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.

I've been struggling with a bunch of the LR questions and have gone back into the CC and used up almost of all of my questions sets.

I'm tired of looking at questions that I've done before because I remember what the answer is pretty much. Would it be bad if I burned the rest of the 30's to give myself some new questions to look at?

Hi everyone!!

I'm new and I can't seem to figure out where I go to print out the games that are incorporated into the syllabus (ie. Practice Test 16, game 2 etc etc etc....way before PT 36, for which we have full game access.)

Can you please help me figure out how to do this? I really want to retry these games on my own

Natalie

Hi. I'm not sure how to translate "those in search of jobs should move to a city with high-tech businesses" into lawgic. I thought the word "should" might be a necessary condition, but JY didn't put an arrow to connect JOBS and HIGH TECH. Whereas in Manhattan forum, one of the instructors translated it as "if you want JOBS, go to HT" which would require the use of an arrow. So I'm not sure which is the right approach to take..

Also, is it even a valid argument?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-4-question-25/

I just wanted to ask you fellow Sagers about this... plus I'd love to hear how you use BR! I just cannot find the positive usage of if for me and my study habits.

When setting up to take PT I always play the recording of what the instructor will say on the test day, as well as fill in all appropriate bubbling, in addition to the handwritten affidavit. I use the 7sage app for background noise/the instructor saying when it's 5(?I'm not sure) left and then when to put your pencils down. I don't use the timer but always use a special LSAT Wristwatch, to get used to reading a clock manually and linking it to the number of questions left. I try to match the "testing" environment as much as I can to the actual test day to minimize any test taking anxiety (or just my general anxiety) when the real day comes. ALSO!!!!signed up for a digist lsat for a free in Chicago. You guys should look into this if you have not already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay that was long winded sorry, lol. My main problem with BR is that it places this mentality in my head, however hard I try not to let it linger or acknowledge it, that it's OK as in not stressed or even to get it wrong (silly, I know), because even if I get the first choice wrong, it's almost always my second answers (I have finally broke into the 170s threshold and am getting pretty confident with answer selections.) I have always had issues with second guessing myself, where I could see how BR would be useful, but learning this way doesn't seem to solidify in my head that I was actually WRONG. With this mentality, it doesn't uhm, I guess I don't feel the 100% INCORRECT feeling you get when going over a question, confidentiality answering the question without BR, only to find out at the end of the test when you review all the answers it's WRONG. I see the similarity between this approach and BR, you still go back to review to see your question is wrong, but usually, you have the right one for the 2nd question. It's like a small boost to your ego like "well, I just second guessed myself, I'll catch it next time" or "well, I'll improve by test day." But sometimes, it's not that. It's that you just don't know this question stem to a near pefection, and with BR, I don't internalize that knowledge.

Maybe it's just how I've adjusted my brain to studying for this LSAT, but I don't find much use for BR, or maybe not at least this late in this study game.I'm so used to the SHAME associated with taking tests and missing answers in grade school, even college really. You take the test, acknowledge your score, and shamefully stuff away the test to avoid looking or attempting to comprehend the answers you missed... But with the LSAT it's constantly encouraging you to say HEY LOOK HERE, ANOTHER QUESTIONS WRONG! :) And then drill, drill, drill, drill until it comes naturally. I kinda of love the LSAT because of this honestly, even if I've painstaking spent a year of my life studying for this damned thing. Unique little bastard.

Ok to reiterate, Is this bad not liking or using BR? I see so many people loving BR and I feel silly for never having given it a real try, maybe a test or two. I'm honestly shooting for 175-180, and I've hit 175 once YAY! In the 169-170s since Feb. But my GPA is a 2.5 so I have to have an outstanding LSAT score to have any chance at a top school.

Sorry for the long winded post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I appreciate your comments :)

Studying for the LSAT? Of course you are! If you've got questions, Daniel's got answers, so come and ask away!

Office Hours with Sage Daniel

Tuesday, April 25, 7:30 PM EDT

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

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/294537749

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States: +1 (872) 240-3212

Access Code: 294-537-749

First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: http://help.citrix.com/getready

From BR'ing, I've noted fundamental concepts of of strengthening/weakening cause and effect arguments. For instance, you can strengthen the argument by saying that in the absence of the cause, we don't have the effect.

