Discussions

All posts

New post

248 posts in the last 30 days

OK, so my battle with RC and been brutal, long, and very emotionally draining. I originally was going like -16, now I'm going -5ish. In RC I have seen the biggest gains. I have done really well and learning to "see the forest" before I examine the trees. As @"J.Y. Ping" put in a RC webinar, you have to be able to understand the passage at the 10x level, the 5x level, and the 1x level, 10 being the forest, 5 being individual paragraphs, and 1 being the individual trees.

Questions related to the 10x and 5x level are starting to become very easy to me, even for some of those level 5 passages. What still to this day trips me up are those 1x level questions where you have to understand certain parts of the passage at the 1x level. Out of the 5ish questions I usually miss, almost all of them are 1x, fine detail level questions. When I BR and grade my PTs I always see the right answer and I'm like, "Ahh! Damnit. It says it right there in that one tiny sentence! How did I miss/forget that part?"

My question to all of the RC gurus out there is how did you learn to remember things in the passage at the 1x level under timed constraints? For me, I almost always have to return to the passage, and I usually just don't have enough time to make it happen, so I circle the question and skip. The questions I miss are generally due to not remembering a specific detail from the passage, and not having quite enough time to return to the passage. When I come back to these questions, I usually just POE because I am at my last 2-3 minutes of the section. It's so frustrating because I am so close to going -0 on some sections, and the questions I miss are really not that hard, it's just remembering the fine detail.

As always, thank you for the feedback!

1

Hi all, again about PS :P

So to be honest, I have not decided to pursue which field yet...I'm interested in a couple, but have not chosen yet. I thought I want to decide after I enter law school, so I am choosing law school which have both of the fields that I am interested in.

So I am not going to talk about why X field in my PS, but when I read some samples, it seems people have legitimate reasons about which law they would like to practice. (and I understand it because it would be one of the reasons they choose the school.)

If I do not indicate one, would my PS look weaker? I may want to honestly say "I have not decided yet" but would it look bad?

Should I just do more research and decide which one before I even apply law school?

Thanks for your insights.

0

Ok, so I'm having a little difficulty with something. I'm currently aiming for the June 2017 administration, and I've covered a lot of the fundamentals in my studying so far. However, I do have one issue that I'm struggling with and it's "balancing my schedule".

I work full time in the litigation department of a large firm. I also work out a few times a week with my significant other other (who is a professional and is not studying for the LSAT, though accompanies me to the library to study). I'm having a hard time fitting all of my studying in while balancing work and working out. I typically tutor the LSAT throughout the week as well.

On a typical day my schedule looks like this:

Wake up at 4am (usually at 5am), study until 8am, get ready as fast as humanly possible in 20-30 minutes and be at my desk by 9am. Work from 9-5, sometimes later depending on what my work day looks like, I typically tutor the LSAT for about 3 hours after work, and then I try to fit in a work out, but most days I don't get to it. I get home, and I'm exhausted. I shower and sleep and then repeat it all the next day.

I've tried in the past two weeks pushing my workouts to the weekend, which has helped some. But I'm starting to feel like maybe just cutting out tutoring altogether might also be helpful. If I just stick to studying + work + light exercises on the weekends, how should I best structure my schedule?

One idea I had was that I wanted to start PTing on Saturday mornings, and then spend every morning before work (that 4am-8am time period) doing the blind review. Maybe taking Friday to relax.

If others have done something similar to what I'm doing now I'd love to hear it. Or, if you see something I'm doing wrong please point it out. I'm aiming for a 170+ but certainly want to hit the 174+ range. I'm in the 160s at this point.

2

Office Hours with Daniel: Ask him anything, even LSAT stuff!

Office Hours with Sage Daniel

Tue, Jan 17, 2017 7:30 PM EST

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

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/788650621

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States: +1 (408) 650-3123

Access Code: 788-650-621

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

1

Hello all,

For the June 2007 Prep Test, for Section 4 (RC) and question #13 ("Which of the following principles underlies the arguments in both passages?") I see why E is correct, but why is D incorrect ("The discovery of the neutrological basis of a human behaviour constitutes the discovery of the essence of that behaviour.") A detailed explanation would be appreciated!

Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-4-passage-2-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-4-passage-2-questions/

0

Hey Guys,

I am very confused on this question. I thought the answer would be A.

