Hi guys,

I scored a 174 on the June test (woo!) but was hoping to score in the upper 170s where I was PTing (average for last five PTs was 177). I realize that a 174 is a great score, but I can't help thinking I can do better. I screwed up on the experimental logic games (misread a direction in one of the games) and so was distracted and anxious for the second half of the test. That said, none of my scores on the individual sections were outside the range that I normally miss. I just hit the top of the missed questions range for everything except logic games. Should I retake? I am aiming for HYS ideally (though I know it's a bit of a crapshoot). I have a 4.03 GPA and good softs (good WE, fulbright scholar). Retake or let it ride?

Thanks in advance for your advice!

Hi guys,

I am confused with a logic inference.

According to a book, if A, then not B, can be notated like A-->/B or A(-|-)B. However, in 7sage, it is maybe notated like A(---)/B.

Here's the question.

According to the question key, the inference is,

G(--s--)/E

F-->H

H(--s--)/E

But, if we use E-->/F to replace the part of E(-|-)F (because according to the very beginning of the post,A-->/B AND A(-|-)B are actually the same thing ), we get,

then the inference are,

E-->G-->H (this is very difference with the original above, which is not inference can be made like this)

E-->H (Which according to the original above, there is not such inference can be made like this)

/F-->H (which is different from the above original inference which is F-->H)

However, if we replace the original part of E(-|-)F with E(---)/F, interestingly, the inference different with above two.

Here we have:

E(---)/F--> G -->H

and the inference we have are

except we can make the exactly same inference with the 2 ones, we also can infer that,

G(--s--)/F

G(--s--)E

E(--s--)H

these inferences are totally different with the original ones.

the trick thing is according to the book, E(-|-)F is the same with E-->/F, and according to 7sage, actually E(-|-)F is E(---)/F, which leading to the hypothesis that if we replace the E(-|-)F to whatever these two different versions, the inferences made should be the same. Who can please clarify me?

Thank you!

Cynthia

I noticed that the video interface has changed recently, and after the change I've been having serious lagging issues. This lagging problem especially prevalent when I put the video speed above the regular 1.0x. The video would run for ten seconds, lag for 3 seconds, run for another few seconds, then lag again....

Am I the only one who is having this problem?

Hi all --

I heard that the LG Bundle and LR drills are available in the syllabus, right before the PTs. However, I don't see these in my syllabus. Are these problem sets available only to Ultimate+ students?

Also, if I upgrade from Ultimate to Ultimate+ now, will that increase the number of hours in my Core Curriculum? I've already started on Ultimate and planned a study schedule based on the number of hours of video lessons in the course.

Thanks!

I was a longtime user of 7sage about a year ago and it helped me tremendously. While I was on here, a user donated some materials to me for free and I promised to pay it forward. So here's to spreading some of that good LSAT lovin'

PM me so I can get your address for shipping. Some of these books are really heavy so all I ask is a fee for shipping. Venmo anyone?

In no particular order:

Best of Luck!

Blank

Hey guys!

Does anyone know if cost anything (other than processing costs from the undergrad institution) to have LSAC send an updated copy of your transcripts to law schools?

Hey everyone, just wanted some insight.

So I have just started to tackle reading comp passages. I am curios to know for those that have increased their score and improved on this section how have you managed to decrease your time spent on reading the passage and answering the questions?

Did you just force yourself to push through the passage when timing yourself during practice or did the timing issue become less apparent with the more practice passages that you did.

I know that RC is the longest to see improvement but It would be helpful to know what people's experiences have been in this section.

Many thanks!

I wrote my first diagnostic today and surprised myself with a 154. Definitely not the score I want on test day, but happy to start in the 60th percentile. I've signed up for the powerscore two month in-person class, and im currently working through the 7sage curriculum. Is it overly ambitious to want to write the test in June? And is there any benefit to writing in June vs September ?

Happy April 30th! Guess what?

https://media2.giphy.com/media/P5Q6687ftTdV6/giphy.gif

Please NOTE change to Wednesday this week :)

June Study Group | PT 77 | Wednesday, May 3 @ 7:00pm ET

Wednesday, May 3rd at 7PM ET: PT 77

Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/794287189

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: 794-287-189

The Full Schedule

And if you’d like to see the full schedule for upcoming reviews, here it is:

https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=aWw1aWEzYTRkbWdoaDZsa3U3YjBsaDBlZDBAZ3JvdXAuY2FsZW5kYXIuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbQ

Note:

Hey guys!

