Hey Y'all,

The final stretch for me before the September 2017 LSAT is here, and once again I turn to you, the 7sage community, for wisdom and guidance (lol)

My score breakdown for my last 5 PTs falls into these ranges (all numbers are the # of questions I typically get wrong)

LR: 0-3

RC: 4

LG: 2-4

I now typically score just over 170. My last two PTs my LR has been near, if not exactly, -0.

My RC fell hard when I hit PT 70, but it came back up to -4 or less after that.

My LG for the past 10 PTs has been 2-4 wrong.

I don't know what to focus on. Tomorrow I plan on doing my 3 weakest yet the most rare LR questions and fool proofing LG games 72-76.

QUESTION: What should I focus on to ensure I stay in that 170 range come test day? I'm thinking LR And LG tomorrow, then on my next drilling day I do LG and RC. How does that sound? Any tips? Also, any recommendation on hard RC sections I can practice on?

Thanks!

Hey guys,

I think I need some advice. I've seen huge improvements on the LSAT this last month. Namely my LG going from -6 to -1/-2, understood parallel flaw, scored in the 170s for the first, second and third time. But something is amiss.

Last PT I took I got a 165 (my lowest score since I started prepping again in early July). It was my first 5 section test. But I don't know if that's the issue.

I sat down to take another PT today and I just couldn't understand anything I was reading. I thought I had mastered PF yet I was tremendously confused. I couldn't get a simple disagreement question. It's funny because the warmup I did i breezed through easily (about 5 questions). So idk if I'm experiencing burnout, or I'm just psyching myself out.

What do you guys think about taking today, tomorrow and sunday off. Then trying to retake this PT I gave up after the first section. I'll be honest I haven't been getting enough sleep as I should and only 3 questions deep today i started getting that 'post-lsat brain fuzz'. We have exactly 30 days left before Sept 16th and as much as I don't want to take time off...

So should I take time off - and do you think its detrimental that I use this time off to write my PS?

Thanks,

LSAT-hopefullynotburnout-2

Hey Ya'll,

I've taken Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Today off from LSAT for one last refresher weekend before I go all out for Sept 16th. Just wondering what your game plan is for these last 5 weeks?

I plan on doing 2 five section PTs per week from now until test day. I'll be blind reviewing and targeting for the the in between days. I also plan on taking 2-4 days off Early September to do one last refresher before the test date. How does that sound? Last 4 scores have been 169, 169, 171, 169

HEY EVERYONE,

Took PT 65 on Monday and I got a 171 on it!! WOOO. JY's message hyped me up and suggested I celebrate my victory so here it goes! YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASS.

Tips: You CAN do it. Try drilling your weakness, COFFEE, ENOUGH SLEEP, WATER - seriously, don't forget about the non-test related essentials :)

Best of luck,

171

Hey everyone,

My LSAT analytics are showing me that my Parallel Flaw and Parallel Reasoning questions are of the highest priority. I've made some strong improvements in these two question types, but want to continue getting better at them. I'm hoping someone could shed some light on their approach to these questions. I will lay down my basic approach to them, and perhaps someone could tell me whether my approach needs work.

Parallel Flaw

For these question types I want to find the AC with the most similar flaw. Argument structure is not SO much as important (but still a consideration) as the flaw itself. So first, I check to see if I can diagram the argument in pure Lawgic. If I can do that and find a similar glaring flaw in the AC - BOOM - done. If the question doesn't translate well into logic, I try to use 'pseudo-logic' diagramming - much like the questions you encounter in PF section of the CC. If that doesn't work, I then try to to just understand and vocalize the flaw as a whole. Is the argument moving from relative evidence to absolute, is it confusing sufficient with necessary, etc etc?

These 3 approaches is essentially how I attack PF questions. What I find is however, that I'm usually unable to diagram the questions in pure Lawgic, so I either 'psuedo-diagram' or I try to vocalize the flaw. Is this a good tactic?

