Hello! Welcome to the official 2017 September Study Group! Navigating and communicating in the old thread was a royal PITA so I have decided to create a new thread that should be easier to communicate on.

Tonight I am hosting an informal "kick-off" of sorts. I want to get everyone who thinks they will be committed to this group in the call to discuss our goals and desires for how to make this study group as beneficial as possible.

https://media.giphy.com/media/p2FmUZ8rR5IBi/giphy.gif

Note: We will not be using Go To Meeting. It is going to be too hard to coordinate around scheduling conflicts tonight, so we're going to try Join.Me instead. It should work almost exactly the same way, except there will be no dial-in #. This means you must have a stable internet connection. Sorry for any inconvenience this may cause.

Time: 7:30p EDT / 6:30p CST / 4:30p PST

Link: https://join.me/SeptemberLSAT

Requirements: All I ask is that you come prepared and willing to talk. This will work best if I get feedback from you guys. This group isn't going to be me leading and making all of the choices; I want it to be a collaboration between all of us. So the more you guys talk, the less I have to, and the better that is for everyone :lol:

BR Schedule:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NqvbW4p83dpFmihrUOeWf6Dx8ETo25rLE1q1nPzOrpg/edit?usp=sharing

Above is a link to my tentative BR schedule. I have options of both 5 and 6 section PT's. It's kind of hard to follow so maybe don't look into that area too much since I'll be discussing it in detail tonight to see what you guys think. I just want to give you all time to digest the content so that you have time to formulate ideas and feedback for me.

I'm sort of in a dilemma: I use a watch because I need to keep track of time in each section, but when I look at my watch and if I see I'm a bit behind my pacing, then I get stressed about not having enough time to finish a section, and do worse!

RC is a good example. Sometimes I'll get to the last passage with, say, 6 minutes left, but then I get stressed that's not enough time to answer all of the questions, and I ultimately do worse overall on that section than if, I imagine, I kept on going and maybe did not reach the last question. Same with LR; if I don't finish the first 10 in 10, then I feel pressured to rush through the next questions, and see my performance drop overall.

The takeaway seems that I need to improve on timing so I don't feel rushed (which I imagine also will improve my LSAT confidence). I've also thought about no longer using a watch.

Has anyone else been in a similar situation or have any advice?

Hope everyone had an opportunity to gain insight on JYs PT80 calls last week!

If you are still committed to taking June, join an informal group for BR on PT79 review during our final weeks of prep:) If interested, post or send a PM for details.

See you Tuesday!

With these being a bit wordier than your average LR question (especially with the AC's), what is an appropriate time to shoot for?

Hi All,

I could use some help with this necessary assumption question. I definitely see why C is a necessary assumption, but I'm having a hard time figuring out why E is not also an equally necessary assumption. I have yet to find an explanation online that addresses my thought process.

The argument is as follows:

P1: Nuclear reactors are sometimes built in “geologically quiet” regions.

P2: Geologists call these regions “geologically quiet” because such regions are distant from plate boundaries and contain only minor faults.

P3: No minor fault in a geologically quiet region produces an earthquake more often than once in any given 100,000- year period.

C: Out of all the potential nuclear reactor sites in such a region, the ones that are least likely to be struck by an earthquake are ones located near a fault that has produced an earthquake within living memory.

I had chosen E, but the correct answer is C. I see why C is a necessary assumption, but my current issue is seeing why E is not.

C is correct because we cannot assume the relative location of the nuclear reactors to the minor faults. It could be that some nuclear reactors are on one end of the "geologically quiet" region and that the minor faults are miles away. C addresses the assumption necessary to position all the nuclear reactors on the same playing field (proximity wise), which renders the conclusion's validity possible.

When I chose E, it was based on a similar thought process that I believe C requires...I chose E because the stimulus never said that the faults had to produce earthquakes. The stimulus says that the maximum is one earthquake every 100,000 years, but what if there are some faults (or entire regions...) that produce NO earthquakes? In that case, it is not the faults that have had an earthquake in living memory that are the least likely to be struck by an earthquake-- the least likely would be the faults that are "dormant" or "inactive." E fixes this by establishing that there will be at least 1 every 100,000 years (in conjunction with the stimulus, that means there will be exactly 1 every 100,000 years).

