch and getting better all the time. Of course, you probably know that we lost our most famous faculty member to Berkeley. Just what that means, no one knows for sure, but, in all honesty, I'll be shocked if our ranking does not go down because of it.

    There is an unquestionable "nice" vibe to UCI that many law schools lack. The school bends over backwards to make a student feel like they want you to succeed. However, come exam time, UCI has a curve just like every other law school.

    The school has really tried hard to up its public interest cred. Some say they did this because their biglaw numbers never peaked above 40%. Some say it was in the school's DNA from the start. Nevertheless, if you want to go into PI, you'll be hard pressed to find a place better suited. I took Constitutional Law this past semester with a man who's argued 4 times in front of the Supreme Court. His cause is trying to make education a fundamental right. If that quixotic endeavor sounds like something you'd like to spend your life doing, UCI might be the place for you.

    UCI has historically been surprisingly good at prestigious clerkship appointments. Again, this is now uncertain since Dean Chemerinsky has left.

    Employment numbers could be better, but they could be worse. Here are the numbers. http://www.law.uci.edu/careers/students/employment-info/statistics/employment-summary-2016.html You can judge for yourself. Bottom line: If you want to work in Southern California (especially OC, which is my main goal), a job is yours to lose. If you want something outside of SoCal, you're going to have to put in the work.

    Let me know if you have any specific questions. I'm in the middle of finals, so I can't promise I'll check this every day. I'll do my best.

    User Avatar
    tutordavidlevine115
    Sunday, Jul 09 2017

    I think the key to getting this, and almost all Weaken and Strengthen questions, is to understand/focus/intensely study what the method of reasoning is. I would advise in your Blind Review doing so from now on. Too often, students think of Blind Review as merely a second chance to try to get the question correct rather than as an opportunity to PRACTICE all the discrete elements of the LSAT.

    Specifically, this argument's method of reasoning is an attempt to provide an explanation (Nenanderthal's (N's) probably used burnt lichen and grass to smoke meat in order to preserve them) of a phenomena (archaeologists have found that Some N fireplaces have burnt lichen and grass, which produces a lot of smoke but not as much heat or light as wood). So to weaken this hypothesis, answers must either provide an alternative explanation or evidence that makes the explanation less likely.

    With this framework, the fact that answer A makes no mention of "Neanderthals" ought to give you pause, since the hypothesis/explanation is specifically about Neanderthals.

    The other issue is that the stimulus's conclusion is fairly weak (note the "probably") and, therefore, would need a fairly strong statement (something that categorically denied the possibility of using burnt lichen and grass for preserving meat by smoking it. Even if we were to assume that Ns used the "close proximity fireplaces", it's still possible that Ns probably preserved meat by smoking it.

    Hope this helps.

    User Avatar
    tutordavidlevine115
    Sunday, Jul 09 2017

    For A, are we certain that those fireplaces that are in close proximity to the fireplaces with lichen and grass were actually used by the Neanderthals? Isn't it possible that those fireplaces were used by non-Neanderthal cultures (maybe even thousands of years later)? That possibility renders answer A irrelevant, or, at the very least, it shows that answer A assumes that Neanderthal cultures used those fireplaces in close proximity to the grass and lichen fireplaces.

    LSAC is playing with us with the phrase "close proximity".

    Hey Gang,

    BR group is in the daytime.

    http://opengameart.org/sites/default/files/Daytime_Background_1024x800.png

    I’ve got no gif game. I’m 40.

    Friday, October 14 at 12PM ET: PT73

    Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219480381

    I’ll be there every Friday to discuss the 70s tests. Can’t wait to hear you there!

    Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

    You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.

    United States +1 (571) 317-3112

    Access Code: 219-480-381

    The Full (and now REVISED) Schedule

    And if you’d like to see the full schedule for upcoming reviews, here it is: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=h14k4idvt1lb4hp5ujds97qt7k@group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/New_York

    Note:

  • For everyone: take the PT under timed conditions; BR as you are able on your own; then join us for all or part of the call—everyone is welcome.
  • Note: For the purposes of the call, we like to check our group blind review score together at the very end of the call :) So at least don't say ... "No guys, really, it's D, I checked it.” KEEP THE CORRECT ANSWER TO YOURSELF. Win the argument with your reasoning.
  • These groups work best when folks from ALL stages of prep and with all different goals join in! Not just for "super-preppers" and definitely not just for the casual LSATer (does such a person exist?).
  • The only expectation anyone has for these calls is for you to have fun and ask questions as you desire. We are just a bunch of LSAT lovers who gather via GoToMeeting and intellectually slaughter each test.
  • Because who doesn't need another police TV show

    https://media4.giphy.com/media/OfLjjJvAS5oM8/200_s.gif#2

    Hope to hear you there!

