People who have done a lot of PTs often talk about the shift in language in the last 10 PTs, yet don't always know how to articulate what that shift specifically was. I think this is an example of a recent test question where the language has changed as compared to older tests (PTs 20-60).

I think the correct answer, E, requires you infer the author's perspective whereas older tests would have a more conservative interpretation of the stimulus. By saying that juries often make serious mistakes, you have to infer that the author would say making a serious mistake is an undesirable consequence.

In these LR questions where the stimulus has an opinion, it seems as though the test now tests your understanding of that opinion. That if someone is saying something would be a serious mistake, you need to be able to properly infer what that means. In this case, someone who says it would be a serious mistake then that person would also necessarily say that's an undesirable consequence.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-4-question-17/

I just noticed after months (lol years) of prep that in argument part questions, you'll get a question stem that says something to the effect of: "blah blah blah plays which one of the following roles in the argument"

Occasionally, you'll see an answer choice that says something like "it is information that the argument takes for granted"

"takes for granted" is just another way of saying "assumption." If this is the case, then surely these answer choices must always be wrong because assumptions are, by definition, unstated premises.

Has anyone else found this/contradiction of this?

Thanks.

It's always the one star question that throws me for a loop...

This was a question I circled for BR and even after thoroughly reviewing it, I chose incorrectly (D).

The question gives us and a problem and principle.

Problem: Some of the rebate coupons that were distributed had an expiration date that was incorrect--it was too early. So some customers would unfairly believe that the rebate offer had already expired when it did not.

Principle: Anyone who creates an unfair situation has an obligation to rectify any unfair result of that situation.

So I definitely was attracted to C and D here. I can kind of see why C is a correct choice, but I am having an issue eliminating D.

D says that, since the corporation cannot identify all of the customers who were adversely affected by the incorrect expiration date, the corporation should deny the rebate to everyone who applied for it.

In real life, this seems harsh and kind of a ridiculous solution. But logically, would it not rectify any unfair result? There would be no unfairness because everyone gets treated the same way. No imbalance, no advantages, etc. The reason I liked D over C was because C presents a situation in which the corporation attempts to rectify the situation, but the principle does not say that the obligation is to attempt to rectify it. The principle says that the obligation IS to rectify it. Point blank. No excuses. Which is why D, although harsh, I feel is better justified. D presents a definitively equal situation while C presents an attempt at offering a fair result to whoever they are able to identify.

Any help would be much appreciated.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-1-question-06/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-3-question-11/

When I was timing myself, this question took me almost 2 minutes because I couldn't choose the right answer choice. I think I was not understanding the first sentence correctly.

Special kinds of cotton (green or brown) only recently became commercially feasible when a long-fiber that could be spun by machine was bred

Following the translation mechanisms, I identified "when" as Group 1 (Sufficient) and wrote:

Machine --> Commercially feasible [/Commercially feasible --> /Machine]

(It seems like some commentators on this video explanation page did the same translation.)

But I think (B) (correct answer choice) says:

Hands --> /Commercially viable [Commercially viable --> /Hands]

So I was like, "uh...I don't think this MUST be true."

However, when I read carefully, I think this sentence is saying:

(My understanding) Until recently when a long-fiber that could be spun by machine was bred, special kinds of cotton (green or brown) were not commercially feasible

/Machine --> /Commercially feasible

So it's actually:

(My understanding) Special kinds of cotton (green or brown) became commercially feasible only when a long-fiber that could be spun by machine was bred

Commercially feasible --> Machine

And I think (B) (Hands (/Machine) --> /Commercially feasible) matches this.

Is my understanding correct?

Also, I'm figuring out how to shave off time, and I noticed that @"J.Y. Ping" didn't really draw a diagram in the video.

Is it better if I don't use conditional logic for a question like this in order not to get confused since it's "giving us information about something that happened in the past and its absolute" ( quoting @Sami 's words from this thread https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/11018/the-only-translation-and-or :) )? I would appreciate if someone could tell me the best way to solve this question.

i'm noticing a trend in my preptests:

finish a preptest feeling like i bombed it ------> usually a higher score.

finish a preptest feeling like i aced it ------> ok, but not great score.

anyone else notice any trends in their emotional state after completing a preptest?

i'm trying to use this information to train myself to ignore my self doubt after i take the actual test.

if you have already taken the lsat: did your emotional state and expectations after the test match your test score?

Yay!

I am having a hard time understanding this section of the lesson and am hoping some folks can weigh in on it. I think I'm a bit lost because there is little context on when I would be using these tools and how. Also, I am unsure exactly what to memorize. Should I be memorizing both the valid and invalid diagrams and be prepared to use them in future lessons? Also could someone explain exactly which types of questions these will be useful for? Thanks in advance. :)

Okay, so, my particular situation is that I've been attempting to do prep with PowerScore for a long time (3 years as of this month). I've taken the test 3 times already and am about to do a 4th.