My question is where this was in the curriculum - I watched the videos on causation theory but couldn't find it there, nor did I find it in strengthening/weakening lessons.

Join us as we go over PT 75!

PT 75 Review on Saturday, April 29th at 5PM ET

Try this first---- https://www.gotomeeting.com/ and then enter the code 617-377-325

Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/617377325

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 (872) 240-3212

Access Code: 617-377-325

The Full Schedule

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

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

Note:

Hey everyone. Just wanted to share a lil' something that may be of some help. I'm not sure how many of you are aware of this, but about 3-4 years ago Kaplan used to conduct a live mock admissions panel in NY. They basically invited admissions officials from four Tier 1 (usually T10) law schools and had them do a live evaluation of transcripts, PS, ECs, etc. of "mock" candidates. They (i.e., the admissions committee) also provided some real handy tips on how to approach writing your PS etc.

I don't believe Kaplan conducts this anymore. They do, however, have recorded versions of the sessions on Livestream.

I personally think it's a great way to get first-hand insight into how law schools evaluate applications, and definitely recommend prospective students to check it out.

Here are the links (each video is about 2 hours long, btw):

Link 1 (schools: Harvard, UVA, Penn and NYU): https://livestream.com/kaptest/the-180-admissions-roundtable/videos/27765588

Link 2 (schools: UVA, BC, GWU and NYU): https://livestream.com/kaptest/lsat-180-live-mock-admissions-panel/videos/60476031

P.S.: You may need to create a free account in order to view the videos.

Hope this helps!

Hi all

I cannot find any reason why (C) is wrong here.

It seems to me that (C) eliminates one alternative cause (genetic cause?) and thereby strengthen the argument that P-fat is responsible for the development of eyesight.

I compared (C) with (A) in S4Q17 in the same PT. (A) eliminates one possibility alternative by saying that "Earth did not pass through clouds of cosmic dust earlier than 800,000 years ago. This is because it negates an possibility that something other than fluctuation might have caused ice-age if the ice-age had occurred earlier than 800,000 years ago when the fluctuation started to happen. (A) turned out to strengthen the argument. Then, why does (C) not strengthen the argument? (I mean Q14)

Thank you very much

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-4-question-14/

Hey guys, wanted some insight into an issue I'm having with PT'ing. Long story short, I underperform on the first section because it takes at least 15 questions for my brain to warm up.

This doesn't even necessarily translate to getting those first 15 wrong - it simply takes me longer to understand and answer them correctly. Which then DOES lead to mistakes towards the end of the section, because I have less time to answer the harder ones.

This is especially an issue with LR. Normally I try to do the first 10 questions in 10 minutes or under, in fact usually 15 in 15 and (on a good day) 20 in 20. This is always do-able for me when it's the second section of LR. My brain is fired up and ready to go. But if it's the first section of the exam I'm just slow to adjust, don't hit those targets, and as aforementioned, it throws everything off balance.

I don't know how to get my brain to naturally be in that warmed-up stage from the get-go; in fact it seems almost natural that it would take your brain a second to adjust from "I'm just living my life" to "I'm doing hardcore logic for 4 hours"

I know meditation helps as a general thing with concentration (and I'm currently working on it), but I was wondering if anyone else experienced this and had advice for that FIRST section specifically. Take a timed 35 minute section every morning, perhaps? Some people even say they did a full section as warmup before sitting for the exam. Would love to know your thoughts.

I was only able to answer this Q correctly by process of elimination.

I am still unsure why A is right on its own merit, however.

Isn't it too much of an assumption to say that Chopin thinks that their idealization was "misguided?"

I know that Chopin does not "agree" with them and does not "share" their nostalgia.

But how do you infer from "not sharing" to "misguided?"

I may disagree with someone else's opinion, and can still think that someone's opinion is valid/ worth its own merit etc.

"Misguided" just sounds too strong for me and kind of out of character for the LSAT.

Could anyone explain further? Many thanks.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-4-passage-2-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-4-passage-2-questions/

What do you think are the pros + cons of attending the same law school as one’s undergrad? I’m really debating whether or not I even want to apply to my undergrad for law school (considering the application fees + effort and all). I’ve accumulated a list and I would really like others’ input as well!

Hello everyone,

I was wondering if anyone could give me some advice on what to do regarding getting better with LG. As of right now, I am working through the Powerscore LG Bible. I am struggling with making inferences to basic linear games and am consistently missing at least 1-2 per game of that nature.

