Because who doesn't need another police TV show

https://media4.giphy.com/media/OfLjjJvAS5oM8/200_s.gif#2

Hope to hear you there!

Wednesday, January 11, 2016 at 12PM ET: PT76

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, Wednesday, December 28, 2016 - PT 74

12pm EST, Wednesday, January 4, 2016 - PT 75

12pm EST, Wednesday, January 11, 2016 - PT 76

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

12pm EST, Thursday, January 19, 2016 - PT 78

12pm EST, Wednesday, January 25, 2016 - PT 79

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

Google Calendar: Coming soon!

Note:

do you see the ranking or specialization?

Within what rank is acceptable?

Such as...within 100, 50, etc.

If below this ranking should I wait for another cycle?

Can someone please further explain "the gap/ support" between the premise and the conclusion????

I need more clarity because this is really impeding my performance.

I'm scheduled to write the Feb exam and I've noticed that my RC is my worst section by far! I'm averaging - (3-5) per LR section, and -(0-2) per LG section... but getting around 15-17 (out of 27) on RC... I find that I focus too much on the content rather than structure. I most always correctly answer MP questions but find myself lost on questions that reference specific lines and ask for such things as the tone. Recently I've tried to focus less on content, but then I am complete loss when it comes to questions that ask for analogous situations/opinions/beliefs (because I either don't know the authors motives or I spend too much time trying to re-read). I've done loads of passages to know that my skills deteriorate with complexity (obviously like everyone else) but rather than by theme (science, econ, law, etc)... with the exception of history passages, which I would rather just guess :p

Any tips or recommendations for specific skills to help keep on track of what's happening in the passage, without trying to retain information overload?

THANK YOU!!

It seems JY recommends copying the game board for questions that give you new premises

Like: if a question says "if M is in lane 4, what might be true?" then you would make a mini game board and put M in 4, then add whatever deductions you can from M being in 4.

To me it seems much faster and less cluttered to write the permanent rules, board, and deduction in highlighter, and the temporary ones in pencil. Then after each question, you can just scrub the entire board area with your eraser, instantly deleting all the work that is local to one question.

Of course, the con is that you don't save information about previous questions, chiefly examples of hypotheticals that "could be true". My gut feeling though is that this is only useful on about 10% of games, and the speed/clarity gains from not having to recopy the board over and over outweigh the loss of that benefit.

Anyone else have a perspective on this, or a preference one way or the other?

Can I rip off pieces of the page? I don't mean stuff with text on it, just blank margins.

I would like to cover the bubbles from previously-completed sections while working, to minimize the probability of accidentally mis-bubbling.

I hope I can explain this

1)I fully understand how to convert any sentence into Sufficient and Necessary conditions

2)Where I am having problems is identifying whether the sentence is supplying sufficient conditions for something or if it is supplying necessary conditions for something

3)What I am hoping to understand is the actual grammar breakdown for why it is the way it is

4)below are some examples from a book. what makes a sentence a "sufficient sentence" and what makes a sentence a "necessary sentence"... is it based on "what the main subject of the sentence is" is it based on the predicate verb? what is the actual fundamental grammar rules that dictate this. Yes i know if you say it out loud you would figure it out. but I am trying to understand from a pure grammatical perspective. Thankyou

You don’t deserve praise for something unless you did it deliberately

Deserve Praise for something --> you did something deliberately

Necessary condition

Doing something deliberately is a necessary condition for deserving praise for something

If you do something deliberately then you deserve praise for it

Do something deliberately ->you deserve praise for it

It would be saying that doing something deliberately is a sufficient condition for deserving praise for it

For those who have a math or econ or business background.

We learned that of any financial or math model, there are 2 kinds of variables-Endogenous and Exdogenous. And from macro-econ or Linear Algebra, the change of an endogenous variable does not change the model it self, as such, moving from X to X' is only a result of Y to Y'. And it does not move us to Z to Z', which needs the introduction of an exdogenous variable into the equation.

The exact same method is applied here.

By the question steam, you are able to formulate a principle, or a math equation, and the math equation only applies in this particular set of population-the population of dangerous activity.

Furthermore, if you think of dangerous activity be on your x axis and tax as on the y axis, the fact that dangerous activity does not result in tax on those activity can be thought as a correlation set where you can denote a +1 or - 1direction.

