Hello

Any advice for my case

Last week I took PT 75 and got a 171 and been averaging 170 from PT 70 -76.

I recently took LSAT 77 and 78 and got 165 and 164 respectively, I doubt it was burnout because I took them two days apart.

Anyone have any idea what is going on and what I can do? I feel hopeless. My ideal score is 166 +.

(This very well might have already been posted so bear with me)

I came across this cool website on growth vs. fixed mindsets.

http://www.mindsetonline.com/whatisit/about/index.html

As we are all in this brutal LSAT studying boat together, I think we all can agree that it's very easy to fall off into the sea of a fixed mindset mentality. I hit a wall last Sunday harder than I ever have while studying for the LSAT and I was definitely reverting back to a fixed mindset mentality. We ALL have great talents and our hard work is going to push us to attaining our ideal score.

Hope this was beneficial for anyone who needed it :)

I've been actually consistently studying and doing full BRs. I've noticed I've been increasing as of late. 151 to 155 to 157. I've had sporadic studying for the past year and didn't see much of any improvement, but I feel like continually doing it though I've had the flu for the last two weeks has given me hope that I can reach the 170s by the Dec. test.

This test is not series of peaks and valleys but a long, brutal ascent.

I will say that stamina is a huge thing. I do decent the first two sections. Then when the sniffles and mucus start by section 3, then I start doubting myself in my thinking. Staying healthy and alert seems like huge things we can possibly be taken for granted.

A great grouping game with conditional logic, but I am having some trouble...

I am having trouble understanding how to link up the new condition in this question. I understand what JY is saying in the explanation video and it makes sense but I have no idea how I can apply that in future questions that are similar.

With the new condition I cannot help but see H -> /S -> J .... "contraposed" as /J -> S -> /H. I don't see how the /S -> J relationship changes, I am trying so hard. Any advice?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-4-game-2/

Hey-o from Hurricane Irma!

Gotta keep studying regardless so I've been working at it and for some reason Flaw questions have decided to crop up and be a problem. Anyone have some sure fire tips for them? I just did an LR section timed and got -7, with -3 being flaw (all of the flaws in the section may I add). -2 were questions I legit got wrong and the other -2 I reread the question and knew right away what I did wrong/read wrong. But -3 in flaw is a big deal.

Any tips and tricks for flaws? Favorite way to drill? Etc.

Help your favorite (or probably not favorite but i'm at peak level stress so I'm going to hope you guys like me at this point) hurricane pilgrim out!

In the PrepTest booklets (usually on page nine), there is a page titled "THE PREPTEST." This outlines the different sections, one through four, as well as the writing sample materials, and gives you the order in which to expect the two logical reasonings, reading comprehension, and the analytical reasoning.

On test day, is there a page like this at the front of the book that tells the order of all five sections, so you have an idea of what to expect, as well as which might be the experimental (based on whether there are 3 LR, 2 RC, or 2 LG)?

Thanks and good luck to everyone else taking the September test a week from today!

?

Are we supposed to assume that these chemicals are initially "harmless" or that the dilution process caused them to become harmless? There is nothing in the passage discussing whether or not the chemicals are harmless.

No other answer choice makes sense, but Answer choice A requires some form of assumption to be made.

some insight please.

I know this has been asked before, but the list of tutors approved by 7sage is almost two years old. Is there an updated list or tutors from that list that are still active and have space for a student?

Well....it's like one week before game day. To say I'm getting nervous would be an accurate statement. I also am not sure what to do prep wise. I have a PT that I really want to take (PT80) but at the same time I don't want to risk getting a bad score and destroying my confidence. My last scored PT was a 174 and I am riding that high currently. I face the dilemma of wanting exposure to another modern test, and wanting to keep my confidence in tact. So.....what do I do?

I'm struggling with Reading Comp.. pretty badly. I miss like a total of 10 questions on my Reading Comp sections... that is not good.

Has anybody here ever struggled with Reading Comp but found a technique/way that helped you perform really well on Reading Comp now?

I always summarize each paragraph, underline/circle key words and try to understand how all the paragraphs are connected/related after I finish reading a passage. However, I still keep missing like 8-10 question. But I'll usually get down to 2 answer choices (wrong answer choice and correct answer choice), but I'll often times end up choosing the wrong answer choice! Augh.