    Wednesday, January 11, 2016 at 12PM ET: PT76

    Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219480381

    Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

    You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.

    United States +1 (571) 317-3112

    Access Code: 219-480-381

    The Full Schedule for Feb Test Takers

    12pm EST, Wednesday, December 28, 2016 - PT 74

    12pm EST, Wednesday, January 4, 2016 - PT 75

    12pm EST, Wednesday, January 11, 2016 - PT 76

    12pm EST, Monday, January 16, 2016 - PT 77

    12pm EST, Thursday, January 19, 2016 - PT 78

    12pm EST, Wednesday, January 25, 2016 - PT 79

    12pm EST, Wednesday, February 1, 2016 - PT 80

    Google Calendar: Coming soon!

    Note:

  • For everyone: take the PT under timed conditions; BR as you are able on your own; then join us for all or part of the call—everyone is welcome.
  • Note: For the purposes of the call, we like to check our group blind review score together at the very end of the call :) So at least don't say ... "No guys, really, it's D, I checked it.” KEEP THE CORRECT ANSWER TO YOURSELF. Win the argument with your reasoning.
  • These groups work best when folks from ALL stages of prep and with all different goals join in! Not just for "super-preppers" and definitely not just for the casual LSATer (does such a person exist?).
  • The only expectation anyone has for these calls is for you to have fun and ask questions as you desire. We are just a bunch of LSAT lovers who gather via GoToMeeting and intellectually slaughter each test.
  • User Avatar

    Thursday, Dec 08 2016

    tutordavidlevine115

    NEW February Test Study Group | Weekdays | 12pm EST

    Hi Folks,

    I’m going to be leading a daytime study group in preparation for the 2017 February test.

    https://max-media.imgix.net/transfers/2016/9/30/cc78f65758c186f9e8ee73f3fc86ac24a86b4f6c.gif

    As you can see below, most of the dates are scheduled for Wednesdays. If you have any interest in the daytime group and would like to be tagged when I post a discussion, let me know in the comment section below. That way, you won’t miss anything. Thanks!

    Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - PT 72

    Wednesday, December 21, 2016 - PT 73

    Wednesday, December 28, 2016 - PT 74

    Wednesday, January 4, 2016 - PT 75

    Wednesday, January 11, 2016 - PT 76

    Monday, January 16, 2016 - PT 77

    Thursday, January 19, 2016 Monday, January, 23, 2016 - PT 78

    Wednesday, January 25, 2016 Thursday, January 26, 2016 - PT 79

    Wednesday, February 1, 2016 - PT 80

    Note: General Study Group Guidelines

  • For everyone: take the PT under timed conditions; BR as you are able on your own; then join us for all or part of the call—everyone is welcome.
  • Note: For the purposes of the call, we like to check our group blind review score together at the very end of the call :) So at least don't say ... "No guys, really, it's D, I checked it.” KEEP THE CORRECT ANSWER TO YOURSELF. Win the argument with your reasoning.
  • These groups work best when folks from ALL stages of prep and with all different goals join in! Not just for "super-preppers" and definitely not just for the casual LSATer (does such a person exist?).
  • The only expectation anyone has for these calls is for you to have fun and ask questions as you desire. We are just a bunch of LSAT lovers who gather via GoToMeeting and intellectually slaughter each test.
  • Hey Gang,

    Less than a month to go!

    https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/55256315.jpg

    Friday, November 11 at 12PM ET: PT77

    Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219480381

    I’ll be there every Friday to discuss the 70s tests. Can’t wait to hear you there!

    Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

    You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.

