Hey 7Sagers, I'm leading another twelve-hour long LR workshop (#4) over four nights (three hours per night) for five students to provide an intensive and comprehensive overview of all foundational concepts and their application to all types of LR questions.

Schedule

Session 1 - April 24, Monday, 7-10pm PST (10pm-1am EST)

Session 2 - April 25, Tuesday, 7-10pm PST (10pm-1am EST)

Session 3 - April 26, Wednesday, 7-10pm PST (10pm-1am EST)

Session 4 - April 27, Thursday, 7-10pm PST (10pm-1am EST)

Cost

Free. But! There's a $150 deposit to reserve your spot. If you show up on time and participate for the entire duration of all sessions, your deposit will automatically be refunded fully at the end of the workshop. Otherwise, it is forfeit. Please make sure you can attend the entire 12 hour long workshop.

#Frequently Asked Questions

Q: How will you select which five students will participate?

A: Lottery. If you are interested, please comment below in this thread within 48 hours. If selected for the lottery, you'll have another 48 hours to place the deposit to reserve your spot.

Q: Who should take this workshop and what will be covered?

A: Beginners. This means you haven't finished the Core Curriculum yet and you're not starting to take PrepTests yet. Imagine the workshop as a fast paced overview of the entire Core Curriculum that pertains to LR. We'll cover theory and we'll apply that theory to actual LSAT questions. It will be highly interactive and hence the limit of four students. Wherever you are in the Core Curriculum, this a great way to solidify the concepts covered.

Q: Can I sign up even if I'm not a beginner?

A: Yes, you can. I'm certain that it'll benefit you to return to concepts covered in the Core Curriculum. I'm also certain that you will find it very slow at times since I will be speaking to students on the assumption that they are beginners.

Q: Do I need to have a paid 7Sage account to sign up?

A: Yes, you do. If you have an expired account, message Dillon and see if he's willing to reactivate it for you.

Q: What materials are used in this workshop?

A: The workbook that you will be provided with will contain LR questions from PrepTests 54, 55, and 56. Yes, we will be "burning" those PrepTests in order to get a closer look at the modern LSAT.

Q: What do I need to do to prepare for the workshop if I get in?

A: You should print the above mentioned workbook. You should be in a quiet space where you can talk freely. You should have a fast internet connection. You should have headphones or earphones ready.

Q: How do I attend the workshop?

A: The workshop will be hosted on Amazon's Chime. Instructions and meeting location will be sent to you once you've successfully registered.

Q: Will there be more workshops in LR / LG / RC in the future?

A: Yes. This session accommodates east coasters who work during the day. Future sessions will accommodate others.

I noticed that they started going to the elimination question right after each individual rule rather than doing it after going through the rules as a whole and thinking about deductions. Why did the process change?

Also, what do they say about doing "if" questions first on LG? recent videos seem to be doing that. is that a change from previous process? if so, what is the reason for the change?

thank you.

Hey,

I've been put on the preferred waitlist at two t-14 school and wont know if I got off the waitlist until after May. However, one of the non- t-14 but still really solid school gave me until May,1st to accept the full scholarship public interest fellowship and if I don't accept it by then, I won't receive the full ride. However accepting the fellowship means that I have to withdraw my application from all other schools. Honestly, I want to be a public interest lawyer and the school which I received a full ride to is a very strong program for that. However, the two t-14 schools I was waitlisted at have more name recognition but since I was waitlisted I assume I wont be receiving much if any scholarships to go into those schools even if accepted, is that a correct assumption? Is getting the risk of the waitlist at a t-14 worth passing up a full ride scholarship?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-1-question-17/

In BR, I realized that the proper interpretation of the occurrence of severe climatic warming (SCW) or volcanic activity (VA) was through the Inclusive "Or", which says and/or. But that would mean one of them must occur. /A-->B. However, in reading the sentence it's clear that neither of those events must happen. After thinking about it for a few minutes, I realized that the presence of "could" alters each of those ideas because we're talking about what's possible and not what occurred.

Temporary melting = TM

Could = c

TM --> SCWc or VAc

If TM, then either could happen, but neither must happen.

