Hey was just curious how others approach the prep tests. Do you diligently do the prep tests in order, or do you tend to jump around from 50s to 70s to 20s etc?

Just curious if there is a better strategy. I've been going pretty diligently in order from prep test 37, and I'm now in the 50s but also kind of want to just tackle test 80 for a thrill and to see how different it is. Is this a bad idea? Should I leave the later exams for closer to test day?

Hey everyone, not sure if I'm just blind, but I just did the early prep test 1 logic games section and can't find the answers anywhere. I just upgraded to the Ultimate+ package so it should have answers, no?

Does anyone else find BR tortuous??

Hey! So, I have the starter package which is still really good. I am halfway finished with CC so, I wanted to know how many preptests should I have for drilling and practicing? Currently, I have preptests 19-28, 29-38,52-61,and 62-71. I've already used 19-28 during my powerscore studying though. Also, once you enter your test answers with blind review, does 7sage show you the types and explanations? If not, how did you all go about supplementing your studying for after CC?

Sorry if you were responding.

Hey guys,

When I took the LSAT December 2016 I thought it would be my only attempt. Although I did well, to get into the school of my dreams, I need to do better. Problem is I went all in last year and burned through a lot of valuable PTs

There are a lot of PTs I haven't hit (30-45) range, and some intermittent throughout the more recent ones. Any ideas on how I should go about PTing from now until my September test date? I know I can still squeeze juice out of the one's I did do, and I know I don't remember a lot from those same PTs. I am concerned however, that the PTs I do take again will not be truly indicative of my score, moreover, I'm not sure how to schedule what PTs (seen and unseen) to do when. Would I want to do the one

Help?

Thanks!!

If i dont finish a section. Should i attempt those questions during BR?

I accidentally hit score prep test without Ann of the answers filled in and cannot figure out how to reset the score card so I can enter the answers fully. How do I reset it? Thanks :D

Ok, so I was a July tester who knew going in that I wasn't ready. I have awful test anxiety so I decided to take the dive and do the test anyway to quench my nerves. Luckily it did and I registered for the September in good spirits. I've taken the last few weeks off waiting for the score, and now I'm trying to set up my new plan of attack. Any retaking advice? I didn't do sage before, and I'm interested in doing it this time around.

By the way, sorry if there is typos. I'm currently typing with one finger due to being a kitten bed!

Hello again! First of all, I wanted to express my general appreciation for everyone in the 7Sage community! You guys are essentially total strangers, yet almost always go the extra mile to help and support each other. I'm very impressed, and I feel privileged to be among you.

As for my question, I wanted to inquire about how the LSAT treats independent events in relation to likelihood. The content that spiked my curiosity came from Mike Kim's LSAT trainer rather than an official LSAT passage, so if this issue is not relevant to the LSAT, I'd love to know that too. The trainer has an exercise where one has to use proper knowledge of LSAT meanings for "some" and "most" to determine whether or not a statement in valid.

One of these statements is that "Everyone who orders a sundae gets offered a free extra cherry, and most people say yes to the extra cherry. Some people who order the banana split get offered a free extra cherry, and less than half of these people say yes. Therefore, people who order a sundae are more likely to say yes to a free cherry than are people who order a banana split."

Using the LSAT definitions of the qualifier words, Sundae buyers have a 1.0 chance of being offered, and more than half of them say yes. Banana Split Buyers have a 0 to 1.0 chance of being offered, and fewer than half accept. The conclusion then maintains that /people/ who order a Sundae are more likely to say yes to a free cherry than their heathen Banana-Split ordering counterparts; the book later designates this as a valid statement.

This situation immediately reminded me of a common mistake people make in evaluating confidence intervals in statistics. A 95% confidence interval, for example, does not mean that any given member of a population has a 95% chance of meeting a certain criteria. Rather, they already have have either a 0% chance or a 100% chance of meeting that criteria; their status (or in this context, selection,) is fixed and independent of any outside conditions. There is no roll of the dice. The interval merely gives us insight into the qualities of the group as a whole. In a way, this principle is reminiscent of the piece = puzzle LR flaw.

In the cited problem, we have data regarding the proportions of entities who made a decision being equated with the likelihood of those rigid entities from making one decision or the other, which isn't true.

So what does this situation mean for the LSAT? My guess is that this kind of situation would never arise on an LSAT, but if it does, I hope to find out whether my aforementioned thought process is correct, (thus invalidating the ice cream statement,) or if the LSAT does indeed require us to treat a population proportion and the "decision likelihoods" of its individual members as congruent values.

Thanks!

Might be off topic, but what is the likelihood for international JD students to find work?

I was wondering if I should take a practice test now before the completion of the 7sage to get a baseline. I have taken shorter versions and I know that according to them I will have a fairly decent score, but I haven't taken a full practice test. Is that what I should do, or should I instead focus on the cc, test, and use that as a baseline ?

Hi guys!

Hope everyone is enjoying their holiday weekend!

I'm in need of some advice....I'm starting the CC over again, this time in hopes of solidifying the basics before moving on. I've taken the last 2 weeks to go over just the beginning of the CC (MP/MC, strengthen, weaken, etc.). I'm doing problem sets and still getting some wrong which is disheartening to say the least. I'm scheduled for the December test and I planned to start PTing in September (about 2 tests a week). Should I just move on with the CC and hope that I'll get better with the stuff I'm weak on? Or spend about another weak drilling the weak stuff and THEN move on (this is only the LR stuff...I haven't started LG or RC)?