As such, by the question steam, "by the same token", we plug in variables, as we know that these are endogenous and push out a Y'.

Answer choice D perfectly describes the result of MBT from this answer choice while answer choice B does the opposite.

Answer choice A/E describes 2 phonomena. Answer choice E describes "food and shelter", which are variables that cannot be accounted for. And answer choice A "nonessential sports equipment and recreational gear" describes another market or population set. As you know, we cannot slap an equity valuation model onto an alternative asset valuation model, they are simply different kind of assets.

Short version: Went from a 149 diagnostic to a 157 on the September 2016 LSAT, then 167 on the December 2016 test in 11 months all thanks to 7Sage.

Long version: I'll try to not make this a novel, but I've read every increase story on here and found them all uniquely helpful and motivating so I thought I'd give it a shot!

Before I found 7sage, I took an Oxford Seminars classroom course and found the material quite overwhelming. I worked on some PTs and never saw more than a point increase. Eventually I just gave up on applying to law and cancelled my LSAT registration for December 2014.

I found 7sage last February after doing some research for a different course to try, since I was still so interested in going to law school. This course was my last chance to learn how to beat the LSAT, and I wish I'd found it earlier! I completed the core curriculum and took 16 four section PTs before taking the September test with a 165 PT average on my last 5 tests. Getting my score was brutal, underperformed by 8 points and got a 157. After some reflection I realized test day got to me and that there was more I could do to prepare.

In the two months before taking again in December, I took 13 more PTs and increased my pace from one a week to two a week. I sat the test with a 167 last 5 test average and ended up with a hard-earned 167 as my result.

The three things I did that I felt helped me improve the most were:

1. Taking 5 section PTs. I printed out the September test and redid it as 4 sections and scored 167, so I knew I had a stamina problem. I read somewhere that taking 4 sections was just as good, but that didn't hold true for me. I'd recommend taking 5 sections only as soon as possible, because you don't want to find out on test day that you're one of the people that need it like I did!

2. Learning to plug away at all LG sections. I would often mentally give up halfway through the section if the last two games didn't "click". On the September test I panicked so badly that I left 10 questions blank and scored a dismal 8/23. I was able to gain 10 points in December for an 18/23 by practicing filling in all the bubbles on games I was struggling with, then picking the easiest questions that could be answered with the rules alone or at least eliminate obvious wrong answer choices. The last two games made no sense to me but by elimination and brute forcing I was able to score the points I needed and make some late inferences.

3. Being more strict with dropping the pencil on time. I made sure all answers were at least guessed around the 32 minute mark and working on the ones I thought I had the best chance at getting. This worked well for me on LR especially.

Thoughts on future tests:

I'm out of the game thankfully, but I'd recommend that test takers do all the early logic games (PT 1-10 have some weird ones) to get an edge on the more unusual games that have been appearing. I'd also say that doing and BRing more PTs than I did would probably help as well, since I only did 29 in total.

Finally, thank you to JY and everyone who posts on here!! Lots of people read but don't post like me (until now) and really benefit from all the advice posted. Best of luck to those still on their journey!

Hey All,

So I know I am probably about the 9,000th LSATer to say this but....RC is by far my worst section. I have come to a point in my studies where I am super frustrated because I consistently miss a ton of questions for two reasons in particular:

1) I go too slow and I don't get to finish the section;

or

2) I go too fast and miss a ton of important details.

Both of these unfortunate results yield anywhere from -8 to -11...I've tried apps to allow me to read quicker (which work to an extent...but then I have the whole missing details issue), I've tried notating, I've tried not notating, I've skipped questions, etc. I feel like I've tried everything with little improvement.

I also will admit that I enjoy nothing about RC. I will review LR and LG questions all day, but RC really brings my mood down.

I also will admit that I think a huge factor in this is anxiety. I know how poorly I do on RC, so I begin the section already nervous and as the section goes on, as I come across the inevitable "hiccups," I panic.

So tips for RC and tips for dealing with anxiety during the section are much appreciated!

Hi everyone! For this question, I understand how answer choice B wrecks the argument, making it a solid necessary assumption. It was my original answer choice, but I thought I was being tricked at the back end of the test because it seemed like a sufficient assumption. Is it both? Can it be both? If it's not a SA, what am I missing? I hate NA vs SA.

Answer choice B provides the following as a necessary assumption ...