"Why on earth would you take a test so many times when you've already taken a good prep course?!"

Great question, Jimmy! The reason why is that my consistency and willingness to practice and drill sections of the LSAT has been lackluster and nearly non-existent since I started in 2014. Why I didn't practice? Because I thought the LSAT was a breeze, through all 3 attempts. My last attempt in October 2015 was my painful wake-up call that I couldn't just simply read the material without any practice and expect to get a 160+ on this test.

My score has been 142, 147, and 146. Quite terrible.

I saw results when I started looking through 7Sage's LG explanations. Started to really understand them. Now, I'd like to do prep with both PowerScore and 7Sage with 7Sage being the supplement in case PowerScore's jargon-y explanations didn't crack it.

What do you guys think?

So I just got rejected from my first choice law school in Canada today (3rd rejection so far, sadly).

Disappointed but I have no time for negativity...gotta think of waitlist strategies!

I am currently on the waitlist at one university and being considered for the waitlist at another.

I wanted to ask if anyone has any advice on waitlist strategies:

I have visited both campuses and already sent a LOCI to the one in which I am being considered and am currently writing another LOCI to send to the other school.

Is this pretty much the only strategy going forward?

I am also scheduled to write the June LSAT but both schools do not consider that.

I would appreciate any input.

Thanks in advance.

After the CC, I have worked through PTs 1-4. I'm planning on taking the test in September but I can push it back if need be. My scores are 162, 160, 162 and 169. I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the 169. Before 7sage, I was working through Kaplan and so I might have burned some of the PT 60s (I was doing individual sections as opposed to full length tests). My diagnostic at the very beginning (back in November) was 148 so I have had significant improvement already. I'm also worried that I have peaked in terms of improvement.

Should I start taking PTs 20+? Is it worth it to go that far back? I know that the level of difficulty tends to change. September is getting closer and closer so I know it would be difficult to go through all 80 preptests. Plus, I would like to save PTs just in case I don't get the score I want on the first try.

How do you get rid of the feeling that your brain is just filled with gauze?

Every time I try and do a preptest, I feel like my brain is fogged up. It goes away eventually, but comes back again irregularly throughout the process. How do I keep my mind completely sharp and clear throughout the test?

So i took my first ever cold diagnostic LSAT exam on Tuesday and i scored a 140.

I just started the Kaplan Review Course this week and its 3 nights a week.

My LSAT is June 12th.

So i have 33 days to raise my score.

My goal is a 160.

Is that possible? Does anyone else have kind of similiar experience? Any study tips that really helped?

I am not pushing my exam date back. I am already registered. So its happening no matter what.

Thank you!!

Hi Everyone,

Last session was great. Thanks to everyone who showed up. We made RC fun!. : )

So last time we focused on low resolution-high resolution summary and how to read and comprehend RC passages effectively. This time, in addition to practicing this method, we are going to do one A-B passage. There is a different way to do such passages which makes these kinds of passages a piece of cake and I think it would be helpful to show and practice this method.

Since A-B passages don't start till later PT's, we would be practicing on one of the recent tests, PT 65. But I think even if some of you havn't done any of the recent PT's, it would be helpful to use one of them to understand how to do these kind of passages. There are 86 PT's to practice, using one for learning LSAT will be a good call.

If any one of you does not want to Burn PT 65, you are welcome to take it on your own. But lets Blind Review Passage 3 together.

If you do not have time to take it, that's fine as well. We will go over the passage together.

Let me know what you guys think.

P.S. Does this time work better for some of you who couldn't make it last time?

To join the meeting, just follow the link below at the meeting time. I'll see you all there (3.(/strong)

Sami's RC Tutoring- AB Passage

Sun, May 14, 2017 6:30 PM - 8:30 PM EDT

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

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/764143181

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States: +1 (224) 501-3412

Access Code: 764-143-181

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

Hi all,

I have a question about correlations, as related to the LSAT. For example, PT77.S2.Q25 "The longer an animal can stay submerged in a dive, the deeper an animal can dive."

Do this statement go both ways, i.e. You can validly conclude that:

Feel free to just answer my question above, but delving even deeper into theory here, correct me if I'm wrong:

*I'm assuming that causality GENERALLY goes one way, but can go both ways. I.e., The Alliance system caused the war (it wouldn't be correct to say the war caused the Alliance system.) However, I can also think of some examples where an effect could be a cause and a cause could be an effect.

*What about correlation?