Thanks guys so much! I feel like I post so often in need of advice and you guys are always so kind to help me out. I truly appreciate all the help! Y'all are life savers!

In the Question Bank and in the LR Drill Sets (https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/lr-drills-preptest-01-to-09/ ), PT8.S4.Q21. is categorized as a Sufficient Assumption question.

But the question stem says "For the claim that.... to be properly drawn on the basis of the evidence cited, which one of the following must be assumed?" so I think this is a Necessary Assumption question. Also, the correct answer (A) is an assumption that is necessary (not sufficient). If this were a SA question, (E) would be correct since it shows a sufficient assumption.

Can everyone confirm that this is mislabeled as a Sufficient Assumption?

Hi all,

I have been diagramming with all practice q but soon will begin PT. On my first LSAT I didn't diagram a single question(yes I bombed) but mostly due to nerves and space.

My current diagram takes a pg per q and I'm trying to get better but does anyone have any advice or techniques?

Ok , I am just starting this journey. I have 2 lsat books and then I found this site and will be soon signing up for the course. However, I wanted to ask if I should spring for the bibles or if that would be a waste of money since I will be taking this course.

Hi All,

So I made flashcards for Logical Indicators and Argument Part Indicators and used the Leitner system; but the argument forms aren't all named so I'm not sure how to make them into flashcards or generally memorize them other than stare at them a bunch. Has anyone had any success with memorizing these?

Does anyone if LSAC refunds purchases of CAS or LSATs that were already paid for if later approved for the LSAC Fee Waiver? I was initially denied the waiver, but after appealing I now have been approved. However, after being denied at first I did purchase CAS and the September LSAT which now should have been covered. I appreciate the help!

Does anyone have an attack strategy for these questions? I get bogged down every single time. So irritating!

So as I do every Saturday, I sat down and took a full (5 section) timed test. This test "felt" much different than normal for me though and my score by section confirmed it. It got me curious as to what is going on.

The test I took is PT 78....(Yes, yes it is recent sue me) and my sections did not line up how they normally do.

Recently my scores look like;

LG: -1 to -2

LR; -4 to -5 per section

RC; -6 to -9

with a score on the test of about a 167ish.

Today everything changed!

LG; -3

LR; -7 and -3

RC; -2

Of course my score was a 167 still, I just felt a dramatic shift in the way the test felt. LG have been something I always finish early. Today I felt pressed for time. LR still felt fairly typical but the first section seemed difficult. and RC always baffles me but today it was just so clear.

I understand the test is variable and that scores will change and sections will change. I also can not describe exactly what "felt" different because it is such a subjective term. What scares me is that this is a more recent test. (the reason I took it was to get an idea of where the more current test put me).

Another thing I noted is I almost always miss flaw questions. Today I missed none and instead missed a ton of RRE. I also noted that it felt like there were way more NA questions than normal.

Is this common to have a test that feels like such an out-liar to your norm?

Hey, y'all! I'm having a tough time negating some AC for NA. For AC A and B they don't seem to be negated the same.

A. None of the mercury introduced into the body can be eliminated.

Negated: some of the mercury introduced into the body can be eliminated.

B. Some people in Beethoven's time did not ingest mercury.

Negated: all people in Beethoven's time ingested mercury.

Why was there no "not" included in A but "not" was removed from B when negated? I know you can add the phrase, "it is not the case" before the AC instead of trying to negate certain words but that doesn't work for me. For some reason it doesn't make sense to me.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-3-question-16/

.

So I'm going to UCHI this fall and I just had an interesting conversation with an old friend who is going to the University of Toledo Law and they were bragging about how they have average grades and have a job with Butzel Long. Obviously this is part of law but how big is this?

Sharing this because while eliminating AC E, I was forced to question the difference between causation and sufficiency as well as the danger of using Lawgic as shorthand when you're not actually dealing with conditional statements.

Most Strongly Supported

Argument Summary:

Premise 1: Media rarely cover local politics thoroughly.

Premise 2: Local politics is usually conducted secretly.

Major premise: Local politicians tend to be isolated from their electorates as a result of each of these factors.

Conclusion: Chance of a particular act of resident participation receiving official response is lower, discouraging resident participation.

Prephrase:

Not really sure where they are going with this. MSS questions are difficult to prephrase for anyway.

Answer Choices:

A- Nah. Invalid reversal. We don’t know what is sufficient to bring about a likelihood of official response. Eliminate.

B- A -> B therefore /A ->/B. Invalid. Eliminate.

C- Most important??? Eliminate.

D- The current state of media coverage contributes to the isolation. Improving this coverage would reduce that contributor but would not necessarily cause any change. Correct!

E- Isolated -> Reduced chance of official response -> discourages participation. /C -> Less A. Hm. I think the issue here is with the word “causation”. “Imply” and “Cause” are not synonymous and if you contrapose a conditional statement, I don’t believe we can just switch the direction of causation. “If I am disrespectful to my parents, that discourages them to let me go out on friday nights. But if they were encouraged to let me go out on friday nights, does that cause me to be less disrespectful of them?” We are dealing with terms like "influence" and "discourage". I use Lawgic as a shorthand to deal with these ideas, but that doesn't make them conditional statements and so we definitely can't assume causation. Eliminate.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-2-question-22/

Just found this gem:

https://classic.7sage.com/the-7-stages-of-waiting-for-your-lsat-score/