On PT 35 S1 Q15,

Conclusion: We should be skeptical about the magazine’s conclusion.

Premise: The sample is unrepresentative and the question is biased

answer choice B contains Most (the conclusion drawn in most magazine surveys have eventually been disproved.) and JY shared that it provides little bit of support to the argument.

my question is,

is it always safe to assume that MOST provides little bit of support for strengthening question?

how about for SOME?

Hi everyone. I'm having trouble following the rules to translate a sentence with a group 3 indicator. The lesson states that it doesn't matter which term you put as the sufficient condition at first, as the result will be the same - you negate one of the terms, and then create the counter-positive. I keep seeing 4 possible outcomes. Here's what I mean.

If you have the sentence: There is no reward without hard work.

"no reward" is /R; "hard work" is HW

Let's say we choose /R as the sufficient condition:

/R --> HW

To negate, you could either do:

/R --> /HW OR R --> HW (negate the "no reward")

That gives us the counter positives: HW --> R and /HW --> /R (If there is hard work, then there is a reward. If there is no hard work, then there is no reward)

Lets say you choose HW as the sufficient condition:

HW --> /R

To negate, you could either do:

/HW --> /R OR HW --> R

That gives counter positives: R --> HW and /R -- /HW (If there is a reward, then there is hard work. If there is no reward, there is no hard work)

Any suggestions for someone struggling with the required intuition to crack this?

Hello 7sagers,

I am thinking of doing free reading comprehension tutoring by using passages from older practice tests. Let me know if any one of you is interested in joining me.

I do want to put it out there that I am doing this primarily for my own good because RC happens to be my weakest section. My average for LR is -1.5 but RC is -5 at the moment. So I need to focus on that and one really good way to improve on RC is to go over it with someone.

So if you are struggling with RC and would like to work on this with me, I would be happy to help. But if you are doing well on RC and would still like to just work on it with me let me know as well. I think either way this could be helpful to everyone who just wants to work on improving their reading comprehension skills.

So yes : ) Let's tackle RC!

Update:

Hey everyone,

So I think the best way to proceed would be to just meet and do a passage together. We can rotate volunteers when we go to the next paragraph and then we can all do the questions together under time constraint. So with that said, I have set the tutoring time to be Sunday, May 7th at 5:00 p.m. (eastern time).

We will be using the Reading Comprehension section from PT #3. So please have a clean printed copy of the RC section in front of you and be ready to work on it as we go along. To get the most out of this session, please do not do the passages before the meeting. I think the best way to do this would be to work on this together.

If you would like to join me on Sunday simply click the link provided below at that time and hopefully I will see you all there : ).

P.S. for people who cannot make it at this time. Please let me know what day and time does work for you. I'll do my best to accommodate you guys the next time : )

Decoding Reading Comprehension with Sami

Sun, May 7, 2017 5:00 PM - 6:30 PM EDT

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

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/863069925

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States: +1 (646) 749-3122

Access Code: 863-069-925

First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: http://help.citrix.com/getready

Hi all! Thought I’d share something I found helpful/necessary during my studying. I started the core curriculum during the last week of January as I planned to take the September test. According to my original study schedule, I was supposed to start PTing around April 1st. From the end of January to April 1st, I had not completed the foolproof method for Logic Games and I felt that I should not (with some advice from @"Alex Divine" on another post) start PTing until I had done so. Naturally, I was apprehensive to push back the PTs because I wanted to finish all of them before the September test, however, by doing all the Logic Games, I feel like I am infinitely more prepared to start PTing than I was before. The fool proof method works wonders and I highly recommend doing all Logic Games before PTing. Also, rushing through to get every PT done instead of doing comprehensive BR and really learning from the mistakes is just a waste of time. I originally tried a different study schedule from another prep company that had you doing four PTs a week which is ridiculous! If you don’t learn anything from a PT and apply it to the next, then why do it at all. Hope this helps anyone who was or will be in the same situation I was in!

Does anyone know where I can purchase the Cambridge drill packets? Any other places to find questions to practice with?

