In my drills (20's to 30's), I score -3/-4 for easier sections and -1/-2 for harder sections. What does this mean and has this happened to any of you? How do I overcome this?

I feel like I'm in a sort of awkward spot during my studies. I saw an improvement and am now at a new plateau. However, where I use to be confident in my methods for fixing my weaknesses, now I can't figure out how to approach the test.

Admitiadly I haven't spent much time on RC, and it is a major impact on my score (up to -8) this section is a hit or miss. There are also times I go -2 but then my LR shoots up through the roof.

I still don't feel completely confident in my LR either.

I seem to be missing the "hardest" questions per LR section. These could be any question type, but they are the most difficult to solve. So whereas before I would attack the questions by type, now I feel lost.

When I review the questions I've missed though I almost always spot the correct answer, and don't know why I ever picked the answer I did. Very rarely do I go back to a question and continue to struggle.

I also can't seem to polish off LG. I'm always going -1 to -2. I finish with extra time fairly often, and feel confident in my answers. Some how they always manage to get me with one.

I feel like I'm trying to sweep a path at the beach. Every time I clear a spot the sand gets blown right back onto it!

Any suggestions?

Sharing this in hopes that it might be useful to some:

In an effort to feel more comfortable with "mathy" questions (involving proportions, percentages, averages...), I searched the discussion forum for a list of such questions and it seems that only @dannyshaw had looked for something similar.

I quickly realized that there were lots of them, at least 4-5 questions in each PT. I found them by searching "proportions", "percent", or "average" in my digital PTs. Does anyone have any suggestions of what other keywords to search? I can also come up with "number", "incidence", and "prevalence", but those don't seem to come up as frequently.

Has anyone else drilled these types of questions? Is it more useful to read something like How to Lie with Statistics than drill?

These are several "mathy" questions I found just in PTs 1 and 2.

PT01.S3.Q11 - proportion

PT01.S3.Q21 - proportion

PT01.S3.Q12 - average

PT01.S4.Q04 - percent

PT02.S2.Q04 - average

PT02.S2.Q14 - average

PT02.S2.Q16-17 - percent

PT02.S4.Q05 - proportion

PT02.S4.Q15 - percent

Cheers!

Hey Everyone,

As promised I am starting the free LR tutoring. The first session will be on July 9th at 3 pm (eastern time).

The goal of these sessions is to go over one cookie cutter argument type each week. A cookie cutter argument is an argument that logically repeats on each test. The LSAT writers use different subject matter or grammar or both to disguise their logical shape in the stimulus and make it difficult for us. Sometimes they even have more than one cookie cutter argument in the stimulus. But the logic works pretty much the same way. Recognizing these patterns and knowing how the answers might shape up according to the question type is what helps gives us speed on LSAT.

The first session will be conducted on conditional logic. This is, in my opinion, one of the easier patterns to grasp. This would allow us to go over what cookie cutter arguments are and how conditional logic patterns appear throughout different question types. This will also give me a good idea of how to improve the next sessions.

After that, I have the next three session also ready to go. I am hoping to do each week a new session. The second one is on causal arguments, followed by Phenomena Hypothesis, and then Partial information ( I made up this name). These are the main ones and in my opinion occur most frequently on test. Depending on how these sessions go, I can work on doing the other patterns as well or we could stop there.

There is no minimum or maximum number of people. I welcome everybody. The questions will be made available on the screens for all to see so you don't have to bring in anything. I will be pulling questions from the older practice tests, PT 30-39. So this will not ruin fresh PT's for anyone as these tests are mainly used for drilling. However, you will get more out of these sessions if you have done the core curriculum. This will help you add on to the information you already know and you do need to know the basics of how conditional arguments work as well as what it means to strengthen/weaken, find the flaw, and see what must be true.

I am actually really excited to see how this shapes up and I hope this will be helpful to all of you. Preparing for these sessions from scratch was actually a lot of work so I am hoping this helps a lot of you out.

To join, please follow the link at the specified date and time. I will see you all there. (3(/p)

Free LR Tutoring (Sami)

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/589887541

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States: +1 (646) 749-3112

Access Code: 589-887-541

Joining from a video-conferencing room or system?

Dial: 67.217.95.2##589887541

Cisco devices: 589887541@67.217.95.2

First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: https://care.citrixonline.com/g2m/getready

So i see that some LR Qs will say if .A. it is likely that .B.