Hello, all:

Just so you don't have to bring up the curriculum or your notes, argument form six is as follows:

A → B

A → C

B ←s→ C

I don't have a question about why we may infer "B ←s→ C" from the premises above, but rather, I have a question about the inferences we can make from the individual premises themselves, inherently.

From what I understand, without a background in formal logic (or informal logic, for that matter), it seems we assume that universally quantified statements imply the existence of their subjects on the LSAT. This is what allows us to infer "most" and "some" from "all" on the LSAT - correct? If this is the case, then can't we infer "/B -m→ /A" and "/B ←s→ /A" from "A → B" (or /B → /A) and "/C -m→ /A" and "/C ←s→ /A" from "A → C" (or /C → /A)?

I'm not sure whether we'd be tested on these inferences if we're indeed able to infer them, or if past LSATs have tested them at some point, but I thought I'd ask. Presumably, LSAC is testing our ability to see that the premises above, "A → B" and "A → C," allow us to infer "B ←s→ C."

Thank you all for your time! Best wishes to you all in your studies!

Hello everyone,

While going through my last few practice tests , I have noticed that I have two consistent problems regarding LR sections.

I tend to re-read the stimulus at least twice, and sometimes more than twice, which wastes a lot of time. How can I fix this? Is there a way to make sure that I understand the stimulus well with one read? Also, how do I keep myself from being obfuscated?

This problem is similar to the first one. A lot of the times, when I get a question wrong, it is because I read the stimulus wrong, or misunderstood, or missed an important phrase here or there. How do I improve paying better attention to the finer details?

Thank you for your help!

Hi there,

I'm beginning studying for the September test and I'd like to focus on logic games. However, I took the February test and have written on all my preptests (approx 36-60). I'd like to go back through the logic games I've done and rework them for practice, but I need clean copies. Any advice on where to fine some?

Thanks so much!

George Mason offered me an invitation to participate in the Pre-Admission Summer Trial (PAST) program that selects 10-15 students to complete 2-week intensive program consisting of reviewing a casebook, writing assignments, and completing a final exam. GM is the only school I am applying, so I am definitely excited to be selected. However, only a small percentage of students completing the PAST Program get offered admission and the remaining students are put on the top of the wait list.

I will receive the course material a week before the program starts, but I want to maximize my time until then to prepare. Currently, I am reading "Getting to Maybe" which covers how to properly attack law school exams. Does anybody have any other suggestions on materials I can prep with? Thanks!

If you're in or near Pittsburgh and looking for a study group, let's talk!

Hey 7Sagers,

I had someone write in with concerns about adjusting their schedule for the June LSAT (since it's in the afternoon and not in the morning) and I thought you guys could help! It's a very brief question, so here it is:

I have a specific concern regarding June, namely, I know for a fact that my mental focus fades really bad mid-afternoon, while being sharpest mid-morning. Any suggestions that you may have would be most greatly appreciated.

**Edited this post because this is the internet and therefore I need to be extra careful that the intended meaning is conveyed.

This is an email I received today from a law school. I've received several emails from law schools daily since writing for the LSAT last December. The problem is that I didn't reach my target score, so every successive email serves as a reminder of my formerly misguided prep (I immediately unsubscribe). But this email alarmed/amused me.

This is a Tier 8 law school apparently so desperate to fill their classrooms that they don't even ask you to take the LSAT (or the GRE). It's alarming because I regard this sort of email as predatory -- particularly for students who may not know better or are feeling down about a poor score. And it's amusing because, well, it's just so absurd! It's absurd because here is a school whose sole premise for why we should apply there is that we don't need to take the LSAT.

To anyone out there frustrated with their first, second, or third take, your score doesn't define you. The 7Sage community is here to support us all in our LSAT pursuits so that when it's all said and done, we're left without regrets. But for some of us, despite our wishes, dreams, hard work, or expenditures, Law School may not be the best option. If you are even considering a school such as the one who sent me this email, please, PLEASE contact a Sage, Mentor, or Tutor in this community and chat. I promise there will be no shortage of knowledgeable people ready listen and share feedback.

