So thankful for all of the Sages for their time hosting webinars sharing their experiences and wisdom with us. Please take advantage of this incredible resource!

It is remarkable that the webinar library has over 15 recordings for our viewing. As I was about to write a post referring to different webinars for someone that is in the early stages of time management, I realized that some people may not be aware of all the opportunities available - Under the “Discussion” menu is “Webinar Videos.”

Given everyone’s different stages of prep – following is a general breakdown of the webinars currently available.

LR

Necessary Assumption

Sufficient Assumption

Pseudo-Sufficient Assumption

Weaken & Strengthen

Flaw Intensive

When to diagram in LR – conditional stimulus

RC

Active Reading Strategies

Reading Comprehension Question Types

LG

Splitting the boards?

Overall Strategies

Blind Review process

Anticipating Answer Choices

Eliminating Attractor Answer Choices

Skip It! Skipping Strategies Panel

Global Strategies/Inspirational

My 18 Point Increase Story

LSAT Prep for 170+

Managing LSAT Stress and Anxiety

Listen to this as background music for this post:

Hey guys,

I want to share a method that I use in RC and that I have been teaching several of my students recently. RC is at least in certain instances designed to test your short term memory. To that end, there's a question type that seems to be designed to do exactly that. I've collected a few examples and have a method to recommend for approaching these questions.

Here's what I do with these questions.

Most of the time, only one AC rings a bell. And that's the right answer (barring hallucinations/clear over-inferences/reasons to eliminate an AC. I don't think I've ever had an AC that truly rang a bell that ended up being wrong).

Try this out for this QT and see where you end up. By focusing on what LSAC is testing on these QT's, you avoid the pitfalls of wasting time and misdirecting energy.

Getting pretty close to June and a wee bit closer to September.

Never fear! Guided BR Group is here.

Saturday, May 21st at 8PM ET: PT74

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

Note:

Have any of you found the older PT's helpful to take as in pre-2007? I have done the June 2007 and then PT's 62-70. I have the book for Pt's 52-61 then practice tests 75,76,77 and am ordering 72-74. I just wonder if its beneficial to get the older ones too or just stick with the ones I have ?

I postponed my test until September instead of taking the June one so I have time to study. I steadily increased in my score for the first 9 or so practice tests and made it all the way up to a 162. Now my last three scores respectively have been 156, 153, 153..... I don't know if its the stress or anxiety or what it is but I am now performing so much worse then before. The arguments section I usually am amazing at, and now I am getting so many wrong. Is this normal/what do I do about this?? Any advice for improving on the reading comprehension because that section I never seem to get better at.

Hey guys, I'm doing some older questions as a 5th section on my PTs, and I decided to take PT 7's first LR section. I'm BRing it right now, and I can't for the life of me figure this one out; I skipped it twice during the exam, and I'm still just as clueless on it during BR.

It's a resolve/reconcile question.

In 1990, major engine repairs were done on 10% of NMC cars made in the 1970s while only 5% of those made from the 1960s had major engine repairs done.

What I am looking for: We need to explain the difference. What if cars from the 1960s had sturdier engines or something? What if NMC cranked up production in the 1970s, and cranked out a ton of cars with bad engines?

Answer A: So what? The cars have ALREADY been registered; who cares about the requirements beforehand?

Answer B: I think this sort of makes it stranger. If newer cars (1970s) are driven more carefully than older cars (1960s), then why do cars from the 1970s have a higher proportion of engine repair?

Answer C: This is the credited answer, but huh? What does scrapping the car have to do with anything? This is saying that the 1960s cars are more likely to be scrapped/not repaired than 1970s cars. I just don't see how this resolves anything or is relevant to the issue.

Answer D: OK, but does simplified mean easier to break? This does nothing.

Answer E: This is what I ended up picking, but I really didn't like it (I felt good enough about my POE; plus, I had to choose something since I had skipped this twice). I think this is sort of similar to the idea in answer choice A. Some of the repairs from the 1960s cars could have been avoided if the owners weren't lazy with repairs. But, so what? We are talking about cars that WERE repaired, so this fact doesn't explain anything about the figures given. Why is it still the case that the 1960s cars were repaired at a lower proportion?

What happened to the logical reasoning videos for these PTs? Why have they been removed?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-2-question-12/

Hey 7Sagers, I just did this question and did almost everything right, but ultimately chose (E). I understood there to be 2 gaps,the first between: ~being able to tell ulterior motive——>~possible to tell whether an action is moral/ and the second gap being: ~being able to tell an action is moral——> should evaluate the consequences > morality. I took the last link in this chain (should evaluate the consequences) as the major conclusion. So I pre-phrased my answer to anticipate some iteration on the second link (or it’s contrapositive), thinking that what I wanted to build towards with the selection of a principle is something that would allow the major conclusion to properly stand.