I was wondering if I should be going through a different book in conjunction with this program? Also, where would you recommend I start in the course in order to get right into LG. I bought premium access and have the general concepts of logic down from the Powerscore material.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

I hope you had a good break. Now it's time to get back to work. PT 73's up!

PT 73 Review on Saturday, April 22nd at 5PM ET

Try this first---- https://www.gotomeeting.com/ and then enter the code 617-377-325

Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/617377325

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 (872) 240-3212

Access Code: 617-377-325

The Full Schedule

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

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

Note:

I am Completely stumped on this question. I am not sure if I am correctly negating the statement nor understanding the some relationship here

Stimulus Statement: "No laws has No Crimes", Because no laws can be broken.

Makes sense to me. However, I am confused with the Negate necessary rule being applied here since we are given two "No" Indicators.

How I would do this: Laws - Crime

Why? Since we are given a double negative. However,

How this is correctly diagramed is: /Laws - /Crimes

Why? Can some one explain that to me?

Also What do we do when we are given double (negate necessary or negate Sufficient conditions)

Now the negation aspect of this question. Since we are given a no statement and this is a must be true then,

How I would negate this no Statement is: A society has some laws and some crime.

However this is not correct, this is what answer choice (C) says "A society that has many laws has many crimes"

But my Second question then is WHY IS (D) Correct?? " A society has some crimes and some laws"

Thank you so much to anyone that can help

Damn... I was doing PT23 S2 Q9, and have no idea to connect and translate the words.

If I were to look in the question bank, how do I separate the conditional logic LR questions from the other ones. I can't seem to find it in the categories.

It's hard for me to explain what my problem is, but I hope someone understands. It's not the logic I am having problems with, it's translating logic from words!!! After looking at the process and answer, I found that some words and statements were the different in the argument, and I treated them as same variables!

PLEASE BEAR WITH ME, here is the logic translation text in order, with quotations, and answer process of question PT23 S2 Q9 :

ARGUMENT: Every action has consequences, and among the consequences of any action are other actions. And knowing whether an action is good requires knowing whether its consequences are good, but we cannot know the future, so good actions are impossible.

every action has a consequences

Action --> consequence (okay I got that part)

And among the consequences of any action are other actions

consequences --> action (what? How is "other actions" the same as "every action," it doesn't like they are talking about a different category)

And knowing whether an action is good requires knowing whether its consequences are good

Know if action good --> know if consequences are good (okay, got that part)

but we cannot know the future, so good actions are impossible

NOT knowing the future consequences good --> good actions are NOT possible (Okay, I see how this we done)

Now the answer I was reading goes and chains the rest of the answer like this:

NOT know if future consequences good --> NOT know if good --> good actions are NOT possible

MY PROBLEM #1: I can't see how a contrapositive of Know if action good --> know if consequences are good can turn into NOT know if future consequences good --> NOT know if good (this was done to chain up the statements, and I don't the how the heck these statements are the same).

MY PROBLEM #2: the answer chains up conclusion with a chain of three, and I don't understand how:

NOT know if future consequences good --> NOT know if good --> good actions are NOT possible

To me, that to me cuts into the other conditional statements.

How do these two statements below combine into one conditional chain? What rule allows this!?

NOT know if future consequences good --> NOT know if good

NOT know if future consequences good --> good actions are NOT possible

According to the answer, both statements above combine to this:

NOT know if future consequences good --> NOT know if good --> good actions are NOT possible?

Hello all! I thought I'd share some tips on my personal approach to Flaw questions. I've really struggled with them in the past but I've done every single Flaw question from PT 1-35 so I think I have a good grasp on how they function. Some of this information may have already been stated in the past or covered in the CC but feel free to take what you need from it!

Hone in on the premise/conclusion relationship -- I circle key words in the premise/conclusion and quickly scan the answer choices for obvious eliminators (outside the scope of the argument, descriptively inaccurate, descriptively accurate but not the flaw, refers to contextual or other people's argument).

