I might be losing it. I'm plateauing in the low to mid 160's (162-166) and I'm aiming for a 172+. With only weeks left to go to the September exam, should I postpone to December? Is it even possible for me to see that kind of a score jump in the last few weeks? This would be a retake - I don't want to take it three times, so I would rather postpone than take in September and December (aiming to apply for Fall 2018 cycle).

To give some more background, I have read through all the PowerScore materials twice, have done the LSAT Trainer, used 7Sage materials, and have made/kept a thorough list of LG and LR problems that have stumped me to see the patterns of the ones that I miss.

I'm currently working on foolproofing LG but I feel like when I'm actually presented with the games, I start mentally panicking and spend too little time on the diagram and working out all of the inferences that could help me more easily answer the associated questions.

On LR, I make so many stupid mistakes it's sad...I truly feel that it's my strongest section, the one whose problems I innately "get" the most, but my performance doesn't always reflect that or the hours I've put into it.

I'm not too worried about RC as that's the section I know is hardest to improve in, though am trying to bookmark some of the passages I struggle with the most for review here and there. My performance here can be anywhere from -2 to -6 though.

What am I doing wrong? People who managed large score jumps in the last few weeks, how did you do it?

Hi there,

Writing this as I listen to the Post Core Curriculum webinar, and I have nearly finished the 7Sage CC, I am trying to organize and map out the next few months of my study--- to write in December or February. Even with relatively heavy study, its has taken me 3 months to complete CC. From CC, I created a binder predominantly of LR notes along with notes from the Trainer. I have file folders that each entail a single copy of PT's 1-80, a giant LR binder with every singe LG (1-80) for Fool Proofing, and a binder to work out of BR. I am able to study semi-full time...any suggestions/recommendations on my organizational structure? Although there are plenty of inquiries about how many PT's...I am willing to do as many as it takes, but I don't want to run out of time and there be a gap where I've skipped a whole middle chunk of PT's if I start with #1.

I am aiming for a 15+ point increase, ideally from my last unfortunate write in February. I began 7Sage in May, and have not taken a PT since (skipped diagnostic). I have no knowledge of which areas require my focus.

Should I wait a few weeks before attempting timed PT's, and begin with untimed drills while referring to the curriculum to understand structure better, and Fool Proof LG, or should I jump right in and BR? If so, how long would you suggest this phase last? Or should I ponder over CC notes over and over again without practice before going in? I am honestly a bit nervous to taking my first PT.

I will be able to transition to full time studying in September.

Any and all advice is greatly appreciated.

Thank you!!!!

I realized that the biggest problem holding me back is rushing to answer choices without fully and precisely understanding the stimulus in LR.

But since I've used all prep tests (used multiple times) I remember almost all questions and thus am really not sure how to effectively address this weakness. I tried to practice not moving on to answers until I fully understand the relationship between the conclusion and support and find out what is wrong with the argument. But since I've seen every question before, I remember the flaw and I am not sure if I can truly improve via such method.

My weaknesses I'd like to work on are:

For the past week, I drilled untimed focusing on honing in to the core but I have no problem identifying the structural role of each part of the stimulus during untimed practice. As you know, time pressure changes everything...once the timer is set on, I suddenly begin to rush and fail to efficiently prioritize the information in the stimulus. So I am not sure if untimed drilling would help at this point.

Does anyone have suggestions? Thank you so much! :)

Good morning. This is a recurring thought that I've had and trying to find a framework/rule of thumb that I can use, although it may not work for every question, I'd like to have a go-to base to start from.

One of my toughest things, on the LSAT, has been trying to come up with how JY have what the potential answer may look like. An Answer Choice Framework (this is what I call it), as you think about which answer choice maybe correct before you get to them. I think I've found what JY may use as a basis, other than just gut intuition, as an Answer Choice Framework (as I summon my inner JY), please tell me if I'm wrong: A caused B; B caused A; C caused both A&B; or total Unrelated/or off topic?

I'm thinking, if I label the parts of the argument as 'A' or 'B', etc., then simply look for reversals or alternatives, etc.

What I'm thinking is, that should be my ground rules or rule of thumb, to formulate what a potential answer may look like. Please tell me if I'm totally off base?

