Hi all!

Quick question: What should your recommender be adding on the RE line of your letter? Is it Name of applicant, LSAC number and type of letter (i.e. for all schools; X school)?

Does anyone know the proper format?

Thanks!

Hi guys! I know this has probably been asked many times before but I just want to know how you exactly go about BR for LR? I just took a practice section after not taking one in a long time and I got 6 wrong and skipped 2 which is making me feel a little down. LR has been pretty good for me and I have never really done BR but I think the time has come now to implement it so I can really be confident about LR. Thanks for all your advice in advance!

Can someone break down valid argument form two for me? I'm confused about the contrapositive. /B therefore /A, but isn't shouldn't "does not treat patients" be a contrapositive"?

Valid form 2 of 9

Denying the Necessary

[English] All doctors treat patients. Hercules does not treat patients. Therefore, Hercules is not a doctor.

[Lawgic]

A –> B

/B

/A

Hey guys, I took my first prep test and am a little confused as to how I should be reviewing. So i did BR for both the LR sections. For RC and LG i watched the video explanations. Is this all? I'm wondering if i should have done BR for both LG and RC as well. Any advice is much appreciated!

Does anyone know how in/out game is categorized?

In the drilling packet, I see the instructor has categorized into (1)Basic In/Out, (2)Advanced In/Out, (3)Sequencing In/Out, and (4)Sub-categories In/Out. I get how (3) and (4) are sorted, but what about (1) and (2)? Are they divided up according to their difficulties?

Thanks!

Whyyyy is this so hard for me?? I am on RC on the Ultimate + (I upgraded yay!) and I'm finding that the hardest questions in the set for me are the first ones -- 'What is the main point'. In my mind there is just so much information, I can't seem to figure out which concept is the main point unless it's a super easy passage. Anyone have any tips? Is there anything that gives a general 'clue' about what sentence/thought is the Main point?

Am I understanding MBT true right?

Conditional Statements and their Contrapositives are the only things that can be proven as Must Be True. These are in the notes that I made...and I just want to confirm that I understood the lesson properly.

So, when I'm looking at the answer choices...I'm only looking for conditional logic answers?

Hi y'all!

I hope y'all can give me some advice. I have done several practice timed sections, untimed sections, and PT's and I have noticed a pattern when I look back at my scantrons. I have been consistently missing the early 20's questions in any LR section!! For example, I will nearly always miss questions from 19-25, and unfortunately, sometimes I just miss all of those.. The rest of LR has been going pretty good. occasionally, I'll miss maybe one question before #19 but I catch it during BR and it's actually a silly mistake.. After that, it's just awful. It's not a timing issue either, as I have been doing this timing strategy: 15 mins for questions 1-15 so I have approx one minute per question, then I can take up to two mins per question on question 16 and after. Generally, i don't use that much time, but it's nice to have that cushion and the timing strategy really works for me! Is there something I am missing about these questions? Are they the hardest of the section? During BR, I can usually get them right my second go, but some of them have left me stumped. so I watch JY's videos, and then I get it. I have also checked Q types and i can deff say it's not a specific Q type (besides MSS and SA... those are my weaknesses annoyingly). I also do skip Q's and they are almost always 1-2 of this range of questions. At this point, I have been missing 5 or 6 on both my LR sections in JUST THESE QUESTIONS which is driving me up the walls!

TL;DR: is there something special about the 19-25 questions in an LR section? How do I fix this strange problem of mine? Should i switch up my timing method? Am I overthinking these last few questions and thus costing myself points?

Hi all,

I have 2 admissions questions re: Boston schools (Boston College, Boston University, and Northeastern.)

Can I submit a "Why School X" essay for these schools? It was not mentioned as a requirement on their websites, and I get the sense that I may not even be able to submit one. (I.e., they will only have a field to input for a personal statement and diversity statement but no "why School X" essay field.) This is pure speculation.

Any specific tips for applying to these schools from successful applicants? Please private message me if that's easier!

