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]

Hi All,

Any help with this question would be appreciated. This is a resolve the discrepancy question (arguably a strengthen or PSA).

I'm going to present the stimulus below, accompanied by my train of thought, so someone can point out to me where I am erring in my approach to the stimulus. I am definitely misinterpreting/overthinking something.

P1: Earlier estimates of the distances of certain stars from Earth indicate that these stars are about 1 billion years older than the universe, which is impossible.

P2: My estimates of the distances indicate that these starts are much farther away than previously thought.

Okay so, at this point the discrepancy is introducing itself. Early estimates indicate that the stars are too old, yet the astronomer is now asserting that they are farther/not too old. What changed between early estimates and the astronomer's estimate? My natural assumption is that the farther the star is, the less bright it is. It seems as though the astronomer is about to call that assumption out.

P3: The farther away the stars are, the greater their intrinsic brightness must be, given their appearance to us on Earth.

Okay so this must have been the change. The early estimates probably weren't educated with this new fact, so they were off in their distance estimates.

C: So the new estimates of these stars' distances from Earth help resolve the earlier conflict between the ages of these stars and the age of the universe.

Okay so the stimulus draws a correlation between brightness and distance, and then infers from that that the age discrepancy is therefore resolved. In order for this to be the case, we need an answer choice that creates a correlation between age and distance.

I was able to select C because it was the only answer choice that directly had to do with the stars' age, but I am confused because C draws a correlation between brightness and age. We don't need that correlation...we need a correlation between age and distance. I have learned from much LR practice that if there is an established correlation between A and B, as well as a correlation between B and C, that does not necessarily entail a correlation between A and C. Likewise, we have a correlation between brightness and distance, C gives us a correlation between brightness and age, so how then can we infer the needed correlation between distance and age?

Thanks in advance.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-20/

/Q-->/D D-->W in the 7sage lesson, the teacher said /Q-->/D and /W-->/D, thus, there's no inference made. However, isn't we also can do it like D-->Q and D-->W, thus, some Q are W?

Hi!

I'm finishing up my PS and optional essay, and I'm realizing the two are pretty connected. My PS (on the topic of why I want to go to law school) is centered around a problem affecting students that I experienced as an educator and how I want to become a lawyer to combat that problem.

My optional essay (why I'm applying to X school) is mostly about how I want to attend this particular school because they have such a strong program for students who want to practice education law. I'm listing certain courses, faculty, a practicum program, and journal as specific reasons.

I guess my concern here is whether or not I should reference my PS in my optional essay? And to what extent? My PS talks about how I worked in education for the past several years, do I mention it again in my optional essay?

Hope this makes sense and isn't a reiteration of a question that's been asked a million times before! Any advice on overlapping personal statements/optional essays would be welcome!

Hi folks,

If you're an international student and you didn't receive a full ride, how did you fund your studies? Have you come across any good loans options?

I just talked to someone who took a graduate research position in law school and they waived his last two years of tuition. Anyone heard of similar opportunities at any law schools?

I know @"Dillon A. Wright" has offered a list of googled options already, but I was hoping to hear from international students who have already started their JD.

Cheers!

Hi everyone! Sorry if this is redundant. I have been going at the fool proof method for about 2.5 weeks now and here is what I'm finding and where I am struggling:

Thanks!

Hello all, just dropping this quick question by you.

As you go through your studies, is it more efficient to knock out each section of the LSAT one at a time, or to kind of jump around so you do not burn yourself our on one section or waste too much time learning one section and not enough on the other two?

Thanks!

I am currently using 7SAGE as my primary self-study trainer for the LSAT, I am also supplementing 7SAGE with PowerScore's LG, LR, and RC Bibles. Basically, anytime I finish a 7SAGE section, I will then go back and read/complete the section in the PowerScore Bibles. I have found this to be very helpful except for the Conditional Logic section where I understand 7SAGE's program and mechanistic approach far easier than PowerScores. Does anyone think this supplemental study technique is a bad idea in case I mix up learning techniques, has anyone else attempted to use a similar method?

June'17 Weeknight Study Group | Blind Review PT 63| Wednesday, February 22 @ 7:00pm EST

Gotta love Sea Otters:)

https://media.giphy.com/media/73v1HppfeWkEg/giphy.gif

Seriously, we need to understand this???

https://media.giphy.com/media/7uSayTid2Qgg/giphy.gif

We will start with LR as usual and if time permits we can talk about the RC:)

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

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/531150645

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States: +1 (872) 240-3311

Access Code: 531-150-645

Note:

Any study groups in Atlanta GA?

Hi All,

Super confused by this question, mostly because I probably don't understand what the correct answer choice is actually saying.

The argument is as follows:

P1: The flagellum is what bacteria uses to swim.

P2: The flagellum needs many parts before it can even propel the bacterium at all.

C: Therefore, any evolutionary ancestor of bacteria who only had a few of these parts would gain no survival advantage from these parts.

The question is asking for a sufficient assumption. I cannot understand what (B) is saying or why it is correct.