Can someone help me out here? I see two equally necessary assumptions and I know I'm most likely misinterpreting the stimulus? Or E?

Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-2-question-21/

For logic games, if the question is asking for a CBT could a MBT be correct? For example, if R has to go into the 9th spot and R being in the 9th spot is one of the answer choices, could that be correct? TYA!

Ramadan Mubarak to my fellow Muslim 7sagers! Perfect time to recharge our faith and get more LSAT prep in without having to worry about eating/drinking throughout the day :D

Hi could someone help me out with the diagramming on this one? I found it absolutely confounding and I'm usually pretty decent at conditional phrasing.

So what I took away from this after looking at this thoroughly was that the original logic chain is something to the effect of:

P1: EW (Weak Economy) -> PRC (Prices Remain Constant) and UR (Unemployment Rises)

P2: UR -> ID (Investment Decreases)

P3: /ID

What I got from this was: EW-> PRC

-> UR -> ID

Arrow in the second line after the blank is supposed to symbolize the "and." (And is split after, Or is split before)

From there: /ID ->/UR ->/EW

PRC seems irrelevant now since you've already failed part of the "and". Sufficient (EW) is already failed by /UR, therefore PRC floats. It can do whatever.

How do we get from /ID ->/UR ->/EW

to /EW -> ID must be false

Not sure how this is correct. Obviously, since we know ID is stated in the stimulus, this must be true. Then it says EW, which we know not to be true.

Similarly, with D, we know that the economy is not weak, must be true, but prices remaining constant, I have no idea how this figures in.

Same thing with E. Either unemployment is rising, and we know that it isn't, or the economy is not weak, which also must be true. We know both of these must be true. Still not sure how this translates into an either...or statement.

What am I missing here? Is it something to with the either...or statements?

Hey, anybody out there scoring 170 on their practice LSATs? I'm beginning my studying, and I want to make sure I kill it and do it right. How are you going about it? Do you make sure that you're only studying in absolute silence or something? Always in a library/ in your favourite chair at home? Have some sort of night ritual that helps it all sink in? My GPA is 3.9, so I think I have a real chance at bringing in a high score. Much appreciated.

Principle or PSA question?

In LR, I try to identify the question type as quickly as possible, but sometimes I cannot identify immediately. I have hard time differentiating PSA and Principle questions under timed conditions.

Typical PSA questions are like:

"Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning above?"

and I can identify it as PSA immediately.

But for example, PT57.S2.Q1. says:

"The reasoning above most closely conforms to which one of the following principles?"

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-57-section-2-question-01/

This is a fairly easy question, but I didn't know that this is a PSA question until after I read the stimulus and ACs.

Do you have any tips in differentiating PSAs from Principles quickly?

=============================================

Is Q39.S2.Q11 a PSA question?

Also, 7Sage labeled Q39.S2.Q11 as PSA, but I feel like this is a Principle question since we're given a conditional statement in the stimulus, and answers give us a premise and a conclusion.

"Which one of the following judgements most closely conforms to the principle above?"

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-39-section-2-question-11/

Is this a PSA question? If so, can someone elaborate on the difference between PSA and Principle questions?

Thank you :)

I'm adding my explanation to this question since it doesn't currently exist on 7sage. Feel free to critique my reasoning.

This is a necessary assumption question. We know this because the question stem says the argument above makes which one of the following assumptions? The correct AC must be an assumption we know the argument makes. Therefore, it is a necessary assumption.

P: R bacteria provide nitrogen to bean plants and other legumes. Nitrogen is an essential plant nutrient. Wheat must normally be supplied nitrogen by nitrogen fertilizer.

C: If technology produces wheat strains that will host R bacteria, the need for fertilizers will be reduced.

Flaw: I originally thought but what if nitrogen is not the only essential plant nutrient for plants to grow? Might the need for fertilizer remain? B plays on this erroneous understanding. This isn't the actual flaw.