    United States +1 (571) 317-3112

    Access Code: 219-480-381

    The Full (and now REVISED) Schedule

    And if you’d like to see the full schedule for upcoming reviews, here it is: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=h14k4idvt1lb4hp5ujds97qt7k@group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/New_York

    Note:

  • For everyone: take the PT under timed conditions; BR as you are able on your own; then join us for all or part of the call—everyone is welcome.
  • Note: For the purposes of the call, we like to check our group blind review score together at the very end of the call :) So at least don't say ... "No guys, really, it's D, I checked it.” KEEP THE CORRECT ANSWER TO YOURSELF. Win the argument with your reasoning.
  • These groups work best when folks from ALL stages of prep and with all different goals join in! Not just for "super-preppers" and definitely not just for the casual LSATer (does such a person exist?).
  • The only expectation anyone has for these calls is for you to have fun and ask questions as you desire. We are just a bunch of LSAT lovers who gather via GoToMeeting and intellectually slaughter each test.
  • User Avatar
    tutordavidlevine115
    Friday, Apr 07 2017

    Yes, bridging NAs look VERY similar to SAs because they both cover gaps (or assumptions). This is why I was saying in our session that NA bridging is very common when there is ONLY one premise to the conclusion; a natural gap normally exists between a single premise and the conclusion. But I want to be very clear about something: it didn't have to look like a sufficient assumption. A necessary assumption to this argument could have also been something like this: "There exists a relationship between discussing aesthetic value of poetry and objectively evaluating poetry." In other words, ANY statement that connects those two ideas is a necessary assumption. But LSAC knows that students use simplified heuristics like "SAs are strong, NAs are weak." As you can see from this example, that heuristic doesn't work in this case. The only way to know for sure an assumption is necessary is to employ the Negation test.

    User Avatar
    tutordavidlevine115
    Wednesday, Apr 05 2017

    Yep that's right. Though the true difficulty of this question, like we discussed during our session and like you said, was recognizing that /WM (Whatever Meaning Reader Assigns is false) is logically consistent with RA (Reader agreement). That's really difficult to see because it requires more assumptions (like that the meanings that each reader could assign would never be the same because if they were, we'd have agreement, wouldn't we? What I think LSAC would say is that if there exists a correct interpretation of the poem, then it can't be the case that EVERY reader can assign whatever meaning they want to the poem. Someone would have to offer an incorrect interpretation) . I think the contrapositives make it a little easier to see:

    No reader agreement ---> No Aesthetic value discussed

    Each (or every) reader assigns whatever meaning it wants (thereby no reader agreement) ----> No objective evaluation possible

    So, the NA bridge is that if no aesthetic value can be discussed ---> No objective evaluation is possible. Answer D is the contrapositive of this statement.

    Hey Gang,

    BR group is a delight. And now that we’re in the daytime, it’s . . .

    http://gph.is/2blNtnV

    Friday, October 7 at 12PM ET: PT71

    Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219480381

    I’ll be there every Friday to discuss the 70s tests. Can’t wait to hear you there!

    Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

    You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.

    United States +1 (571) 317-3112

    Access Code: 219-480-381

    The Full (and now REVISED) Schedule

    And if you’d like to see the full schedule for upcoming reviews, here it is: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=h14k4idvt1lb4hp5ujds97qt7k@group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/New_York

    Note:

  • For everyone: take the PT under timed conditions; BR as you are able on your own; then join us for all or part of the call—everyone is welcome.
  • Note: For the purposes of the call, we like to check our group blind review score together at the very end of the call :) So at least don't say ... "No guys, really, it's D, I checked it.” KEEP THE CORRECT ANSWER TO YOURSELF. Win the argument with your reasoning.
  • These groups work best when folks from ALL stages of prep and with all different goals join in! Not just for "super-preppers" and definitely not just for the casual LSATer (does such a person exist?).
  • The only expectation anyone has for these calls is for you to have fun and ask questions as you desire. We are just a bunch of LSAT lovers who gather via GoToMeeting and intellectually slaughter each test.
  • User Avatar

    Saturday, Apr 02 2016

    tutordavidlevine115

    [Ended] June Test Takers BR Group! PT60 BR | 8pm ET

    BR Group!!!! PT 60!

    Saturday, April 2nd at 8PM ET: PT60

    Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219480381

    June BR Group Schedule: http://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/6171/june-test-takers-group-br-schedule-updated

    Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

    You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.