CW-->PBSEKW

The contrapositive of the above conditional plus the author's conclusion make this ...

not(PBSEKW)-->not(CW)

not(PBSEKW)

------------------------------------------------

not(CW)

Seriously, how is this not a SA? It is enough to make the conclusion valid. Please help!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-3-question-23/

Hey guys!

I was wondering if it is possible to increase my score to a 170 or higher if I scored a 145 on my diagnostic. I plan to write the June 2017 LSAT and do not wish to write it again but get it right the first time. I just started studying... Any tips or suggestions?

June'17 Study Group | Blind Review PT 56| Saturday, Jan 7th | 9:30pm EST

We're not gonna miss our shot the LSAT like this

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

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/528847325

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States: +1 (408) 650-3123

Access Code: 528-847-325

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

Hello!

It was about a month ago that I first broke into the 170s on practice tests (sadly, just after taking my December test on which I only managed a 165) where something finally clicked and I started going from -9s to -2s and -3s on LG. It seems like a few hard logic games can really trip me up and bring my score back down, so I'm drilling as many of them as possible until the February test so that they feel as natural as breathing, hopefully.

In the mean time, though, I still miss between 2 and 4 on each logical reasoning section, sometimes losing as many as 8 combined between them! I'd like to figure out how to move forward, but I don't think I'm missing any particular concept. Parallel reasoning is a pain to do, but the questions I seem to miss seem to only fall into one of two categories: 1. I read an easy question incorrectly and missed a point or 2. It's the sort of question where I go back and STILL can't get the right answer. I can always sort of SEE why the correct answer is correct, but I don't usually take away any general principle from the wrong answer other than maybe that a particular word was too strong or something, or some assumption I didn't pick up on.

Can anyone recommend a way to move forward and use this review time wisely? I worry that I can review and review on logical reasoning and never learn the new things I would need to get that 175+ score that I'm hoping might still be possible? Maybe?

(side note: no worries on RC, I only ever missed one or two in that section, even in diagnostics. I'm mostly focused on drilling the heck out of LG and polishing my LR abilities.)

Hi all, I've been studying on and off for the LSAT here and the biggest challenge I've run across is improving my speed. I do okay with accuracy on both LR and RC but can't seem to do it fast enough. Any tips? Thanks mucho!

Hi Guys,

I think I have spent a lot of effort in coming this up and I want to share with you my hypothesis to see what you guys think about this as of how do you correctly tackle every SA, PSA, Strengthen and Weakening. (I suppose that I can add the NA question type into it as well, but...I am not there yet)

If you like it, please comment. if you hate it, please comment. If you want to add on or correct me, please please comment.

So here is my hypothesis:

1) Every SA, PSA, Strengthen, and weaken is an argument. Therefore, there is/are assumption[s].

2) First job is to read the stimulus and find the task. The task requested will then require us to go to various stages. For instance, If it is SA and PSA then we need to find the assumptions. But if it is strengthen or weakening then we need to bring one step further to find the best way to address it.

3) Read the question steam. When reading, it is important to find the stimulus and conclusion. When identifying, we have to be able to find the relationship between the stimulus and conclusion. For example, does the stimulus jump right into conclusion or does it just go from stimulus then major stimulus then minor conclusion then major conclusion, etc.

4) Find the word that is linked. One word or term is always in the premise and another is always in the conclusion. And if you link them, there comes your assumption, which is where you stop for your SA and PSA questions. SA and PSA questions can be made hard in 2 ways. The first way is that they give you 2 premises, which means that you have 2 assumptions (P1-C1), (P2-C2). But the method used is the same. The second way is to introduce something similar but not exact as of your anticipation.

And now comes to the answer choices. When answering the question, be mindful of how difficult the question is. If it is an easy question then your assumption, which you had anticipated should show up there in plain side. Some cosmetic on wording can occur, but there should be little difficulty in identifying them. You circle and move on.

But now for harder questions, while you do exactly the same thing above, you deploy the process of elimination method and find your final 2 candidates. When found, read carefully as of how they are worded. One wording can make a whole difference.

5) From step 5,we move into strengthening and weakening questions. The strengthening and weakening is just either block an objection (strengthen) or call out an assumption (weakening), but the twist here is that you have to assess how to best address it. But once again, your pre-forumulated assumptions stays.

