For this question (it's helpful to watch the video), JY does the logic and it comes out to this:

Capable and (PI or 500) --> Report

~Report

not (capable) or not (PI or 500)

From this point, JY says that you implement the group 3 rule. meaning that you have to either negate the (capable) or the (PI or 500). But when you look at the problem, why couldn't you negate both? If they are BOTH negated, Ted would still not be required to report?

Basically, I'm not sure why you suddenly would need to implement group three on this problem when it seems you could absolutely negate both and still have the sufficient condition (~Report) stand correct.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-1-question-24/

Sentence:

If I don't see food, I am sad.

~SF --> S

would the negation be:

SF and S

I can see food and be sad.

Hi All,

Any chance someone is willing to help me understand why the correct answer choice for this question is C? I cannot seem to figure out how one gets to that answer. Thank you!

Hey all,

This morning I dove into the cement pool that is Game 2 from June 2000.

I consider myself a 'solid' gamer. I average -3 on a full timed section give or a take a question. A number with which I would be perfectly fine on test day, by the way. However, this game has 7 questions (why? just why?) and could easily take that score to a -7, if not worse.

I've noticed that all of these PT's with the 'dreaded' games offer more cushion, even at the top. For instance, 87/101 on the June 2000 LSAT clicks a 170.

How prevalent are games of this level of difficulty on the more modern LSATs? I think I would drop dead in there if I were to see a game like this. Especially game #2!!!!!

Admin edit:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-31-section-1-game-2/

I have always been a fan of looking at different rankings since everyone focuses on certain variables when generating rankings. ATL focuses more on employment outcomes the most so I find theirs interesting. As they say, knowledge is power...

Linky:

http://abovethelaw.com/law-school-rankings/top-law-schools/?rf=1#rankings

for statements like this, when there are two sufficiency indicators,

can they have two possible translations?

If student, then he or she will be served well in later life by any philo class. ( S --> SWBPC)

if philo class, then will serve any students well later in life. ( PC --> SWLL )

the statement is from PT39, Section 2 Question 2.

it's a flaw question and the statement itself is not imperative to solve the question, but it did make me hesitate during timed PT when I tried to translate them into lawgic.

Had a quick question, the LSAT course prices that are posted online, have they already included the cost of taxes, or are they added on when you attempt to make the purchase? Was just trying to determine the total cost in Canadian, which would be about $242 on my credit card statement if there are no additional taxes. A prompt reply will be greatly appreciated, thanks

Are the old exams like the ones in the years of the 90's worded oddly? Because it's really hard for me to decipher what they are saying on many of the Lr problems and the games verbiage....don't even get me started!

The answer is: Northwestern

I was not surprised to see more T14-T20 law schools take GRE. Yet, the speed is so FAST.

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/05/another-elite-law-school-eyes-accepting-the-gre/

So how does (E) provide us with a reconciliation?

When you have extra time at the end of an LR section, is it strategically wiser to first go back to questions you flat out skipped (due to their initial perceived difficulty) or to questions completed but marked for review due to some uncertainty?

By "uncertainty" I mean those questions where you have a somewhat high degree of certainty but just slightly (like 70% certainty or so). Since every question is worth 1 point, would it be best to prioritize these questions or those that you just flat out skipped?

Hey everyone, I am confused as to how we are suppose to BR reading comprehension. Can someone give me a brief explanation. Thanks :)

Hey, guys! Can you help me make sense of my reasoning for selecting this answer choice, if that makes sense?! Lol

Ok so I chose D but I get why B is correct. I still don't know for certain that I wouldn't have the same thoughts that lead me to choose D, if presented again.

D) draws conclusion about a specific belief (more ppl believe elected officials should resign if indicted than believe that they should resign if convicted. I -> R and C - > R) based on responses to inquiries (I -> R and R - > C) about two diff specific beliefs. So basically, I said the conclusion was based on I - R and C - > R and not based on I -> R and R - > C. I said this equaled two different specific beliefs.

Does this make sense to anyone?? Or, am I just doing too much? Was I just totally off here? Hopefully I wrote this up correctly and you guys understand what I mean here. TIA

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-2-question-25/

My big issue with this question is about why B is the correct answer. It seems to equate "exploiting" with "destroy" and I'm not sure how reasonable of an assumption that is to make. Since this is a logically inferred question, I assumed that the right answer would have a higher degree of validity than an MSS answer choice.

But answer B, the right answer, seems to combine the two groups of environmentalists into one group, and I'm not sure that's implied anywhere in the argument. Noneconomic justification appears in the second sentence with the many group. The defensibility of exploiting features appear in the previous sentence with the some group.

