Hi guys, so I need some clarity on PTing and Blind reviewing. So far I have taken only 3 PT and have gone thru the CC twice + the LSAT trainer. So far the scores have been 148, 150, 154 (slowly making my way up sadly LOL) (my diagnostic before I started studying was about 136). Blind review scores are in the 160s. I think the timing aspect really threw me off first time on the PT and I have been trying to get a handle of it. Per section, I am guessing a solid 6 questions at least for LR, and about a whole passage for RC usually because i'm out of time. LG is good - I can do all the games on time, usually -2 on games. I am taking a PT once a week.

However, I really want to be PTing in at least low 160s (which is my blind review score right now). So I am really confused as to how I should get my blind review up at this point.

I try to drill and practice as much as I can from old PTs before I take the next PT and watch all the explanations for the PT I took. I also review concepts in the CC. I have also been writing out explanations for questions that have me confused between 2 answer choices.

Is there anything else I should be doing?? Thank you for the help!!!

Side note; love how helpful 7sage community is as this exam can be really frustrating.

Join us as we go over PT 75!

PT 75 Review on Saturday, April 29th at 5PM ET

Try this first---- https://www.gotomeeting.com/ and then enter the code 617-377-325

Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/617377325

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 (872) 240-3212

Access Code: 617-377-325

The Full Schedule

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

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

Note:

Sufficient Assumption question

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-4-question-21/

Under the timed condition, I got this question right by diagramming as follows:

Context: Ignore unpleasant realities and tell small lies (A) → Sincerity (/B) (B → /A)

Premise: Succeed (C) → Trust (D)

Conclusion: Succeed (C) → face unpleasant realities and speak about them honestly (/A) (ignore unpleasant realities and tell small lies)

Answer choice

(A): D → B

So I picked (A) and moved on.

However, when I was BRing, I got confused by the first sentence:

"Traditional norms (...) prevent sincerity by requiring one to ignore unpleasant realities and tell small lies."

Because of the word "require," I thought I should diagram as

(1) Sincerity (/B) → Ignore unpleasant realities and tell small lies (A) (/B → A)

(Basically this means if you want to prevent sincerity you have to ignore unpleasant realities and tell small lies.)

Since I couldn't connect the chains, I thought again and thought I was right diagramming as follows:

(2) Ignore unpleasant realities and tell small lies (A) → Sincerity (/B) (B → /A)

(If you ignore unpleasant realities and tell small lies, you can prevent sincerity)

But is (2) the right way to diagram this? Is it correct to think that "by" is a sufficient condition indicator? :(

Any help would be very much appreciated!!

Hi all

I cannot find any reason why (C) is wrong here.

It seems to me that (C) eliminates one alternative cause (genetic cause?) and thereby strengthen the argument that P-fat is responsible for the development of eyesight.

I compared (C) with (A) in S4Q17 in the same PT. (A) eliminates one possibility alternative by saying that "Earth did not pass through clouds of cosmic dust earlier than 800,000 years ago. This is because it negates an possibility that something other than fluctuation might have caused ice-age if the ice-age had occurred earlier than 800,000 years ago when the fluctuation started to happen. (A) turned out to strengthen the argument. Then, why does (C) not strengthen the argument? (I mean Q14)

Thank you very much

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-4-question-14/

Currently studying for the September 2017, it is useful to practice the logical Reasoning, Logic Games and Reading Comp. questions from PrepTest 1-20...

From BR'ing, I've noted fundamental concepts of of strengthening/weakening cause and effect arguments. For instance, you can strengthen the argument by saying that in the absence of the cause, we don't have the effect.

My question is where this was in the curriculum - I watched the videos on causation theory but couldn't find it there, nor did I find it in strengthening/weakening lessons.

Hello everyone,

I was wondering if anyone could give me some advice on what to do regarding getting better with LG. As of right now, I am working through the Powerscore LG Bible. I am struggling with making inferences to basic linear games and am consistently missing at least 1-2 per game of that nature.

I was wondering if I should be going through a different book in conjunction with this program? Also, where would you recommend I start in the course in order to get right into LG. I bought premium access and have the general concepts of logic down from the Powerscore material.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

I was only able to answer this Q correctly by process of elimination.

I am still unsure why A is right on its own merit, however.

Isn't it too much of an assumption to say that Chopin thinks that their idealization was "misguided?"

I know that Chopin does not "agree" with them and does not "share" their nostalgia.

But how do you infer from "not sharing" to "misguided?"

I may disagree with someone else's opinion, and can still think that someone's opinion is valid/ worth its own merit etc.

"Misguided" just sounds too strong for me and kind of out of character for the LSAT.

