Discussions

All posts

New post

477 posts in the last 30 days

Hi friends -

I wanted to follow up on a question I posted a couple of months ago, about what comes after the CC. I'm now close to the end of the Core Curriculum. Well, actually...I still have most of the Logic Games curriculum ahead of me, but I've had prior exposure to a very similar methodology for Games, so I'm hoping to cover the lessons in about 2 weeks' time.

However, I am still a little uncertain about how to best go about the Drilling / Timed Sections phase after the CC. Here's what I'm thinking:

Logic Games:

-Despite what I wrote above about prior exposure, I know this will be my weakest section when it comes time for drilling. I'm going to need tons of practice.

-I was thinking that I can Foolproof about one PT section per day (PTs 1-35) until I feel like I "own the games," as JY puts it. I'm estimating that this might take say, about 4 hours per day.

-Additionally, redo a previous PT section that I've already Foolproofed, to make sure I can still do it (maybe another 35-60 minutes)

-Questions: What do y'all think about the aforementioned approach? And as I get more comfortable, should I move from Foolproofing to doing timed sections, before I start doing full-length PTs (36 onward)?

LR:

-Simultaneously, while working on the LG Foolproofing, I can do the LR Drills for PTs 1-9 that 7Sage provides in the Ultimate course.

-Question: Should I do timed sections after this first set of drills, before I start PTing?

-Question: Should I save the LR Drills for PTs 10 onward for my BR/PT phase?

RC:

This seems to be my best section thus far. I was thinking of doing a timed PT section per day (PTs 1-35) while Foolproofing LG and working on LR Drills.

Of course, this would probably require about 7 hours of training per day.

Then, once this phase is complete, I was thinking of doing two PTs per week in two 3-day cycles: -Day 1: PT or full-length exam

-Day 2: BR and score + review video explanations

-Day 3: Drill weaknesses

Question: Any thoughts on this PT/BR schedule?

Would love to hear what folks think about this plan -- and what's worked well for you as you've pursued the drilling and testing phases of this journey.

Tagging @"Alex Divine" and @Mellow_Z since both of you offered excellent responses to my earlier post :)

Many thanks! This community is just awesome, and I'm thrilled to be a 7Sager.

2

Hello everyone,

I feel as if I've hit a low point in my prep.

I am scheduled to review question types: MC, MSS, Causation-Phenomenon-Hypothesis, MBT and the 9 Valid Arg Forms, and Mastering the Memory Method for RC with Daniel' approach @danielznelson.

I started looking at LG to get a sense of the moving pieces on the board in sequencing, but I am getting a bit disenchanted that I can't upgrade to Ultimate+ so that I can have access to all the games in one place. It really sucks, actually, since I'm beginning to understand the strategies.

I think I fell to an all-time low on Saturday night when I realized that though I was able to finance a new car for work, and while I'm happy to have it, all I could think about was how it sucks that I still can't upgrade to Ultimate+ and what will the car loan mean for law school financial aid in 2018-2019?

I missed my Friday session because I was at the dealership, and today I'm out of it. Am I overthinking this ???

0

Hello,

I have a question on a reading comprehension question (PT 19 S3 Q18). I was really shocked to see that the answer was E. While testing, I thought this was a typical trap answer choice used in weakening questions on logical reasoning, and I can't seem to understand why this is the answer. With respect to the rate-of-speciation hypothesis, the author of the passage compares the arctic and tropics, stating that the "subgroups in an arctic environment are more likely to face extinction than those in the tropics," and that "the latter are more likely to survive long enough to adapt." (lines 57 - 61)

On the other hand, answer choice E states that "most of the isolated subgroups of mammalian life within a tropical zone are found to experience rapid extinction." In assessing this, I thought this had no bearing on weakening the argument made in the passage because it did not compare between the arctics and tropics. Who cares if "most" of the life in the tropics experience rapid extinction? I thought:

(1) most? if there were 100 million subgroups, and only 20 million survived, who is to say that this is not enough to create a new species?

(2) the rate-of-speciation hypothesis is in regards to the rate of speciation compared to that of extinction (lines 45 - 48). Even if there is a high rate of extinction, if there is a higher rate of speciation compared to that of extinction, the hypothesis would still hold

and

(3) as this answer choice does not compare arctics to tropics, who is to say that the arctics do not have an even more rapid rate of extinction? Therefore, there a more species in the tropics than the arctic.

