Hey all. I'm just wondering how most people deal with statements with both Group 3 and Group 4 indicators. I realize that one can use either rule and be fine, but in practice do most people just stick with one rule? I find it makes more intuitive sense to use the Group 3 rule, and was wondering if there were any downsides to just sticking with using the Group 3 rule at all times when I encounter a statement with both indicators.

For example, in the following statement:

"There will not be a good show unless there are sophisticated listeners in the audience."

With the Group 3 rule, one would diagram as:

GS --> SL

because one is negating the sufficient (/GS), which turns it into GS. The fact that "not a good show" is /GS makes intuitive sense to me because not should mean /.

However with the Group 4 rule:

not a good show becomes GS

unless there are sophisticated listeners becomes /SL

and therefore

GS --> SL

because one is negating the necessary (/SL) and making the other idea (GS) the sufficient condition. However, this is where I always get tripped up, because I don't think it makes intuitive sense for unless to be a negation. Also, my mind makes me constantly think that "not a good show" has to mean /GS, so leaving it as GS is really difficult for me to intuitively grasp.

What do others think? Is it fine if I just stick with the Group 3 rule for every statement that has both indicators? Are there any cases where using the Group 4 rule would be better?

Winter is coming. And so are LSAT scores.

LSAC often gets them back before their expected release date, and given that the day before is a holiday, I wouldn't be surprised if we got those infamous emails from LSAC sometime this week. My bet is Friday. The night is dark and full of terrors! What is dead may never die. Unbowed, unbent, unbroken.

I was wondering, what do you guys think about UD Sturm? A buddy got full ride. Is it a good back up?

New September Study group! First up: PT 60

This group is for 12 people who are committed to studying and improving their test performance for the September 2017 LSAT. The schedule (which we'll go over on Saturday) is tentative and so you will have a say in the PT schedule and future meeting times. Our aim will be to take at least 10 prep tests from the 60s, 70s, and PT 81. I want the group to be able to tailor the study schedule to meet its specific needs. If you want a say about the date and time that we meet, you need to attend the meetings. Workshops and intensives to eliminate weaknesses will also be made available to the study group. We also have the option to build in a few breaks.

Requirements:

Comment below if you would like me to tag you for our first meeting on July 1st at 5pm EST. We'll be taking care the schedule first, so even if you can't take PT 60 come get your name on the list and then you can head out.

1st Meeting then PT 60 on Saturday, July 1st 5PM ET

Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/992713853

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) 317-3122

Access Code: 992-713-853

I've been doing pretty good with LR getting 4/5 correct consistently. However I took prep test 36 and completely bombed section 1 with 7/26 with 3 min remaining. Obviously I was going too fast, but this is pretty discouraging. Any ideas?

Hey everyone,

So I just spent the last hour or so psyching myself out. I feel like there is no chance of getting into one of the better law schools any more. The reason for this is quite simply, I sucked at college on my first attempt.

I went to college, dropped and failed classes and this absolutely destroyed my GPA.

I then joined the United States Marine Corps and took about a 4 year break from school (while acquiring a couple more F's because of deployment....damn.)

After the Marine Corps I went back to school and graduated with a B.A. my GPA after the Marine Corps was a 4.0.

The LSAC calculates my cumulative GPA as a 2.7 (shoot me) and my Degree GPA as a 4.0

Right now I'm PT'ing in the 165-169 range. So my LSAT score is at least helping me a bit.

Will law schools take all this into account? Will the see I am different now with the 4.0 I achieved and the highish LSAT score? Or will they just dismiss me as a failure? Am I doomed to bad schools? I dream of T-15 but this seems unrealistic.

Any advice?

Ciao fellow 7Sagers!

I just started studying for the 4 weeks ago and I haven't made much progress. Specifically: I just began the Most Strongly Supported Lesson. I've given myself a year to study for it since I plan on taking a gap year after I graduate so I'm not presently pressed for time, but I don't want to take anything for granted. However, I am not even able to stick with the assigned study schedule. It seems like an overwhelming amount to get through in a day. I am wondering how one is supposed to make it through the Core Curriculum so fast. How do you study? Here is how I study:

For Lessons:

For Practice Problems

If wrong: I think why it was wrong and try to cement that reasoning in my mind. Then I write out the explanation as to why that answer choice was right ans why my answer choice was wrong.