I don't know if there is a technical definition on the matter, but I'm curious what scores/GPAs make you a splitter. Is it overall, or specific to school?

For ex: a below 3 GPA and an above 170 LSAT is clearly a splitter.

But say you have a 3.5 or 3.6 GPA and an above 170 score. Is that STILL a splitter at the top schools? Or does the 170+ score override your good (but not great) GPA?

I feel like it becomes even more complicated when you parse out the scores above 170. At what point above 170 do the returns on another point stop increasing?

I realize this is a multi-layered question with a lot of hypothetical situations, so it may not be a worthwhile exercise for many. But then again maybe it is, since I know a lot of people probably have similar thoughts.

Here to vent a little bit.

I've been having horrible headaches this week and put in couple bad PT's.

Last week, I PT'd 65 and got a 167/173. Highest BR score and second highest real score ever.

The last 2 PT's this week have been 161 and 162 (both high BR scores).

I have been rock steady in LG for some time now but this week I missed -7 and -9. The new RC is difficult, but I have improved from not being able to even finish to becoming better. One silver lining is my LR, which I scored as good as -2 on.

I feel like I have a good grasp on the fundamentals but it's just been tough. Hope you guys have had a better week then me.

Edit: Any advice/encouragements/venting is welcome :):):)

I really enjoyed these sessions. Essentially, we answered questions live and rotated BRing them 1-on-1 with JY. We learned a whole lot about ways to approach question analysis and to gauge how well we really understand a question -- whether or not we answered it correctly.

My notes from these sessions are shared below. I see now that most of what I wrote for any given QT is actually applicable across the section, so I've gone ahead and reorganized my notes to reflect that. So if you are wondering why there are only few a lines under each QT but a whole lot under Best Practices, that's why : )

Best Practices

AC Strategy

-Narrowed down to 2 AC: circle key words and ID the main points to differentiate the two. Weigh them against one another again and skip/answer.

-Skipping is powerful because we usually interpret better on the second read. Don't even feel obligated to read the AC. Collect your coconuts.

-Don't latch onto AC. We may find ourselves spending 30+ seconds with a single AC just trying to make sense of it but that is stupid because it may not even make any sense to begin with. If you don't have a strong pre-phrase in your head, skim the AC ruthlessly. One of them may jump out as correct. Some may jump out as incorrect.

-Sometimes test writers place the correct answer for highly difficult questions as A or B hoping that when we read these AC, we are still processing the stimulus.

BR Strategy

-Get used to thinking in terms of Domains of Discourse. That will help you generally understand, ID flaws, and de-clutter your diagrams

-Match up corresponding ideas within analogies between the stimulus and AC. Think up additional analogies.

-Cookie Cutters are your friends. Study them so that you can identify them in whatever form they take. Test writers can dress them up in all sorts of creative ways. But if I gifted you a hockey stick, would it matter what color wrapping paper I used?

-There are also Cookie Cutter stimuli. Study these too.

-Sometimes the stimuli and the scenarios they describe or totally unrelatable. When this happens, think of your own real world substitute that matches and is easier to deal with.

Misc

-Once you start seeing the "Matrix" in LR, you won't know where you are until you attempt being 100% aggressive. Do confidence drills starting at 100% aggression (no diagramming, select what you think is right without looking at other AC, etc) and scale back accordingly. Calibrate you confidence level to your ability.

MSS

3 Major Cookie Cutter Types:

-(1) The stimulus is missing a main conclusion which the correct AC provides -- code name: "Extended MP Question"

-(2) The correct AC restates a premise (super premise) or pushes out an inference from 2 premises -- code name: "Mega MSS"

-(3) The correct AC summarizes the stimulus

SA

If you are reading carefully and your intuition is good, the stimulus probably won't flow smoothly. That is because you've detected the gap which we need to plug. Learn to enjoy that discomfort and focus on IDing exactly where that gap is.

Try to get comfortable visualizing aspects of the stimulus and AC in abstract form. If you can see ideas in terms of shapes or "things", that can simplify a purposefully convoluted and wordy stimulus. It can also help us decipher AC by IDing the structure of a given AC: "No [thing]" vs "Any [thing]. Think about what effect those conditional indicators have on their proceeding terms.

PSA

"Pseudo" is not usually that "pseudo" -- don't use the marginal wiggle room allowed on these questions to justify bad and incorrect AC.

PSA vs Principle: Understanding your task

-The QS can be easy to confuse, but the activities they require of us are completely different.

-Principle doesn't show up much, but if we understand PSA/SA, then it shouldn't trip us up because this questions all contain the same puzzle pieces it's just a matter of which one are provided and which we need to ID in the AC.