Timing is also a problem for me. I take about 3-4 minutes reading and analyzing the passages and I Feel like I'm not spending enough time on the questions. I feel rushed and when I see that I only have about 10 minutes left to do my last passage, I start panicking.

Please help. I feel like if I can just do better on my RC section, I'll be able to reach the score that I want.

If you have ever struggled with the RC section in the past, but you've now found a way to do well on it, please teach me your ways!

I'm a bit confused about the technical differences between the errors of (1) mistaking sufficiency or necessity and (2) mistaking necessity for sufficiency. I realize the instances in which the errors arise may be different (i.e. mistaken negation and mistaken reversal, respectively), but aren't the 2 mistakes essentially the same error described in two different ways? If you were to switch the necessary and sufficient conditions of a conditional statement (mistaken reversal) would you not be able to describe the error using either one of those descriptions?

Webinar video here:

YOU ASKED FOR IT: Hey folks—You've been asking if I'd offer this webinar again. Well, you have spoken: I have heard you. It's Hammer Time—ROUND 2!

If you missed the first one, or just need a refresher, this is for you!

RC Webinar | Saturday, November 14th 6pm–8pm ET

Free and open to the public (and to folks at all levels of LSAT mastery).

It's Hammer Time

In this webinar, I'll share my notation strategy and talk about how to effectively turn the passage into a toolbox with which you'll eliminate 4 wrong answer choices for each question. This strategy is for beginners, strugglers, and experts looking to refine their own method.

There will be a Q&A period and, time permitting, I'll demonstrate how to eliminate answer choices effectively.

If you'd like to join (we will be using GoToWebinar), follow the link below.

Note: no special materials or preparation necessary!

Please register for It's Hammer Time | Reading Comprehension with Nicole (7sage Webinar Series) on Nov 14, 2015 5:00 PM CST at:

https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/4378000585563908609

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

Brought to you by GoToWebinar®

Webinars Made Easy®

If you're unable to attend, don't worry—we'll cycle through the list of topics periodically, and a recording will be available.

In the meantime, you can review the slides on my website (ilovelsat.com) by using this link: http://www.ilovelsat.com/s/Webinar_RC.pdf

In the future, I plan to offer another, more advanced (but always free) webinar: "All About Those Inferences." Stay tuned for that!

For those of you who found the RC difficult from the June '17 (PT 81) test and want more practice like that, you should check out PT 5's RC section. I thought it was structured in a really similar way to PT 81 with a similar distribution of difficult among the passages like PT 81.

What skipping strategies have worked for people out there (especially for LR)? I haven't found something that really works for me yet, and while I usually finish sections, I don't find myself with much (or any) spare time. At this point, I skip the Parallel Flaw questions when they're past #15 or so, but that's really the only thing I stick to. I am able to move on from a hard one after 2 minutes or so, but I'm having a really hard time getting past the mentality of "just a couple more seconds and I can get it" and "I've already put this much time in, it doesn't make sense for me to leave it now."

What do other people do?

Does "nearly all" equate to most?

Spotted it in a parallel reasoning question!

I am having trouble understanding why answer choice A is a necessary assumption. I eliminated this answer choice because of the word ANY. I think it may be due to how I negated this answer choice, focusing of the "quantity" and not on the word "work well."

The way I negated it was: A type of school system that works well in one country will NOT work well in SOME countries." Even if this was true, I don't believe that the argument would be wrecked, as a country could just defer to the next best possible choice of system.

However, if I were to negate focusing on "work well": A type of school system that works well in one country WILL NOT ALWAYS work well in any country. Were this to be true, I can clearly understand why the argument is wrecked.

How are we to go about negating such necessary assumptions? I thought negating "all" was to simply state "some are not." Is there a rule to when we are to negate quantity or note?

Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-4-question-03/

Hi everyone,

I am really not sure how to relay my situation but I'll try my best. I am sorry in advanced if it seems all over the place. So here is a general background (can I even call it that)? of my situation: I was fortunate enough to be able to spend extensive time studying for the LSAT since last summer 2016. I should have used my time WISELY. Instead, I continued to procrastinate and push back studying for the LSAT. I had a lot of time and because of this, I kept telling myself not to worry; however, the few days that I DID study for the LSAT (which was usually two or three times a week for about 30 mins to an hour) I did not put my full effort in either. I purchased the Powerscore LG and LR books and essentially rushed them for the past year. After finishing them this summer 2017, I began taking PTs untimed. My scores started to increase up to mid 160s untimed after a few. Similar to reading the Powerscore books (two or three times a week), I only did the untimed PTs once or twice a week with several breaks (yes, I know. Terrible). Throughout this period, however, I frequently consulted LSAT discussion boards such as this, TLS, and the reddit forum.