A. 'should' is irrelevant. This is not about what should happen it's about what is/will happen.

B. This was temping and it the trap answer choice. The conclusion says the need for artificial fertilizers will be reduced if biotech succeeds in producing wheat strains who host R bacteria. What about other reasons growers need to add fertilizer? Can we conclude from no longer needing nitrogen that fertilizer demand in general will be reduced? Even if nitrogen only comprises a small subset of all fertilizer use, if we eliminate the nitrogen need, then yes, the fertilizer demand will be reduced. This is true even if nitrogen is not the only soil nutrient that must be supplied. The key word to not falling for this trap answer choice is "reduced." Perhaps I was temped because I was thinking "eliminated." If the conclusion said the demand would be eliminated then yes nitrogen would have to be the only reason growers use fertilizer.

C. This is not necessary. It talks about other grasses but even if it didn't, even if there are strains of wheat that do have R naturally, we know there are some that aren't. That's what the whole argument is about so this is irrelevant.

D. Similar reasoning to C. We don't need legumes to be the only crops that produce nitrogen. We know some wheats don't and we know there is an existing need for nitrogen based fertilizer. The argument is simply saying the need will go down if wheat is modified to host R bacteria.

E. This is absolutely necessary. If the R bacteria did not produce nitrogen in the wheat roots then it wouldn't reduce the need for artificial fertilizer. This is the true flaw. Just because the plant will host the bacteria doesn't mean that it will necessarily have the desired effect.

So i am planning on taking the September LSAT. I am almost done my bachelors, all i have left is a 6 week online capstone. My question is, can i apply to school without having finished my bachelors yet? I dont want to take the capstone during my LSAT prep. So i was considering taking it at some point next year but i want to be considered for early decision for fall 2018. Was wondering if schools will extend an offer when i have not completed my bachelors yet. As of right now i have 3.9 gpa and i dont think this capstone will change that. Thanks for your help!!

Happy Sunday, everyone!

I'm currently working through the Core Curriculum, and for the harder problem sets in the Logical Reasoning modules (mostly Sufficient and Pseudo-Sufficient Assumption questions sets) I'm able to eliminate 3/5 answer choices without any problem. Of the remaining two answer choices (which is always the correct answer choice and one incorrect one) I end up eliminating the correct answer choice and choosing the incorrect one, even after carefully considering both options and writing down explanations for why I eliminated or chose each AC.

Has this ever happened to any of you, and what did you do to correct it?

Thank you for all your help ~ it has been invaluable in my study prep! =)

is it Some are not A and not B?

A --> C

B --> C

/A some /B

I was trying to translate this into english and was having some trouble.

for example,

all jedi use the force. all sith use the force.

if you are not a force user, you are not Jedi and not Sith

so..

some are not Jedi and Not Sith? ( /A some /B) is that correct?

I have taken the LSAT twice (both times over a year ago) and got 170 and 172, in that order. I have a 3.95 GPA and am considering retaking a third time because I know if I can get myself above 175, I would at least put myself in the running for some good money from CCN (specifically Hamilton at Columbia, since I know they tend to have a 174/175 cutoff). But I've also heard that having 3 takes can ding your application at HYS. Any thoughts on what I should do?

Whenever I run the 7Sage page on my Mac laptop it seems to randomly heat my computer up to the point where the fans are running at full speed and the laptop is hot to the touch. At first I thought it was caused by something else, so I spent some time clearing up memory, checking browser extensions, "turn it off and back on again", etc. The problem kept occurring, but only when I was on the 7Sage website working through the lessons. If I exit 7Sage, the laptop fans slow down and the internal temperature drops back down again almost instantly.

Just wondering if anyone else out there with a Mac laptop has this happen to them on the 7Sage page, and if so, is it normal? Do you know how to get my laptop to calm down?

Thanks in advance! :)

Hi all,

I just did a full-simulated LR section and scored -5. I missed #2 so I feel like I missed a big opportunity there. I haven't finished going through the curriculum. I take the September LSAT.