The easy strengthening and weakening question just do this. But for the harder ones, they do something else.

They have a general tendency to call out an still connected but indirect the answer choice that deviates from you initial anticipation.

But before we go there, let's take a look at a question, where I disagree with JY's analysis. https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/new-appliance-models-weaken-question/

In this question, there are embedded in it 2 argument parties making 2 arguments. On one side, there is the consumer, who claims because there are different modifications, product name should be different to differentiate them. On the other side, it says, because every modification is beneficial to the consumer, consumer should just ignore it)

So if you analyse the argument this way, the assumption pops out to you right away by connecting the words.

Assumption 1 from the consumers: The appearance of the product is not enough for the consumer to identify the modified version.

Assumption 2 from the merchant: every modification will benefit consumers.

And answer choice D, directly calls out the first assumption.

In the end, I always believe there is a model to solve these questions. A fool proof model.

I just wrote my Yale 250 in 3rd person. Is that weird? It's an argument about the origin of jazz music.

Hopefully it doesnt come to this and I get into the law school I want or one that I am satisfied with, but just out of curiosity too, what is the law school transfer process like? Do you apply with LSAT scores as well? New recommendations or the same old one will work? And what factor is considered the highest?

I recently read an article that said that the most transfer students were those going into Harvard Law School interestingly enough. Not saying I wanna go there but there might be better chances when transferring.

i.e. I just took prep test 10 and was hoping to find video explanations of some of the questions in the first [LR] section

Am I just looking in the wrong place?

Sorry if this is a silly question and I should know this already

Hey guys, I'm just wondering where i indicate that i plan to take the FEB LSAT on my applications. I took the DEC LSAT and got a score I'm fairly happy with. However, i think that i can do better since i had 0 sleep the night before so I'm planning on taking it again in FEB but i want to send in my apps this weekend. Some schools I'm applying to give me the option to indicate whether or not I'm taking the FEB LSAT but others don't so I'm wondering where I can indicate this on my apps? thanks guys

After studying for 1.5 years this frustrating journey has come to an end for me.

Sadly, I don't have any uplifting LSAT stories to tell, since after deciding to delay a year, and studying for an extra year has led to only a mediocre increase from my Dec. '15 LSAT.... which is incredibly frustrating. Maybe it was nerves/test anxiety, maybe it was the testing facility, maybe I'm just really, really bad at taking standardizes tests (most likely this), but I've decided to end my journey here. I gave it hell, and that's all I could do.

I'm posting this to let the people who also did not do well know that this is not the end of the world, and you're not alone. Have a good cry, and pick yourself right back up. Let this be the fuel to your fire.

If you have it in you to delay a year or two and increase your score to your maximum potential, you should absolutely do it and I wish you all the best in the world! Don't let this test beat you down. You are not your score.

Due to various circumstances in my life, I can not delay going to school another year, and am just going to give it my best shot and hope to get into one of my desired schools (hopefully with some scholly).

The 7Sage community really gave me strength and optimism throughout this journey, and I want to thank you all who listened to me, gave me some sound advice, and for your kindness. The kindness and positivity on this Forum is really rare and special. To all you fine people I want to say thank you, thank you, thank you! To all the newcomers on this Forum, stick around, kids. It's worth it.

If you ever need a friend to talk to, have questions about the LSAT, applications, or just need to vent, I've always got an open ear for you! We're all in this together, and we'll come out stronger together.

This is not good bye, but rather thank you and talk to you soon! <3

After my first LSAT I thought I would never go to law school because of my crappy score, but a friend recommended your course and I got started immediately following the June 2016 test. I took the December test recently and raised my score 12 points! Thank you all so much for the time and effort you put in to this program and I am going to recommend it to anyone studying for the LSAT!

Should I apply this cycle? Or should I wait till the next cycle and/or re-take.

I took the December exam and scored within my PT range, although on the lower side of it (worst LG performance in months).

I am committed to applying this cycle and my LSAT score is at the median or 1-2 points below most schools I am applying to.

Is it worth it to sit for the February exam for what would realistically be a 0-3 point improvement,?

My GPA is at or above the median for all schools that I am applying to. Any thoughts appreciated! And congrats to all who took the test!

If I enroll in premium but felt the need for more, is it possible to upgrade to ultimate? (like the LSAT course, which you just pay for the difference between the courses)

Thank you.