The videos keep pausing every four seconds. Has anyone experienced this? How can I fix it? Thanks in advance!

I love the fact that J.Y. adds the target time in all the logic game explanations. It just hit me that i don't practice my logic game full proof method with a scantron. I normally just use scantrons during my PT and BR or when I'm doing random timed sections from old LSAT's.

Do those target times for LG include bubbling in the scantron or without the scantron? If the target time includes bubbling in, i will begin using a scantron when doing the full proof method.

(Full proof method is so wonderful because I've done it for like 15 or so games and now when I do games I've never seen before the inferences are so clear, the rules are easier to understand along with the questions. Having a better idea of when and when not to split the game is incredible. Along with knowing when rules do and don't kick. I just couldn't have asked for a better prep.)

Hey guys!

I recently pushed back my intended LSAT date to September (I was registered for the June test) after talking to a pre-law advisor. I purchased the basic package here at 7sage when I originally started studying (early March) and the LSAT Trainer. I plan on upgrading my course to the premium package so I can get some more practice and problems. Would you guys suggest starting from scratch with about 4 months until the September test, or continuing on from where I'm at?

BACKSTORY: I'm back to studying after taking all of April off to weigh my options. I'm newly post-grad with an MA and the idea of 3 more years of school killed me softly. But after taking a few weeks and thinking it over, I'd regret not at least TAKING the lsat seeing as how I've already paid for it...I was forcing myself to study for 6 hours a day with few breaks and nothing was sinking in. I glazed over the diagramming sections, telling myself when the test came, "You won't have time to do any of that anyway. Memorize necessary and sufficient terms? Nope. Not useful. Learn to diagram? Waste of time." I took my first proctored practice test and BOMBED IT. And so here I am....

And so, I'm back. Not surprisingly, I'm doing problem sets and getting an embarrassing majority incorrect (especially with the LG).

Any suggestions?

Thanks!

Happy April 30th! Guess what?

https://media2.giphy.com/media/P5Q6687ftTdV6/giphy.gif

Please NOTE change to Wednesday this week :)

June Study Group | PT 77 | Wednesday, May 3 @ 7:00pm ET

Wednesday, May 3rd at 7PM ET: PT 77

Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/794287189

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) 317-3112

Access Code: 794-287-189

The Full Schedule

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

https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=aWw1aWEzYTRkbWdoaDZsa3U3YjBsaDBlZDBAZ3JvdXAuY2FsZW5kYXIuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbQ

Note:

Any advice for breaking down SA questions into valid argument forms like JY does in the videos? The more questions I see, the more challenging it is to find an AC that matches my diagram. Is there another way to approach SA questions? Sometimes it seems like the AC for these questions is just a restatement of the conclusion and/or my prephrases don't match the answer choices very well. Does anyone think of these questions like strengthen questions? Any suggestions would be great! Thank you!

Hey guys!

Does anyone know if cost anything (other than processing costs from the undergrad institution) to have LSAC send an updated copy of your transcripts to law schools?

Blank

Edit: Why are they not categorized by type?

Hi all --

I heard that the LG Bundle and LR drills are available in the syllabus, right before the PTs. However, I don't see these in my syllabus. Are these problem sets available only to Ultimate+ students?

Also, if I upgrade from Ultimate to Ultimate+ now, will that increase the number of hours in my Core Curriculum? I've already started on Ultimate and planned a study schedule based on the number of hours of video lessons in the course.

Thanks!

I know that the fellow 7sagers already know what the answer is, but I just wanted to say it one more time, prob just to tell myself (and get some resonance from others too!) that I made a right decision and nothing's wrong with it.

The answer: however long it takes to master the skills necessary and feel confident walking into the exam room that I have and will realize my potential.

I am saying this because i have a lot of LSAT beast friends around. I have a college friend who studied for a month and scored a 179. Another college friend who studied 4 hours a day for 3 months and got 175+. (He, by the way, told me: "If you study for 4 hours a day for 3 months, you will get the score you want." ) I also have another friend in my church Bible studies group who studied for a month, killed it, and got into Yale. So my Bible studies folks think that the ideal time to study for the LSAT is a month, and they are puzzled when I say I need more time than that. LOL... Yes I admit, they hurt my pride a bit.