The paragraph says in the first sentence that there are two kinds of horror: mad scientist and monstrous beast. The last sentence then says that both kinds of horror stories describe violations of the laws of nature and are intended to produce dread in the reader. Therefore, why would the answer not be A?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-42-section-2-question-16

0

I just drilled the LG section from PT 18 and it totally threw me for a loop! Train lines? The random promotions game? What was that? I'd happily take snakes and lizards. For those of you looking for weird games, look no further :).

Off to drill them until I hit time... it was such an odd section I felt it deserved a shout out.

4

For the next couple of weeks, we're moving to Monday. Yay?

https://media.giphy.com/media/26hirUelXr2LTw4us/source.gif

Hope to hear you there!

Monday, January 16, 2016 at 12:15PM ET: PT77

Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219480381

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: 219-480-381

The Full Schedule for Feb Test Takers

12pm EST, Monday, January 16, 2016 - PT 77

12pm EST, Monday, January 23, 2016 - PT 78 (please note the date change from 1/19)

12pm EST, Thursday, January 26, 2016 - PT 79 (please note the date change from 1/25)

12pm EST, Wednesday, February 1, 2016 - PT 80

Google Calendar: Coming soon!

Note:

  • For everyone: take the PT under timed conditions; BR as you are able on your own; then join us for all or part of the call—everyone is welcome.

  • Note: For the purposes of the call, we like to check our group blind review score together at the very end of the call :) So at least don't say ... "No guys, really, it's D, I checked it.” KEEP THE CORRECT ANSWER TO YOURSELF. Win the argument with your reasoning.

  • These groups work best when folks from ALL stages of prep and with all different goals join in! Not just for "super-preppers" and definitely not just for the casual LSATer (does such a person exist?).

  • The only expectation anyone has for these calls is for you to have fun and ask questions as you desire. We are just a bunch of LSAT lovers who gather via GoToMeeting and intellectually slaughter each test.

    • 1

    Hi everyone!

    This is kind of a weird question, but it's on my mind whenever I take a PT. I am hovering in the mid-160's right now, and have taken a little under 10 PT's. Games is by far my worst section; only finish 3 of the 4 every time like clockwork. When I go to BR them and have all the time in the world, I usually get a perfect score (not a feat that seems to be uncommon with games when you have unlimited time to finish them).

    But this always then brings my BR up into the 170s, and well...this seems inflated to me. BR is supposed to measure potential, and it seems strange to say I'm a solid 170's potential scorer right now when I have such a huge crutch in games. It's like taking out my giant Achilles' heel from the equation every time I BR, and I don't want it getting in my head that I'm doing better than I really am. (Lol I've found that ego is a dangerous enemy with the LSAT.)

    Has anyone else ever encountered this issue? Or have a way to BR their games with this in mind? Thanks guys :)

    0

    Hi, I would appreciate if anybody could give me more information about the binding program. Do I have to go to a law school if I get admitted through the early binding program?What is the cost of not going after get admitted? Also, is the binding means that I have to finish 3 years in this law school and can't transfer to any other school?

    Thanks!!!!!!!

    0

    Hey guys! I am not sure how the blind review method works since I have only attempted it once (for the diagnostic)... not sure if I am doing it correctly. Could someone please elaborate? I have found it to be really time consuming but I would like to get the most out of it since I understand it is really helpful in prepping for the LSAT.

    0

    Hello,

    I have been hearing a lot about the massive amount of importance that 1L can have on one's career. I have also noticed that a common thread among successful 7Sagers on the LSAT is that they seem to study a lot more than most people. >1 year vs 3 months for your typical student.

    Given these thoughts, I've been toying with an idea for succeeding in 1L. I don't know much about law school classes or the process so this might be totally off, but I figured I'd put it out there and see what you think. Here it is:

    Deferring enrollment for one year before 1L in order to "ghost" the classes. Ghosting classes is where you take classes that you are not enrolled in in order to learn the information without being given an actual grade (and sometimes without even being enrolled in the school). I've heard of it being done in undergrad and possibly MBA programs, but haven't heard of it in law school. Given that 1L seems to have such such a large impact on the rest of your career, it seems that having 2 years of exposure to the material would put you at a large advantage and be very beneficial.

    Ghosting would give the opportunity to get introduced to the course material, to experience the workload of law school and the study habits that are effective for it, and would allow you to begin to make the outlines. I've heard that the 1L class load is fairly similar across schools, so this may be effective even if you are ghosting at a different school than you plan to attend.

    Given the immense importance 1L has on your career, it seems that having 2 years to study for it versus one would give someone a large advantage?

    What do you guys think? Would this be feasible and possible to do in a law class setting? Would this be beneficial and effective? This was fairly off the cuff and I am certainly no expert in law school, so please feel free to correct any incorrect assumptions I may have made.