So I chose B because this is true almost all of the books from the past 150 will gradually destroy themselves. it says in the stimulus that it will slow down the process it doesn't say that it will reverse the deterioration and I didn't choose A because I thought "completely" was too strong and in the stimulus it seemed to me that the historically insignificant books could still have a chance of survival because they could be put in a cool, dry environment and then it says that the books of historical significance will have the new techniques but it doesn't say the insignificant books wouldn't be placed in the cool dry environment. Can someone please explain the reasoning of this question? TYA!!!!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-4-question-10/

So I chose A because I thought that answer was the one that was most proven based upon on the stimulus and I thought E was a close second but I didn't choose it because it seems a little far fetched saying that the cleanser will " make relatively greater contributions" and another forum had said " If the chlorofluorocarbons were a contributing factor in meeting the emissions standards and they are phased out of the process, something else must have allowed auto makers to continue to mee the more stringent emissions standards - best expressed in answer choice (E)" but I don't see the stimulus saying that the standards have been met, I saw it as that they (in the future) will have to meet the emission standards. Can someone explain the reasoning to me please??? TYA!

Hey everyone! Having a bit of difficulty with this passage. It's from the first RC problem set in the core curriculum. I was wondering if anyone could add to JY's explanation for #26 and explain how (E) is supported? I chose (A), but I felt uneasy about both because I didn't think the author would agree with either of the options. Thanks so much!

Here's the link to JY's explanation:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-2-passage-4-questions/

Hey everyone,

Quick question... When we're in RC and LG and we encounter a question we need to skip, are we supposed to go back to it when we're done with all the questions on that specific game/passage, or do you skip that difficult question, and not look at it until you are done with all the passages, and then go back to reviewing it?

Hope this makes sense, any help would be appreciated, thank you!

So i studied for 3 months and sat for the december LSAT, were i received a score i was unhappy with. During that time i studied in a hap-hazardous way, not tracking my growth and understanding. To make a long story short i wasted tons of PTs. Now that i am back on track, with a proper study schedule, i am looking what i have to work with. I have 1-35 which i am drilling with. I have 40-52 and 71-80 which are fresh. Since i plan on sitting for september i only planned on taking 20 or so timed PTs, so that is fine. I am looking through my spent tests and noticing that i only did random sections out of these and have 2 or 3 sections per tests that are fresh. My question is should i drill these instead of 1-35?

Hey all,

So I just took PT 53 and scored a 169. Hoooray, right? Not quite. I scored a -1 in LG, -2 between both LR sections and a -9 in RC. Yes, a -9!!!!!!!

I don't know exactly what my problem is with RC. Maybe I just hate it and I know that I hate it so my mindset isn't right or maybe I just don't understand the questions. I understand what it's asking, but I've just read so much dense material in 2 minutes so to then answer a densely worded question with 4 answer choices that are all eerily similar in 40 seconds seems like a lot...

Anyone else gone through something like this? How did you beat RC? I know that you track the viewpoints, arguments, tone, structure etc.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated as I am at my wits end with RC...

Hi Everyone,

Just a quick question. For my top choices I am above the 25th percentile but below the median for my GPA, would that mean I would need to get an LSAT score in the 75th percentile to be competitive in getting in?

I am aiming for the highest score I can get on the LSAT but figured knowing this would help with trying to see where I should be.

Thank you so much :)

LR is by far and away the section I struggle with the most. Some question types I have no issue with but there are others (NA, Flaw mainly) that just blow me out of the water sometimes.

My question is, what is your method of studying for LR in general? How do you break things down to better understand question types? I'm starting to see how answering "why" is so important and I want to be more effective with my study time. I typically have used the problem sets and mixed timed and un-timed individual questions and tried to break them down, along with watching J.Y.'s videos. However, I just don't know if this is effective or not.

So what do you all say? What is your weapon (strategy) of choice when it comes to general LR studying?

Does anyone know what happened to PT's 1-25? I went to print out more games to practice and I can no longer find them.

Hi team!

as the title says, does anyone have an idea where LSAC adopts its RC material? any journal, book, magazine you'd recommend?

I would like to start reading material that is similar to what's on the RC in my spare time.

LG has been by far my worst section, and I've been focusing on it the past few weeks. I've seen some improvement: I used to only be able to do the setup for 2-3 out of the 4 games, and now I can usually get the setup and most questions right, but I usually run out of time on the out-of-ordinary games.