Could anyone explain further? Many thanks.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-4-passage-2-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-4-passage-2-questions/

Hi all! I'm just getting started on the Core Curriculum. In order to plan ahead, I'd like to figure out what comes immediately after the completion of the Core Curriculum. Do you head into the PTs right away -- or do you spend time doing more practice on problem sets from PTs 1-35 (esp. the Foolproof Method for logic games), in addition to the drills that are already part of the Core Curriculum? If it's the latter, how many weeks should one generally plan on spending on extra problem sets before doing PT 36 & beyond?

I just wanted to ask you fellow Sagers about this... plus I'd love to hear how you use BR! I just cannot find the positive usage of if for me and my study habits.

When setting up to take PT I always play the recording of what the instructor will say on the test day, as well as fill in all appropriate bubbling, in addition to the handwritten affidavit. I use the 7sage app for background noise/the instructor saying when it's 5(?I'm not sure) left and then when to put your pencils down. I don't use the timer but always use a special LSAT Wristwatch, to get used to reading a clock manually and linking it to the number of questions left. I try to match the "testing" environment as much as I can to the actual test day to minimize any test taking anxiety (or just my general anxiety) when the real day comes. ALSO!!!!signed up for a digist lsat for a free in Chicago. You guys should look into this if you have not already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay that was long winded sorry, lol. My main problem with BR is that it places this mentality in my head, however hard I try not to let it linger or acknowledge it, that it's OK as in not stressed or even to get it wrong (silly, I know), because even if I get the first choice wrong, it's almost always my second answers (I have finally broke into the 170s threshold and am getting pretty confident with answer selections.) I have always had issues with second guessing myself, where I could see how BR would be useful, but learning this way doesn't seem to solidify in my head that I was actually WRONG. With this mentality, it doesn't uhm, I guess I don't feel the 100% INCORRECT feeling you get when going over a question, confidentiality answering the question without BR, only to find out at the end of the test when you review all the answers it's WRONG. I see the similarity between this approach and BR, you still go back to review to see your question is wrong, but usually, you have the right one for the 2nd question. It's like a small boost to your ego like "well, I just second guessed myself, I'll catch it next time" or "well, I'll improve by test day." But sometimes, it's not that. It's that you just don't know this question stem to a near pefection, and with BR, I don't internalize that knowledge.

Maybe it's just how I've adjusted my brain to studying for this LSAT, but I don't find much use for BR, or maybe not at least this late in this study game.I'm so used to the SHAME associated with taking tests and missing answers in grade school, even college really. You take the test, acknowledge your score, and shamefully stuff away the test to avoid looking or attempting to comprehend the answers you missed... But with the LSAT it's constantly encouraging you to say HEY LOOK HERE, ANOTHER QUESTIONS WRONG! :) And then drill, drill, drill, drill until it comes naturally. I kinda of love the LSAT because of this honestly, even if I've painstaking spent a year of my life studying for this damned thing. Unique little bastard.

Ok to reiterate, Is this bad not liking or using BR? I see so many people loving BR and I feel silly for never having given it a real try, maybe a test or two. I'm honestly shooting for 175-180, and I've hit 175 once YAY! In the 169-170s since Feb. But my GPA is a 2.5 so I have to have an outstanding LSAT score to have any chance at a top school.

Sorry for the long winded post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I appreciate your comments :)

What do you think are the pros + cons of attending the same law school as one’s undergrad? I’m really debating whether or not I even want to apply to my undergrad for law school (considering the application fees + effort and all). I’ve accumulated a list and I would really like others’ input as well!

https://media.giphy.com/media/3oriOb7i28jYlAQGEE/giphy.gif

Have a great BR session with Vanessa!

PT75 is one of the few fresh PTs I have left, so saving it for another day :)

Thursday, April 27th at 7PM ET: PT 75

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:

Hi everyone,

I recently participated in J.Y.'s LR Crash Course Workshop #3 and wanted to share some of the key takeaways from the discussions we had over the course of four days. It was humbling to realize that there is so much to learn and understand about logical reasoning. At the same time, it was great to see that it is very possible to gain that understanding and internalize it to develop a strong intuition for the test. Thanks so much J.Y. for the opportunity to participate in the Workshop!

#Overall Takeaways from the LR Crash Course

##Read everything slowly and carefully, even when you’re trying to go fast!

##To reiterate, DON’T RUSH!

##Grammar

##Logical Reasoning questions are very interrelated

###“Cookie Cutter Review”

##Cookie Cutter Answer Choice: Sole-Focus or Over-Focus on the Phenomenon

##Conditional logic

##Some and most relationships

##Key tasks for doing well on Reading Comprehension (RC) and Logical Reasoning (LR)

##Name or personify concepts that are abstract to gain a more concrete understanding of them.

