Hey All -

Wanted to know if anyone has best practices or strategies for working in study groups or with study buddies?

- Did you collaborate on a firm plan before jumping in?

- study session recommendations?

- wise to have focused section? For ex. A meeting for LR then separate meeting for LG and so on.

- What happens if one begins to make greater gains? Should you cease studying together?

Any best practice strategies would be super helpful and appreciated. Feel free to mention any items that come to mind that I may not have explicitly listed.

I was aiming for 164 this go around and ended up with a 159 which was about my average on my diagnostics. I'm aiming for a scholarship to Florida State University Law. Is a 164 a high enough goal? Any suggestions for how to study in order to improve my score? RC is always my worst section.

Hi all. Does anyone have any tips on how to "broaden" our knowledge in a short couple of months in general knowledge of science, law etc...to improve better understanding in RC? I remember JY saying in a comment that having "broad" knowledge definitely helps. I know I can't suddenly become an expert, but does anyone have any experience to share? I literally thought about reading something like "Science of Dummies" or "100 things you should know about basic of law" - OK i made those up but you get my drift. THANKS!!!

Hi guys,

I was wondering how and when I should review the exam that we just got back. I scored below my average and I'm definitely thinking of retaking. Should I just retake the June 2016 exam as a practice test again into the future before actually doing blind review? Or should I just break down my score by question types on the LR and RC? Kinda confused on how to go about this.

I have been doing Blind Review and I understand it helps to figure out the correct answers on your own before looking at the answers but why is it helpful in general? My actual scores vs my blind review scores are so different. My BR falls in the 167 range while my actual score is in the 150s. BR is not an accurate view of what you can accomplish on the LSAT is it?

I'll be watching Legally Blonde tonight - anyone else?? Fun fact that they actually study with the infamous record store LG ha!

Can't thank 7Sage enough for getting me to this point and getting in my ideal score range! Congrats to everyone else who got their scores today!!

Not all X are Y. Is this translated as X some (not)Y? Also, is Not all X are Y equivalent to X some Y? For the latter question, I know in English in certain contexts, the statement "not all" of something implies "some are."

Before I can get into my actual concern, I have to setup a sort of lengthy background story, so you lovely person taking your wonderful time to read this post could grasp a better understanding of my concern. :D :O :/

So a week before this hectic spring semester ended, my school was offering our very first LSAT discussion panel hosted by Princeton Review. I was immediately drawn to the event because I thought, "hey. LSAT. Me likey" and because I was in serious need of guidance for the LSAT. Also a quick note, I had already set myself up for a mediocre attitude towards preparing for the LSAT because students I have spoken to prior seemed content with their scores in the 150's and told me that a condensed 3 months studying would be sufficient. I am currently a 20-year-old senior with a 3.7 GPA (salty about my GPA because I could have done better :P) who is scheduled to graduate May 2017.

Anyways back to the story, once the event finally rolls around, the PR marketing guy, who seems extremely chill and intelligent, basically tells me that LSAT is my life, and I should have been preparing for it yesterday. My stomach dropped at this point because I was appalled at how naive I was to waste precious LSAT studying time. The PR marketing guy then tells me that once I have finished taking my finals that I would need to register for the September LSAT immediately so my scores could be sent in with my law school applications to be accepted in time for fall 2017. Once I left the event, I felt both under pressure and motivated to start the LSAT journey. So of course once the semester ended, and I prolonged my LSAT journey about a week and a half due to physical and mental exhaustion, I began freaking out. The PR guy's voice was lingering in my head about how I needed to register and secure my seat ASAP and because of this roadblock I could not function properly. So I register and pay for the September 2016 LSAT to relieve myself of this lingering pressure then I heavily did some research on which LSAT study program I should invest in, and there I was, feeling great about everything. However, after reading multiple discussions in this LSAT program, I realize that I may have shorted myself studying time, and the pressure is back on.

I also now realize that I have an option to pay a fee to reschedule from taking the test in late September to December. While rescheduling to give myself more studying time, which I am unsure if I truly need it, I feel as though I may do poorly because of the exhaustion that might come from fall semester. I am taking 5 classes next semester with a 10 hour internship, which counts as one of those 5 classes, and I work 25 hours a week at night. Am I safe for taking the LSAT in September (I technically started studying last month), or should I try and reschedule for December, or am I just doomed for mediocrity?

Thank you for reading, I look forward to your responses! :-)

Hopefully, this makes some sense. Keep in mind, I am using the term math very loosely.

Basically, I am wondering if anyone is aware of a resource that gets into numbers/maths issues in LR. Some examples would be percentages versus numbers [fairly frequent], greater than or equal to vs. less than, etc. One I saw recently was that the stimulus establishes that revenues were equal to fees and other revenues. If costs exceed the sum both [A>B+C], costs must be greater than either individual component. Now, I get that it is relatively obvious math, but, when doing LR questions, these kind of make me fumble more than they should. I am trying to find any resources that sort of do an overview of frequent math/number related issues on LR.

