Discussions

All posts

New post

254 posts in the last 30 days

LSAT is in two weeks (little less). Having learned the hard way, please take this advice if you're grinding hard right now. Don't be sitting all day long studying from morning to night.

Before you possibly dismiss this advice because it sounds like you're being told to eat your vegetables, gather round and listen..

Get atleast like 30 minutes of some kind of exercise every day, come home and eat a clean and light meal and continue studying. Exercise and healthy eating not only has the obvious benefit of making all you sexy people look even sexier for the summer, but getting home from a workout/jog/movement, I've noticed I'm much more hyped and attentive and my brain feels like a well oiled machine.

If your practice test scores are leveling off and not going up and you're studying all day long and you just don't know why, it's because you can't study this sedentary way for the LSAT and you're not giving yourself time to reflect on the new information and give your brain a break.

On days that I bummed it and studied all day with no break no exercise and eating foods that weren't wholesome, my scores were lower than on days where I got some exercise and took breaks and ate cleaner meals. I am 100% sure that this was true in my case and by LSAT logic it obviously doesn't have to be true in all cases but give me the benefit of the doubt for a second!

You might feel okay right now and rested and your stomach is full and you're feeling warm, but I know the grind is tough. Studying for days on end and only moving from your bed to your desk, your thinking skills will get sluggish. I'm not selling you a fitness plan...I'm not a fitness guy by any means,but I think that this is how you maximize your mental capacity and agility leading up to the test and while you study. It's the second aspect of studying that MOST people completely ignore and not only ignore, but completely work against.

I was studying this wrong way leading up to my first LSAT in February. My diagnostic was in the 150s and my PT scores got to the high 160s which was my realistic goal. a few PTs went by and my scores were going down to the lower 160s where they leveled off at like 162 from the previous 167,168s I was getting. The week before the test my PT average dropped to 160 and 161 and even lower on test day to a 158. It was unimaginable. I was guessing my way (figuratively) to a 158 at my peak!!

When I started studying again, it took a week to get into the groove of things and now I'm reviewing old practice tests and realize I've made some very VERY stupid mistakes (that I didn't catch before even after reviewing)! nothing had changed except I was fresh n ready to go. The only difference now is that I took a break and study maybe 5-6 hours a day instead of 10-12 and maybe you need more or maybe you need less, but don't be afraid to take an hour or two away from studying in order to recuperate. If anything, it's actually part of studying so you're not wasting time.

we are studying what's IN the practice test book so hard that we forget to train the parts of us that are tested during the test. Just like you can play a sport like football and think you'll get better at tackling people just by repeated tackles, when in reality there are supplemental courses of action that these athletes take to assist them with it.

Or in LSAT terms, just because something (studying) contributes to an outcome (your highest possible score), it doesn't mean that it guarantees it.

Don't beat yourselves up, and please, try it for just one day and see how your studying goes the day after. We think we're grinding hard by being in our chairs all day when in reality we are being sedentary and it's messin with our potential.

14

I'm signed up for the LSAT on June 12th and I feel about 90% of where I want to be but not quite ready to where I'd be willing to burn a test prior to the changes. Now that I don't have to worry about test limits, maybe I should just take it and hope for the best. Do you think schools will still take your highest score or maybe now with the changes they will start averaging since people may be incentivized to take as many tests as possible since there aren't yet any downsides.

0

For this question (it's helpful to watch the video), JY does the logic and it comes out to this:

Capable and (PI or 500) --> Report

~Report

not (capable) or not (PI or 500)

From this point, JY says that you implement the group 3 rule. meaning that you have to either negate the (capable) or the (PI or 500). But when you look at the problem, why couldn't you negate both? If they are BOTH negated, Ted would still not be required to report?

Basically, I'm not sure why you suddenly would need to implement group three on this problem when it seems you could absolutely negate both and still have the sufficient condition (~Report) stand correct.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-1-question-24/

0

Hey all,

This morning I dove into the cement pool that is Game 2 from June 2000.

I consider myself a 'solid' gamer. I average -3 on a full timed section give or a take a question. A number with which I would be perfectly fine on test day, by the way. However, this game has 7 questions (why? just why?) and could easily take that score to a -7, if not worse.

I've noticed that all of these PT's with the 'dreaded' games offer more cushion, even at the top. For instance, 87/101 on the June 2000 LSAT clicks a 170.

How prevalent are games of this level of difficulty on the more modern LSATs? I think I would drop dead in there if I were to see a game like this. Especially game #2!!!!!

Admin edit:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-31-section-1-game-2/

0

for statements like this, when there are two sufficiency indicators,

can they have two possible translations?

If student, then he or she will be served well in later life by any philo class. ( S --> SWBPC)

if philo class, then will serve any students well later in life. ( PC --> SWLL )

the statement is from PT39, Section 2 Question 2.

it's a flaw question and the statement itself is not imperative to solve the question, but it did make me hesitate during timed PT when I tried to translate them into lawgic.