My current situation:

I am currently registered for the September 2017 test (which is about a week away now). I started taking my FIRST timed PTs for about a week now and my scores are continuing to stay in the low 150s. I also made the mistake of not thoroughly reviewing the PTs or using BR. I am pretty sure I will do just as poorly on the test next week as I have on the PTs I am taking. I am not really sure what to do... Do you recommend I start from learning the fundamentals properly? I was considering using the 7sage course to study for the LSAT. Even if I did bomb this September test next week I am signing up for December to retake it with much better study habits because I have learned (the hard way) that there really are no shortcuts to this test.

What I have been hoping for is my GPA (cGPA of 3.90) to compensate for the low LSAT score in this September test since I am applying this cycle and thinking I am a splitter. I am a Canadian applicant and have hopes of getting into either Osgoode or U of T. What are your thoughts/advice/opinions? I know my approach was really, really bad and I will likely get criticized for it but I chose to ask this question in the 7sage forum instead of TLS and the Reddit forum because having I find the help here to be much better and I feel the sense of community is much stronger here.

Thank you for taking the time to read my lengthy post. Apologies again!

Hello!

I really need some help understanding why my answer is incorrect. I believe my board follows all the rules but would love for a set of fresh eyes.

PT6.S4.G4.Q21--> correct answer is C but I chose D.

So I had my game board looking like this:

J ------ O

|

K ----- M -------L

Did anyone find a more simpler way to tackle game 4 in this pt?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-2-game-4/

I got the MP but I wanted to further analyze... Could someone review my thought process please? (This is a question in CC!)

Part of the stimulus: "But there is a positive role to be played even by these extremists for the social &political inertia that attends environmental issues is so stubborn that even small areas of progress can be made only if the populace fears environmental disaster..."

Does "only if" introduce necessary condition? Thus would the diagram be the following: Small areas of progress can be made --> populace fears environmental disaster (or the other way around...?)

Since it's a conditional statement, it's wrong for A to assert that "little progress that HAS BEEN MADE in improving the environment is mainly due to the fear created by radical environmentalists." We don't know in the stimulus if the progress has actually been made-- it just gives us a conditional. Is it safe to say that (A) requires you to assume something that we have no basis or support for?

Someone had commented, "(For the sake of practice) Notice the gap in the argument – author assumes that the radical environmentalists incite fear in the populace through false extremes (possibly about unlikely environmental disasters) and thereby, allows the possibility for small progress to occur (this is the positive role)." Is this correct? Could someone shed more light into this gap in the argument/ any other flaws?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-2-question-18/

I tend to do a full review rather than a blind review because I hate using test time to figure out whether I am convinced of my answer or not.

I know it's more time-taking when you're reviewing questions, but do you think it has similar benefits to blind review?

Ok, I'm at the end of my rope.

It's reached the point where i'm asking the Starbucks employees. I have NO IDEA why C is correct and why D is wrong. In fact, I've reread this thing so many times I can recite it. If anyone can help, please do. It's one of the few questions I genuinely do not get. Please point out the part of the passage that supports C before I throw things.

I love each and everyone of you who even try to help me.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-1-passage-1-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-1-passage-1-questions/

A pivotal point to reach higher score bands is to implement skipping strategies and those concepts have helped elevate my score potential. If you can grab the “low hanging” fruit of easy questions, then you can “bank” time to return to the curve breaker questions. However, putting undo pressure on myself to answer the first 10 questions in less than 10 minutes didn’t quite work as I had planned... i.e. PT62 shows that LSAC will throw in level 4/5 questions in the first 10 & have a level 1 question in the midst of a 4/5 stretch which supports the 25 questions in 25 minutes strategy.

The Official LSAT SuperPrep II, LSAC provides a 1-5 ranking of difficulty for every question for PT 62, PT 63 and previously undisclosed PT C2. (will add C2 graph soon)

Hope this helps:)

[Edited to change title]

Is there such a concept?. I have been at RC for a couple months and it still feels far more volatile than i am comfortable with.

Thoughts?