##Practice ruthlessly eliminating all five answer choices

*Eliminate all the answers, then read the stimulus again and look for any details that you might have missed in your initial reading.

These notes certainly aren't all of what we talked about, but I hope you find some portion of them helpful for you in your continued studies!

Studying for the LSAT? Of course you are! If you've got questions, Daniel's got answers, so come and ask away!

Office Hours with Sage Daniel

Tuesday, April 25, 7:30 PM EDT

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

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/294537749

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States: +1 (872) 240-3212

Access Code: 294-537-749

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

I was accepted At northeastern on a full ride and was selected for the public interest fellowship. I was waitlisted at Georgetown(preferred waitlist), Duke, Northwesten and UPENN. I am having hard time deciding is it worth fighting to get into a t-16 with More name recognition but eventually getting deep in debt because I likely wouldn't be receiving scholarship I assume even if I got in since I've been waitlisted. I am a URM from very humble background. Graduating from law school debt free would mean a lot to me.

Figting to get into higher ranked school + plus accumulate debt verses lower ranked school and fill ride.

I want to go into public interest law and northeastern fits that model perfectly.

Hey guys, wanted some insight into an issue I'm having with PT'ing. Long story short, I underperform on the first section because it takes at least 15 questions for my brain to warm up.

This doesn't even necessarily translate to getting those first 15 wrong - it simply takes me longer to understand and answer them correctly. Which then DOES lead to mistakes towards the end of the section, because I have less time to answer the harder ones.

This is especially an issue with LR. Normally I try to do the first 10 questions in 10 minutes or under, in fact usually 15 in 15 and (on a good day) 20 in 20. This is always do-able for me when it's the second section of LR. My brain is fired up and ready to go. But if it's the first section of the exam I'm just slow to adjust, don't hit those targets, and as aforementioned, it throws everything off balance.

I don't know how to get my brain to naturally be in that warmed-up stage from the get-go; in fact it seems almost natural that it would take your brain a second to adjust from "I'm just living my life" to "I'm doing hardcore logic for 4 hours"

I know meditation helps as a general thing with concentration (and I'm currently working on it), but I was wondering if anyone else experienced this and had advice for that FIRST section specifically. Take a timed 35 minute section every morning, perhaps? Some people even say they did a full section as warmup before sitting for the exam. Would love to know your thoughts.

In PT42.S2.Q15, there is an answer choice (A) that says "contains a premise that cannot possibly be true"

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

(A) contains a premise that cannot be true

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-42-section-2-question-15/

This is not the correct answer choice in this question, but are there cases in which this answer choice can be correct? In other words, are there cases of flawed arguments in LSAT that contain premises that cannot be true (contradiction)?

It's a tough thing to do. All of the voices in my head (and there are lots!) tell me "just stick with it a few more seconds" or "if you're going to answer all the questions anyway, just do it now". Not to mention the time lapse one can easily undergo during a given question: "Oh my. It's been 3 minutes? It felt like 30 seconds". Employing a skipping strategy requires LOTS of discipline and practice. My goal is to skip a question without any anxiety. In fact, I want to skip with the same confidence I experience when answering a MBT in 30s. After all, we should be proud of a decisive skip. If you're not sure why this is the case, check out this 7Sage blog post https://classic.7sage.com/why-you-must-skip-questions-on-the-lsat/

Here is how I am overcoming this difficulty and establishing a 25 questions in 25m strategy.

I'm out of the CC and drilling the bundle. For LR, I am doing "timed" sections with a stopwatch to identify weaknesses which I'll eventually drill specifically. Because I'm using the bundle, I've seen almost all of these questions from the CC and performed detailed question analysis for any that gave me difficulty. So, I don't need to skip THAT many. Probably 3-5 per section. This allows me to dip my tow into the skipping strategy and build a foundation for it prior to PTing. It feels great to have 10 minutes to answer 5 questions (at the most) that I've read through and chose not to answer. That second read-through usually leads to the "click" which wasn't there during my first read and I finish questions in a minute or less. Then I even have time to review questions that I did answer but wasn't 100% on.

This approach is in its infancy, but I am feeling very comfortable with it. I am finding that I still have trouble skipping early questions because I feel like early questions shouldn't give me difficulty (fallacy) and I am not in a skipping rhythm. By halfway through the section, skipping is much more comfortable.

OK so those are my skipping training wheels. Maybe some of you are in a similar boat and find some use in this. Or maybe you've got your own style for skipping and would like to share. I'd love to hear about it.