Like several other 7Sagers, I usually write down why I am eliminating answer choices. I recognized (A) as the contrapositive of the first gap and didn’t eliminate it at first. B-D introduced new ideas or something we didn’t need. I eliminated (E) with my notes reading “Not what I need.” I recognized (E) as wrong, but (A) as simply something restated, So opted (with reservations) for (E). I now know a glimpse of what it must feel like to score 40 points but lose the game hahaha. I did almost everything correct and understood what was going on, but didn’t get the correct answer. :(

My questions about this question are the following: If we are asked to find something to “justify the reasoning,” wouldn’t any choice that leaves one of the 2 gaps unfilled not really “justify” much? I mean, I get that it says “most,” but aren’t we at least looking for something that justifies the Major Conclusion rather than some subsidiary minor premise/major premise link? Are there any sufficient assumption/pseudo sufficient assumption questions (that you are aware of) in which we will be forced to choose between bridging the gap between a minor premise/major premise at the behest of bridging the gap between a major premise/major conclusion? Are there questions in which adding a sufficient assumption or principle to the wrong gap nets the wrong answer?

Do y'all know what the deal is with glasses? I'm wearing glasses (just regular ones, not sunglasses) in my picture, but I don't plan on wearing them on test day.

Should I resubmit a picture without the glasses?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-1-question-24/

I ran into some issues with a LR question on PT 70 S1 and would love some inputs from other students here. I chose E, which is the wrong answer, but I'm not at all sure why I am wrong.

For #24 (the Macro/Micronutrients question), the last sentence reads:

"To remain healthy in the long run, soils for lawns require the presence of these macronutrients and also trace amounts of micronutrients...which are depleted when grass clippings are raked up..."

Isn't this a conditional claim?

Healthy --> Macro + Micro, and

Grass Clips Raked --> Micro Depleted

Assuming that IF micronutrients are there, THEN it's NOT depleted (which is very reasonable to me), then taking the contrapositive, we can connect the two:

Healthy --> Macro + (Micro --> /MicroDepleted --> /GrassClipsRaked)

(Sorry for the visual representation. Couldn't get the format to look right. But Healthy is connected to Macro AND Micro, and Micro is itself connected to the rest of the chain).

So if you deny the last necessary condition, then you should be able to work your way back. So if Grass Clips are raked, then Micro Depleted, then /Micro (micronutrients are gone), then /Healthy.

I thought E communicated exactly this: "Homeowners who rake up their grass clippings are unable to maintain the long-term health of the soils in their lawns and gardens," which in lawgic is

Grass Clips Raked --> /Healthy

which to me is exactly as above. Where am I wrong?

I usually finish all my sections in time. However, I rarely have enough time to check over my “starred” questions. The way how I skip is that if I feel that time is sinking, I choose one of the two or three answer choices left, after POE, and move on. I know that some people leave them blank, but I do not feel comfortable doing this. Normally, I star 5-7 questions per section, in which 3 - 4 questions end up being the right answer choices.

Recently, I watched Allison’s webinar on hitting 170+, and she talked about pushing yourself to allow at least 5 minutes at the end of a section (she was mainly talking about LR, but I feel that this could apply to RC as well) to go over the circled questions.

How does one go about doing this?

Thank you in advance!

Is there something I am perhaps missing in my studying? To just go over the lessons regarding logic games in the core curriculum takes a few days, and, unfortunately, almost every time I'm faced with a new game with no guidance it's as if I don't retain any of the information, and basically have to start out at square one - even though I've drilled many different games repetitively until I've "memorized the inferences" under the proper time time constraints. It's frustrating to think that despite spending entire days devoted to studying for the LSAT at times, I've essentially wasted my time and efforts because my performance doesn't seem to be improving with this section. Over the span of 3 PTs my score has only improved by 5 points, and I'm sure it's because logic games seem to be so inscrutable to me. I'm starting to feel that my energy on logic games is most likely futile at this point and I would have done better to just skip over it in favor of improving my skills with logical reasoning, which seems a lot more straight forward. I can't get that time back though, and now I'm most likely going to have to reschedule my LSAT exam for later in the year. Scheduling so soon was probably very overly optimistic. I just didn't think they would still be such a challenge after devoting so much time into them, I really expected to see an improvement. Any suggestions on what I can do beyond drilling games to the memorize inferences? Or suggestions as to why it's not seeming to work? It's very worrying because the concepts just seem to build and build on top of one another and I can't seem to develop much confidence. Even though there are identifiable types of logic games, they - so far - seem far from uniform, and I can't seem to get them down to a system although I've really tried.