PS

On the logical indicators, "Is/Are", they introduce subsets, JY didn't say this but it seems to me that the Subsets these words introduce should be the Sufficient Condition. Am I wrong in thinking this way when speaking of them as Logical Indicators?

First of all, sorry I post so much, we are very slow at work during this time of the year. I spend all my time studying, on this form and on Reddit.

Secondly I would like to know, for you personally, do you find arguments easier to strengthen and build up/support or easier to weaken/destroy/rip-apart.

Then depending on your preference, which kind of question type do you prefer?

Hey 7Sagers!

Bringing up a touchy subject here, but I have been told to stay away from PS that talk about how to change the injustice/horrible world through law (in your PS). Does the same apply if you have personally gone through tough circumstances, poverty, or grew up in a country with such?

Further, I have been looking at many example essays (both admitted and rejected students) and it seems to me like many of the ADMITTED students talk about "securing rights and liberties for disadvantaged individuals" or "changing the world through law" aka making the world a better place. Now I realize there are a lot of different factors that can cause these individuals to be accepted, but nonetheless I couldn't help but notice a trend of these essays being admitted, when people are told to stay away from them...

Thoughts?

I feel since J.Y. has drawn out detailed explanations of almost every LSAT question in existence, that he, if anyone, would stand the best chance at getting a perfect score on new tests. But what do you all think?

Hi all,

I'm new to the 7sage community, so its my first time posting! I made a big mistake and missed the deadline for the September exam. (It's like a nightmare come true) I'm currently on a 2 month study leave (aug 1 - sept 30) from work. Now I'm taking the December exam. That means I'll be studying full time for 2 months, and then working full time 2 months before my exam.

The thing is, the work I do requires alot of reading and by the end of the day, my brain feels exhausted and I have a hard time studying because my intellectual energy is spent by the end of the day. Does anyone have recommendations on how I can maximize my study time? Currently, I'm doing 2-3 exams per week. My major focus and goal during my FT study period is to meticulously analyze the exams I take to see my weak points.

But once I start working, I might only be able to do one exam per week (on the weekends). Is that enough to keep me going for the 2 month buffer period before the Dec 2 exam?

Any help is appreciated!! Thanks!

Hi. My first post and was just wondering if JY has done anything like a concise summary (cheat sheet .pdf) that distills the initial "plan of attack" for each of the various LR question types. What I mean is, after reading the q-stem and determining q-type, a "go-to" guide for just the first few steps to take on that specific q-type, just so we can get rolling as fast as possible once we know q-type. This would be so helpful for developing and perfecting solid approaches for all of the various q-types, and it could be referred back to while working to improve strategy, reduce time per question, etc. With so many different LR q-types out there, something like this would be... awesome! If such an "LR q-type attack plan" cheat sheet already exists in 7Sage's materials (or elsewhere), please let us know; if one doesn't yet exist, please (JY, if you can hear me) do one for us ASAP. Thanks!

I'm finding myself getting -1 or -2 wrong for some of the (LR)... Even though for the majority of the ones I am getting incorrect, I understand the reasoning for the answer choice and why the right one is the correct choice and why the wrong answer choices are incorrect, but I still end up going with the incorrect answer choice... It's almost a letdown because it makes me question my abilities and doing really well on the LSAT. Is it because I may not have as much confidence in myself?

The line graph that tracks our misses by test for each section... there are 2 separate lines for LR... does one of them represent the first LR of each test?

I am asking because I believe the graph is telling me that either the second LR section is consistently more difficult, or, more likely, that I have a conditioning problem. My first LR section seems to be consistently stronger than my second.

(P.S., I know this is a long and dense post, but there's an opportunity at the bottom for anyone reading this to get paid, so hopefully that's an incentive to read this :P)

Hi guys! I wanted to get some feedback from you smart people on the LR question about brown dwarf stars.

We're asked for an assumption on which the argument depends, so this is a NA and the right answer should strongly undermine if not completely discredit the argument when negated.

The claim is that any star found with no lithium is not a coolest brown dwarf (CBD.)

The support is that all stars except for CBD are hot enough to "destroy lithium completely."

