What if I don't solve some games under JYs target time, on 4th attempt? Does that mean I have to repeat until I get it?
@8166
I think it would be helpful for 7Sagers to know your sectional score average and your BR score average!
Ill have to get down to one. Haven't done one properly because I just drilled and BRed my weak question types after test. Which was probably not the best thing to do.
@tylergkohring661
@mjs44474
Yeah, I will to start doing more BRs, I feel like I need to have better plan of attack when tackling question types first though. I want to get to the point where I don't get questions wrong with BR.
@rahelaalam514
Thanks for the wisdom.
Also, here the blind review changes a bit, instead of circling each and every question that you were not 100% about, you start to only circle questions that you think you got wrong.
Interesting, I didn't realize that.
Do concise summaries after reading each stimulus -extracting the cookie cutter nature out of those arguments.
I definitely need to do that!
having a section strategy that suits you.
Good, I guess I won't have to worry about this too much until I start scoring higher.
Thanks everyone, good points.
@ebs1995601
I want to do transactional work/M&A in China and the Harvard name actually goes quite a ways in China.
@alarictaves950
the Harvard name carries weight that most others don't (roughly on par with Yale and Stanford, and outside the US, where I want to practice, it even beats these).
Yeah, you both have a good points. The reason why I asked is I too was thinking of Harvard (if I get in) for it's weight it carries outside of the US, among a other reasons.
I know that HLS is among the top 5 law schools on ratings, there is a certain image, prestige, and level of success to attend such a school. I imagine being a HLS grad opens doors to unique opportunities (e.g. jobs) and has wide range of resources for one to access.
It's really expensive, and other law schools teach basically the same stuff.
But, are there other reasons why HLS is a desired destination? Why Harvard?
Hey everyone,
I'm taking a step back and redoing the CC. When I first did it, I went through it too fast to internalize what I learned.
After abandoning the LSAT for a while, I've decided to come back strong for one last shot.
I want to hit 170+ and am around the 150 range right now.
My plan in order:
1.) Go through The LSAT Trainer (BOOK), while building up my RC skill.
2.) Mastering LR by revisiting the CC, mainly focusing what I most need improvement on.
3.) Pacifico’s Logic Games Attack Strategy
4.) PTs and BR.
Ill supplement my learning watching webinars, visiting discussion pages, and engaging with the 7Sage community.
I hope to make it in time for the Sept test, but we'll see.
Any other recommendations, advice or feedback? I definitely need it. (I imagine I'll be tweaking my study schedule a bit).
What's your plan?
Edit*
Here is Pacifico’s Logic Games Attack Strategy:
https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/2737/logic-games-attack-strategy/p1
@marinozach377 started a good discussion about audiobooks
Here's the link:
https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/3035/audiobooks-to-help-your-rc/p1
@sheridickson10526
I see, thank you. I guess Ill be going to the store to buy some more ink and paper lol.
I have LGs from PTs 1-35, but each game is not split up into two pages, like modern LSAT LG games are.
Could I just print 140 copies, and erase my work rather than printing 4 copies for each game? What's the problem with that?
Is this a PSA or SA? Or is it a principle question?
"Which one of the following principles most helps to justify the mathematics teacher's argument?"
What is this flaw called:
"Takes for granted that a hypothesis has not proven to be true is proof that it is false"
Is there a name for this?
@nikitamunjal950
Great, thanks. That helps.
What helps me remember the directions is telling myself: if we are doing something to the argument, it's UP. If we are using the argument to answer a question it's DOWN.
How are PRINCIPLE questions UP?
It seems to me it would be DOWN because we are using the argument to find the answer, and not adding anything to the argument. Or are we? Is it that the argument needs the "PRINCIPLE" explained to help it?
Am I thinking about LR support direction the wrong way?