Is this conditional?

Hi all,

I've posted about my RC struggles a few times now so I'm few several of you are familiar with my predicament. I have very strong scores in LG and LR, but my RC score is average at best. About -10 give or take on timed sections. I guess that's average because that down 4 sections would be about a 150...but I'm not sure of the actual average RC score.

I've tried all of the methods available to me. I've practiced, practiced, and practiced some more and with no progress. In fact, a few times I've thought that I've sort of figured it out with a -3/-4 section only to find out I was still in the -9/-11 range. That's the most frustrating thing of all.

Obviously, retaining every detail of the passage is impossible. I just seem to fall prey to trap answers left and right in RC. It demands a superb short term memory and I exercise that in games and LR...I just don't know why it doesn't translate to RC. Has anyone else faced this sort of problem? How did you 'figure it out'?

My two biggest problems are definitely falling prey to trap answers and having to look back at the passage when it shouldn't be necessary which slows me down. Because of this, I usually end up not reading the last two passages very well. Ironically, my scores on the last two passages are not any worse than on the first two when I put more time in...just another maddening piece of information.

I don't know if I need an entire RC makeover or what...but I'm just practicing and feel like I'm getting no where.

Any tricks or tips from people who were in my situation would be greatly appreciated. Again, 170+ range scores in LG and LR, 150 range score in RC.

Hey all!

Just wanted to see what others who are attempting to take the September test are studying right now..what's your study plan until the test date? I just went through the core curriculum,drilling Logic Games right now. Trying to figure out practice tests schedule right now. I'm studying full time until the test date so trying to figure out how to maximize my potential.

JY talks about how these are freebies but i am really struggling with them. And i dont think its an issue in my understanding of logic

Hey! Can someone please help me with this one I'm really not sure why A is the right answer. It's funny when I took this test I got this question right (circled it because wasn't sure) but now not clear why it's right. Thanks so much!

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-1-question-17/

Hi, I BR-ed this question, read the explanations from various websites and sources, and this question is still not making much sense to me.

The correct choice D has "probably" in it, which when negated is "not likely." Doesn't "not likely" still leave room for the support in the stimulus to stand? I know that it weakens the support, but is merely weakening it the same as being "necessary?"

If the AC had the word "some" instead of "probably," I would have chosen D in a heartbeat.

If negating the assumption still renders the support possible, I am wondering what makes it "necessary."

How is this AC different from, for example,

Stimulus: Kofi is a cat. Therefore, she is happy.

Here, an assumption "all cats are happy" would be an SA, but not a NA, because even if we were to negate "all cats are happy," we are left with "some cats are happy," which still makes the support plausible.

Here's my guess at the difference, but please critique me:

15 is directly targeting the author's interpretation (the conditional statement directly applies to the author's interpretation in this case)

However, in the above cat example, we wouldn't know if the particular cat "Kofi" would belong to the "some cats" group and therefore the effect of the negated assumption is unclear & doesn't weaken?

If that is the case, if answer choice D were to be worded as "Behaviors common to people of widely disparate culture probably have genetic predisposition to those behaviors" also be necessary? why or why not?

I would really appreciate any advice!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-2-question-15/

Hey everyone! Hope your LSAT studies are going well.

I am currently in the process of fool-proof drilling logic games (on PT 15), and usually set a timer upwards. Yet, I realize that I tend to go way over time for many of the games.

My question is should I start timing myself downwards using the suggested time as a limit. Or would it be better to keep timing myself upwards to see my natural pace.

Thank you.

I'm thinking it is time to switch up the way I'm doing timed sections. Right now I have my phone stop watch run and pay 0 attention to it. I stop it when I get to the end of my section, record my time and move on.

I think it's time to go analog. I'm not sure if I'll even want a physical watch on test day, but it cannot hurt to train with one. That being said I'm looking for suggestions.

The 180 watch seems pricey but does seem to fit the LSAT very well.

There is also the Perfect Score watch but Amazon has mixed reviews on it.

What do you guys use to time yourself with. What are the pros/cons?

I've been taking practice tests starting with the earlier ones from the 1990s. I've been scoring pretty well on them (high 160s-low 170s). Are they easier than more current tests? Is my average score an accurate picture of where I would be if I took the LSAT right now?