Is there something that I'm missing? The only reason I can think of to why the answer is E is just that it is just the best out of the bunch. Still, I would like to think that if such a question were to appear on a logical reasoning question, it would be a wrong answer choice... Any help would be great with this question!

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

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-3-passage-3-questions/

0

Okay so I bought The LSAT Trainer book and read just the RC section and did the practice drills. Well, I took my first full length timed RC section (PT 47) and scored absolutely horrible! missing 6/8 more than normal. Is PT 47 just unusually hard or did I screw up my RC strategies?

0

is it logically valid to conclude that if A-->B, then A+C -->B?

I am reviewing S3 Q19 from PT 51.

The correct AC seems to mobilize this reasoning.

0

In one lesson, Jy says, the contapositive of "If Tom plays then Jerone and Simmi play too", is " If Jerone and Simmi do not play, then Tom won't play". However, it can be that J and S can play, even though T does not. If it would say "Only if Tom, then..", then ok I agree with this. But I do not understand why it cannot be that J and S can play, even though T does not?

0

I currently work 9-5 on weekdays, in addition to a few hours on both Saturday and Sunday morning. My weekend work is pretty physically demanding, so I'm kind of tired after even though those shifts are quite short. This has been going on since the beginning of my LSAT prep in late May. I generally take practice tests around 7pm or later, or, on the weekends, after a tiring morning; I know this is far from ideal, as many recommend making Saturday morning your PT time.

Has anyone had a similar experience re: only taking PTs when already tired? I will have some actual time off in 2 weeks, so I'll be able to PT when I'm fresh in the morning at that point, but I'm curious as to whether it'd be unreasonable to expect a little improvement in my performance simply because of the increased energy. I realize this might very well be extremely wishful thinking, but I figured I'd ask.

I should note that I've gotten some great, and some really not great, scores on days that I'm exceptionally tired…maybe there really is no correlation?

Thanks in advance for any insights you might be able to share---so grateful for this community!

p.s. in case anyone suggests I PT before work, it's just not feasible. My commute isn't incredibly long but I don't sleep well at night--getting up at 5 to PT before my commute isn't worth it.

0

Hello everyone!

So I recently purchased the LG Powerscore Bible since I have not had much practice with logic games and I really needed some type of guidance to get me started. I finished the workbook within 3 days and I was just wondering if the LG Powerscore Bible covers everything well or if it just introduces us to the easier games?

I feel pretty good now that I have completed the workbook, however I don't want to get too excited especially if the questions and games in the book are some of the easier batch and don't cover everything that we might tackle on test day. Now that I have completed the workbook, I will be starting to do the LG games and follow the 7Sage method (ie. printing 10 games/BR method, although I think I am going to focus on this method since I save a lot of paper and I save a lot of time doing all the games.

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/2737

I am writing the LSAT in September, or well at least that is what I hope for. If I feel I'm not ready by September, I will definitely take the December test since I do not want to rush myself.

Also, which games would you guys recommend if I am a bit on a time crunch? I work only once a week and don't have any other activities planned for the month so I aim to study 7-8 hours 6 days a week. I have just got down logic games. I will be now moving on to RC and LR in terms of learning strategy in the core curriculum (Yes, I'm weird.. I did all the logic game sections in the CC before going on to LR and RC since I took Kaplan previously).

Any advice would be great! Thank you!

0

Hello fellow 7Sagers,

I am currently in a dilemma of whether I should purchase the LSAT Trainer? I have bought the Powerscore LG Workbook and I have found it to be quite helpful in terms of working out logic games, however my real struggle comes with logical reasoning and reading comprehension. I have heard good things about it, I don't really want to waste more money on the book if it really won't help me.

I am not sure if the LSAT Trainer is more of a workbook or more of an all-inclusive book on mainly strategy. I am of course using the core curriculum, however I am still struggling with LR and RC.

Any suggestions are helpful at this point.

Thank you!

0

Some Mr. Rogers motivation. Hopefully the answer to this is something about LSAT experience and insight

PT 71 RC on Tuesday August 8th at 7PM EST

Experimental LR from PT 41 (2nd LR section)

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

If the link doesn't work, google Go To Meeting and enter the meeting access code

Requirements:

  • For everyone: Must be finished with the core curriculum, have a solid understanding of question types, be able to identify the premises and conclusions, understand conditional logic, etc; Come to each PT review sessions with at least 2 priority questions to discuss (because it is highly unlikely we are scoring 180 under timed conditions)Must attend the first or second meetingMust not miss consecutive meetings. Things come up and so an absence is understandable, but if you routinely miss meetings consecutively, I'll offer your position to the next person who expressed interest.