"Instead, it considers an essay test that the school itself has developed and most importantly, it is read and graded by a full time MSLAW professor who, based upon years of practical and academic experience, is well qualified to assess an applicant's ability to think and write well. The requirement of a mandatory interview, the review of an applicant's entire record in school and the work force, and the essay aptitude test enable the Admissions Committee to identify worthy students who would be denied admission to traditional law schools simply because of their LSAT scores.

Applications are still being accepted for the Fall 2017 Semester. Apply Today!

Best,"

Anyone in the Houston area taking the LSAT in December? Send me a private post so we form a study group if youre interested!

Hi!

So I have a pretty long commute (about three hours a day) and like to listen to things at my desk, so I fell into podcasts over the last two years. I have seen a few mentioned on the forums, but I thought I’d share some of my favs with you all! They have helped me take a genuine interest in studying and the topics we learn about. Oh and I know you all love categories so I did that as well and provided a brief summary. Some apply to multiple categories too. Sometimes I add things to my subscribed list but only listen to a few episodes so I felt that it disingenuous for me to talk about them, but I wanted to share anyways. BTW Overcast is the best podcast app. Without further ado, here are my tops. :)

Law

Criminal – complicated crimes and situations explained by victims, criminals, and bystanders

Life of the Law – legal applications and applying to everyday life

More Perfect – they’re on a break right now but this is the best one on the list IMO

The University of Chicago Law School Faculty Podcast – title is pretty self-explanatory, but they are just talks on legal topics by professors, scholars, and visiting attorneys

Serial – not spoiling this one. Listen to it!

Supreme Court Arguments – there are tons of them. Just search

Undisclosed – investigating wrongful convictions

Above the Law - Thinking Like a Lawyer – Legal applications to everyday life

Up and Vanished —re-investigates the disappearance of Tara Grinstead, a beauty queen and teacher from GA

Breakdown —season 2 is better than season 1. Follows Justin Ross Harris case (son died in his hot car)

Accused —re-investigates Beth Andes' murder

In the Dark — re-investigates Jacob Wetterling, currently in development for season 2

Sword and Scale—a lot like Criminal, but a lot darker

Social Sciences

This American Life – one of the best podcasts. Varying stories from different backgrounds haha idk how to describe this one because every episode is so different

Planet Money – business, economics, and stories about people and their hustle. Some legal topics as well here

The Daily – daily News from NYT

Stuff You Should Know – Title

NPR Politics – title

The Ezra Klein Show – I love Vox so and think they give great interviews and that’s what this is

Freakonomics Radio – essentially Planet Money but deeper in terms of financial topics

The Sporkful – Food! And the parallels between people and the things we eat

Pod Save America – only on episode two but loving this so far. It is about politics and the things people can do to affect change.

Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates – Oxford Style debates on political topics

How I Built This – Innovators, entrepreneurs, and their stories

Crimetown — currently one of my FAVORITES. Dissects the inner workings of the mob in Princeton, RI. Interviews actual mobsters and "wiseguys"

Beautiful/Anonymous —hosted by comedian Chris Gethard. 1-hour anonymous call, "no names, no holds barred." For those with voyeuristic tendencies (said affectionately)

Natural Sciences

Radiolab – this could go under social science too, but a lot of their topics fit here. I would highly recommend this one. One of the best on this list

Invisibilia – “The invisible forces” that guide our actions. Partly could go under social science as well.

Hidden Brain – similar to Invisibilia but deeper

99% Invisible – haven’t listened to more than one episode but it seems good. It would be disingenuous for me to talk about it. I actually just downloaded a few and will listen this week!

Stuff You Should Know – 50/50 split between natural and social sciences.

Skeptics Guide to the Universe – Science news, conspiracies, and controversies

Reveal —takes a critical/investigative look at contemporary issues

Embedded—combine Reveal and Invisibilia and you get Embedded

Humanities/Logic

You Are Not So Smart – best logic podcast I have found. They talk all about similar things to the lessons!

