I was just looking over this past LSAT, which I took, and it hit me that there might be a bit of a trick to make substitution Qs easier. Part of the issue in substitution Qs, at least some of the time, is that once your diagrams, split game boards, etc. have become filled in to some degree, it's hard to unravel that and see exactly what the effect of a specific rule was. But if you check first, before making your diagram, if there's a substitution question, you can keep that specific rule in mind while diagramming and see clearly the effect of that rule. It happened to work like a charm for me while reviewing the substitution questions on the June 2017 LSAT. I'm wondering if anyone has tried this, and if not, perhaps it's worth a try.

Hey there I'm averaging -11 on RC. (156) I have done the CC method of RC and my score went up a little, but does anyone have any tips to further increase my score?

Particularly tips for speed. If I skip a passage I get -0 on the passage in which I take a little more time.

Any and every bit of info will be appreciated. Thanks :D

Is the use of a word like "should" prescriptive on the LSAT.? What i mean is: if a stimulus says that something will happen or could happen, will that exclude an AC that says something " should " happen?

I see many parallel questions that will have a word like "should" in one of the answer choices and im starting to suspect that they are wrong bc the stimulus is not suggesting what ought to happen. Am i crazy here??

So this is a weakening question. I was torn between two answers during the test, and switched from the right answer to the wrong answer.

I see why the correct answer is correct but not why the wrong one is wrong.

The conclusion of the argument is that Neanderthals probably preserved their meat by smoking it.

The support is that lichen and grass were found in the fire places. Which doesn't burn hot, but has a lot of smoke.

Answer choice A says: In close proximity to the fireplaces with lichen and grass are other fireplaces that, evidence suggest, burned material that produced more heat than smoke.

Doesn't that take away the support for smoking? We now see they had the ability to cook meat, which means they didn't have to smoke it.

Answer choice B says; (correct answer) In the region containing the Neanderthal fireplaces in which lichen and grass were burnt, no plants that could be burned more effectively to produce heat or light were available 60,000 years ago.

---- I see why this weakens too. They only had one option for heat or light, so it doesn't mean that they were using it to smoke their food.

I just don't see why A is less correct than B. They both seem right to me, what am I missing?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-79-section-4-question-19/

Hi all,

Having trouble with 2 questions in pretest 55, and I'd love to get some further explanation if anyone would be so kind!

In the second passage(s) in RC, for question #9, I chose C. Is this wrong because of the "most"; I see why B is also right, but can't figure out how to distinguish between the two. Is it simply because passage A doesn't explicitly address the issue of whether eradication advocates are genuine (though it is certainly implied, in my view)?

And for the last passage, can someone explain why #23 is D rather than C? Is it because "cheap substitute parts" are not a perfect analogue for tulips (as it suggests inferior quality) whereas book don't lose their quality when simply reproduced?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-2-passage-2-passage

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-2-passage-2-questions/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-2-passage-4-passage

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-2-passage-4-questions/

So I was chatting with this guy on a dating site... yeah this is really not LSAT related! lol I mentioned that I'm super cautious because some guys are only looking for sex. The guy got offended and stated that I shouldn't generalize because I didn't have numbers to prove that what I said was true. I told him that he was correct and I explained to him that for "some" there only needed to be one guy on the site that was only looking for sex so I was sure my statement was ok. He blocked me. Thanks 7 Sage!! Lmao

I am done with my June LSAT and I'm waiting for my LSAT result but I am not sure what I should do till I start applying.

I am an international student from India and did my undergraduate in Pharmacy. My GPA is very low. I have worked at an NGO teaching kids for 2 years before this. Now i am wondering if i should continue working in the social sector which i really enjoy, or get some law related work experience. what would help more for my law school applications?

Hey everyone,

For those of you who used the LSAT Trainer in conjunction with the CC from 7Sage, what did you find most useful from the Trainer? Right now, I am in the process of fool proofing PT's 1-35 while reading through the Trainer. I am currently in the LG section of the Trainer and find that some of the stuff they are covering is contradictory to what I covered in the 7Sage curriculum when it comes to diagramming.

I was just wondering if there was a specific section of the LSAT that the Trainer is best for/if I can skip over the LG chapters etc...

Let me know your experiences!

In my tenure on 7Sage and TLS it has always seemed like a 160 is seen as the minimum respectable score. I receive many messages a month about people asking me what it takes to hit the 160 mark. I get that it's not a 180, but it seems to be a score a lot of people are chasing. Perhaps they will continue to improve, but it still seems to be this benchmark that people generally strive to hit.

I thought it might be a good idea to start a thread where those who have scored a 160+ can give tips and advice on what skills, materials, and practices one should focus on to reach that score.

Disclaimer: I believe everyone should aim for a 180. Period. However, there are tons of people out there just aiming for a 160-165 range and I think it would be helpful to put together a thread with tips advice geared towards hitting that range.