The right answer, A, is that "None of the CBDs have ever been hot enough to destroy lithium."

Formal logic wise, I get CBD ---> Not(Hot enough to destroy lithium)

Negating it, you get that not none (so, some) CBDs have ever been hot enough to destroy lithium.

I don't understand how this even undermines the conclusion, let alone discredits it as we would hope for in a NA. In fact, this sounds perfectly congruent with the argument. The support says that CBDs cannot destroy lithium /completely/, completely being a deliberate word choice that does not appear in the answer. If "completely" had no bearing on the meaning of the text, it wouldn't be included.

Therefore, our negated answer, suggesting that some CBDs have ever been able to destroy lithium in some capacity, does nothing to undermine the claim that a star found without lithium cannot be a CBD.

Maybe in being able to destroy lithium in some capacity, said stars are still not hot enough to destroy lithium content in full. Even if you need to make a small assumption jump for this question, I think the most reasonable assumption is that CBDs being able to destroy lithium by some means does not really even scathe the claim that it can't finish the job. This would be a stretch for a weaken question in my opinion, let alone a necessary assumption.

My other question on the matter regards the rules for dangling modifiers in LSAT texts. In this question, a sentence reads "All stars but the CBDs are hot enough to destroy lithium completely by converting it into helium.

I'm a bit confused about how a dangling modifier would apply here in the absence of context. Does the clause following "destroy lithium" imply that the dwarfs cannot destroy lithium in full, (the process by which happens to be by converting to helium,) or that they cannot accomplish the task exclusively by converting the lithium to helium (implying that in order to complete the task in full, CBDs must destroy it in some other way than converting to helium.)

As a native English speaker, I probably wouldn't even have second thoughts and assume it was the former option, if reading or hearing that sentence. However, as an LSAT student who is actively analyzing precision of language, I find myself confused. I feel like I've seen other situations on the LSAT where failure to consider the precision of language, instead using traditional colloquial interpretations, in fact leads you to the wrong answer. Why is it different in this case? (Assuming there isn't some grammar rule I'm not aware of, which I'd love to discover!)

I realize that there is a degree of "picking the best answer" with LSAT questions, and NAs in particular. With that in mind, I still felt that B was a better, albeit still lacking answer.

Negating B leaves us with the statement that it's not the case that most stars too cool to burn hydrogen (TCBH), (which concretely includes CBDs,) are too cool to destroy lithium completely. This still leaves open a wide range of possibilities for some (but less than 51%) TCHB stars to indeed be able to destroy lithium completely. If we know that this class of star may very well have members capable of destroying lithium completely, and that CBDs are a member of that class, we at least have a hint that maybe some CBDs can destroy lithium completely, undermining his support and damaging the argument consequently.

Do I like answer choice B? Definitely not. However, it matches the specific, important diction of the prompt ("destroys completely") whereas A does not, and it gives concrete reason, when negated, to suggest something that directly contradicts and soils the argument. A, when negated, simply refrains from counting out a possibility that would damage the argument, rather than in any way suggesting that the argument is in fact damaged. Knowing that some CBDs have ever been hot enough to destroy lithium at all leaves the possibility that they can destroy it all the way, which we would want to be the case for this answer to be right since that breaks the argument. But, it just as neutrally, it allows for the possibility that they still can't go all the way, which would leave the argument in tact and reaffirm the support from which the conclusion is derived.

TL;DR, I see A suggesting an ambiguity that reads neutrally: If negated, A only weakens the argument by indicating that the opportunity for the argument to be undermined exists, not that it likely does or does not.

B, when negated suggests an ambiguity that, while still concluding nothing, leans towards something that would hurt the argument. Obviously that's a fine distinction that the question doesn't even mean for you to consider, but I don't think it can be avoided if you read the text precisely, and reasonably interpret "destroy completely" and "destroy" as meaning different things. If they meant the same thing, they would say the same thing.

Lastly, any question I ever get wrong on LR is similar to the conundrum I have with this one. I overanalyze the question, but even when I recognize that I'm overanalyzing and need to read a little more simply, I cannot for the life of me figure out when it's appropriate to make which particular little assumptions. If I redid this question 1000 times, I'd think that the logic leap in choice B is more realistic than the choice B counterpart all 1000 times.