Lore – scary stories haha but they’re so good

Presidential – each episode is a different president, talking about their life story and what they did right and wrong as president

On Being – this is a philosophy podcast but I found it a little too boring for me after two episodes haha

Fresh Air – mostly about movies and actors, with some social science/political episodes sprinkled in. It is pretty good, just not for me

Unexplained —similar weekly episodes of creepy, unexplained events

Myths & Legends — title

Other – Trivia, Stories and Self-Help

Ask Me Another – hilarious trivia podcast. One of my favs on the list

Death, Sex & Money – It's so good, and not what you're expecting

GameOverGreggy Show – “Four sometimes five best friends gather around THIS TABLE. Each bringing a random topic of discussion for your amusement.” I listen to this almost every day haha

The School of Greatness – Inspiring stories from people ranging from athletes to actors

Mystery Show — it's cute

Magic Tavern — It's a really funny improv comedy podcast recorded from a medieval-esque tavern in an alternate universe called Foon.

The Joe Rogan Experience — Comedian Joe Rogan talks to an interviews a variety of people on different subjects.

I’ll stop now. Feel free to share yours too! This is by no means definitive and we all can learn from each other's tastes! :)

Hope this helps!

Edit: I will continually update this list to account for everyone's suggestions!

Edit 2: Updated again!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/opinion/sunday/will-dropping-the-lsat-requirement-create-more-miserable-lawyers.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0From

Interesting article.we don't need care much on requirement.

I'm starting to confuse myself. Can someone clarify how they would do a logical negation of this for the NA Negation Technique?

"Any candidate whose visual image does not evoke many positive feelings in votes will not be elected."

Any candidate whose visual image does evoke positive feelings in votes will be elected.

Or

No candidate whose visual image does not evoke many positive feelings in votes will not be elected.

Hey 7Sagers, I'm leading another twelve-hour long LR workshop (#3) over four nights (three hours per night) for five students to provide an intensive and comprehensive overview of all foundational concepts and their application to all types of LR questions.

Schedule

Session 1 - April 11, Tuesday, 7pm - 10pm EST

Session 2 - April 12, Wednesday, 7pm - 10pm EST

Session 3 - April 13, Thursday, 7pm - 10pm EST

Session 4 - April 14, Friday, 7pm - 10pm EST

Cost

Free. But! There's a $150 deposit to reserve your spot. If you show up on time and participate for the entire duration of all sessions, your deposit will automatically be refunded fully at the end of the workshop. Otherwise, it is forfeit. Please make sure you can attend the entire 12 hour long workshop.

#Frequently Asked Questions

Q: How will you select which five students will participate?

A: Lottery. If you are interested, please comment below in this thread within 48 hours.

Q: Who should take this workshop and what will be covered?

A: Beginners. This means you haven't finished the Core Curriculum yet and you're not starting to take PrepTests yet. Imagine the workshop as a fast paced overview of the entire Core Curriculum that pertains to LR. We'll cover theory and we'll apply that theory to actual LSAT questions. It will be highly interactive and hence the limit of four students. Wherever you are in the Core Curriculum, this a great way to solidify the concepts covered.

Q: Can I sign up even if I'm not a beginner?

A: Yes, you can. I'm certain that it'll benefit you to return to concepts covered in the Core Curriculum. I'm also certain that you will find it very slow at times since I will be speaking to students on the assumption that they are beginners.

Q: Do I need to have a paid 7Sage account to sign up?

A: Yes, you do. If you have an expired account, message Dillon and see if he's willing to reactivate it for you.

Q: What materials are used in this workshop?

A: The workbook that you will be provided with will contain LR questions from PrepTests 54, 55, and 56. Yes, we will be "burning" those PrepTests in order to get a closer look at the modern LSAT.

Q: What do I need to do to prepare for the workshop if I get in?

A: You should print the above mentioned workbook. You should be in a quiet space where you can talk freely. You should have a fast internet connection. You should have headphones or earphones ready.

Q: How do I attend the workshop?

A: The workshop will be hosted on Amazon's Chime. Instructions and meeting location will be sent to you once you've successfully registered.

Q: Will there be more workshops in LR / LG / RC in the future?

A: Yes. This session accommodates east coasters who work during the day. Future sessions will accommodate others.

Hey 7Sagers, I'm leading another twelve-hour long LR workshop (#2) over four nights (three hours per night) for four students to provide an intensive and comprehensive overview of all foundational concepts and their application to all types of LR questions.