One effective way that I discovered for myself to solve WEAKEN questions is the following: you have to set your mind in a way that can come to the argument's conclusion even without the provided premise(s). Or you can have the premise(s) and still not come to the conclusion provided in the argument. This way you basically do not attack the premise nor do you attack the conclusion. You agree with both parts of the argument. However, you show that both the premise(s) and the conclusion can exist without one another, e.i. you reach the conclusion without the provided premise(s), maybe by providing the conclusion where it does not requiter premise or you have the premise(s) but the conclusion may not actually happen. So in the LSAT world's WEAKEN region the premise(s) that the argument provide do not guarantee the conclusion. That's how you "damage" the support. Below is an example:

Argument: Because Mike likes rich life he works hard to make money.

P: Because Mike likes rich life

C: he works hard to make money

One way is to show that P happens but C still does not happen.

(A) Mike likes rich life but that fact does not motivate him to work (I know its a simple argument but you get the point)

Another way is to show that C happens without P.

(B) Mike works hard since he enjoys his job (he does not work hard for the sake of money).

Please share your thoughts!

Thank you 7Sage!

7Sage had Office Hours in my city, and I had the privilege to meet and talk to J.Y. in person! (perks of being one of the few 7Sagers in the city! :) )

I would like to share some of the advice I got from J.Y. about Reading Comprehension that might be helpful to some of you.

• Read for the structure

I'm sure 7Sagers already know this, and J.Y. stresses this point in videos too, but for RC, always you should **read for the structure**. J.Y. advised me that I should practice the following:

1) Have a **low-resolution summary** of each paragraph first and then think of a high-resolution summary second.

2) Find a **connection** between the paragraphs.

3) **Predict** what the author is going to say next.

Somehow it's harder to remember the structure and the main point when you first try to remember little details in the passage.

e.g.) Low resolution summary of S19 Passage 3

P1: Phenomenon; P2: Hypothesis 1 & the author's counter-argument; P3: Hypothesis 2 & the author's counter-argument;

P4: Hypothesis 3 & the author's counter-argument; P5: Hypothesis 4 & the author thinks this is most promising; P6: Mechanism of Hypothesis 4

• Dual Passages (A B Passage)

For dual passages in RC, J.Y. told me that we actually should read Passage A and answer the questions first and then read Passage B. There are questions which you can answer by just reading Passage A. Also, you can eliminate answer choices after reading Passage A, and after reading Passage B, you can choose among a few answer choices.

• YouTubing

When I told him that I sometimes freeze when I see scientific passages, J.Y. suggested that I should go YouTubing about an unfamiliar scientific topic in RC for just 30 minutes after every PT. I watched some clips about "latitudinal gradient" on YouTube for 30 minutes, and it was fun and educational!

I'm a low scorer (especially bad at RC) so I don't know if these pieces of advice apply to you, but I wanted to share these with you because I'm grateful for the opportunity of having met him :)

Hey everyone. Just wanted to share a lil' something that may be of some help. I'm not sure how many of you are aware of this, but about 3-4 years ago Kaplan used to conduct a live mock admissions panel in NY. They basically invited admissions officials from four Tier 1 (usually T10) law schools and had them do a live evaluation of transcripts, PS, ECs, etc. of "mock" candidates. They (i.e., the admissions committee) also provided some real handy tips on how to approach writing your PS etc.

I don't believe Kaplan conducts this anymore. They do, however, have recorded versions of the sessions on Livestream.

I personally think it's a great way to get first-hand insight into how law schools evaluate applications, and definitely recommend prospective students to check it out.

Here are the links (each video is about 2 hours long, btw):

Link 1 (schools: Harvard, UVA, Penn and NYU): https://livestream.com/kaptest/the-180-admissions-roundtable/videos/27765588

Link 2 (schools: UVA, BC, GWU and NYU): https://livestream.com/kaptest/lsat-180-live-mock-admissions-panel/videos/60476031

P.S.: You may need to create a free account in order to view the videos.

Hope this helps!

My PT scores took a hit when I initially moved onto recent PTs (60s and up) from the older PTs.

I wondered why. Below is my theory and I was wondering if anyone can corroborate.

(This is limited to LR and RC)

My theory is that the LSAT is testing more on "meaning" of the text as opposed to "literal" understanding. What I mean by "meaning" is something like the range of valid inferences that can be made from the information, whether that is either from a sentence alone, or in combination with other parts of the stimulus/ passage. In the previous LSATs, they did test the meaning, but the correct answer choices also closely matched what's stated in the text quite literally. The wrong answer choices were more obviously wrong, in that they did not match the "text" in very obvious ways. So what I'm saying is that in the older LSATs, you could afford to NOT understand the meaning and still get the question right most of the times. In the more recent ones, you really have to understand the meaning, or else you are in for trouble.