So, I'm faced with a dilemma. I scored a 169 on the June LSAT but I really badly wanted a 170+ on my exam. My 169 is nice because it still puts me in the 97th percentile on my score report, and, coupled with my GPA, it's really strong for 9 out of the T14 schools. My top choice is Duke, which is an easy target for me, but I am a sucker for prestige and I want to be in the 99th percentile if for no other reason than that I am massively insecure. I'm afraid to retake, though, because I think that a high score with a single take looks pretty strong on an application, and I had two amazing sections that schools will likely notice, which could compensate for my bad RC section in the minds of some admissions officers. (My score breakdown was -6 RC (ugh), -1 LR (25/26), -3 LR (22/25), and -0 LG, for what is typically a high raw score of 91/101.)

If I retake, I run the risk of weakening my application, since it will be difficult for me to improve from where I scored on the two 'easier' section types. I also don't know if I can muster up the ambition to study RC intensively for two months in an effort to guarantee a section score increase. Also, I've increased my score from a diagnostic of 146 over the course of 10-11 months, so I'm a bit tired of the LSAT, if I'm being honest. As much as I want a 170+, I don't know if the potential rewards of a retake outweigh the risks.

What do you guys think? Should I retake or am I being too much of a Type A?

(Please don't misunderstand me: I really am proud of my score and I know that many would kill to have it.)

I'm studying for the Sept test right now (will be my first test) but I want to apply this cycle. I know I should be working on my personal statement and my diversity statement but I'm really bad at multi-tasking and I worry that writing while studying at the same time might distract me from fully concentrating on the test.

Would it be too late to start on the personal statement and the diversity statement immediately after I take the Sept LSAT? Would the admissions course on 7sage help me with this?

Just finished rough drafts for my DS and PS and would love to exchange essays for edits with anyone who is interested! :)

Hey guys,

Due to an unforeseen conflict, I won’t be able to host the sessions and have cancelled the call for tomorrow night.

My apologies for last minute notice and wish you all the best as you continue in the curriculum!!

Hi guys! I was wondering if anyone had experience or knowledge regarding how/if the LSAC calculates AP credit in with GPA.

The website says that it will factor in if your university gives credit and counts the grade. My university gives credit, but I don't think it uses those credits in GPA calculation. Does anyone know of situations where AP scores have been taken into account? Could I potentially transfer universities/enroll in an additional one and apply under it to have my AP scores factored in?

Much Appreciated!

,

Hi all,

I'm retaking the LSAT in September, and am trying to get together a study plan. I'm thinking I'll take one PT a week, go over one section per day afterwards, and have two days to rest/work on the soft parts of applications. I'm shooting for a 5 point increase, which I believe is doable (I underscored on the LSAT in June). Does anybody else have thoughts/strategies for retaking? I know I should review the CC for the parts of the exam I'm weak on, but I'm not quite sure what to do beyond just the PT per week.

Thoughts?

Hi friends,

This is sort of a weird question, but I'm sure some of you have had similar experiences, and any advice would really help me out!

I guess I'm a nontraditional applicant in that I graduated in 2015. Since then I've been working, traveling, and making sure I actually wanted to apply to law school (I do, hooray). I was pretty successful in college, but I sort of distanced myself from my school after graduation because I was turned off by several political and social decisions being made by the administration. This is to say that I didn't do a great job of keeping in touch with my professors.

The problem is, I spent a year and a half working with one professor on my Honors History Thesis, for which I ended up winning the highest departmental awards. I viewed it as an accomplishment for both of us! He has since left my undergrad, and the school has no idea where he went. I ended up emailing one of his colleagues who asked him if it would be okay if I got in touch with him, and he said yes. I've emailed him four or five times over the last three months, to no avail. Aside from worrying about him, I'm selfishly frustrated because he was the person who knew me and my work best, and I'm afraid it will reflect poorly on me if 'honors thesis' is plastered all over my resume and then no recommendation from my advisor appears.

I have a great employer rec coming in, as well as one from a dean with whom I worked closely, and I've asked another professor who I feel pretty good about but perhaps not great. I'm aiming for a T14, and I think my GPA and softs stack up (I'm sitting in September). I would hate to miss my shot because I can't find this one guy!

Has anyone else lost their best recommender? Is this something that would be worth trying to explain, or would that be seen as making excuses/make me sound insane?

Thanks team, and seriously, good luck to everyone out there, especially those of you who've taken weird convoluted paths!!

So I time all my problem sets at the standard per question time provided by the LSAT. Typically by the time I'm about halfway into the problem sets for any given question type, I'm getting most questions correct and finishing on time. I'm midway through the MBT/MBF problem sets and having a bit of trouble. My accuracy has increased substantially, I'm getting everything right, but I'm not hitting the timing on the harder problem sets (Problem Set 6 and above out of 9). How concerned should I be about this? Do I just continue to drill and BR until I'm hitting my goal times or should I re-do the lesson?