With this method, I've been studying about 4 hours every day and covering 1 lesson in 3-4 days. Should I be studying like this? This is how I usually study in college so I just applied it here. But I've been reading on the forum and a lot of people are really making some significant progress with the core curriculum. Would you mind sharing how you study on a daily basis? Like do you take notes, do you just watch the video, read the notes and move on? How do you ensure you are understanding and retaining what you are learning? What do you do? Any advice/suggestions will be helpful!

Thanks much :)

Hey all,

So I'm finding myself a bit confused on the LG fool proofing method. Not the actual method, but which games I'm using. I have seen lots of people say the games from 1-35, but I'm not sure where this "packet" of games is on 7sage. What I did was take all the games from the LG section in the CC that J.Y went over, as they seem like a good large sample of the different kinds of games you need to master, and I'm fool proofing those. But those games don't seem to be all games from tests 1-35. Honestly, when I looked online, I couldn't even find the LSAT tests from below 7. I did purchase the 7-12 tests and I'm doing some of those games to mix it up as their style is quite different from the newer games.

So I'm just a bit confused about the 1-35 packet thing. I feel like if I master the games in the CC that that is probably good enough, as well as throwing in some of the games from earlier prep tests to test my ability to handle weird games. I also plan to spend a lot of time with miscellaneous games.

Am I approaching this wrong?

Thanks!

.

7Sagers,

I have an op-ed in the New York Times about Harry Potter today! Notice the call-out of an assumption in an argument I'm trying to take down. Everything you're learning for the test applies in the real world too!

Just for fun, I'll share a few paragraphs which they cut, and which rely on the idea of necessary conditions:

Opponents of YA-reading adults aren’t Puritans; they don’t believe that literature ought to instruct and improve us. On the contrary, Beha and Graham rely on the concept of pleasure. The core sentiment is approximately this: “It’s weird that adults find YA so enjoyable. Those books are so basic.” In Graham’s words,

These books consistently indulge in the kind of endings that teenagers want to see, but which adult readers ought to reject as far too simple…These endings are emblematic of the fact that the emotional and moral ambiguity of adult fiction—of the real world—is nowhere in evidence in YA fiction. These endings are for readers who prefer things to be wrapped up neatly, our heroes married or dead or happily grasping hands, looking to the future.

Never mind that Shakespeare and Dickens and the Brontë sisters, all of whom get name-checked in Graham’s piece, wrap up many of their works with perfect bows. I just don’t believe that ambiguity or complexity are necessary conditions of pleasure. Books can be good in many different ways. Are the Harry Potter books morally simplistic? Sure, but it doesn’t matter. Rowling mastered the ancient magic of storytelling, which is why Harry is the boy who lived, and still lives, in our collective imagination.

Here's the article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/opinion/harry-potter-20th-anniversary.html?ref=opinion

Does anyone remember how many questions were on the exam?

I had 3 LR, 1 RC, 1LG and 100 total question...

Very anxious that I made a bubbling error and might need to cancel...

This resolve the paradox... just not understanding it in the least. Any help will be much appreciated.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-52-section-1-question-14/

So the app I use to track my workouts lets you pre-download the videos explaining the proper form of the various exercises they assign within the application itself. This way you don't have to rely on good reception in the gym or if you don't have unlimited data you can download the videos on Wi-Fi. As someone who loves to study on public transit or wherever I happen to be, a feature that allowed one to pre-download a number of 7Sage lessons while at home on their wifi network so they could later watch them on their iPad or iPhone would be great.

My goal score is 170 which means -1/-2 in games is pretty important. I can't say I have "mastered" games through and I am nearly done with fresh games from 1-35.

The progress I've made is shocking. I used to go -12+. Now I finish every easy game FAST. Tougher games still trip me up a bit though and focus errors remain leaving me at -4 to -6 on average per section. I am aiming to sit for the test in December so I have time to remain on LG, but I am wondering what the next step is.