Hey was just curious how others approach the prep tests. Do you diligently do the prep tests in order, or do you tend to jump around from 50s to 70s to 20s etc?

Just curious if there is a better strategy. I've been going pretty diligently in order from prep test 37, and I'm now in the 50s but also kind of want to just tackle test 80 for a thrill and to see how different it is. Is this a bad idea? Should I leave the later exams for closer to test day?

Hey everyone, not sure if I'm just blind, but I just did the early prep test 1 logic games section and can't find the answers anywhere. I just upgraded to the Ultimate+ package so it should have answers, no?

Does anyone else find BR tortuous??

Hey! So, I have the starter package which is still really good. I am halfway finished with CC so, I wanted to know how many preptests should I have for drilling and practicing? Currently, I have preptests 19-28, 29-38,52-61,and 62-71. I've already used 19-28 during my powerscore studying though. Also, once you enter your test answers with blind review, does 7sage show you the types and explanations? If not, how did you all go about supplementing your studying for after CC?

Sorry if you were responding.

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!!

If i dont finish a section. Should i attempt those questions during BR?

I accidentally hit score prep test without Ann of the answers filled in and cannot figure out how to reset the score card so I can enter the answers fully. How do I reset it? Thanks :D

Ok, so I was a July tester who knew going in that I wasn't ready. I have awful test anxiety so I decided to take the dive and do the test anyway to quench my nerves. Luckily it did and I registered for the September in good spirits. I've taken the last few weeks off waiting for the score, and now I'm trying to set up my new plan of attack. Any retaking advice? I didn't do sage before, and I'm interested in doing it this time around.

By the way, sorry if there is typos. I'm currently typing with one finger due to being a kitten bed!

Hello again! First of all, I wanted to express my general appreciation for everyone in the 7Sage community! You guys are essentially total strangers, yet almost always go the extra mile to help and support each other. I'm very impressed, and I feel privileged to be among you.

As for my question, I wanted to inquire about how the LSAT treats independent events in relation to likelihood. The content that spiked my curiosity came from Mike Kim's LSAT trainer rather than an official LSAT passage, so if this issue is not relevant to the LSAT, I'd love to know that too. The trainer has an exercise where one has to use proper knowledge of LSAT meanings for "some" and "most" to determine whether or not a statement in valid.

One of these statements is that "Everyone who orders a sundae gets offered a free extra cherry, and most people say yes to the extra cherry. Some people who order the banana split get offered a free extra cherry, and less than half of these people say yes. Therefore, people who order a sundae are more likely to say yes to a free cherry than are people who order a banana split."

Using the LSAT definitions of the qualifier words, Sundae buyers have a 1.0 chance of being offered, and more than half of them say yes. Banana Split Buyers have a 0 to 1.0 chance of being offered, and fewer than half accept. The conclusion then maintains that /people/ who order a Sundae are more likely to say yes to a free cherry than their heathen Banana-Split ordering counterparts; the book later designates this as a valid statement.

This situation immediately reminded me of a common mistake people make in evaluating confidence intervals in statistics. A 95% confidence interval, for example, does not mean that any given member of a population has a 95% chance of meeting a certain criteria. Rather, they already have have either a 0% chance or a 100% chance of meeting that criteria; their status (or in this context, selection,) is fixed and independent of any outside conditions. There is no roll of the dice. The interval merely gives us insight into the qualities of the group as a whole. In a way, this principle is reminiscent of the piece = puzzle LR flaw.

In the cited problem, we have data regarding the proportions of entities who made a decision being equated with the likelihood of those rigid entities from making one decision or the other, which isn't true.

So what does this situation mean for the LSAT? My guess is that this kind of situation would never arise on an LSAT, but if it does, I hope to find out whether my aforementioned thought process is correct, (thus invalidating the ice cream statement,) or if the LSAT does indeed require us to treat a population proportion and the "decision likelihoods" of its individual members as congruent values.

Thanks!

Might be off topic, but what is the likelihood for international JD students to find work?

I was wondering if I should take a practice test now before the completion of the 7sage to get a baseline. I have taken shorter versions and I know that according to them I will have a fairly decent score, but I haven't taken a full practice test. Is that what I should do, or should I instead focus on the cc, test, and use that as a baseline ?