I noticed that 7sage provides a list of foundational in/out logic games, grouped by easy, medium, and hard. Are there are other sets of games for sequencing and grouping games?

Hey guys, I was wondering whether the #19 is usually the most difficult question of each LR section? anyone has the same feeling?

Failed to understand student's argument. Any insight will be appreciated.

is that if A, then not B, and A or B, but not both the same thing?

Can someone break this down for me?

I was torn between 2 different answer choices.

I mean I can see how B is correct, but I also thought D had merit.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-49-section-4-question-16/

I have a question about PT49.S4.Q16. If this were a sufficient assumption question, can (D) be a correct answer?

(D) says "beautiful → best." "Most beautiful" are beautiful, so it would to be "Most beautiful → beautiful → best." (D) certainly fills the gap in the argument. But I think it's not necessary since we don't need all beautiful pieces to be the best to conclude that "beauty" and "truth" are different.

Argument Breakdown:

[[Main Argument]]

Premise: A [beauty = truth] → X [most realistic (R) → best (B)]

(Sentence 2: If there were no difference, then the most realistic pieces of art would be the best as well)

Premise: /X [most realistic (R) and not best (/B)]

(Sentence 3: But many of the most realistic artworks are not among the best)

————————————

Conclusion: /A (beauty =/= truth)　

(Sentence 1: There is a difference between beauty and truth)

[[Sub-argument]]

Premise: A [beauty = truth] → C [most realistic (R)→ most truthful]

(Sentence 2: since the most realistic pieces are the most truthful)

A [beauty = truth] → C2 [most realistic (R)→ most beautiful]

[[[[[GAP IN THE ARGUMENT]]]]]

——————

Conclusion: A [beauty = truth] → X [most realistic (R) → best (B)]

(Sentence 2: If there were no difference, then the most realistic pieces of art would be the best as well)

[[[[[GAP IN THE ARGUMENT]]]]]

C2 (= C) → X

most realistic (R)→ most beautiful → best (B)

[[Answer choices]]

Why is answer (B) wrong?

So, I understand that:

Answer B says: Deer ticks sometimes drop off their hosts without having fed at all.

Okay, I understand that Ticks drop off host when fed to capacity, and not before. BUT, I also know that Deer ticks feeding off white-footed mice must drop off between noon and sunset.

So I assumed that if Deer ticks started feeding on the mice really late in the day, they would have to drop off them right at sunset, EVEN if they didn't finish feeding!!!

Also, I thought ticks and deer ticks behave differently because the sentence "Deer ticks feeding off white-footed mice must drop off between noon and sunset" to me contradicts "Ticks drop off host when fed to capacity, and not before." This is because I assumed that no matter what, deer ticks MUST drop off their hosts AT SUNSET regardless if they didn't finish feeding.

Sentences 1 and 2 feel contradicting to me.

Why am I wrong to think those things? How can I properly adjust my though pattern?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-4-question-05/

On Tuesday, May 9, at 9 p.m. EST, I’ll lead a personal statement boot camp. We’ll cover everything from choosing a topic to shaping your story. When I’m done, I’ll answer your questions about the admissions process. Hope to see you there!

Webinar: Personal Statement Bootcamp

Tue, May 9, 2017 9:00 PM - 10:00 PM EDT

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

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/543945565

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States: +1 (571) 317-3122

Access Code: 543-945-565

First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: http://help.citrix.com/getready

We're almost a month away from the June LSAT! Take this time to assess your performance in order to more realistically estimate how you would do on the June test. This will help cut down on frantically looking for silver bullets later on like

PT 77 Review on Saturday, May 6th at 5PM ET

Try this first---- https://www.gotomeeting.com/ and then enter the code 617-377-325

Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/617377325

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 (872) 240-3212

Access Code: 617-377-325

The Full Schedule

And if you’d like to see the full schedule for upcoming sessions, here it is:

https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=il5ia3a4dmghh6lku7b0lh0ed0%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/New_York

Note:

So I have gone through the entire course and I would say it has helped greatly, before when I would do a LR section I would be getting 14-15 right untimed. Now untimed (which generally takes me 45-50 minutes) I am seeing improvements where I usually end up with 20 right (I always do BR, where I choose to keep or change my answers, so sometimes ill hit 20 with changed answers sometimes i'll hit 20 without changing any answers). I have noticed though that I am consistently atleast -5 to -6 wrong on my LR sections untimed. I have also realized that flaw, parallel and Resolve reconcile explain give me the most trouble. What do I need to do to greatly increase my score on untimed sections? I have reviewed the flaw, causation and parallel sections on 7sage. Does this just come with continued practice and extensive review on untimed LR? and once I am seeing these improvements on untimed tests, how will I begin to increase my speed? Should I be doing blind review on every single question after I do a section or just the questions that posed me difficulty?

I wrote the December LSAT and scored a 151, due to bombing the logical reasonings sections. I am writing in September 2017 and will spend however many hours necessary in order to increase my accuracy and speed on logical reasoning.

Would anyone have any advice for selecting the correct answer choices for weaken questions? It seems that I still get stuck between two or three answers, especially the non-causation ones. How have you mastered this question type? Any ideas would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!

Hi, I'm hoping my fellow 7Sagers could help clarify my muddled brain (I'm probably overthinking this).

When a stimulus says something is more/less likely, I understand it's regarding a chance, but does it already take into account the total amount in each group? For example, I was reviewing PT 37.2.25 - my question doesn't really have anything to do with the actual answer, but wanted to clarify and get feedback on my thought process:

One of the flaws I anticipated was that cars with air bags may be more likely because there are just more cars on the road with air bags v. non-air bags. I think this is a very reasonable assumption since in our real world, it's mandatory to manufacture cars with air bags and there are simply not as many non-air bag cars anymore. However, is this a reasonable flaw to make or should I understand that the argument has already taken into account the total number of cars with air bags v. non-air bags and so I should just take at face value that the percentage of accidents is higher for cars with air bags? Hopefully this made sense - appreciate your responses in advance.

Link to the PT Q referenced above: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-37-section-2-question-25/

Hi guys, I'm going through the biconditional part of the curriculum. Im wondering, for the Or, but not both biconditional, why don't we just write it out like this A -> /B and B->/A, that way you can link it up as well if a chain comes up?

Hi guys,

I am confused with a logic inference.

According to a book, if A, then not B, can be notated like A-->/B or A(-|-)B. However, in 7sage, it is maybe notated like A(---)/B.

Here's the question.

According to the question key, the inference is,

G(--s--)/E

F-->H

H(--s--)/E

But, if we use E-->/F to replace the part of E(-|-)F (because according to the very beginning of the post,A-->/B AND A(-|-)B are actually the same thing ), we get,

then the inference are,

E-->G-->H (this is very difference with the original above, which is not inference can be made like this)

E-->H (Which according to the original above, there is not such inference can be made like this)

/F-->H (which is different from the above original inference which is F-->H)

However, if we replace the original part of E(-|-)F with E(---)/F, interestingly, the inference different with above two.

Here we have:

E(---)/F--> G -->H

and the inference we have are

except we can make the exactly same inference with the 2 ones, we also can infer that,

G(--s--)/F

G(--s--)E

E(--s--)H

these inferences are totally different with the original ones.

the trick thing is according to the book, E(-|-)F is the same with E-->/F, and according to 7sage, actually E(-|-)F is E(---)/F, which leading to the hypothesis that if we replace the E(-|-)F to whatever these two different versions, the inferences made should be the same. Who can please clarify me?

Thank you!

Cynthia

https://media.giphy.com/media/3oEdv5hgaihi21MhyM/giphy.gif

https://media4.giphy.com/media/3o6gaQc4a0hghj1T2w/giphy.gif

We are coming down to the final stretch...

https://media1.giphy.com/media/xT5LMz1fARkO1JhWyQ/giphy.gif

If you are... then please let us know!

So thankful for all that 7Sage offers to the community & I know that we can be a support system for each other during these last weeks.