Are there any tutors who would be particularly well suited to help me with this very specific challenge? It's frustrating because I literally have no clue what I need to change in order to get these questions write. I'm a native English speaker, born and raised in the midwest United States, and so I don't know what other factors could be causing me to be so clueless when it comes to figuring out which little logic leap/assumption is the right one. If I'm not overlooking some other caveat to this problem, how can the LSAT justify the correct answer if there isn't a concrete reason why their leap is more valid than mine.

If anyone thinks they would be able to help me remedy this conclusion, I'd be more than happy to pay for your time. I'll take help any way I can get it, so don't hesitate to take my money even if you're not a tutor and are a fellow student! Thanks guys :)

At first, it was quite easy for me to identify and correctly label conditional statements. But, now that I am nearly 60% through with the CC (currently working with flaw questions) and questions are no longer in the "identify" phase, but, rather, have increased into the difficult world of description and analyzation ... I find myself getting tripped up with the direction of my statements (confusing necessity for sufficient, and vice versa). I realize that I need to now slow down my progression with the CC until I am able to really drill this concept in my head. Any suggestions/advice/tips/examples (preferably harder examples) would be greatly appreciated!

(Or point me to that resource that does explain it)

I recently purchased the Starter package, almost exclusively for the LG fool-proof method. I am debating a refund though, bc I am not able to see or understand how the benefits come from this method (NOT at all saying it doesn't work, I realize 2 weeks is not enough time to reap the benefits- but that is why I'm inquiring here!).

Everytime JY says to repeat the game + inferences from memory, my mind goes all mushy, bc I don't see how that will help me (THAT much) on test day? I know the games are all pretty similar in structure, etc. (Have been studying for over a year and a half, probably have done abt 3/4 of the games that exist), but I feel like I would benefit from drilling into my mind how each inference came to be, vs. just writing an rule down bc I literally remembered writing it down the last time I did it? JY explicitly says to do straight from memory and NOT based on remembering how each rule kicked in to create that inference. (Seems similar, for ex., to learning the word "lackadaisical" bc my Ex's band name is Lackadaisical, & he is a really lazy person, instead of learning what the actual word means)

I guess I am getting pretty frustrated with the course too bc JY fails to explain this--the "How"--in his videos (at least as far as I've gotten so far. If it's in a certain lesson, pls let me know!!). Also, he doesn't address how to do the LG Questions, either. Do I choose those answers from memory, too ?? Do I read each word in the question stem?? (Same thing with the game set-up, do I read each word there, too, As if it was test day??)

I've just heard so many great things about his videos, strategy, & explanations, and I guess I just had a very different expectation. I would seriously seriously appreciate it if someone could help me out. Would love to get to ~2/3 wrong on LG as so many people here have mentioned here, but my frustration / confusion with the method is really keeping me from being motivated enough to continue with it.

Thanks for listening / reading !!

Are the MP questions in PT1-35 representative of the MP questions on the newer tests? I know how to find the conclusion and main point, but for some reason I do not seem to get all of them right even though I should when I am drilling. I have done the corresponding problem sets and went over the CC covering MP and how to identify conclusions for the second time.. and I have gotten them all correct so I don't know what's going on.

HELP!

Hello. I have some trouble in nailing this question.

(C) How could this strengthen the conclusion? The conclusion is about a causation between oval orbits and close encounter with other planets. But this answer choice is correlation; that is, it says that where planets are orbiting a distant star more than one planet are found near the star. I have learned that generally a mere correlation does not strengthen a causation.

(B) why is this answer choice wrong?

Thanks

After giving the ultimate + package a shot, I just don't think I can justify 750 bucks. I'm trying to canvel.my subscription, but having a hard time getting an answer from @"Dillon A. Wright" Everybody else feel free to ignore this post :)

What are some games that you have used for the fool proof method? I'm making a fool proof "binder" of questions and was wondering what games are best for each type. What games did y'all fool proof with?