In the more recent LSATs, they really test whether you've understood the meaning of the text. The "meaning" must be matched, as opposed to literally matching the text.

Attractor answers: They are very similar in wording from the text. It is sometimes just one word, one preposition, or something that's so subtle as to almost imperceptible that makes the answer choice wrong. "They sound right," which means that they contain familiar language.

Correct answers: matches in meaning, but not necessarily the language. It's easy to dismiss as wrong because it contains unfamiliar and "not sounding right" language.

So the litmus test for a correct answer is : Does it match the meaning?

There is nothing new about this. But I find myself needing to be especially more careful in the more recent PTs.

I used to have a very precise pre-phrase and looked for certain wordings. They works alright in PTS before 60s. They began to backfire on me on PTs after 60s.

Hello all! I thought I'd share some tips on my personal approach to Flaw questions. I've really struggled with them in the past but I've done every single Flaw question from PT 1-35 so I think I have a good grasp on how they function. Some of this information may have already been stated in the past or covered in the CC but feel free to take what you need from it!

Hone in on the premise/conclusion relationship -- I circle key words in the premise/conclusion and quickly scan the answer choices for obvious eliminators (outside the scope of the argument, descriptively inaccurate, descriptively accurate but not the flaw, refers to contextual or other people's argument).

This process usually leaves me with two attractive answer choices, where I usually got stuck. I started to pick the one that I COULD NOT definitively prove wrong. The correct flaw answer choices are so abstract sometimes that I can't necessarily parse out what each part refers to during the timed test. So I just go for process of elimination. During BR, I definitively prove why it's right but trying to do so on the test can trap you into a time sink. Often, just moving on despite not being able to fully articulate in my head why it's the flaw precisely has been helpful. On the flip side, articulating why the second attractive answer choice is wrong (i.e. pointing to the specific word/phrase that's incorrect or cannot be definitively proven) has guided my POE process with more confidence.

Another thing that's really helped me is not to be locked in on my prephase before heading into the answer choices. In other words, just keeping an open mind. Even if you commit all of the 19 common flaws to memory (which I have), there isn't enough time during timed tests to actually think through all 19 and prephase. Instead, I ask myself an open-ended question that addresses the GAP in the reasoning --- i.e. What if X causes Y, and not the other way around? Wait what, how is X even relevant to Y? This helps me keep the general gap in my mind but not be so stubborn about my idealized answer choice. The LSAT can take that gap and do with it what it wants -- so it's harder to anticipate what they might try to get at. Instead, just having a general idea of where the hole is helps to stay focused when going through answer choices.

I think Flaw may arguably be one of the hardest question types, because it's so broad in scope. They can literally ask you anything because the flaws are so open-ended with so many variations. When you start developing a tunnel vision for the premise and conclusion relationship and STOP WASTING TIME on deliberating wrong answer choices, these can turn into that low-hanging coconut on the tree.

Hope this is somewhat helpful!

I am Completely stumped on this question. I am not sure if I am correctly negating the statement nor understanding the some relationship here

Stimulus Statement: "No laws has No Crimes", Because no laws can be broken.

Makes sense to me. However, I am confused with the Negate necessary rule being applied here since we are given two "No" Indicators.

How I would do this: Laws - Crime

Why? Since we are given a double negative. However,

How this is correctly diagramed is: /Laws - /Crimes

Why? Can some one explain that to me?

Also What do we do when we are given double (negate necessary or negate Sufficient conditions)

Now the negation aspect of this question. Since we are given a no statement and this is a must be true then,

How I would negate this no Statement is: A society has some laws and some crime.

However this is not correct, this is what answer choice (C) says "A society that has many laws has many crimes"

But my Second question then is WHY IS (D) Correct?? " A society has some crimes and some laws"

Thank you so much to anyone that can help

I had a quick question - based on the 7sage lessons on weakening, you never directly attack a premise or conclusion; rather, you take support away from the premise(s). So, a lot of trap answer choices will seem like they're attacking a premise when they're not.

However, is there ever a case where an answer choice DOES directly attack the premise? And if so, is it right?

I ask because I think I remember JY saying in a video (and i can't remember which - I was BR'ing an exam): "When answer choices seem to attack a premise, 9 times out of 10 they're not actually attacking the premise, it just looks like they are. For the 1 time out of 10 though, it's a great way to weaken an argument."

So, if it does actually attack the premise, it would be right, but it's highly unlikely that they would do that, so they're probably just trapping you?

Thanks guys!