Parallel Reasoning

For these question types we want to find the AC with the same reasoning structure! First I try to see if the stimulus lends itself neatly into Lawgic. If that doesn't work, I attempt to use 'pseudo-logic' terms to better understand the parts of the argument and how they relate (structure). Finally, if that doesn't work, I try to vocalize the way in which the argument moves from premises to conclusion and find a similar conclusion. I find this question type easier because I can turn to the conclusion and eliminate answer choices which do not have similar conclusions.

SO, do you think my approach is good? Can I make improvements? If so, how?

Thanks, and good luck!

Hey Everyone,

So I'm currently drilling NA question types through the Cambridge packet things. I'm looking at question 20 in section 1 of PT 36, and it says its an NA question type.

I got the right answer quite quickly, but for the life of me I can't seem to figure out how this isn't also a sufficient answer choice - something which has never happened to me before. What I mean by that is, answer choice E being true seems to be sufficient to make the argument true.

Core:

P1: Ensuring Justice in the legal system ---> Citizens capable of criticizing anyone involved in determining punishments

P2: Legal system's purpose is to deter ---> System falls into hands of experts whose specialty is to assess how potential lawbreakers are affected by the system's punishments

P3: Most citizens lack knowledge about such matters

C: Justice is therefore not ensured in the legal system

E) Citizens without knowledge about how the legal system's punishments affect potential lawbreakers are incapable of criticizing experts in that area

I JUST THOUGHT OF THIS: Is the reason why E isn't sufficient for the argument is because P1 never states the number of citizens who must be capable of criticizing lawmakers? P3 says MOST citizens, meaning some citizens do possess the knowledge necessary to criticize lawmakers, and therefore justice CAN be ensured in the legal system? The argument requires it to be necessary, if you didn't need to understand the affect of the legal system's punishments, then the conclusion is completely wrong. But with E being true, the conclusion can still be true - we just don't know if it has to be true.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-36-section-1-question-20/

Hey guys,

I'm currently in the BR phase of my routine and I have questions: I often find that among the questions that I circle I almost always go with my original answer, which is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. I've noticed that when I BR I have a hard time finding the correct answer for some of the tougher questions and in frustration I turn to solutions online.

I try my best to get the right answer but I just can't - any tips to actually crack the code and find the correct answer/any tips on how to read online material to better understand the question rather than just FIND the answer?

Thanks

Hey guys,

When I took the LSAT December 2016 I thought it would be my only attempt. Although I did well, to get into the school of my dreams, I need to do better. Problem is I went all in last year and burned through a lot of valuable PTs

There are a lot of PTs I haven't hit (30-45) range, and some intermittent throughout the more recent ones. Any ideas on how I should go about PTing from now until my September test date? I know I can still squeeze juice out of the one's I did do, and I know I don't remember a lot from those same PTs. I am concerned however, that the PTs I do take again will not be truly indicative of my score, moreover, I'm not sure how to schedule what PTs (seen and unseen) to do when. Would I want to do the one

Help?

Thanks!!

Hey y'all

I'm going to retake in September, and for the last two weeks I've been chipping away at Logic games from PT 1-15. However, I've seen marginal, if any, improvements. When I foolproof them, I can get perfect on the entire section with 10 minutes left, but the moment I see a fresh set I go -6 to -9. I planned on spending a total of a month straight on LG, but my patience and determination is waivering.

Now that I've given you background, please read my questions: 1. Any particular LG sets you think will help me for the most recent tests? 2. Should I go back and do the LG portion of the CC? (haven't done it since last summer) 3. How to maximize what I learn from the Fool Proof Method (i.e. what questions do you ask yourself/what do you observe about the LG set)

Thank you

Hey guys,

I plan on taking the LSAT in September and I want to focus on just logic games for about 3-4 weeks (as long as it takes to get to a near perfect score really). I took it back in December and the only thing that brought my score down was LG - so before I get back to PTing and targeting certain questions, I want to do LG

Right now I'm doing every LG section from PT 1-20 - two sections a day. Really trying to master it. My question is is my time better spent doing LG sections from PTs 40-60 instead?. Everyone knows that we should prioritize the modern PTs, and I want to get the most bang for my buck. So should I hop straight to those?