I recently pushed back my intended LSAT date to September (I was registered for the June test) after talking to a pre-law advisor. I purchased the basic package here at 7sage when I originally started studying (early March) and the LSAT Trainer. I plan on upgrading my course to the premium package so I can get some more practice and problems. Would you guys suggest starting from scratch with about 4 months until the September test, or continuing on from where I'm at?

BACKSTORY: I'm back to studying after taking all of April off to weigh my options. I'm newly post-grad with an MA and the idea of 3 more years of school killed me softly. But after taking a few weeks and thinking it over, I'd regret not at least TAKING the lsat seeing as how I've already paid for it...I was forcing myself to study for 6 hours a day with few breaks and nothing was sinking in. I glazed over the diagramming sections, telling myself when the test came, "You won't have time to do any of that anyway. Memorize necessary and sufficient terms? Nope. Not useful. Learn to diagram? Waste of time." I took my first proctored practice test and BOMBED IT. And so here I am....

And so, I'm back. Not surprisingly, I'm doing problem sets and getting an embarrassing majority incorrect (especially with the LG).

Any suggestions?

Thanks!

The videos keep pausing every four seconds. Has anyone experienced this? How can I fix it? Thanks in advance!

I was accepted At northeastern on a full ride and was selected for the public interest fellowship. I was waitlisted at Georgetown(preferred waitlist), Duke, Northwesten and UPENN. I am having hard time deciding is it worth fighting to get into a t-16 with More name recognition but eventually getting deep in debt because I likely wouldn't be receiving scholarship I assume even if I got in since I've been waitlisted. I am a URM from very humble background. Graduating from law school debt free would mean a lot to me.

Figting to get into higher ranked school + plus accumulate debt verses lower ranked school and fill ride.

I want to go into public interest law and northeastern fits that model perfectly.

Hi all! I'm just getting started on the Core Curriculum. In order to plan ahead, I'd like to figure out what comes immediately after the completion of the Core Curriculum. Do you head into the PTs right away -- or do you spend time doing more practice on problem sets from PTs 1-35 (esp. the Foolproof Method for logic games), in addition to the drills that are already part of the Core Curriculum? If it's the latter, how many weeks should one generally plan on spending on extra problem sets before doing PT 36 & beyond?

Edit: Why are they not categorized by type?

Hello everyone,

I was hoping for some advice on how to study for the September LSAT. I took the June 2007 Diagnostic and scored a 158. I was at 80-85% on both the LR and RC but was at 65% for the LG section. My goal is to score in the high 160's or low 170's.

Onto my more precise question which is how I should split up my attention between materials.

My study materials

All three Powerscore Bibles

The LSAT Trainer

Manhattan LR Book

7Sage Premium + Access

My question is, what order should I work through these? Any other more general advice would be GREATLY appreciated.

Thanks!

One effective way that I discovered for myself to solve WEAKEN questions is the following: you have to set your mind in a way that can come to the argument's conclusion even without the provided premise(s). Or you can have the premise(s) and still not come to the conclusion provided in the argument. This way you basically do not attack the premise nor do you attack the conclusion. You agree with both parts of the argument. However, you show that both the premise(s) and the conclusion can exist without one another, e.i. you reach the conclusion without the provided premise(s), maybe by providing the conclusion where it does not requiter premise or you have the premise(s) but the conclusion may not actually happen. So in the LSAT world's WEAKEN region the premise(s) that the argument provide do not guarantee the conclusion. That's how you "damage" the support. Below is an example:

Argument: Because Mike likes rich life he works hard to make money.

P: Because Mike likes rich life

C: he works hard to make money

One way is to show that P happens but C still does not happen.

(A) Mike likes rich life but that fact does not motivate him to work (I know its a simple argument but you get the point)

Another way is to show that C happens without P.

(B) Mike works hard since he enjoys his job (he does not work hard for the sake of money).

Please share your thoughts!

Thank you 7Sage!

Hey everyone,

For the Question Sets in the CC, what is your method for blind reviewing them? What I do is go through each of the questions timed (jotting down how long it took me for each one), circle the ones I'm not positive on, and then go back to review the ones I circled without any time constrains. I feel as if that's pretty standard.

However, I was wondering what everyone does after going over the answers. Do you make a notation of your before and after BR performance on the Question Set sheets? For the ones that you got wrong, do you write out the reasons for each answer choice on the Question Set sheet? Basically what I'm looking for is a method for documentation so I know how reference it as well as a way to "shatter my reasoning" for wrong answers.