-To be honest, I still am having trouble differentiating these but I am not missing them either.

PR(F)

-Explicitly line up analogies in BR. Which ideas in the correct AC correspond with ideas from the stimulus? Do this for incorrect AC as well.

-In BR, alter wrong AC so that they would be correct. That will help strengthen your intuition for what was actually wrong. I think this exercise is also good for that thing we do where we read and AC and it sounds good about halfway through but then what we needed (and expected) to be said next wasn't -- and it's wrong because of it.

-Triage. Experiment which prioritizing AC. For example, reading the conclusions first to see if they match.

Flaw

-Learn and lean on the Cookie Cutter flaws. Not every question is Cookie Cutter, but if you know them, then when you face a misc. question, you'll be able quickly eliminate Cookie Cutter AC.

-AC will use tons of abstract language to confuse you and eat up time. Attempt to bring these AC down to the level of the stimulus. Replace the abstract language with corresponding ideas from the stimulus. This process will be much more rigorous in the BR but if you are choosing between 2 AC, deploy this method.

-Correct AC must (1) Be descriptively accurate and (2) Be the flaw

-"Fails to consider..." are almost always accurate because the avg stimulus is only like 4 sentences long. But is it the flaw?

NA

-An NA is an extremely powerful idea, though it looks and sounds weak. That is because without that assumption, the whole argument fall to bits.

Hi,

I was wondering if someone could help clarify something for me. When you see this particular question stem, "reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it presumes," do you think of trying to find an assumption or just to identify the flaw. Any suggestions for eliminating answer choices for these flaw questions that are more subtle?

Thank you!

Hi 7Sagers,

This is a question mainly directed at those who have already taken the LSAT. It says on the bubble sheet to "not leave any stray marks", etc.

However, I've gotten into the habit of circling the numbers on my bubble sheet to come back to for blind reviewing. Has anyone else done this on the actual test? Does it impact scoring?

If it does, what do y'all do to notate questions you want to come back to without writing on the bubble sheet?

Thanks in advance!

I can access my syllabus but when I click on anything it will not load.

Admin edit: We're aware of the issue and are looking into it. Sorry about this, guys.

Admin edit 2: Fixed. Sorry for the trouble!

Hey, guys! A lot of the stuff available now was not available when I first enrolled so I'm not sure what's free and what's not. Will the analytics info still be available? Will all test scores be wiped? What about the e-docs purchased from 7Sage? TIA

I can access PF problem sets 4/5 and view the questions and printable versions of the questions, but when I open up the answer key and click explanation, there is a lock. That lock takes me to the LSAT Ultimate+ upgrade page. Are sets 4/5 Ultimate+ problem sets? Usually an Ultimate+ problem set is locked from the syllabus page. For instance, once I click into the PF Problem Set 4 page, I can click on the "Lesson12 of 13" link underneath the "Parallel Flaw Questions Problem Set 4" title which shows me that PF Problem Sets 6/7 are locked for me and that they require Ultimate+. So are 4/5/6/7 all Ultimate+ sets and for some reason I'm getting partial access to 4/5 or am I given access to 4/5 as a regular Ultimate member but for some reason getting locked out of the explanations because of a technical error?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-4-question-16/

Strengthen Question

I was able to get this one correct by eliminating wrong choices, but I have a question regarding the answer choice (C).

(C) says when two methods provide the same type of information, the more intrusive one shouldn't be used.

From Dr. K's argument, we know that electronic fetal monitors (EFM) "do no more" to increase the chances that a baby will be born in good health than ordinary stethoscopes, but does this mean EFM and ordinary stethoscopes provide the same kind of info?

From Dr. A's argument, we know that Dr. K does acknowledge that both methods provide the same information, but can we use our knowledge we get from Dr. A's argument to strengthen Dr. K's argument?

I just got an email with 2 pdfs from LSAC and in one they stated: "You will receive an analysis of your personal performance on the

pilot test approximately 6 weeks after the administration. This analysis will include the number of correct and incorrect answers in each section and for groups of questions involving certain types of skills."

Im taking the pilot test to get jitters out of the way but I was hoping to know my score before the June LSAT. Doesn't it seem weird that it takes 6 weeks instead of the normal 4, even though its a pilot? Isn't the point to know your score right after or maybe a little after the test.

Thoughts?

Relative v. absolute

A is faster than B, therefore A is fast. Well, not necessarily. A is faster than B in relative terms. It doesn’t imply that A is fast in absolute terms. For example, we know that the conclusion in this statement is not true: “Hippopotamuses are smaller than an elephants. Therefore, hippopotamuses are small.” Or take this statement: “Turtles are faster than ants. Therefore, turtles are fast.”

Can someone please explain this?