This process usually leaves me with two attractive answer choices, where I usually got stuck. I started to pick the one that I COULD NOT definitively prove wrong. The correct flaw answer choices are so abstract sometimes that I can't necessarily parse out what each part refers to during the timed test. So I just go for process of elimination. During BR, I definitively prove why it's right but trying to do so on the test can trap you into a time sink. Often, just moving on despite not being able to fully articulate in my head why it's the flaw precisely has been helpful. On the flip side, articulating why the second attractive answer choice is wrong (i.e. pointing to the specific word/phrase that's incorrect or cannot be definitively proven) has guided my POE process with more confidence.

Another thing that's really helped me is not to be locked in on my prephase before heading into the answer choices. In other words, just keeping an open mind. Even if you commit all of the 19 common flaws to memory (which I have), there isn't enough time during timed tests to actually think through all 19 and prephase. Instead, I ask myself an open-ended question that addresses the GAP in the reasoning --- i.e. What if X causes Y, and not the other way around? Wait what, how is X even relevant to Y? This helps me keep the general gap in my mind but not be so stubborn about my idealized answer choice. The LSAT can take that gap and do with it what it wants -- so it's harder to anticipate what they might try to get at. Instead, just having a general idea of where the hole is helps to stay focused when going through answer choices.

I think Flaw may arguably be one of the hardest question types, because it's so broad in scope. They can literally ask you anything because the flaws are so open-ended with so many variations. When you start developing a tunnel vision for the premise and conclusion relationship and STOP WASTING TIME on deliberating wrong answer choices, these can turn into that low-hanging coconut on the tree.

Hope this is somewhat helpful!

Update Feb 2017: printable e-docs for the LSAT questions are now included in 7Sage materials.

There is also a list here:

http://classic.7sage.com/preptests/

Q: Why do I need to buy PTs? Why don't you have them?

A: As of April 21st, 2015, all PDFs containing LSAC licensed content have been removed to comply with LSAC's new policy. To be clear, all PDFs containing any LSAT questions - LSAT PrepTests and Problem Sets - have been removed. Any PDFs without LSAT questions are still available.

The removal of PDFs from 7Sage was not our decision, it was the LSAC's decision to ban PDFs. 7Sage is not the only LSAT course to be hit with this. Other LSAT courses also had to remove their PDFs.

To compensate, we have all of the questions listed as silent videos, which are short one-minute videos that show only the question and answer choices. It is much better to study with paper PTs, so pick those up if you can.

Q: What PrepTests do I need?

A: Depends on what course you have!

If you have Starter, you will need PTS 36-44.

If you have Premium, you will need PTs 36-58.

If you have Ultimate, you will need PTs 36-72.

If you have Ultimate+, you will need PTs 36-77. Future PTs will also be added to the course.

(Ultimate+ also has access to the question bank, which has some questions from PTs 1-16 and all from 17-35)

Q: I can't find the PTs included in my course! Can you swap explanations for me?

A: Sorry, we do not swap PT explanations. Please make sure you can find the PTs before you purchase the course, or upgrade to a higher package that includes more explanations.

All courses use some of the questions from PTs 1-35, so it would be a good idea to pick up those as well.

If you've purchased individual PT explanations that are not included in those packages, you will have to get those as well.

From Amazon.com (USA/Canada)

(SuperPrep 1) A, B, C:

http://www.amazon.com/Official-LSAT-SuperPrep-Champion-Prep/dp/0979305063/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1461037774&sr=1-6&keywords=LSAT

(SuperPrep II) 62, 63, C2:

http://www.amazon.com/Official-LSAT-SuperPrep-II-Champion/dp/0990718689/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1460892256&sr=8-1&keywords=superprep+lsat+2

Games for PTs1-20:

https://smile.amazon.com/PowerScores-LSAT-Logic-Games-Preparation/dp/0982661827/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1467749480&sr=1-1&keywords=powerscore+lsat+game+type+training

Games for PTs 21-40:

https://smile.amazon.com/PowerScores-LSAT-Logic-Games-Preparation/dp/0982661800/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1467749480&sr=1-2&keywords=powerscore+lsat+game+type+training

Also, if you're looking for PTs 41-50 and don't want to spend hundreds of dollars, try this:

https://smile.amazon.com/Manhattan-LSAT-Practice-Book-I/dp/1935707787/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1467749731&sr=1-1-fkmr1&keywords=manhattan+LSAT+practice+book+1

The book I ordered was used, but came in good condition with minimal markups/notes.

(Thanks, @alex.kirby, for this link!)