Let me preface this by saying, I am a minority. The purpose of this is in reference to an article I read a couple days ago regarding affirmative action in higher education admissions (not trying to ruffle any political feathers...but if you want to read the article, I attached the link at the bottom).

As a minority, is it true that admission officers prefer certain sub-sects of minorities over others? For example, do they prefer Filipino applicants over Chinese applicants, or Mexican-Americans over Cuban-Americans (as referenced in the article)? And in the case of Asian minorities (hint: I'm Asian), does it help to specify what type of Asian you are, if it will indeed be preferred by the school?

From what I've been reading, it basically doesn't give you any advantage to say that you're simply Asian, but I'm wondering if it actually does help if you specify what type of Asian. Anyone have any experience with this?

Article: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450088/sessions-investigates-racial-discrimination-affirmative-action-college-admission

After being notified of your testing accommodation- Did you start practicing with your new time? I am interested in learning about how people with an accommodated time accounted for this during their prep before the LSAT.

Any feedback or comments are appreciated. Thank you!

I'm curious as to why there seems to be such a clearly delineated set of camps on the LSAT.

There is team LG - Who think LG are the best thing on earth. This is where we can consistently go -0 in 28min and feel confident in our answers. We pray we get LG as our experimental section because we love them so much. LR makes us cringe a bit, we might be okay at it, but we sure could use some improvement.

Then there is team LR - LR just comes naturally to them. Typically going -2 or less a section they blow through LR. Finishing early with time to review. They love everything about LR, no question type really throws them for a loop and they always feel confident in their answers. LG make them cringe a bit, they can get through the games but never with confidence and miss a fair chunk of points here.

I've been around these forms, Reddit and a couple of others and it seems people typically fall into one of these two camps. Very envious of the other.

I am team LG - the games come naturally to me, I love them and they are easy. LR on the other hand....how do you people do it?!

Which team are you?

Why do you think this is?

Someone please please tell me this is just an anomaly and that everything is going to be okay lol (seriously freaking out here)

I scored a 157 today on PT #69, my lowest score since the second week of May (when I started studying).

When I started studying I was consistently in the low 160s and now I have been consistently scoring in the mid 160s for the past month or so, and so I feel a bit blindsided by this score, especially because I felt confident about the LR sections and I got 16/25 on one and 20/25 on the other. I kind of knew I messed up on the LG section as I ran out of time (which hasn't happened in months). I feel like it may be because I've been super tired this week and I wrote the test after an 8 hour work shift, but it'd be nice to hear some reassurance!

Also, if this happened to you, any advice on where to go from here?

I am weak at disagree questions. I tend to miss these ones about 50% of the time. I find this weird because when it is agreement I ace it. Does anyone have a strategy for these kinds of questions other than making a Y/N chart to the side? How do you engage with the stimulus, what are you looking for in the AC, how can you tell what specifically they are disagreeing over?

I have an issue with B. The stimulus stated that an equal number of painters, sculptures and photographers entered, how then, can we conclude that the increased price had any impact on which art gets exhibited? since the overall submissions were equal for all three types of artists we cannot say that more painters and sculptors might have submitted works if their fee was lower.

Are we to assume that only rich but bad artists submitted photos and sculptors whilst, good photographers poor or rich can afford the $25 fee? nevertheless, and equal number submitted and they all met the traditional criteria and were all exhibited as result of.

this question confuses me.

Hi all. So I took pt 43 and got a 172 yesterday. Today I did blind review, and was up to a 176. Idk if it's technically blind review , I just took the test and redid it with more time and finished maybe around 4 hours along my start of the sopranos lol.

Now, I want to see which answers I switched over correctly and incorrectly and break them down into question type and practice those sections with some questions.

Is there anything you guys think I could do better here or is my process okay? And I'm really pleased with the 172 since it was my first actual PT since the June lsat and I'm doing a lot more untimed questions by section type and I think it's paying off. I'm aiming a PT a week whereas before I did like 4 PTs a week (very stupid as I've learned). but idk, I got in the 170s a couple times pting but didn't break 160 on the actual test. I basically did much lower than my PT average and I treated this studying like a full time job. Still do for September? So idk maybe I'm missing something and it was those beers all along. Jk. /rant

Thanks