    • The That's So Ravenclaw study group is for 12 people who are committed to studying and improving their test performance for the September 2017 LSAT. Workshops and intensives to eliminate weaknesses will also be made available to the study group. Tuesday at 7pm is our additional study time to meet to go over other questions we didn't get to on Sunday. Comment below if you would like me to tag you for our meetings. This group will be going private in 2 weeks.

    Tentative Schedule: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=00ppvvc0gp9hdvin7b0p3igdhg%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/New_York

    0

    Hey 7Sagers!

    In terms of submitting LOR to LSAC - once the professor gets the link, do they submit only one LOR and then we distribute the same letter to each law school? Or do they need to provide multiple/ tailor each LOR to the school...? Let's say you're applying to five, do you ask your professor for five? So lost....

    Thanks YALL.

    0

    Hi all,

    I am having difficulty gaging the rolling admission process. I am taking the September exam because I have been planning to get my app in as soon as possible. But, I don't think I'm ready. I will probably remain scoring in the mid 150s. But I've had less than a month of proper study time. I know I can do a lot better if I wait for December. But, I have a fear it is detrimental to apply that late in the game. Is that true?

    0

    I can't see why E is a better AC that D. Any thoughts?

    Flaw

    Argument Summary:

    Context: The presence of X has conditioned the US to support a substantial defense budget.

    Premise 1: X is gone.

    Conclusion: Doubtful that the public will support an adequate defense budget.

    Prephrase:

    X-->Y

    /X

    /Z

    Huh? What is an “adequate” budget in the absence of X? That is the issue here.

    Answer Choices:

    A) No it definitely does not. It does just the opposite and presume the public cannot be manipulated in the absence of X. Eliminate.

    B ) Well it does do this but that is not the flaw. The issue lies in term “adequate”. Eliminate.

    C) He uses the descriptor “doubtful”. Definitely not it. This is confusing because it’s hard to understand. But it is false and not the flaw. Eliminate.

    D) Well yea it does do this. The argument concludes /Z, but provides no support for that in the argument.

    E) Yes it does this too. What the hell does “adequate” even mean?

    0

    Hello! Any advice I can get would be greatly appreciated :)

    I am going to be finishing my in-class Blueprint prep course in about a month that's for people taking the September LSAT. I recently decided however that I wont be doing the September exam anymore and will be taking a few more months to study for the December LSAT instead. The Blueprint class has been an extremely helpful beginning for me since it's put me in a structured schedule with fun lessons that are easy for me to understand. I went from143 to 152 in a month and I think I can probably make it to 160 by mid-September, but I'd like to get to over 170 by December.

    My dilemma is I don't know what the best way to do that is. Do I renew my online blueprint account until December and just keep practicing those online practice questions on my own? I also considered doing another in class course of some kind just to keep me motivated in a schedule but those are so expensive and I feel like I wouldn't get that much benefit from it since I already do know the basics. I've also considered buying a 7Sage package but I have some concerns with that like unnecessarily confusing myself with the different strategies that 7Sage presents in comparison to Blueprint. I don't want to feel like I'm wasting time starting from scratch or that I have to unlearn the Blueprint strategies just so I can relearn from 7Sage or whatever other companies' strategies without confusion. I'm also not great at self-studying. I do have motivation and discipline to study a lot and work hard, but I usually need to be in some kind of structure like a class in order to do that to my greatest potential. This brought me to consider getting a tutor that I could see weekly and that could just customize helping me based on what level I'm already at and adding to strategies I'm already using. What do you all think would be the best option to get me to a minimum of 170 by December?

    Also if you have tried a tutor before did it work for you? Any really good tutor recommendations? And if you have studied for the LSAT using two companies before, did you feel like it got confusing or that you had to start over?

    Thanks for reading!! :)

    0

    Hey guys!

    I am planning to write the LSAT in September/December, depending on how far I get with my studying this month. I do not have school right now and I only work once a week so I literally have all month to study diligently for the September LSAT. Right now, I am just finishing up the core curriculum, although I tend to follow a slightly different approach in terms of getting the most time effective studying done.

    Let me know if any of you are interested in either doing PT's together or are in the same boat as I am in.

    I can meet anywhere in the lower mainland. I prefer meeting in Surrey or Vancouver though.

    Admin Edit: Please don't post titles in all caps, the admins are sensitive.

    0

    Confirm action

    Are you sure?