1-6, 8, 17, 39 & 40 (EXPENSIVE):

http://www.amazon.com/Actual-Official-Out---Print-PrepTests/dp/1456387049/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1434326750&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=out+of+print+lsat

4-18 (Might actually be 4-14 - book says 1992-1995, but is not specific as to what PT #s)

http://www.amazon.com/Actual-Official-Preptests-ACTUAL-PREPT/dp/B00824WL6C/ref=sr_1_51?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1461038183&sr=1-51&refinements=p_27%3ALaw+School+Admission+Council

7-16, 18:

http://www.amazon.com/Actual-Official-LSAT-PrepTests-Lsat/dp/0942639634/ref=sr_1_19?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1430796578&sr=1-19

19-28:

http://www.amazon.com/More-Actual-Official-LSAT-PrepTests/dp/0979305039/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1430796472&sr=1-6

29-38:

http://www.amazon.com/Next-Actual-Official-LSAT-PrepTests/dp/0979305055/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1429744359&sr=1-4

37:

http://www.amazon.com/Official-LSAT-PrepTest-37/dp/0942639812/ref=sr_1_45?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1461038125&sr=1-45&refinements=p_27%3ALaw+School+Admission+Council

36-44 (price fluctuates, try to find a used copy):

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1937707369/ref=cm_sw_r_other_apa_Vo8FxbPCYZQ66

42-51 ($30!!)

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0986086290/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

43-45:

https://www.amazon.com/PowerScore-LSAT-Deconstructed-Three-LSATs/dp/0980178274?ie=UTF8&keywords=lsat%20deconstructed&qid=1364051525&ref_=sr_1_2&sr=8-2

(Thanks, @VALKIRIA, for this link!)

41-50 (separated by question type, easy to remove and re-arrange):

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1937707784/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1937707784&linkCode=as2&tag=mintowin-20&linkId=e0408798e4a104bf57f50e608724a3fb

51:

https://www.amazon.com/Official-LSAT-PrepTest-51/dp/0976024586/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1468360225&sr=8-1&keywords=PrepTest+51+LSAT

52-61:

http://www.amazon.com/Actual-Official-PrepTests-Comparative-Reading/dp/0984636005/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1429743671&sr=8-2&keywords=Prep+test

62-71:

http://www.amazon.com/10-Actual-Official-LSAT-PrepTests/dp/0986045519/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1429743671&sr=8-1&keywords=Prep+test

73:

http://www.amazon.com/Official-LSAT-PrepTest-73-Sept/dp/0986045535/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1461037879&sr=1-10

74:

http://www.amazon.com/Official-LSAT-PrepTest-74-Dec/dp/0986045543/ref=sr_1_11?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1461037879&sr=1-11

75:

http://www.amazon.com/Official-LSAT-PrepTest-75-June/dp/0990718697/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1461037879&sr=1-7

76:

http://www.amazon.com/Official-LSAT-PrepTest-76-Oct/dp/0986086215/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1461037879&sr=1-8

77:

http://www.amazon.com/Official-LSAT-PrepTest-77-Dec/dp/0986086231/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1461037854&sr=8-11&keywords=LSAT

78:

https://www.amazon.com/Official-LSAT-PrepTest-78-June/dp/0986086258/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1469656128&sr=8-1&keywords=june+2016+lsat

From Amazon.ca (Canada)

7-18:

http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0979305047?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00

19-28:

http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0979305039?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00

29-38:

http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0979305055?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s02

I cannot find 39-51 for a low price on Amazon, sorry!

52-61:

http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0984636005?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s02

62-71:

http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0986045519?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s02

72:

http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0986045527?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00

73:

http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0986045535?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00

74:

http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0986045543?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s01

75:

https://www.amazon.ca/Official-LSAT-PrepTest-75-June/dp/0990718697/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1469665463&sr=8-1&keywords=lsat+75

76:

https://www.amazon.ca/Official-LSAT-PrepTest-76-Oct/dp/0986086215/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1469665453&sr=8-1&keywords=lsat+76

77:

https://www.amazon.ca/Official-LSAT-PrepTest-77-Dec/dp/0986086231/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1469665386&sr=8-2&keywords=lsat+78

78:

https://www.amazon.ca/Official-LSAT-PrepTest-78-June/dp/0986086258/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1469665386&sr=8-1&keywords=lsat+78