HERE IS THE LIST:
Logical reasoning question stems grouped by support direction
UP:
Strengthen
Weaken
NA
SA
PSA
Principle
Resolve, Reconcile, explain
Resolve the paradox
DOWN:
Main point
Method of reasoning
Argument part
Flawed method of reasoning
Parallel method of reasoning
Parallel flawed method of reasoning
Point at issue
Must be true
Most strongly supported
Must be false
Admin note: copyright issue
I don't get how both these answers are saying different things. I think they are both NA, but apparently the first answer is not a NA.
How is the first answer not NA? And is there a difference between these two answers in what they are saying?
@shopshim86 said:
Yes, your reasoning seem to be good.
Premise: Oct. & Nov. 1929 suicide number was comparatively low.
When market was flourishing in summer, suicide number was higher.
Conclusion: "suicide wave" after stock market crash of Oct. 1029 is just a legend, not fact.
Weaken: we need to support stock market was indeed the cause of suicide wave.
So we need to show, (1) when there was cause, there was effect or (2) when there was no cause, there was no effect.
Answer choice (C) does (1). In Oct. & Nov.1929 (cause present), suicide rate was higher than those months of other years. (effect occured)
This is a weaken problem, but the task is to strengthen the causal relationship.
As a side note, to strengthen causal relationship: prove that
when cause present - effect occurs, or
when no cause - no effect occurs.
To weaken causal relationship: prove that
cause present - no effect, or
no cause - effect occurs.
Thank you for breaking it down for me. I understand better now.
@shopshim86 said:
Yeah, I think your explanations for the answer choices are all correct. However, (D) actually does have the potency to strengthen the argument. The fact that, for the years surrounding the market crash, suicide rates are higher toward the end of the year helps the conclusion hold water.
(D) and (B) are not too different.
Ah, I get it. You're right. Thank you!
@shopshim86
@shopshim86
THANK YOU! Got it.
PT2 S2 Q14
Type of question: WEAKEN
Correct me if I am wrong in any part of my explanation.
Premise(s)
Oct. 1929 suicides due to stock market crash Comparatively low, summer had higher suicide rate, while Stock market flourishing
Conclusion
Stock market crash Suicide wave in Oct. 1929 more legend than fact.
What I am looking for:
Answer A NO. We don’t need to know the reason of suicide.
Answer B NO. This strengthens conclusion.
Answer C YES. I was thrown off by language. I thought “preceding and following years” was talking about how suicides stayed above average for preceding and following years, which doesn’t answer why summer suicide rates were higher, and seemed a bit off topic. What this answer is saying is the average suicide rate of Oct and Nov was lower than stock market crash before and after 1929. So, it means stock market crash did indeed increase suicide rates. Weakens the conclusion.
Answer D NO. We don’t care about beginning of calendar year.
Answer E NO. Unnecessary information. Not the same as Oct and Nov? And, season has to do with it?
MISTAKE
I didn’t understand answer C. I picked E, and was not happy with it, but moved on.
PT2.S2.Q11 LSAT 2 PREPTEST 2 Question 11 section 2
I don't get how this answer is "B."
The question is asking "Which following statements are consistent with biologist's claim, but not with politician's."
biologist claims: deforestation --> NO Koala
Politician claims: If save Koala --> stop deforestation (did I get that translation right?)
How is "B" consistent with Biologist's claim? I see how it's not consistent with politician's claim, which is part of the answer.
Is it that the Koala could still get extinct for another reason. If that's so, how do I get in the mind set to infer an answer like that?
@rahelaalam514
So help me understand. I needed to negate anything that is attached to "without," which I get, but isn't "without" a negate sufficient?
Like the words "until", "unless", and "or" are negate sufficient. If we replaced "without" with any of these other words, it would have a different impact on the sentence?
Is it that we don't negate anything attached to "until", "unless", and "or," because they are a different word than "without?"
> @steve898 said: I think so. Depends on how far you are from target time. If the target is 5 min and you're at 5:03 or 5:10 I think it's fine. But if it's an extra minute or two then keep doing until you reach it.
Thanks