Hi everyone,

I just signed up for the 3 month package a couple days ago, and I worked through the curriculum up until the point where it recommended taking a diagnostic. Having already taken June 2007 a few months ago, I took Pretest 35 instead. I scored a 165 with the following breakdown:

LR 22/26

RC 24/26

LG 13/23

LR 23/26

Clearly, I have a lot of work to do on logic games, but I also feel there's room for improvement on my logical reasoning score. Up until this point, I've taken a few tests over the past several months, but haven't committed to studying at all, so 7sage is my first exposure to structured curriculum. Realistically, if I follow the curriculum as prescribed by the study schedule generator, do I have time to get into the mid/high 170s before the September LSAT, or am I setting myself up for failure? I can delay until December if necessary, but it's important to me to crack into the 175ish range on test day.

If you started at a similar score and successfully made the improvement into the mid 170s, I'd love to hear your feedback and tips!

Hi all,

I just finished the first reading section "introduction on reading comprehension" in CC. I also watched @"nicole.hopkins" video about her RC notation strategy. Both inspire me a lot about how to approach RC.

Right now I finish reading a passage in 3.5-4 min, but I spend way too much time on answering questions. I can spend between 8-12min on questions! Passages about art review are especially hard for me. And the timing is a big issue. With in 35min I can only finish 3 passages, with average -1 per passage.

I realize that I spend time trying to prove a wrong choice is wrong from the passage, while it is never mentioned. I also find myself spend a lot of time on comparing the rest of the answers after eliminating. I look at one choice, feeling that there is a tiny part I don't like, but I can give reasons for why I can stand it, and repeatedly do the same thing to another choice. I am trying to switch my method/mindset, and I would love to know how you approach the questions and choose the answer confidently.

A lot of high scorers suggest that we should read for reasoning structure. It sounds like making a lot of sense to me, but I am not very clear about how to apply it. And I don't feel that simply asking "what's the main idea of the paragraph" can't ensure me catch the structure. Actually, sometimes I feel interrupted by these questions. I mechanically ask myself about MP simply because I am trying to follow JY's method. Also, I find that not all "transaction/switch" of the meaning happen between the paragraphs. There can be more than one level of meaning within a single paragraph. How does the reading process look like when you are reading for structure? I am so curious.

I am also trying Nicole's notation strategy, and I think it can be very helpful in locating details asked in questions. But I also find that I am not very used to the strategy, and by taking notes I am slowing down my reading speed. I keep on asking "should I circle/box this?" And I don't find that making notation helps in reading for structure. I suppose it should, is it? I will keep on practicing, maybe modify some of the notation strategy, and I would love to know if anyone also take note while you read, and any suggestions would be helpful.

Thanks a lot in advance! :)

First 179!!!!!!!! 180 is next lol

And it's a logic game....

If you want a fun puzzle that is something fresh from the LSAT try it out.

https://www.brainzilla.com/logic/zebra/einsteins-riddle/

Can someone clarify the following?

At least B as A: B≥A

At most B as A: B≤A

Or vice versa....?

I am getting confused so much! plz help!!! :D (3 Thank you 7sagers!(/p)

only is a group 2 indicator. So in lawgic it would be T->W ?

Hello! I didn't see any prior discussions on this question, and it's confusing me a bit so I wanted to get some outside opinions!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-4-question-17/

We have an underlying principle/SA question which means that our answer needs to fill the logic gap pretty much completely.

Background info says that confidence of a testimony has little correlation with the accuracy of said testimony.

Support says that factors can alter the confidence of a testimony without changing its accuracy.

Conclusion says that police officers shouldn't allow situations where witnesses giving testimony can hear other witnesses giving testimonies.

The designated correct answer for gives us the principle that the confidence in one's testimony is affected by seeing other testimonies. To me, this leaped out as a wrong answer choice because the passage seems to suggest that confidence in one's testimony doesn't really matter, so there would be no incentive to prevent it.

D, on the other hand, seemed to fill the gap using unusual, but plausibly correct logic. If the police, for some reason, cared about confidence more than accuracy, factors that change confidence would want to be controlled. I don't know why Police would want to know about confidence rather than accuracy, but it's not our job as test takers to question the likelihood of a gap-closer to occur in the real world; we want to know if that gap closer, taken as it is, would bridge the support with the conclusion.

D does it in an ugly fashion, but I don't think A does it at all. Knowing that viewing other testimonies can alter confidence doesn't give us any logical reason for police officers wanting to prevent it. We can't bridge the gap between evidence and officers stopping testimony exposure without understanding the criterion based on which an officer would want to prevent testimony exposure. Even if you make the least extreme assumption and consider that police would want to stop something that alters the accuracy of a testimony, (since accuracy of evidence is important to court cases) answer A becomes more flawed in that it gives the support an attribute that the police wouldn't care about, or use in a decision for policy.

Any help is appreciated :) Thanks guys!