Schedule

Session 1 - April 7, Friday, 7pm - 10pm EST

Session 2 - April 8, Saturday, 7pm - 10pm EST

Session 3 - April 9, Sunday, 7pm - 10pm EST

Session 4 - April 10, Monday, 7pm - 10pm EST

Cost

Free. But! There's a $150 deposit to reserve your spot. If you show up on time and participate for the entire duration of all sessions, your deposit will automatically be refunded fully at the end of the workshop. Otherwise, it is forfeit. Please make sure you can attend the entire 12 hour long workshop.

[Registration will open within 72 hours]

#Frequently Asked Questions

Q: How will you select which four students will participate?

A: First-come, first-served. The first four students to successfully place the deposit will be selected.

Q: What if I'm the fifth person to sign up?

A: Since there are only four spots, you will be automatically refunded.

Q: Who should take this workshop and what will be covered?

A: Beginners. This means you haven't finished the Core Curriculum yet and you're not starting to take PrepTests yet. Imagine the workshop as a fast paced overview of the entire Core Curriculum that pertains to LR. We'll cover theory and we'll apply that theory to actual LSAT questions. It will be highly interactive and hence the limit of four students. Wherever you are in the Core Curriculum, this a great way to solidify the concepts covered.

Q: Can I sign up even if I'm not a beginner?

A: Yes, you can. I'm certain that it'll benefit you to return to concepts covered in the Core Curriculum. I'm also certain that you will find it very slow at times since I will be speaking to students on the assumption that they are beginners.

Q: Do I need to have a paid 7Sage account to sign up?

A: Yes, you do. If you have an expired account, message Dillon and see if he's willing to reactivate it for you.

Q: What materials are used in this workshop?

A: The workbook that you will be provided with will contain LR questions from PrepTests 54, 55, and 56. Yes, we will be "burning" those PrepTests in order to get a closer look at the modern LSAT.

Q: What do I need to do to prepare for the workshop if I get in?

A: You should print the above mentioned workbook. You should be in a quiet space where you can talk freely. You should have a fast internet connection. You should have headphones or earphones ready.

Q: How do I attend the workshop?

A: The workshop will be hosted on Go To Meeting, like all of 7Sage's webinars. Instructions and meeting location will be sent to you once you've successfully registered.

Q: Will there be more workshops in LR / LG / RC in the future?

A: Yes. This session accommodates east coasters who work during the day. Future sessions will accommodate others.

I am about halfway though the CC and all of these indicators have really turned into second nature for me.

Although this is the case, I would really like to see “caused by” added into the Group 1 indicators, as it has really messed with my head. A clear example of this is on LSAT #25 S4 Q12. This question would have been an easy one have I would have known earlier. Lesson learned!

What are other people's thoughts? Is group 1 even the correct rule?

I see them mentioned on here a lot, but, aside from @"Cant Get Right"'s webinars, I rarely see them discussed or practiced much. Could someone explain what they are and how you use them?

Thanks!

Wasup 7sage community. So I took my LSAT in February... had been studying for 3 months at that point, but did not feel like I was at my peak. There was definitely room for improvement in all three sections. I still took it, and although I got a solid score, I know I can do better. So I'm deciding to take again and get it right this time...

The thing is, I am taking a two-year gap before law school. Ideally, I want to get solid work experience during this time. I am debating between taking it June or September... and am leaning towards September because the last thing I want is to rush myself again and put myself in a tough situation if I don't perform in June. However, I do not see myself full-time studying for 6 months... I want to look for a full-time internship/position. If I am giving myself 6 months, + the time I have already spent with the exam, is it feasible to hit my goal score range? Basically, is it necessary in the months leading up to the exam to be zeroed in on the LSAT or can solid prep allow for a more relaxed schedule? If anyone has been in a similar situation or can lend some words of wisdom, I would truly appreciate it.