Tell me that I'm not the only one who hears JY's voice saying "So What!" in my head when working through LR questions.

Does question difficulty increase by the order of questions or they just randomly spread out?

Hello all,

So I finally got through the curriculum and finished my first PT since my diagnostic (+16 pts wahoo!!) But still got a long wait to go..I was just wondering how everyone was going about this phase of studying..I just finished BR'ing and am wondering what the next best thing to do would be ..Should I:

A. Go back to the question types I need most work on and review the course lessons, then take on problem sets timed/untimed?

B. Review the BR questions that I got wrong twice?

C. Stimulate test conditions on select sections I need work on?(for example sticking 4 RC passages together and doing it timed)

D. Continue simulating PT under test conditions?

I'm pretty sure I should be doing some combination of all 4, but given that I have 3 months left of full time study before the LSAT, I was wondering what regimen would be the best way to get the most gains in that time frame. I'm very tempted to just keep PT'ing and and plow thru 2-3 a week and rely on repetition under timed conditions instead of dedicating time to sections of the course to review.. Any thoughts and suggestions are appreciated. Thank you!!

When do schools usually publish their class profile of the new class on their website?

Hello guys,

really need some help here. I stopped doing lsat (for 2 weeks) because I was studying for my exams. Before I was able to have like 2-3 wrong for LR (BR score) and 1-2 for LG no BR and like 4-5 for RC (BR) and I was improving too..and now I just don't want to mention how much I get wrong even with BR :( Feeling stressed. Is it going to get better once I get back to the flow by doing more practice questions?

This question is about an ethicist who says love refers to a feeling therefore a marital vow saying to love until death do us part is a promise that makes no sense because feelings are not within our control and a promise to do something not within one's control makes no sense. He concludes that no one should take love in this context to be referring to feelings.

The conclusion follows logically if which is assumed?

The answer choices are:

a: no feelings are within our control

b. People should not promise to something not within their control

c. love can be taken to refer to something other then feelings

d. promises should not be interpreted in a way that makes no sense

e. promises that cannot be kept do not make sense

The answer is D and I can't figure out why. Help.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-1-question-23/

A lot of people don’t realize that “Won’t Get Fooled Again” is actually about proper Blind Review technique.

If the LSAT has ever fooled you, come to Group BR and don’t get fooled again.

Wednesday, June 29th at 8PM ET: PT 57

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

And if you’d like to see the full schedule, here it is: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=7sage.com_ft05lsm54j4ec1s6kj1d1bbpv0%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/Chicago

Note:

Hi 7Sagers,

On Wednesday, June 29, at 9 p.m. EST, I’ll give you a bird’s-eye view of the admissions process. We’ll touch on almost every component of your application:

• Personal statementsDiversity statementsCharacter and fitness addendaExtenuating circumstances addenda“Why school X?” essaysRésumésLetters of recommendation

I’ll will take questions at the end.

To join, just follow this link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/849030373

Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP). A headset is recommended. You can also call in using your telephone:

We’ll use Citrix GoToMeeting. The meeting ID is 849-030-373.

It all concerns the basic form of:

A->B (if you have a rocket, you can kill a cockroach)

Immediately, based on this form, I can think of potential OPs.

It is a mistake to assume that there are no other ways to kill a cockroach. So an argument like the one below would be an error because even though A->B, it could be that C->B as well, or Z->B.

"if you have a rocket, you can kill a cockroach.

Therefore, since you want to kill a cockroach, you must use a rocket"

[A->B, therefore B->A [mistaken reversal)]. This overlooks the possibility that you can use other sufficient means to kill a rocket, and that a rocket is not necessarily necessary to kill a cockroach. It could be, but doesn't have to.

Then there another form of OP derived from the same A->B idea

And that is

A->B ; not A-> not B [mistaken negation]

"if you have a rocket, you can kill a cockroach

Since you don't have a rocket, therefore you can't kill a cockroach."

This overlooks the possibility that without a rocket, you can still do other things. Like kill terrorists. But that is out of the scope relative to the conclusion. But moreover, it is not necessarily necessary that you need a rocket to kill a cockroach, for "A->B; not A->not B" = "A->B; B->A".

In other words, it seems like the overlooked possibilities derived from the A->B form are the same.

(And that is assuming that there are no other sufficient conditions. Conclusions that follow a premise of A->B and concludes in the form of not A -> not B and B->A are making the same flaw and that is missing OPs.

What are your thoughts on this?

What are some implications that I have missed?

Background

Just a little background for a moment, I am about to enter my third year of undergrad at a school with an 85% acceptance rate ( D: ). I have a 3.95 and I am planning on taking the June 2017 LSAT. During these 5.5 months leading up to the test, I will be taking only 3 credits at school, with no job or rent over my head. It seems a bit lazy, but last semester I took 21 credits and worked 25 hours a week as well. I realize that this test will determine the rest of my life so I am treating it as such. Harvard is my dream goal and I will be applying September 2017. I am a soon-to-be ultimate member on 7sage and will self-study, I feel as if I could push myself more that way.