To all my fellow LSATers, I urge you to keep studying hard. Remember that while this test is important, it does not define you as a person. To all my fellow undergrads, kill it on your finals and study hard this summer. I look forward to utilizing you all for legal advice in the future, because 7sage LSATers will undoubtedly make the best lawyers!

Hi! Here is an updated strategy from the below post

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/10749/my-rc-strategy-that-got-me-to-0

What I've found helpful in addition to the original post is thinking about the range of what the central theme CAN and CANNOT do based on what is known and not known about the central theme. This is especially helpful for those difficult curve-breaker Qs (inference Qs, analogy Qs) , because curve-breaker Qs usually test the MEANING of the passage, rather than what's explicitly stated. You can only draw the meaning of the overall passage/ key theme when you understand the range of what is known and then going one step further, inferring what a certain thing can/ cannot do.

How do we figure out what something can/ cannot do? Let's make a very quick example. Say that the passage says that frogs only swim in the water. This is what we know about the frogs. Then we can infer /water -> frog don't swim. Thinking about this range really helps to understand the key features of the central theme and its importance. (When it fails the requirements it needs, it cannot do its job (contrapositive of S-> N) But obviously, when the sufficient condition is met, we don't know anything about whether necessary condition was/is/will be met (but I think it is less relevant in RC. What's more relevant is thinking about the range of necessary conditions and understanding what would happen when those conditions fail)

Here's the bad news: in the RC section, the LSAT doesn't get this explicit about sufficient and necessary conditions. The curve-breaker Qs are difficult for a reason. If everyone can identify the conditions easily, then it wouldn't be a curve-breaker Q. I repeat, the LSAT doesn't usually give you the typical "conditional indicators" (if, when, any, only when, requires, etc) to figure out the sufficient/necessary conditions easily. Sometimes they do. But most of the time, we have to really infer about the necessary conditions based on what the passage says. The passages only HINT at these necessary conditions by omitting something, or by only stating 1 necessary condition (which, by default, would mean that other conditions won't work without this condition)

The good news: Here's the typical way the LSAT presents a necessary condition.

For example, let's take PT62 passage 1. No worries, I won't spoil too specific details for you.

What we do know about lichenometry is

Think about what's known about lichenometry. From there, infer what it CAN and CANNOT do. According to the passage, lichenometry only does certain things within a specific location only using certain materials. It cannot function when something falls outside that location (not specifically the LOCATION, but certain geographical features necessary; if the certain geographic location is missing the material required, then the necessary condition fails and lichenometry cannot do its job.

But you also have to be extremely careful and identify precisely what the necessary condition is. If you generalize too much, then you might also be susceptible to trap answer choices. What lichenometry needs is a certain material. From this, we can only infer that if it misses the material as a whole, it won't be able to do its job. However, if it has certain qualifying conditions that affects the material, then it might still be able to do its job. We must carefully distinguish what must be true from what can be true)

Again, this is what's hard about the LSAT RC passages: the necessary conditions are nowhere explicitly stated. The LSAT does not explicitly say what lichenometry can or cannot do.You have to combine all those info above (what we know/ don't know about lichenometry) ; it is our job to infer the range of function based on what's known, and IDENTIFY PRECISELY what the necessary condition is.

You can also go backwards. Ask the question what CAN it do to backtrack; asking that question helps to summarize what we do know and what we don't)

Also, this strategy applies when the subject (central theme) involves a human being. It is because a human being is usually a central theme in a diversity passage, and the diversity passages are all about what someone/ some social group couldn't do before and how the social structures/ individual consciousness evolved for them to be able to do something.

For example, PT 63, passage 2. (don't worry, i won't spoil the deets)

It is about Kate Chopin. She is compared to other groups of writers. The key to the passage is all about what those groups did/ didn't do and from that inferring what they could/ couldn't do given the social structures and conventions at the time. Pretty much the same thing with PT 62 passage 4 on Jewett.

(I am using PTs 62 and 63 as examples because they are in Superprep II)

Obviously this strategy can be applied to science/ law passages as well.

Law passages- what the law can/ cannot do, theory can/ cannot do, a material can/ cannot do

Science passages- conditions under which a hypothesis would work, conditions under which the central theme (subject being experimented etc) can function

My theory is that knowing what a subject can/cannot do is especially central to understanding the LSAT passages BECAUSE as lawyers we would be basically doing the same thing. What can we do based on this law? What can't we do? What can this law do for us? What can't it do? It is all about inferring about our agency and the range of usefulness/ restrictiveness of the law based on what's known/ not known about the law.