But that's great, because I learned that being humble is the best way to conquer the LSAT. (and in general to conquer life). It's ok, because they have their own pace to things in life, and I have my own pace. I know what I am capable and not capable of, and I will not define my pace based on other people's pace.

I do need more time. I wanted to take it in June (and might try to if I progress quicker than what I currently anticipate), but 3 months of full time studying isn't going to be enough for me. I need to work on LG a lot more, to the point that I will feel confident and relaxed even when I see an unusual game thrown at me. I want to realize my potential on all sections.

That's the answer for me.

The end.

So I’m really struggling with these causation questions, not because I'm getting the wrong answer, but because I’m confused about Causation strategy, and when to use it. So I have 2 questions.

1st one is, When approaching general weakening/strengthening questions, that are not causal, we approach these with the strategies JY has laid out for us, in those lessons, and not as a causation question, correct? Is there an easy way to tell the difference between general weakening strengthening/weakening questions? What tips would you recommend?

2nd question is, I'm having trouble in applying the causation strategy to questions. I just did the Synesthesiacs question, under the Causation questions in the syllabus (LSAT Preptest 34, Section 2, Question 12). I asked this in the question just now, but I'm hoping I'll get more replies here.

So I hovered over A and B. A to me felt like it most weakened it, and I wanted to pick it, but to me it didn’t really feel like I was following the structure of how to attack these. In it, this question introduces a data set, in the form of research, with some people. Don’t know if I should have construed that as co-incidence or correlation, since some is kinda vague, so I went with Correlation. Since it’s a data set, I looked for an answer that introduces a competing data set. And B was the only one. B didn’t really seem like it weakened it, but hey, I followed the structure (or did I?). If I had followed the Co-incidence rules, then I would have arrived at A, since it is a competing explanation. Is that where I screwed up?

If not, could someone please clarify for me what I’m doing wrong. Do I follow this strategy down to a T? It feels like when I go off intuition I do better, but I don’t want to rely on that.

Thank you

Hi Everyone hope all is well. So I have a quick question. How does application fee waivers work? I took the recent Feb LSAT and I received no fee waivers however when I saw some forums with people who had comparable scores to mine, they spoke about being able to apply to a bunch of reach schools because of fee waivers. Could it be due to the timing that I took the LSAT seeing as how I took it in February? I plan on applying for Fall 2018 by the way. Any insight would be great. Thank you!

Hi! Here is an updated strategy from the below post

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/10749/my-rc-strategy-that-got-me-to-0

What I've found helpful in addition to the original post is thinking about the range of what the central theme CAN and CANNOT do based on what is known and not known about the central theme. This is especially helpful for those difficult curve-breaker Qs (inference Qs, analogy Qs) , because curve-breaker Qs usually test the MEANING of the passage, rather than what's explicitly stated. You can only draw the meaning of the overall passage/ key theme when you understand the range of what is known and then going one step further, inferring what a certain thing can/ cannot do.

How do we figure out what something can/ cannot do? Let's make a very quick example. Say that the passage says that frogs only swim in the water. This is what we know about the frogs. Then we can infer /water -> frog don't swim. Thinking about this range really helps to understand the key features of the central theme and its importance. (When it fails the requirements it needs, it cannot do its job (contrapositive of S-> N) But obviously, when the sufficient condition is met, we don't know anything about whether necessary condition was/is/will be met (but I think it is less relevant in RC. What's more relevant is thinking about the range of necessary conditions and understanding what would happen when those conditions fail)

Here's the bad news: in the RC section, the LSAT doesn't get this explicit about sufficient and necessary conditions. The curve-breaker Qs are difficult for a reason. If everyone can identify the conditions easily, then it wouldn't be a curve-breaker Q. I repeat, the LSAT doesn't usually give you the typical "conditional indicators" (if, when, any, only when, requires, etc) to figure out the sufficient/necessary conditions easily. Sometimes they do. But most of the time, we have to really infer about the necessary conditions based on what the passage says. The passages only HINT at these necessary conditions by omitting something, or by only stating 1 necessary condition (which, by default, would mean that other conditions won't work without this condition)

The good news: Here's the typical way the LSAT presents a necessary condition.