This is what I think (B) is saying: "At this point in time, all of the parts used for survival would have had to help the bacteria swim." So say there was Part A, Part B, and Part C. Part A helped the bacteria to eat, Part B to procreate, and Part C to sleep. (B) is essentially saying that, in addition to these functions, Part A, Part B, and Part C also help the bacteria to swim. Again, we are talking about bacteria NOW (not the evolutionary ancestors that the conclusion brings up).

So present day bacteria have Part A, Part B and Part C (as well as others, since there are "many"), each of which help them survive but also are utilized for their swimming abilities.

The conclusion talks about evolutionary ancestors that only had a few of these parts. So lets say that an ancestor only had Part A and Part C (pretend they morphed from being asexual to sexual creatures-- clearly not a scientist, but go with it). From my perspective, we need more information that (B) does not give us. For example, why would the functions of Parts A and C have no "survival advantage"? Parts A and C still allow the bacterium to eat and sleep. Is swimming necessary for survival? We are told that they need many parts to swim, but if they CANNOT swim, why would that render their other parts useless when it comes to "survival advantage"?

We know that there needs to be "many parts" in order for the bacteria to swim. We also know that the ancestors in question had "few parts," so we can infer that they could not swim. But the conclusion is very strong in that it is saying there are NO survival advantage to ANY of its existing parts. I just don't see how (B) gives us the information we need to arrive at this conclusion.

I believe I must just not be understanding what (B) is actually saying.

I chose (C). My thought was that, if all the parts of flagellum are vital to each of its functions, then it makes sense that, if an ancestor didn't have certain parts, they wouldn't be able to do anything. For example, Part A, Part B, and Part C are all necessary for ANY of them to function; therefore, if an older ancestor didn't have Part B, then Part A and Part C would provide no survival advantage because they cannot perform without that third part. So unless all of the parts are present, then none of the parts would provide a "survival advantage". (C) provides a very broad and strong claim, but I am seeing it fill a gap that (B) isn't.

Thanks in advance.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-3-question-18/

Yesterday I took the LSAT (the test was offered in Asia on Feb 19), and on one section the proctor forgot to give a 5 minute warning, and instead gave a 1 minute warning. In every other section he gave a 5 minute warning, so this threw me off. I had my own watch and noticed at about 3 minutes left that he hadn't given the warning yet, which distracted me. I ended up guessing on the last 3-4 questions on the LR section, which is unusual for me. Does anyone have thoughts on whether I should report it to LSAC? What would happen if I do report? Is there a chance they would automatically cancel, without giving me (or other test takers) the option to see our scores first? I definitely want to see my score. Thanks for your thoughts!

Hey 7sage Community!

I am currently looking for a study buddy to meet once or twice a week. I am preparing to take the June LSAT and looking to get in as much practice as possible (BR/Drilling). If you are in need of someone to keep you accountable and motivated please message me!

I'm generally free weekday evenings (except Tuesday/Thursday I can meet anytime) and weekends. I am also willing to meet halfway if you are located in SF or South Bay area.

Thank you!

Hi all,

I am hoping to get some input on a skipping strategy (not really for LG). RC is my weakest section (seems like almost everyone says this). When I BR I an able to get 4-5 more questions right because I had made stupid mistakes rushing to get all the questions done. I want to try to practicing skipping questions throughout my next several PTs.

Was hoping to learn some of the strategies y'all use! I REALLY want to maximize my potential on RC- the process has been very rough thus far.

:)

I have a question about "almost every Wednesday" in PT55 S1 Q15.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-1-question-15/

When I read this question, I thought the statement "almost every Wednesday" prevented having free poetry readings on every Wednesday.

So I diagrammed like this:

Wednesday --M--> Free Poetry Reading (FPR)

Wednesday (--some--) /FPR

But JY's explanation says:

Wednesday --M--> FPR

Most can include all, so it does not exclude the possibility of having free poetry readings on all Wednesdays.

What does "almost" mean on LSAT?

Got this one right by POE but had a tough time being OK with A. It is definitely something I considered as a flaw in the reasoning. However, the use of "the identity of the practical joker" in the stimulus (which we accept as true and cannot contradict) means we have to accept that there was one single person who was the joker. A tells us there was more than one joker. How does A not contradict the stimulus?

Am I missing some way of reading "the identity of the practical joker" to mean that there could be more than one person?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-40-section-3-question-14/

The Memory Method is introduced in Lesson 2 of Intro to RC. JY seems to suggest practicing this on 6-8, but does he mean for us to complete this practice before moving on to lesson 3? That would be independently. Just looking to nail this detail down before moving on in the course.

Thanks

"It's always sunny in Philadelphia"

Someone please explain to me how Sunny is the Necessary Condition and Philadelphia is the Sufficient Condition when both come immediately following the logical indicator of 'always' (Group 2).

I have the books for all of them, but blind reviewing on a fresh page would be helpful.

I know most of you are still preparing for the LSAT, so I apologize if this post is stressing you out/distracting!

Soooo, the time has come.... I have to decide where to attend law school now. So far, I've narrowed it down to Michigan Law, USC Gould, and WUSTL. I'm still waiting for decisions from Duke, Northwestern, and UCLA.