From Ebay:

These change often, so I only included a link to a search

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=10+Actual%2C+Official+LSAT+Preptests+39-51&_from=R40&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.X10+Actual%2C+Official+LSAT+Preptests+.TRS0&_nkw=10+Actual%2C+Official+LSAT+Preptests+&_sacat=0

Analytical Reasoning Problem Sets ONLY From Amazon:

1-20

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0615508502/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=opinionnation-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399373&creativeASIN=0615508502

21-40

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0615508510/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=opinionnation-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399373&creativeASIN=0615508510

41-60

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0615508529/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=opinionnation-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399373&creativeASIN=0615508529

No longer selling PTs:

From EveryLSAT

Their license has ran out and they are no longer selling PDFs or PTs.

From Cambridge LSAT

Their license has ran out and they are no longer selling PDFs.

Still selling hard copies: https://www.cambridgelsat.com/preptests/4-section/

If you have any to add, please do!

In PT42.S2.Q15, there is an answer choice (A) that says "contains a premise that cannot possibly be true"

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

(A) contains a premise that cannot be true

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-42-section-2-question-15/

This is not the correct answer choice in this question, but are there cases in which this answer choice can be correct? In other words, are there cases of flawed arguments in LSAT that contain premises that cannot be true (contradiction)?

It's a tough thing to do. All of the voices in my head (and there are lots!) tell me "just stick with it a few more seconds" or "if you're going to answer all the questions anyway, just do it now". Not to mention the time lapse one can easily undergo during a given question: "Oh my. It's been 3 minutes? It felt like 30 seconds". Employing a skipping strategy requires LOTS of discipline and practice. My goal is to skip a question without any anxiety. In fact, I want to skip with the same confidence I experience when answering a MBT in 30s. After all, we should be proud of a decisive skip. If you're not sure why this is the case, check out this 7Sage blog post https://classic.7sage.com/why-you-must-skip-questions-on-the-lsat/

Here is how I am overcoming this difficulty and establishing a 25 questions in 25m strategy.

I'm out of the CC and drilling the bundle. For LR, I am doing "timed" sections with a stopwatch to identify weaknesses which I'll eventually drill specifically. Because I'm using the bundle, I've seen almost all of these questions from the CC and performed detailed question analysis for any that gave me difficulty. So, I don't need to skip THAT many. Probably 3-5 per section. This allows me to dip my tow into the skipping strategy and build a foundation for it prior to PTing. It feels great to have 10 minutes to answer 5 questions (at the most) that I've read through and chose not to answer. That second read-through usually leads to the "click" which wasn't there during my first read and I finish questions in a minute or less. Then I even have time to review questions that I did answer but wasn't 100% on.

This approach is in its infancy, but I am feeling very comfortable with it. I am finding that I still have trouble skipping early questions because I feel like early questions shouldn't give me difficulty (fallacy) and I am not in a skipping rhythm. By halfway through the section, skipping is much more comfortable.

OK so those are my skipping training wheels. Maybe some of you are in a similar boat and find some use in this. Or maybe you've got your own style for skipping and would like to share. I'd love to hear about it.

Hi everyone,

I recently participated in J.Y.'s LR Crash Course Workshop #3 and wanted to share some of the key takeaways from the discussions we had over the course of four days. It was humbling to realize that there is so much to learn and understand about logical reasoning. At the same time, it was great to see that it is very possible to gain that understanding and internalize it to develop a strong intuition for the test. Thanks so much J.Y. for the opportunity to participate in the Workshop!

#Overall Takeaways from the LR Crash Course

##Read everything slowly and carefully, even when you’re trying to go fast!

##To reiterate, DON’T RUSH!

##Grammar

##Logical Reasoning questions are very interrelated

###“Cookie Cutter Review”

##Cookie Cutter Answer Choice: Sole-Focus or Over-Focus on the Phenomenon

##Conditional logic

##Some and most relationships

##Key tasks for doing well on Reading Comprehension (RC) and Logical Reasoning (LR)

##Name or personify concepts that are abstract to gain a more concrete understanding of them.

##Practice ruthlessly eliminating all five answer choices

*Eliminate all the answers, then read the stimulus again and look for any details that you might have missed in your initial reading.

These notes certainly aren't all of what we talked about, but I hope you find some portion of them helpful for you in your continued studies!