No Idea

My problem right now is that I will have a decent amount of time to study (I realize this is a double edge sword). Nevertheless I am absolutely lost when it comes down to where to start and how to schedule a very efficient planner in order to really kill this test.

I hear many say that 5.5 months is too long, but I know myself, and I I've taught myself how to grind out work for hours. I think I will be ready, I just need a plan of attack.

Mindset?

I was reading a great article about burning out and everything else that comes with the LSAT struggle, but I really believe that article (so mad I didn't save it) changed me. My goal is a 180 but I am not going try for perfection at first, or maybe at all, rather, I will strive to learn as much as I can from my mistakes and work on fixing my thinking. I hope this thinking is the right mindset, what do y'all think? Any advice on what a realistic mindset would be entering into this phase of studying?

Books? Order of Reading? Schedule?... AHHHHH

With this being said, I feel like I am mentally prepared to have the best experience I can while studying, I am just fearful of not knowing how to plan it. I read all these guides about what books to read, mixed options on what is better and what is not. But after reading them, I felt more confused than I did before I read them!

So.. really, where is the best place to start? Should I buy books now and start reading, or should I be reading in this 5.5 months I would be studying? How many hours each day is good? days a week? planned PT's each week?

Do I start learning all the sections at the same time of focus on one at a time?

Sorry for all of the questions, I just feel like a little clownfish fish in a vast LSAT ocean (Finding Nemo reference).

Thanks for reading and I'm excited to start this journey with everyone here.

Also, if there are any NEED to read articles or posts, I'd love to read your favorites!!

I am getting a little discouraged. I am seeing major improvements in my other sections, but am still doing incredibly bad on RC. Just looking for some inspiration.

Dear Sir,

I am uncertain about my analysis of this passage. Can you please share yours?

PT9, S2, Q3,

Admin edit: Please do not post full questions.

Context: Balance in particularly important when reporting the background of civil wars and conflicts.

Context: Facts must not be deliberately manipulated to show one party in a favorable light, and the views of each side should be fairly represented

Conclusion: This concept of balance, however, does not justify concealing or glossing over basic injustices in an effort to be even-handed.

Premise: If all the media were to adopt such a perverse interpretation of balanced reporting, the public would be given a picture of a world where each party in every conflict had an equal measure of justice on its side, Premise: contrary to our experience of life and, indeed, our common sense.

Dear Sir,

Here is my question: please take a look at the statement above. Of the 3rd sentence, begins with "Many important...", do you consider the sentence a minor conclusion or a major premise or a rephrase of the (major) conclusion?

And a general question, does the statement, "A major premise" is always a sub-conclusion" stand? if not, can you please explain, thanks.

Admin edit: Please do not post full questions! You can get in trouble with LSAC.

• Conclusion: Such position ignores the lessons of experience Referential phrase “such position” referring to the, “Some legislators refuse to commit public funds for new scientific research if they cannot be assured that the research will contribute to the public welfare”.

• Minor conclusion/major premise/Rephrase of major conclusion: Many important contributions to the public welfare that resulted from scientific research were never predicted as potential outcomes of that research.

• Minor premise/citing example: Suppose that a scientist in the early twentieth century had applied for public funds to study molds: who would have predicted that such research would lead to the discovery of antibiotics—one of the greatest contribution ever made to the public welfare.

I'm having trouble translating "only" statements... can anyone help me out?

For example:

Only the best artworks are beautiful. (PT 49, Section 4, Question 16)

Since "only" is a group 2 indicator (necessary), wouldn't it be the following:

Best Artworks --> Beautiful

Or, is it:

Beautiful --> Best Artworks

Thanks for your help, guys! Much appreciated.

Hey guys! Something I've started to realize is how important eating correctly (and not drinking too much coffee) is important for these tests. Since this test is around 3 hours, and you'll be using every ounce of energy in your brain throughout, the energy you put in is an underrated part of taking this test. At first, I felt that as long as I was full, I could move on through the test without any issues. But the more tests I took, the more I realized that eating a properly balanced meal (one that includes a lean protein, some whole grains and vegetables) allowed me to stay focused throughout. As far as coffee goes, I've personally found that drinking over 2 cups of coffee before a test makes me twitchy and more prone to a crash during the test. I'd love to hear what you guys think about this!

I'm reviewing why I struggled more than I should've on game 3, and JY labeled the in/out differently than I did. He labels "finance" as out and "incentives" as in. I switched mine around and while I was still able to solve the game, I struggled more than I should've have on this simple in/out game. If you linked up the conditional chains with "finance" as in and "incentives" as out, I don't think you get the correct split boards. Has anyone tried this game with the same labels as me? Trying to figure out if I made a logic mistake or if I'm missing something in this game (whyyyyy).

Thanks in advance!!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-2-game-3/