For example, let's take PT62 passage 1. No worries, I won't spoil too specific details for you.

What we do know about lichenometry is

Think about what's known about lichenometry. From there, infer what it CAN and CANNOT do. According to the passage, lichenometry only does certain things within a specific location only using certain materials. It cannot function when something falls outside that location (not specifically the LOCATION, but certain geographical features necessary; if the certain geographic location is missing the material required, then the necessary condition fails and lichenometry cannot do its job.

But you also have to be extremely careful and identify precisely what the necessary condition is. If you generalize too much, then you might also be susceptible to trap answer choices. What lichenometry needs is a certain material. From this, we can only infer that if it misses the material as a whole, it won't be able to do its job. However, if it has certain qualifying conditions that affects the material, then it might still be able to do its job. We must carefully distinguish what must be true from what can be true)

Again, this is what's hard about the LSAT RC passages: the necessary conditions are nowhere explicitly stated. The LSAT does not explicitly say what lichenometry can or cannot do.You have to combine all those info above (what we know/ don't know about lichenometry) ; it is our job to infer the range of function based on what's known, and IDENTIFY PRECISELY what the necessary condition is.

You can also go backwards. Ask the question what CAN it do to backtrack; asking that question helps to summarize what we do know and what we don't)

Also, this strategy applies when the subject (central theme) involves a human being. It is because a human being is usually a central theme in a diversity passage, and the diversity passages are all about what someone/ some social group couldn't do before and how the social structures/ individual consciousness evolved for them to be able to do something.

For example, PT 63, passage 2. (don't worry, i won't spoil the deets)

It is about Kate Chopin. She is compared to other groups of writers. The key to the passage is all about what those groups did/ didn't do and from that inferring what they could/ couldn't do given the social structures and conventions at the time. Pretty much the same thing with PT 62 passage 4 on Jewett.

(I am using PTs 62 and 63 as examples because they are in Superprep II)

Obviously this strategy can be applied to science/ law passages as well.

Law passages- what the law can/ cannot do, theory can/ cannot do, a material can/ cannot do

Science passages- conditions under which a hypothesis would work, conditions under which the central theme (subject being experimented etc) can function

My theory is that knowing what a subject can/cannot do is especially central to understanding the LSAT passages BECAUSE as lawyers we would be basically doing the same thing. What can we do based on this law? What can't we do? What can this law do for us? What can't it do? It is all about inferring about our agency and the range of usefulness/ restrictiveness of the law based on what's known/ not known about the law.

To summarize:

Important /= necessary. Also, /important and still necessary.

Think about LR necessary assumption Qs. Some assumptions are important, but not necessary. Some assumptions are not important, but necessary.

Hope this helps

Oh yeah PLEASE DO NOT SHARE THIS WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES. I want this info to be limited to 7Sage. Thanks

Hi everyone,

I've been drilling RC from old PT's (1-7) and I've worked myself down to -2.

In PT36-45, I've worked to get myself to score around -5, and as low as -2 or -3.

I recently took PT 62-63 and I couldn't even finish the section both times.

I've met with a great expert on LSAT in 7sage (Can't Get Right) who recommended a notation strategy for active reading.

I'm pretty sure my main issue is passage absorption; rushing through the passage and not being quite sure of what I've read.

Have any of you noticed any transgressions of this sort; or am I alone?

How did you overcome it, and any advice for me?

Thanks!

Hey everyone,

For the Question Sets in the CC, what is your method for blind reviewing them? What I do is go through each of the questions timed (jotting down how long it took me for each one), circle the ones I'm not positive on, and then go back to review the ones I circled without any time constrains. I feel as if that's pretty standard.