0

Had a quick question, the LSAT course prices that are posted online, have they already included the cost of taxes, or are they added on when you attempt to make the purchase? Was just trying to determine the total cost in Canadian, which would be about $242 on my credit card statement if there are no additional taxes. A prompt reply will be greatly appreciated, thanks

0

Are the old exams like the ones in the years of the 90's worded oddly? Because it's really hard for me to decipher what they are saying on many of the Lr problems and the games verbiage....don't even get me started!

0

When you have extra time at the end of an LR section, is it strategically wiser to first go back to questions you flat out skipped (due to their initial perceived difficulty) or to questions completed but marked for review due to some uncertainty?

By "uncertainty" I mean those questions where you have a somewhat high degree of certainty but just slightly (like 70% certainty or so). Since every question is worth 1 point, would it be best to prioritize these questions or those that you just flat out skipped?

0

Hey, guys! Can you help me make sense of my reasoning for selecting this answer choice, if that makes sense?! Lol

Ok so I chose D but I get why B is correct. I still don't know for certain that I wouldn't have the same thoughts that lead me to choose D, if presented again.

D) draws conclusion about a specific belief (more ppl believe elected officials should resign if indicted than believe that they should resign if convicted. I -> R and C - > R) based on responses to inquiries (I -> R and R - > C) about two diff specific beliefs. So basically, I said the conclusion was based on I - R and C - > R and not based on I -> R and R - > C. I said this equaled two different specific beliefs.

Does this make sense to anyone?? Or, am I just doing too much? Was I just totally off here? Hopefully I wrote this up correctly and you guys understand what I mean here. TIA

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-2-question-25/

0

My big issue with this question is about why B is the correct answer. It seems to equate "exploiting" with "destroy" and I'm not sure how reasonable of an assumption that is to make. Since this is a logically inferred question, I assumed that the right answer would have a higher degree of validity than an MSS answer choice.

But answer B, the right answer, seems to combine the two groups of environmentalists into one group, and I'm not sure that's implied anywhere in the argument. Noneconomic justification appears in the second sentence with the many group. The defensibility of exploiting features appear in the previous sentence with the some group.

How are we to infer that we have to combine these groups? Does it have to do with the economic costs in the last part of the second sentence?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-3-question-08/

0

So I chose answer choice A because author Q simply states, " ought to have been effective, but he has not been" the author is just saying that he's been ineffective but doesn't offer up any evidence as to why he is ineffective. Can someone explain to me why my reasoning is wrong? that would be greatly appreciated! thank you!!!!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-2-question-11/

0

Hey guys!

Hope everyone had an amazing holiday weekend!

I've decided to go back over some of the very beginning core stuff to make sure I have a solid understanding before moving on in the curriculum. I have the LSAT Trainer and I'm trying to use that as supplemental material to explain the concepts I'm having trouble with. This is going to seem really silly...maybe it's because I'm just starting out, but this threw me for a loop:

"When we are asked to evaluate the reasoning in an argument, it is always in terms of a very specific task: our job is always to evaluate and understand why the reasons given DO NOT justify the point that is made. For every one of these questions, your understanding of why the support doesn't justify the conclusion will be your primary gauge for evaluating right and wrong answers (p.35)."

So every argument is wrong? For some reason I remember hearing JY say don't worry about whether the argument is RIGHT OR WRONG..... What is the logical reasoning section asking me to DO?

If anyone could help clarify this, I'd greatly appreciate it!

Thanks guys!

0

Does the LSAT reuse questions from other tests, i.e. The GMAT? I looked up one of the LR questions (preptest 32 section 4 question 10, western moral values), and a bunch of GMAT forums came up with the exact same stimulus, question, answer choices, and correct answer!

0

Hi there,

I'm a mature student (33 years old, and have been out of school for 8 years). I've been studying for the LSAT through 7Sage for the last 5 months, and I'm already scoring quite high in my practice tests. I take the LSAT in September, so I feel I have a realistic chance of scoring in the 170s on the test based on how I've been doing.

That said, my GPA from my undergrad degree from 8 years ago is only 3.6. Not horrible, but not amazing. If I want to get into a top school (my dream school would be Yale, but I'm also looking into Uof Toronto here in Canada), am I just automatically out of the race because I don't have a 3.9 GPA? I mean I know there are always exceptions, but how many really?

Since leaving school I have done a lot of things, like living abroad in 5 countries teaching english, and I also published a book with New York University Press on sex and gender issues. So I feel that could all work in my favor. I'm not sure how much those top schools weigh your GPA if you've been out of school for more than 5 years. Would my book and other publications be more what they focus on?

Any thoughts appreciated!

1

Ask him anything!

Office Hours with David

Thursday, June 1, 6:30 PM EDT

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

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/181002101

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States: +1 (571) 317-3122

Access Code: 181-002-101

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

3

Confirm action

Are you sure?