How are we to infer that we have to combine these groups? Does it have to do with the economic costs in the last part of the second sentence?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-3-question-08/

So I chose answer choice A because author Q simply states, " ought to have been effective, but he has not been" the author is just saying that he's been ineffective but doesn't offer up any evidence as to why he is ineffective. Can someone explain to me why my reasoning is wrong? that would be greatly appreciated! thank you!!!!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-2-question-11/

Hey guys!

Hope everyone had an amazing holiday weekend!

I've decided to go back over some of the very beginning core stuff to make sure I have a solid understanding before moving on in the curriculum. I have the LSAT Trainer and I'm trying to use that as supplemental material to explain the concepts I'm having trouble with. This is going to seem really silly...maybe it's because I'm just starting out, but this threw me for a loop:

"When we are asked to evaluate the reasoning in an argument, it is always in terms of a very specific task: our job is always to evaluate and understand why the reasons given DO NOT justify the point that is made. For every one of these questions, your understanding of why the support doesn't justify the conclusion will be your primary gauge for evaluating right and wrong answers (p.35)."

So every argument is wrong? For some reason I remember hearing JY say don't worry about whether the argument is RIGHT OR WRONG..... What is the logical reasoning section asking me to DO?

If anyone could help clarify this, I'd greatly appreciate it!

Thanks guys!

Does the LSAT reuse questions from other tests, i.e. The GMAT? I looked up one of the LR questions (preptest 32 section 4 question 10, western moral values), and a bunch of GMAT forums came up with the exact same stimulus, question, answer choices, and correct answer!

Hi there,

I'm a mature student (33 years old, and have been out of school for 8 years). I've been studying for the LSAT through 7Sage for the last 5 months, and I'm already scoring quite high in my practice tests. I take the LSAT in September, so I feel I have a realistic chance of scoring in the 170s on the test based on how I've been doing.

That said, my GPA from my undergrad degree from 8 years ago is only 3.6. Not horrible, but not amazing. If I want to get into a top school (my dream school would be Yale, but I'm also looking into Uof Toronto here in Canada), am I just automatically out of the race because I don't have a 3.9 GPA? I mean I know there are always exceptions, but how many really?

Since leaving school I have done a lot of things, like living abroad in 5 countries teaching english, and I also published a book with New York University Press on sex and gender issues. So I feel that could all work in my favor. I'm not sure how much those top schools weigh your GPA if you've been out of school for more than 5 years. Would my book and other publications be more what they focus on?

Any thoughts appreciated!

Ask him anything!

Office Hours with David

Thursday, June 1, 6:30 PM EDT

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

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/181002101

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States: +1 (571) 317-3122

Access Code: 181-002-101

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

To whom it may concern:

I am interested in Powerscore and 7Sage, but do not know which one to choose. What is the average score increase from those taking their first PrepTest with 7Sage and their last? Thank you!

just wanted to say good luck to everyone heading for that count down till the test.. and to tell a short story, I met a guy at the library who saw me studying and told me his first lsat after studying months getting 157-162 was a 168, and his second was a 173. he said that once he got over the fear of not doing as well as he wanted to, he was more focused and it helped, so I know were all quietly freaking out ( i am ) but remember, .... Paralegals get paid well too.. just kidding, remember its just a test and you can always take it again. As cliche as this sounds, you have to believe in yourself!

The definition is "if two variables cannot be next to one another, there must be at least one space separating them", and the equation is Total slots – # w/i variable = # empty slots between the variables.

Can any body give a full explanation on what separation principle is? I don't get what w/i variable represents... Thanks in advance!

Hey guys! If you're taking the June LSAT and your account is inconveniently set to expire a few days before the test date, just email me (dillon@7sage.com) and I'll extend your account for free through the June test. (Make sure you include your 7Sage email!)

I can guarantee you that my inbox will fill up with these, so give me time to reply to them all. If your account expires by the time I get to your email, don't worry, I'll reactivate it for you. :)

For those of you who are expiring after, good luck on the LSAT! We here at 7Sage are rooting for you.

So, as some of you may know games are my lease intuitive section.

I am currently fool proofing PTs 1-35 and I am seeing some improvement. (Using an adapted version of @Pacifico's method)

My question is how many games do you aim to do a day?

A full LG Section worth (4-Games)? More/Less?

Lately, I've been aiming to do about an LG section a day. I follow the fool proof guide exactly as prescribed.

I'm curious to know how those of you who have successfully fool proofed the bundle spread them out? Basically, how long did it take. I know, I know, the journey is never over. But let's assume your first time through fool proofing PTs 1-35?

Also, should we wait until we have done all the fool proofing to begin PTs?

Thank you :)

Hi all,

I was just curious what people's experiences were with overtraining. Specifically:

Thanks in advance.