Any help is appreciated.

Looking to confirm my thinking on the below. Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/or-but-not-both/

From this lesson:

Alan or Chris go to the park. (/A-->C)

And

Alan and Chris cannot both go to the park. (A-->/C)

I'm interested in diagramming these statements in relation to the third idea in the sentence, in this case "go to the park," as (P).

With "A or C go to the park" I would diagram as follows:

A-->P

C-->P

With "A and C cannot both go to the park" I would diagram as follows:

P --> /A or /C which can be diagrammed as P-->(A-->/C)

Now to link up the two statements:

A-->P-->(A-->/C)

I'm getting "If Alan goes to the park, then Chris does not go to the park."

Alternatively:

C-->P-->(C-->/A)

I'm getting "If Chris goes to the park, then Alan does not go to to the park."

I stopped studying for the LSAT back in January after a year of 8hr study days and little progress. I went through the Blueprint curriculum and read the PowerScore bibles, but never hit my target score. I've been thinking of getting back into it now that I have a full-time job, but I don't want to put my hopes into another prep course if it won't deliver. What different things in LR and RC does 7sage offer that the others don't exactly?

Thanks,

I'm curious if anyone has a good way to handle group 3 indicators "unless" or "until." In English these are often used to heavily imply an EXCLUSIVE or relationship, but in logic they only give us an inclusive or.

Example: I will go golfing (G) unless it rains (R).

Applying our group 3 translation rules strictly, we arrive at: "/R --> G" and the contrapositive "/G-->R"

Translating the above statements back into English,

"If it is not raining, I will go golfing," and "If I am not golfing then it is raining."

That is fine. The trouble comes when you try to reason from the fact that it is raining. In our common understanding of the above original statement if we knew it was raining, then we would be inclined to say the person is not golfing. However, that is not correct based on our translations.

More frustrating is the idea that this person could be golfing in the rain as nothing prevents R AND G from being together. That is the essence of inclusive or and is the possibility that is implicitly ruled out in our natural reading of the statement. Obviously, we can't apply a conversational implicature on the LSAT and we have to obey a strict logical understanding. I can easily imagine a question giving us the original statement and then supplying an answer choice that says "It is raining, therefore you are not golfing."

I would be grateful if anyone has a way to explain the possibility of the inclusive or outcome in the original statement by giving an example in which this person could be golfing in the rain and such outcome is acceptable.

Logically I understand the possibility, but making it more intuitive by having an example in mind would greatly help.

--

It's interesting to note that the implicature of exclusive or seems to be most strong in statements of "until" involving time and "unless" involving things such as the weather. The possibility of an inclusive outcome is easier to understand on a different example.

I will be angry (A) with you unless you clean your room (CR).

/A --> CR "If I am not angry with you, then you cleaned your room"

/CR-->A "If you did not clean your room, then I am angry"

I believe we all still see the possibility that I could be angry with you and you cleaned your room. Maybe you didn't do your homework, etc. That makes it fairly obvious that we can't conclude the condition of your room from my anger. I'm wondering what that "other 'cause'" might be for the golfing example.

Thanks!

I am looking to find a place on 7sage (preferably a pdf document) that has all of the 9 valid argument forms written out. Is there a pdf of these? Thanks!

Hi all, I just joined minutes ago. I am really loving this website. I always watched 7Sage's Youtube channel but never checked their website.

I was wondering if anyone would know when the June 2016 exam will be released by LSAC for us to use it as a practice test. Please let me know if you have any idea :)

Hi guys.

This is my first post and I was hoping I could get some feedback as the June 2016 exam is approaching.

My background: I've take the LSAT officially three times. Yes, I know. The first two times were December 2013 and February 2014, both soon after I graduated college in May of 2013 and I was desperate to start law school right away. I took a course and just wasn't prepared. I held off and took the June 2015 exam and didn't do any better even after so much studying so I decided to put it off again for the following year.

Now, I've been studying for this upcoming exam for about six months and finally got my score into the mid 150s; my goal is 160. One day it just clicked and I became super motivated to simply practice and perfect the last few areas I could to attain my desired score. I was even able to figure out how to get a higher score than 160. However, I took an exam a few days ago and scored 147. Granted I was tired from a long day of work and days of studying but this has completely killed my motivation.