I'm wondering if I'm full-proofing correctly? I was following the method in the CC, but when I go to re-do the games back-to-back, I'm not really sure I'm actually making the inferences. I usually can remember all the inferences, especially the ones I missed the first time around, but I'm not making them. Does that make sense? So I've started to do a timed section, and then full-proof for the next few days so that I can't just remember all the inferences, and I'm actually forcing myself to make them. Does anyone else experience this?

It's seems like from the CC we're supposed to do them over and over again, back to back, until we own the game. But if I do that, is it really benefiting me since most of the time I'm just remembering what I just did instead of actually making the inferences again?

Any advice would help. Thanks!

G'day!

I'm sitting the test in 5 days (Melbourne, Australia) and was wondering, what are the biggest 'game changers' in the 7Sage syllabus?

I'm midway through the course, and while I'm certain that there is wisdom to be had in every module, unfortunately, I won't be able to get through it all in time. Hence, I'm hoping that some kind strangers could point me toward their favourite sections, or those that they found most helpful!

Cheers, all!

Hi I was just hoping someone could help me sort out the conditional logic in this stimulus. I feel like there's a gap in my understanding of the first sentence of the stimulus.

The first statement is about archaic spellings being preserved if they are infrequent and do not interfere with reading comprehension. I think the negation of preserved is modernized.

F: frequent

I: interfere

M: modernize

I originally diagrammed this statement as:

/F & /I -> /M

M -> F or I

The correct diagram is:

/M->/F & /I

F or I -> M

What is the difference I'm missing here?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-3-question-19/

Hi all!

While I was studying, I encountered "(-/-)" sign, and started to wonder if it is interchangeable with "⇔/" .

Since "⇔/" is a negation of "if and only if", can we also use "(-/-)" for its negation?

.

.

For example, Alan goes to the park everyday, except the days on which Chris goes to the park: /A⇔C = A(-/-)C ????????

.

.

If we have A⇔/B = /A⇔B, then

A,/B (O)

/A,B (O)

A,B (X)

/A,/B (X)

.

If we have A(-/-)B, then

A,/B (O)

/A,B (O)

A,B (X)

/A,/B (?! I assume X?)

.

.

What's the definition of A(-/-)B? Either A or B is in, but not both? I mean it has to be an exclusive or in order to satisfy the reasoning...

.

.

.

Someone please help! Thank you!

.

.

.

.

Quick summary: (-/-) same as ⇔/???

Does anyone ever feel like they just can't get the hang of the LSAT, no matter what? Like I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong but I just can't wrap my head around this test and then I have to stop studying because it gets so overwhelming. Has this happened to other people? Is this normal or do I really just suck this bad?

Something I've begun to notice during my studies; is that the LSAT is as much a test of exposure as it is a test of logic and reading capabilities. While learning the core concepts and ideas behind the test are essential to success I am here to argue that exposure is just as important. For a long time my score had been stagnant. I was stuck and not able to move no matter how many times I revisited the CC/Books/Whatever. I thought that my fundamental understanding of the test was flawed and the only way to improve was to redo lessons and try and remember the strategies. This was not working for me.

Recently (The past 3-4 weeks) I changed the way I am studying. I am bombarding myself with timed sections. With this new method I began to gain a new sense of familiarity with the LSAT. Logical Reasoning became a section that I could predict, Logic Games were games I had seen before with slight variations, and Reading Comp...well I haven't put the same effort into. This is what broke the wall for my score. After being stuck for an extremely long time, my score increased. Not only has it increased, but it has increased consistently per section.

This is something I feel gets over looked a lot on the LSAT. People get caught up in the theory, concepts, and core ideas but never expose themselves to the test in any real significant manner. Familiarity, as I have come to learn, is as important for a solid LSAT score as the basics. Feeling comfortable going into a section because you know it will be "just like before" is enough to give you confidence. With this boost your brain is put at ease and you are able to now draw upon your toolbox of methods much more effectively.

So don't be scared to dive into sections of questions and tests. Get use to how Logical Reasoning feels, figure out what questions they ask every logic game (seriously, every damn game.) and get use to looking for what they are expecting you to in Reading Comp. This will make the task of finding the right answer much easier, and wrong answers will begin to look really wrong after a ton of experience.

Just thought I'd share something I have noticed.