    United States +1 (571) 317-3112

    Access Code: 219-480-381

    Note:

  • For everyone: take the PT under timed conditions; BR as you are able on your own; then join us for all or part of the call—everyone is welcome.
  • Note: For the purposes of the call, we like to check our group blind review score together at the very end of the call :) So at least don't say ... "No guys, really, it's D, I checked it.” KEEP THE CORRECT ANSWER TO YOURSELF. Win the argument with your reasoning.
  • These groups work best when folks from ALL stages of prep and with all different goals join in! Not just for "super-preppers" and definitely not just for the casual LSATer (does such a person exist?).
  • The only expectation anyone has for these calls is for you to have fun and ask questions as you desire. We are just a bunch of LSAT lovers who gather via GoToMeeting and intellectually slaughter each test.
  • 1 month to go!

    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/16/ec/4d/16ec4df8f453c4a7e7f54b7375d1743c.gif

    Hope to hear you there!

    Wednesday, January 4, 2016 at 12PM ET: PT75

    Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219480381

    Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

    You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.

    United States +1 (571) 317-3112

    Access Code: 219-480-381

    The Full Schedule for Feb Test Takers

    12pm EST, Wednesday, December 28, 2016 - PT 74

    12pm EST, Wednesday, January 4, 2016 - PT 75

    12pm EST, Wednesday, January 11, 2016 - PT 76

    12pm EST, Monday, January 16, 2016 - PT 77

    12pm EST, Thursday, January 19, 2016 - PT 78

    12pm EST, Wednesday, January 25, 2016 - PT 79

    12pm EST, Wednesday, February 1, 2016 - PT 80

    Google Calendar: Coming soon!

    Note:

  • For everyone: take the PT under timed conditions; BR as you are able on your own; then join us for all or part of the call—everyone is welcome.
  • Note: For the purposes of the call, we like to check our group blind review score together at the very end of the call :) So at least don't say ... "No guys, really, it's D, I checked it.” KEEP THE CORRECT ANSWER TO YOURSELF. Win the argument with your reasoning.
  • These groups work best when folks from ALL stages of prep and with all different goals join in! Not just for "super-preppers" and definitely not just for the casual LSATer (does such a person exist?).
  • The only expectation anyone has for these calls is for you to have fun and ask questions as you desire. We are just a bunch of LSAT lovers who gather via GoToMeeting and intellectually slaughter each test.
  • User Avatar
    tutordavidlevine115
    Thursday, Jun 01 2017

    I > @ said:

    This, in conjunction with the stimulus (maxing the amount of earthquakes at 1 every 100,000 years) leaves us with the possibility that there are some faults that do not produce any earthquakes.

    The reason is because I believe the negation of E provides for the possibility of these inactive faults, hence why I'm contesting the fact that it's not a necessary assumption.

    I figured I was straw-man-ing your argument (forgive me for that. I only wished to find a re-wording for answer choice E that would, in my opinion, lead to a necessary assumption.) , but your explanation above now, I think, helps me see your reasoning error: your interpretation of necessity is more liberal than LSAC's definition. A negated necessary assumption can't merely leave open the possibility that the conclusion is false. It must definitively vanquish all possibilities that the conclusion is true.

    In other words, even if there is the possibility that there are some faults that do not produce any earthquakes, it's also still possible that all faults do eventually produce earthquakes, and, thus, it also still possible that (1)nuclear reactor sites located near a fault that has had an earthquake within living memory in geologically quiet region are less likely to be struck by an earthquake than (2) all other nuclear reactor sites NOT located near a fault that has had an earthquake within living memory in a geologically quiet region. True, your negated version makes the conclusion LESS likely than before, but not impossible. Hope this helps.

    User Avatar

    Tuesday, Nov 01 2016

    tutordavidlevine115

    Los Angeles LSAC Forum, Saturday, November 5, 2016

    Who is going to the LSAC forum in LA this Saturday? Here are the details:

    Saturday, November 5, 2016

    9:00 am–4:00 pm: Workshops

    11:00 am–4:00 pm: Meet with Law Schools

    The Westin Bonaventure Hotel

    404 South Figueroa Street

    Los Angeles, CA 90071

    To register, http://www.lsac.org/2016forums/city/los-angeles.html

    It’d be a great opportunity for 7Sagers to meet in person. Maybe we can all meet for lunch at one of these places nearby?

    Cilantro Lime

    934 Los Angeles St, Suite 2

    (0.9 miles)

    Angry Chef Grill

    404 S. Figueroa St, Suite 417

    (0.02 miles)

    I’ll be the bald 40 year old guy in a sweater vest.

    Hope to see you there!

    Confirm action

    Are you sure?