Hi guys, could someone explain to me why answer choice C is correct for Q24? It doesn't explicitly say in the passage that the English "allowed" Parliament to make constitutional changes by legislative enactment. I guess this is correct because we can safely assume this was the case? I originally chose (A) but I guess A is wrong because nowhere does it say that the English were uncomfortable with institutions that could claim absolute authority. They were against absolute powers of kings, but not the Parliament. Am I right?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-9-section-1-passage-4-questions/

Also for Q27, I was between A and E, and ended up choosing E correctly. But during BR, I got confused for some reason and changed back to A. Why would A be wrong and E be correct? Any input would be appreciated!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-9-section-1-passage-4-questions/

When I took my diagnostic test, reading comp was my best section , -3. I am an avid reader and thought this part of the test would be the least difficult for me. For a few months, my RC score was consistently my best.

As my studying has intensified, my RC score has suddenly tanked. I recently PTed and got a -9(!!!) in RC. All my other areas have improved significantly, and my PTs are in the high 160s/low 170s. But somehow, my RC score keeps dropping.

It's true that my studying has focused primarily on other areas (formal logic, etc. from the CC, drilling games and LR) but I predicted that this would keep my RC score stagnant, not cause it to collapse.

Has anyone experienced this? What mistake could I be making that wrecks my RC score?

Ok, so I am almost done with the NA portion of the CC and I am lost. I am hit and miss on the "assumption" made in each question. While understanding the conclusion helps, I still can't consistently connect the dots each time. I'm not even timing myself at this point and am still missing theses questions. My mind either can't seem to make even remotely close predictions of what the assumption may be or I just overlook answer choices that I want to hit myself after checking for the correct one because they are so obvious.

Any tips that helped you overcome NA questions?

Struggling with this. I'm stuck between how D is correct over C. See below for a break up of the stimulus.

1970-now --> Oil use decreased by 40%

Why? 2 reasons:

1. Increases in the price of oil

2. Government policies promoting energy conservation

Because of this, many people switched to natural gas for heating, which required investing in equipment.

Because of this investment, it is unlikely that a significant switch back to oil in the near future will occur.

So the argument is relying on this idea that an investment in natural gas equipment is enough to deter a large switch back to oil. If we were to take away that "investment" element, we would weaken the prediction, no?

C- I confidently chose C during BR because C takes away (or at least severely weakens) the "investment" aspect and allows for natural gas equipment to be cheaper. (Keeping in mind that the cheapness of the equipment is not why people will continue to use it. The investment made in the equipment is why. If we were to make it so that investment no longer was required, then this supporting premise would no longer be sound). Furthermore, it also takes away reason 1 presented above for why people shifted to natural gas in the first place. With the truth of C, we are only left with one supporting premise about "government policies promoting energy conservation" to support the conclusion.

D- Just to recap: the "investment" aspect of natural gas is WHY people are committing to long term usage of it. D says that oil equipment is cheaper, so that "investment" aspect is not present for oil. Therefore, if anything, all the first part of D suggests is that there are no widespread commitments to oil, at least in the same respect as there is for natural gas. Furthermore, with the second part of D, we know that the price of heating with oil is NOW cheaper than the price of heating with natural gas. Admittedly, this does challenged reason 1 for switching from oil to natural gas. However, we don't know that the investment put into the equipment for natural gas does not exceed the current savings of switching to the now-cheaper oil over gas.

For example, if we spent $10,000 on natural gas equipment, and natural gas cost $15 per month (making this up) and, according to D, the cost of oil is now $13 per month, it will take a very long time for the switch to be worth it.

Another point on D, we have no idea how expensive the oil equipment was BEFORE this sharp decrease. The stimulus gives us no information regarding whether the investment in oil equipment was more or less than the investment in natural gas equipment. All we know is 1) oil was expensive, 2) the government wanted us to decrease our usage and 3) the investment in natural gas equipment was significant. It could very well be that the oil equipment was EVEN MORE expensive than the natural gas equipment, but that, the increase in oil price was enough to warrant a switch. So that brings me to my second issue with D...D says the cost of equipment for oil has fallen sharply...okay? Are we supposed to assume that it is now cheaper than natural gas equipment? Are we supposed to assume that this fall in equipment price is substantial enough to convince people to revert back to oil?

Thanks in advance.

Any suggestions for keeping all the flaws straight? Or improving intuition for which flaw will be the winner?

Sometimes the arguments are so bad that I can pick out 3 or more errors in reasoning. This can make it difficult to stay focused in the ACs.