USC and WUSTL gave me the same amount of scholarship, but the net cost is lower @WUSTL. I didn't get any merit scholarship from Michigan, but I think I will try my luck with their international student financial aid (I am an international student!)

My priority is to have decent employment prospect post-grad around the country and internationally.

Please share your experience/thoughts with me! I'd really appreciate any insight/advice you are willing to give!

I find myself frantically scribbling everything down like a doctor and never looking back at my notes during the questions. What should I actually take notes on to make this worthwhile? This is just hogging up time for me right now, but I found it to be very useful when doing sections untimed.

Below is a list of LR questions that contain numbers and/or percentages. I'm working through these and I thought I would share. Hopefully this is helpful!

PT7, S1, Q11

PT9, S4, Q13

PT11, S2, Q12

PT12, S1, Q8

PT12, S1, Q14

PT12, S1, Q19

PT13, S2, Q18

PT14, S2, Q25

PT14, S4, Q18

PT16, S2, Q9

PT16, S2, Q14

PT16, S2, Q20

PT17, S3, Q24

PT18, S4, Q7

PT19, S4, Q11

PT20, S1, Q24

PT20, S4, Q5

PT20, S4, Q7

PT21, S3, Q3

PT22, S2, Q23

PT22, S4, Q12

PT23, S3, Q16

pt24-s2-q5

pt24-s2-q15

pt24-s3-q25

PT26, S2, Q5

PT26, S3, Q19

PT26, S3, Q24

PT27, S1, Q9

PT27, S1, Q23

PT27, S4, Q6

PT27, S4, Q14

PT28, S3, Q11

PT9, S2, Q17

PT9, S2, Q7

PT29, S1, Q20

PT30, S2, Q4

PT30, S2, Q17

PT31, S2, Q15

PT35, S4, Q4

Hi all,

I am many months into studying for the LSAT and still struggling with timing.

A bit about my particular situation: I have gone through the 7sage Core curriculum and other curriculums as well (Powerscore, Blueprint, Trainer). Because of going through so many curriculums I feel like my understanding of the material is decent and my blind review scores are at my target (high 160's/low 170's). I am taking one PT a week and blind reviewing. The rest of the time I am drilling by type or drilling by section.

My biggest timing issues are with Logic games. My question is this: What were the best strategies for you high scorers out there who got faster? (My particular area of need is logic games speed, but tips for speed in the other sections would help too.)

Thanks in advance!

Hey everyone,

My school in Canada only gives out percentage grades on my transcript. They also have a chart that converts your percentage grade to a corresponding letter grade. But there are no letter grades on my transcript.

Canadian percentage grades seem to be vastly different from US percentage grades; as my institution counts anything over a 94 an A+, over 90 an A, and so on. The conversion chart at LSAC is substantially lower in terms of percentages.

If I calculate my GPA based on the corresponding letter grades at my institution, my GPA is 4.1. However, those grades aren't on the transcript, so my GPA is 3.75 according to LSAC.

My question is, since there's a huge discrepancy, what can I do? I talked to LSAC and they seemed pretty fixated on taking whatever is on the transcript. For note, I haven't sent in anything yet, but since it's such a huge difference it's causing me huge concern.

Thanks guys,

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-3-passage-1-questions/

For question #5...

I initially got this question wrong and I stuck with my AC in BR. Needless to say, I am still confused even after the video explanation. I initially brought the answer choices down to B and E. In blind review, I looked very closely at the two. I see that there are assumptions made in both. In both instances, I knew this was a weakening question, so my false understanding lies somewhere in the answer choices/passage.

In AC B: why zoologists classifies the okapi as a member of the giraffe family?

I chose this answer twice. Lines number 4-13 are the contexts for this answer choice. The passage clearly lays out why "zoologists first classified it(okapis) as a member of the horse family." But it fails to say that zoologists now classify okapi as the giraffe family. What if they did not? The passage does not say the zoologists ever changed their classifications of the okapi, it simply states they were wrong. The passage picks back up on line 10 after this point, stating that the okapi have been confirmed as members of the giraffe family, but did the zoologists accept this change? Was the change in classification done by a different entity? It does not say. I can see how there are giraffe characteristics stated, but the AC says "why zoologists classifies the okapi" I simply cannot wrap my head around this.

In AC E: why okapis leave much preferred foliage uneaten?

Lines number 39 and 40 are the contexts for this answer choice. It gives the phenomena of the species not eating the preferred foliage, leaving much of it uneaten. So I asked myself in BR, WHY? Well, the answer is that they choose to sample other leaves. So, at this point, I am telling myself that this is an explanation. Great, I don't know why they chose to sample other plants, but I do know why they left the preferred foliage uneaten. I even went as far as to make analogies in order to make sure I was able to understand this question. For this AC, I thought of the analogy: why did John not eat all of his favorite food at the carnival? Well, John wanted to sample other food. I cannot wrap my head around why the passage did not "provide information intended to help explain this AC.

Thank you in advanced for reading this. I know it is quite a bit of text, but I figured that if I fully explained my thinking, it would be easier to critique.