To summarize:

Important /= necessary. Also, /important and still necessary.

Think about LR necessary assumption Qs. Some assumptions are important, but not necessary. Some assumptions are not important, but necessary.

Hope this helps

Oh yeah PLEASE DO NOT SHARE THIS WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES. I want this info to be limited to 7Sage. Thanks

Hi guys, so I need some clarity on PTing and Blind reviewing. So far I have taken only 3 PT and have gone thru the CC twice + the LSAT trainer. So far the scores have been 148, 150, 154 (slowly making my way up sadly LOL) (my diagnostic before I started studying was about 136). Blind review scores are in the 160s. I think the timing aspect really threw me off first time on the PT and I have been trying to get a handle of it. Per section, I am guessing a solid 6 questions at least for LR, and about a whole passage for RC usually because i'm out of time. LG is good - I can do all the games on time, usually -2 on games. I am taking a PT once a week.

However, I really want to be PTing in at least low 160s (which is my blind review score right now). So I am really confused as to how I should get my blind review up at this point.

I try to drill and practice as much as I can from old PTs before I take the next PT and watch all the explanations for the PT I took. I also review concepts in the CC. I have also been writing out explanations for questions that have me confused between 2 answer choices.

Is there anything else I should be doing?? Thank you for the help!!!

Side note; love how helpful 7sage community is as this exam can be really frustrating.

Just curious. It said I'd used 5/6 tests or something at the bottom. This seems strange. Also, is there a way to identify your most missed question types via analytics?

Can someone explain to me this stimulus? It says "Which one of the following could be an accurate and complete list of the students who review only Sunset?" Usually, the "complete and accurate" stimuli want a list of all the items across all possible worlds that fulfill the requirement. However, in this problem, they are apparently only asking for the students in 1 world. So answer C says J and L, which would be true if you looked at all possible worlds (ie J can review only S in one world whereas L can't, and L can review only S in another world where J can't). However, the correct answer is A, which says only L. Answer A thus only applies to 2 of the 3 possible worlds. I don't understand how the stimulus specifies this. It reads exactly the same as stimului from other games that are asking across all possible worlds.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-42-section-1-game-4/

Hey everyone,

I'm done with the LSAT and moving to a new place at the end of the week. I have a bunch of unused or very lightly used (some penciled notes, or maybe a couple of sections done) LSAT prep materials that I'd prefer to pass on to another 7Sager who can use them, rather than just throw away.

If you live in the Washington DC area and are interested, and able to pick these up by the end of the week, let me know.

Materials included:

Also, my understanding that it would be completely ethical to just give these away (I am NOT selling them). But if that's not the case, I'd appreciate if someone would flag this for me.

Thanks!

My PT scores took a hit when I initially moved onto recent PTs (60s and up) from the older PTs.

I wondered why. Below is my theory and I was wondering if anyone can corroborate.

(This is limited to LR and RC)

My theory is that the LSAT is testing more on "meaning" of the text as opposed to "literal" understanding. What I mean by "meaning" is something like the range of valid inferences that can be made from the information, whether that is either from a sentence alone, or in combination with other parts of the stimulus/ passage. In the previous LSATs, they did test the meaning, but the correct answer choices also closely matched what's stated in the text quite literally. The wrong answer choices were more obviously wrong, in that they did not match the "text" in very obvious ways. So what I'm saying is that in the older LSATs, you could afford to NOT understand the meaning and still get the question right most of the times. In the more recent ones, you really have to understand the meaning, or else you are in for trouble.

In the more recent LSATs, they really test whether you've understood the meaning of the text. The "meaning" must be matched, as opposed to literally matching the text.

Attractor answers: They are very similar in wording from the text. It is sometimes just one word, one preposition, or something that's so subtle as to almost imperceptible that makes the answer choice wrong. "They sound right," which means that they contain familiar language.

Correct answers: matches in meaning, but not necessarily the language. It's easy to dismiss as wrong because it contains unfamiliar and "not sounding right" language.

So the litmus test for a correct answer is : Does it match the meaning?

There is nothing new about this. But I find myself needing to be especially more careful in the more recent PTs.

I used to have a very precise pre-phrase and looked for certain wordings. They works alright in PTS before 60s. They began to backfire on me on PTs after 60s.