Thanks

Hey, quick question. Can one go from

(X ---> Y) ---> Z

~Z ---> ~(X ---> Y)

To

Z & X ---> Y?

Intuitively I feel I can, but I don't recall that exact translation being in the CC. I recall that I could go from (X ---> Y) ---> Z to X & Y ---> Z, but not the one above. If i can make this inference, how and why?

Thanks!!

Hey guys quick question, is /J (-) L the same thing as J (-) /L?

Could you explain why they are/are not the same please!

Thanks

Hey Ya'll,

Just less than 2 months before my December exam, I am at a crucial point in my preparation. I want to start Blind Reviewing and taking full PTs by October 24th. However, I will not be able to complete the entire curriculum. Fear not, as I've already taken a Kraplan course before and have a good understanding of how to approach all LR and LG types - I feel as though I just need more practice.

SO, should I sacrifice finishing the CC for Blind Review (2 pts a week) starting October 24th? My plan is to do a PT one day, spend the next day blind reviewing, and then the third day I would watch CC videos for anything that needed clarification. Do this routine twice a week with one day off.

Should I risk begin only starting to PT by November 15thish or do you think actual practice can be more rewarding than the CC?

Hey guys,

I'm currently working through the CC and I plan on finishing by October 24th. From then onwards I plan on doing 2 PTs a week (from 70 and up) until my December 3rd test day.

I've been studying since June and prior to starting with 7 Sage I took a KRAPLAN course and took about 15 PTs, in the lower numbers. Do you think those 8 or so PTs after October 24th will be sufficient?

Also, if I should aim to finish earlier, any idea on what I can skip in the CC? Thanks!

Hey Guys,

I seem to have a dilemma. I cannot Blind Review. Well, I CAN Blind Review, I just can't bring myself to do it. As I'm going through the curriculum I'm doing section worth of LR questions (about 25 questions) on the video set I just watched. I recently finished the MSS video set and then did about 25 MSS questions. First timed, and then I tried BRing. HOWEVER, I LEGIT GET SO LAZY AND SO IMPATIENT WITH FINDING MY SCORE THAT I DON'T FOCUS OR EFFECTIVELY BR.

Are there ANY tips on how to force myself to BR properly. I may try doing less questions - maybe that will help. Any advice would be greatly appreciated because I know I'm losing out on valuable points by BRing like a chump. I'm not sure if I need motivation, or a better strategy or whatever.

Thank you,

Hey everyone,

I just started the Core Curriculum and its been good to me! However, I was hoping for some clarification. When doing LR or RC are we actually supposed to take note of the grammar and phrasing stuff mentally (i.e. in my head say okay this is the subject and this is the verb or okay this is referring back to this concept)?

Or is this just drill stuff and that is unnecessary?

Thanks!

Hey Guys,

I've officially decided to take the December LSAT instead of the September LSAT. I experienced heavy burnout and took the last 2 weeks easy and in order to maximize my score I know I need to take it later.

My question is: How does one use the 7Sage starter package? Do you have any recommendations on how to use the videos to guide my studying. How many hours should I watch per day? Should I supplement the videos I watch with question sets not included in the quizzes? Do you recommend spending a couple days on a certain section?

I guess what I'm aiming for is to use the actual videos to build an even stronger foundation, however I want to finish that with enough time for me to do just PTs for a solid 3 weeks before the December 3rd exam date.

All in all: How did you use 7Sage to structure your learning? Thanks!

Hey Everyone,

I've been studying for the LSAT for about 2 and half months now and I had a question - one that I think a lot of people could benefit from. I understand that just by prepping for the LSAT one develops and betters their reasoning skills. Be this looking for inferences, analyzing arguments or formulating one's own strong arguments. Now the question remains - How does one apply this to school - specifically not law school programs.

I'm currently doing a double major in Politics and Philosophy so you can see the appeal of using the skills I learned here, in essays and class discussions. However, I'm a bit unsure of how to actually go about using these skills. To a degree I think I will unconsciously analyze things at a higher level, but really I want to consciously strengthen my work to get better grades.

I think this would apply more to essays and papers so - any ideas?