I could remain in fool proof mode to repeat games until I reach the next step level in improvement. Or I suppose I could begin adding in timed sections of RC/LR as well to start addressing that before PT phase. Or I could begin PTing non-fresh tests. I used up a bunch of PTs last year (without BRing so they'll probably feel fresh) in my prep and I could use those for PTing.

How do you usually find the numerical distribution? I tend to write down all possibilities, which takes a lot of time! Any better way to find it quickly?

Thank you in advance!

So i went throught the CC and i lost my notes. Could anyone lmk what are the main concepts that JY recommends memorizing. Im making flash cards and it wouod be a huge help.

**Point at Issue

Argument Summary:**

S: An owner of a work of art have the ethical right to destroy that artwork if (1) they find it morally/visually distasteful or (2) caring for it becomes inconvenient. This right to destroy is given by virtue of ownership alone.

J: Owners of unique works of art do not have the moral right to destroy. Additionally, unique works that are of aesthetic or historical value belong to posterity and must be preserved.

Prephrase:

The overlap between these two deals with only unique artwork. Dogs Playing Poker is out of scope because J says nothing about /Unique pieces.

Answer Choices:

A) I quickly eliminated this under timed conditions and did not mark for BR but it is definitely correct. The key piece of this AC is “for that reason alone”. If, for example, your father was a prominent historical figure of whom portraits are rare, then you may not have the right to destroy based on J’s comments. Although S would argue for your right to destroy. Correct.

B ) This may be attractive to some who confuse “posterity” with “public viewing”. We could probably say that S agrees with this statement, but can we say J disagrees with it? I don’t think so. He doesn’t speak about public viewing and the bit about “belonging to posterity” doesn’t necessarily imply that either. Eliminate.

C) “Seldom”. Neither says anything about frequency. Eliminate.

D) “Not unique”. Eliminate. S’s statement includes this set of objects but J’s does not.

E) I chose this under timed conditions. “Legally” should have tipped me off that I had made an error. Replace “legally” with “morally” or “ethically” (morals /= ethics but it would be a reasonable shift in terms) and this could be correct. Eliminate.

Would it be really important? How would a personal statement factor into it? What if someone has no good softs?

Hey everyone,

Its been little more than a week of fool proofing after completing the logic games lessons in the CC and I have completed all of the the logic games in the first 10 PTs. So far, I am averaging about 11-13 mins/per game (not section) and usually get 1-2 questions wrong/per game. However, after watching the LG explanation videos, I pick up on the inferences and do the same games in half the time and rarely get any questions wrong.

I know its only been a week of fool proofing, yet I kind of feel discouraged as my time has not seen any significant change after the first 40 games (i.e., I am still taking about 45 mins per LG section). Is this progression relatively normal? I want to continue fool proofing, yet at the same time, I don't know if I should review the lessons before moving forward with the next 100 games. Any advice would be much appreciated. Thank you!

Although I majored in philosophy (lots of writing), I'm terrible at writing about myself. I was thinking about signing up for a creative writing class at a community college over the summer.

Does anyone else have this issue and what helped you get better at writing about yourself?

I have written many drafts of my PS and they all ended up being too broad or too specific and just overall terrible :'(

I am nearing the end of my core curriculum, what's the next step?

should I be fool proofing logic games from pt 1-35? or diving into the pts? or something else perhaps?

thanks

.

Does anyone know how long it takes for LSAC to recalculate your GPA?

I had three transcripts sent in which were all completed this morning, however, I still cannot view my Academic Summary Report. Thanks!

So I've taken about 6 full PT and a few more timed LR sections, and I seem to not being getting too much better at LR. Currently I'm getting about -10 per section and really would like to be getting -2 or -3. When I BR I get nearly all of the questions right. I have a skipping method, but I was curious if there were any other fixes, or if it was just something that comes with time, patience and practice?

Hi Everyone,

Please don't tell me I am the only person on edge this week waiting for scores to be released?!

~M

Admin edit: Don't yell, I'm sensitive! :( (Caps and excessive exclamation marks removed from title)