Most importantly if there are any areas that could help us achieve our goals, please share any and all questions so we can reach out to Sages to provide their expertise.

Hello!

I wonder whether anyone here has been able to "close the gap" between their timed practice tests and their blind reviews in a short-ish period of time, especially when the errors are not in the LG section? If so, do you have any suggestions about studying habits for this next month? Normally I would just wait and take the test in September, give myself ample preparatory time. However, my schedule will be ramping up significantly in the coming months, and so June seems an ideal time to get this thing over with!

A bit about me: I am new to the site, and relatively new to the LSAT. I began studying about a month and a half ago. After familiarizing myself with the logic games, I took a couple practice tests near the end of March and scored in the mid-160s. Since then, I've improved; my last four tests have been 172, 173, 170 and 170 (from earlier to most recent).

This improvement is in large part due to 7Sage. Though I did not purchase the materials (I'm on a grad-student budget), I make extensive use of the analytics tool and read the forum often. I'm consistently amazed at this service and the generosity of its creators and users. And I'm really excited to be testing closer to my ideal range (173-180) for scholarships and admittance to my top choices for schools. BUT I am worried about my ability to break into that mid or high-170s realm in only another month of work. My blind reviewing is consistently in the high-170s (176-178), and the still-wrong answers are typically questions I don't circle and miss because of a reading error. My errors are almost all in LR and RC. RC varies wildly, from -2 in a section to -6. LR typically averages out to around -4 per test (i.e. -2 per LR section).

I've been doing 2 practice tests a week, a two or three-hour blind review the next day, and then a couple random sections from early tests on free days (timed and then reviewed untimed).

Finally: does anyone have tips for time management on the Reading Comprehension section? I am pretty sure that most of my errors come about because I panic about time and don't read the final two passages appropriately carefully.

Thanks for reading!

I believe I have almost completed my cycle for this year. And I am glad that I have secured a school that will give me a very good opportunity to start my career as a transaction lawyer.

I was able to boost my lsat score from 149 (cold diagnostic : PT no. 69) to 170+ (2016 official score).

Unlike some crappy online forums, 7sage discussion forum has been precious resource for me.

I firmly believe that this test is learnable, even for those who are not perfect with the language. (For the record, English is my second language and I started learning English at the age of 10). I guess the hardest part is not letting go of such belief.

These are the resources I found especially helpful

There are some talented people who are able to finish preparation within short span of time. I was blessed to have them as my friends.

Yet I have to say I was not one of them and it took me more than a year to reach the point I wanted.

For those who are on the struggle bus, say June LSAT or whatever,

I know how much it sucks (I am a 3rd time LSAT taker) and I hope that you hold onto the belief that you are going to get through it.

And if there is any question let me know! Thank you!

I was a longtime user of 7sage about a year ago and it helped me tremendously. While I was on here, a user donated some materials to me for free and I promised to pay it forward. So here's to spreading some of that good LSAT lovin'

PM me so I can get your address for shipping. Some of these books are really heavy so all I ask is a fee for shipping. Venmo anyone?

In no particular order:

Best of Luck!

I just finished my first pretest after completing the CC and I have jumped up 18 points in my LSAT score. Needless to say, I am super stoked to see that these past few months have paid off.

Regarding the question posed in this topic post, I missed a flaw question by picking the same cookie cutter answer choice under timed conditions as well as during a freshly printed BR. This was an AC that J.Y. always says will reappear as the correct AC in the future (I did PT 35). I realized, ironically I guess, I have a flawed sense of understanding about this particular flaw. So, I was wondering if there is a function to find where this cookie cutter answer choice would have actually had been the right AC, so that I am able to fix this mistake for good.

Thank you!

Hey everyone, just wanted some insight.

So I have just started to tackle reading comp passages. I am curios to know for those that have increased their score and improved on this section how have you managed to decrease your time spent on reading the passage and answering the questions?

Did you just force yourself to push through the passage when timing yourself during practice or did the timing issue become less apparent with the more practice passages that you did.

I know that RC is the longest to see improvement but It would be helpful to know what people's experiences have been in this section.

Many thanks!