However, I was wondering what everyone does after going over the answers. Do you make a notation of your before and after BR performance on the Question Set sheets? For the ones that you got wrong, do you write out the reasons for each answer choice on the Question Set sheet? Basically what I'm looking for is a method for documentation so I know how reference it as well as a way to "shatter my reasoning" for wrong answers.

Hello everyone,

I was hoping for some advice on how to study for the September LSAT. I took the June 2007 Diagnostic and scored a 158. I was at 80-85% on both the LR and RC but was at 65% for the LG section. My goal is to score in the high 160's or low 170's.

Onto my more precise question which is how I should split up my attention between materials.

My study materials

All three Powerscore Bibles

The LSAT Trainer

Manhattan LR Book

7Sage Premium + Access

My question is, what order should I work through these? Any other more general advice would be GREATLY appreciated.

Thanks!

I've been struggling with a bunch of the LR questions and have gone back into the CC and used up almost of all of my questions sets.

I'm tired of looking at questions that I've done before because I remember what the answer is pretty much. Would it be bad if I burned the rest of the 30's to give myself some new questions to look at?

Can someone explain to me this stimulus? It says "Which one of the following could be an accurate and complete list of the students who review only Sunset?" Usually, the "complete and accurate" stimuli want a list of all the items across all possible worlds that fulfill the requirement. However, in this problem, they are apparently only asking for the students in 1 world. So answer C says J and L, which would be true if you looked at all possible worlds (ie J can review only S in one world whereas L can't, and L can review only S in another world where J can't). However, the correct answer is A, which says only L. Answer A thus only applies to 2 of the 3 possible worlds. I don't understand how the stimulus specifies this. It reads exactly the same as stimului from other games that are asking across all possible worlds.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-42-section-1-game-4/

When I tried signing up for the June LSAT a few days ago (late, I know), I was placed on a waiting list for a test center in the Los Angeles area since there were no spots available. I received an email from LSAC yesterday stating I've been assigned to a center that's at a hotel (Irvine Marriott). Should I be nervous about not taking the test at a University? I'm not sure whether this test center has been used before in the past. I tried looking up the test center number and any reviews from people who may have taken the LSAT there but didn't find anything. Thoughts?

To all my fellow LSATers, I urge you to keep studying hard. Remember that while this test is important, it does not define you as a person. To all my fellow undergrads, kill it on your finals and study hard this summer. I look forward to utilizing you all for legal advice in the future, because 7sage LSATers will undoubtedly make the best lawyers!

Just curious. It said I'd used 5/6 tests or something at the bottom. This seems strange. Also, is there a way to identify your most missed question types via analytics?

I don't get the explanation for why A is right. All we know is that do produce a good meal you can't have bad food. That would seem to imply that you could have a good meal with mediocre food. So how can you then take the the next conditional relationship between bad soil and good food to prove anything about good meals. All you can prove is that you can't have good food with bad soil. But maybe you can have mediocre food with bad soil. And if so, you can possibly produce a good meal with bad soil, since mediocre food can possibly produce a good meal.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-37-section-2-question-12/

Have you done this problem? I'm seeking justification for the correct answer choice.

It would be great to have JY analyze it in a video.

Hi everyone!!

I'm new and I can't seem to figure out where I go to print out the games that are incorporated into the syllabus (ie. Practice Test 16, game 2 etc etc etc....way before PT 36, for which we have full game access.)

Can you please help me figure out how to do this? I really want to retry these games on my own

Natalie

Hi. I'm not sure how to translate "those in search of jobs should move to a city with high-tech businesses" into lawgic. I thought the word "should" might be a necessary condition, but JY didn't put an arrow to connect JOBS and HIGH TECH. Whereas in Manhattan forum, one of the instructors translated it as "if you want JOBS, go to HT" which would require the use of an arrow. So I'm not sure which is the right approach to take..

Also, is it even a valid argument?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-4-question-25/