I've put this exam off way too many times I simply want to get it over. Putting this exam off for October will delay starting school for another full year.

So my question is, should I take this exam in June as planned being as though I am so near by desired score and if so, how do I regain my confidence?

Thanks to everyone who took the time to read and to those who take the time to reply. Best of luck!

Hi everyone,

At the end of this long journey of applying to law school, I've had the misfortune of second-guessing myself. I got accepted with no scholarship at NYU, but in the past few days the thought of incurring so much debt has felt daunting. I'm not horribly debt averse, but sticker price just seems overwhelming. My goal is to pursue a career in public interest law, so NYU has been my dream school for the past two years. I thought I could do BigLaw for 2-3 years, pay down as much as I could in that time, and then transition into public interest. With NYU's generous LRAP program, I thought I'd be able to handle the remaining debt. But as @"Jonathan Wang" stated in a previous post, 10 years is an extremely long time and my interests and goals could change drastically in the meantime.

With strong softs and an acceptable GPA, I'm confident that the only reason I haven't been offered financial aid at NYU and have been waitlisted at my other top choices is because of my LSAT score.

I had originally planned on applying to law school in 2014, but postponed in order to re-take the LSAT. Now I'm wondering, should I continue working another year and re-take and re-apply in the fall? I think I'd need to increase my score about 4 points in order to get generous financial aid from Chicago/Columbia or get accepted into HYS.

When I took the LSAT last time in October, I felt like I hadn't reached my full potential on the LSAT. However, I'm afraid that taking the LSAT a fourth time is very risky; what if my score decreases, stays the same, or only increases one or two points? Should I just count my blessings and go to NYU this fall?

What do you guys think? You guys have always been supportive and helpful in the past; any thoughts/advice would be greatly appreciated :)

Hey everyone,

So I decided to drill some full length sections of LR this weekend, now that I am done with the core curriculum and starting to PT. I did both LR sections from PT 1 only to find that there are no video explanations. Am I looking in the wrong place?

I feel that this question categorizes more as a MoR, or MISC, than a Flaw/Descriptive.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-4-question-07/

Although we were determining the argument’s “flaw”, we had to choose an answer choice that summarized the attorney’s flawed “Reasoning”, not its actual flaw. The correct answer choice is exceedingly different from the normal flaw a.c.

If this question wasn’t categorized under flaw drills, I think more people would have gotten this answer correctly, especially because we’ve already established a strong foundation for MoR questions.

Regardless, I should be more careful by reading the question stem more meticulously.

Anybody having issues getting to the webinar videos on a tablet? I can access them just fine on my phone and laptop. When on the tablet I click discussion and I'm immediately directed to the forum. I don't have enough time to select any other options from the drop down menu. When selecting categories from the righ hand side and then webinars I can only see the announcement for the webinars that were posted in the forum. I'm using a Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1. I found a link someone posted and I was able to access the videos from there. Just wondering if I can figure this out.

Hey everyone,

I've been on and off the 7Sage course for a while and am currently taking a live in person course near where I live and supplementing with 7Sage. I am scheduled to write in June.

I work 2 jobs basically equaling full time and am dealing with mental health problems and being properly medicated... So needless to say it's been hectic.

I've done a few PTs, my accuracy in LG is 90% but everywhere else I'm bombing it. My PT score is bouncing around 147-149 - I want to be in the high 150's or even 160.

Anyways, here comes the curve ball... My parents would kick my rear end if I changed my test date, only cause I live at home still and well, you know how that goes.... So I'm going to be essentially wasting away this LSAT chance. I keep telling them I'm not ready but noopeeeee I get the "you're 25, get your life together" talk.

I know a lot of you will say, postpone your test date! But I don't feel as if I have an option without causing family conflict. So, say I bomb this June test, when should I realistically plan to take the LSAT again? I'm thinking December to be properly prepared- but any advice welcome!

How do some of you do it? Balance everything, with prepping for this test?

Thanks so much.

Chels

Hey,

So I'm taking the June LSAT. My LR score is great, LG is steadily rising, but my RC score fluctuates on a consistent basis. My plan was to take a PT from here on out, every day or at least every other day. But I really need to solidify my RC score. Any tips of advice on what to do here?

I am having some difficulty on strengthening questions that do not use causal reasoning. I am getting nearly all the weakening questions right because I am in the mindset of contradicting the assumptions made in the argument. However, for strengthening questions, should I look for an answer choice that strengthens the underlying assumption? Alternatively, will an answer choice that only states the assumption strengthen the argument?