What's it going to take to get that number down to -3 or better on every.single.section? Could this be a pattern recognition issue or just more practice?

I feel -3 or less is a good goal because LR and RC are nearly impossible to score perfect consistently because of the varying nature.

Im having trouble understanding why answer choice E is correct. I chose answer choice D because the conclusion has to do with the experts being useless because they offered contradictory information. I thought that when were looking at reasoning method questions were supposed to look at the conclusion and see how it is flawed. Here is my reasoning for the other ones to be incorrect:

a) This isn’t the correct answer because its not talking about the argument

b) This is also incorrect because it has nothing to do with the argument

c) Why would we consider other opinions outside of health when were talking about health related issues

d) This is correct because Ive eliminated every other answer and also because they’re assuming that just because the expert opinions are trustworthy in one case that they have to be trustworthy in all cases

e) This is incorrect because the argument doesn’t have anything to with whether or not the coffee is good for you but rather the experts are useless

TYA!!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-1-question-06/

There was a logic game that has like 12 days or something, and the rules made it so day 1 was equivalent to day 7, day 2 equal to day 8, day 3 to day 9, etc. Do you guys know which game it was?

Through the BR process, I've noticed that I can attribute 1-2 missed questions per LR section to "misreading" the stimulus. It seems that I am prone to skip an important adjective that clarifies the correct AC. Most of the time, I approach the AC's with a good understanding of the argument/facts, but for the few questions that hinge on these small clarifiers, I often get burned.

When I read the stimulus, I typically follow the end of each line with my pencil. I've noticed in JY's live commentary videos, he tracks literally every word with his pencil. Does anyone have a method of reading (specifically in terms of pencil usage) that they feel allows them to capture even small details? Do you think I would benefit from switching to this more methodical approach? Thanks in advance!

If you are having trouble with Logic, or maybe just interested in gaining a more in-depth understanding of logic then check out this book:

Introduction to Logic (2nd Edition)

by Gensler

This was one of the first text books I used in in undergrad for an Intro to Logic class. I recently came across it in a box with all my other books from undergrad and decided to give it a quick skim -- turned out to be a great refresher!

It goes way more in-depth than anyone taking the LSAT would need, but still, I think it really has helped me understand the logic that undergirds much of the test. Even reading a few chapters I think would be of great supplement to anyone from beginners to high scorers alike. No need to read the entire thing, even skimming through it would be worth it. Especially the relevant chapters!

My goal is a 168+ to get into my target law schools.

My PT score range is 164-166. I have burned PTs from 55 - 70.

Today I had the worst score (PT70) since I started studying earlier this year.

I am contemplating withdrawing or taking the June test and immediately canceling. If I withdraw, I will lose money. If I take and cancel, I will also lose money BUT I will at least have had the experience of sitting and taking an offical LSAT.

The only other consideration is that I can not take the September LSAT due to work scheduling and I will instead be taking the December LSAT. I would like to apply this upcoming fall and I am a bit worried that December is late for the LSAT...

Thoughts?

Thank you.

Is there anyone in the Peoria, Illinois area who would be willing to practice Logic Games with me? I could use a little help.

Hi 7sagers!

What kinds of patterns have you seen emerge in MBT/MSS questions? For example, I personally have seen that for conditional - heavy stimuli, LSAC loves to use mistaken reversals & mistaken negations as wrong answer choices.

Are there any other patterns that you have noticed -- perhaps other patterns in the answer choices, in the stimulus structure, or in the way the answer choices relate to the stimulus?

I am about a third of the way done with the CC and plan on taking the LSAT in February 2018 (unless I'm not ready in which case, I will push back to June). I have fully subscribed to JY's notion of taking the test when ready not necessarily by a deadline so am in no rush. That being said, when would be a good time to start admissions prep? I have not thought much about it as I am more focused on mastering the test but I also don't want to be surprised and then have to scramble to throw together a (hopefully) good admissions packet. I feel like it shouldn't even be on my radar now but I have heard from other people that they spend part of their study time on admissions prep. Is there ever a time when it's too early to start ... or too late?