    Thanks so much for the help!

    1

    I know it may not be much, but I finally broke an LSAT barrier and scored in the 150's 150 and BR 157! Again, I know it's nothing amazing and very mediocre for many people, but considering all of my prior PT's had been 144 and below, I'm glad I finally got into the 150's haha.

    I'm preparing for the June exam and kept telling myself I better break into the 150's soon if not my confidence and motivation was just gonna be horrible. Really motivated to study now and reach my goal of +160 by June. Thank you to all the awesome people here at 7Sage!

    11

    Come June 2017 LSAT Grey Day, we wanna be winning like Tracee Ellis Ross at the Golden Globes

    PT 59 BR 6pm EST

    Sat, Jan 14, 2017 6:00 PM - 10:00 PM EST

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

    https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/424406781

    You can also dial in using your phone.

    United States: +1 (571) 317-3122

    Access Code: 424-406-781

    Note:

    * For everyone: take the PT under timed conditions; BR as you are able on your own; then join us for all or part of the call—everyone is welcome.

    * Note: For the purposes of the call, we like to check our group blind review score together at the very end of the call :) So at least don't say ... "No guys, really, it's D, I checked it.” KEEP THE CORRECT ANSWER TO YOURSELF. Win the argument with your reasoning.

    * These groups work best when folks from ALL stages of prep and with all different goals join in! Not just for "super-preppers" and definitely not just for the casual LSATer (does such a person exist?).

    * The only expectation anyone has for these calls is for you to have fun and ask questions as you desire. We are just a bunch of LSAT lovers who gather via GoToMeeting and intellectually slaughter each test.

    Tentative study schedule

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

    @dml277 @BinghamtonDave @"Alex Divine" @ScooterMinion @aimhigher @leannasamson @Omed_OvO @cm214998 @nanchito @"Lauren L" @Emely.Moreta @"el chucho" @jgsisco @Sharmetz @877blessed @mnrahall @jennagould60 @Citygirl @aaronmorris222 @bswise2 @KWoulf13 @mckenzieleanne10 @hhhiser_06 @DinnerAtSix @couchifer @poohbear @SherryS1 @smartaone2 @red_ambrosia @crp9ce @DiligenFxy0628 @karen.sov @spbarry @cfield.3 @JustDoIt @lawgikal @TheMikey @justicedst @bbutler @Mitzyyyy @AlexandriaD @"Burt Macklin" @"adore-no" @twssmith @gaandrsn @RafaelBernard @CinnamonTea @TheMikey @sheridan9194 @jimmyrivera201 @meg321go @carlistics @draj0623 @jcorine26 @caitieadams @ppcoelho1 @Gladiator_2015 @sunnyvictoria0610 @yamameerzada484 @bruingirl1205 @emilyxiong315 @lawschoolstuff16 @joneselisabethpenn @gaandrsn @tsan220 @Grace... @dantlee14 @dannyshaw @"Not Ralph Nader" @etphonehome @"subi rami" @cetienn2 @zyahya @Connor180 @Walliums @canadalegalbiz @jeremybentham @HennaC15 @helentang02 @imekahel @sacksj18 @Mattglandry @trxdsd91 @jknauf @hernandk @far_k_hd @BenjiM123 @morganclarke @phelanj75 @d_villa @5everLSATing @mo.sheikh @zyahya @cetienn2 @"subi rami" @etphonehome @rachaels @"Michelle Juma" @rpffj1213

    3

    I needed to post about this because *sings* "for the first time in forever" I have broken a barrier! I'm now ten points up from my first PT and feel as though I'm making new progress. Thank you to everyone on this forum for being so kind and gracious in your advice. May we all conquer the LSAT!

    2

    In the games videos, when JY sees the rule "if P, then not Q", he writes:

    P -> Q

    But when he sees "if Q, then not P" he writes:

    Q -> P

    But these mean exactly the same thing. Why write it one way but not the other?

    It seems to me that something like P (-|-) Q would express the symmetry better, and visually indicate to the reader than P and Q are "equal" with respect to their relationship under this rule.

    0

    Hi guys,

    I was wondering if you guys have any good tip in terms of approaching parallel questioning? So far, after doing 15 question, the only thing that I came up with:

    1) Attention to structure

    2) If difficult to understand, supply with an example to fill the referencing words.

    Any good tips for this type of questions?

    Thanks,

    Panda

    0

    Confirm action

    Are you sure?