We're almost a month away from the June LSAT! Take this time to assess your performance in order to more realistically estimate how you would do on the June test. This will help cut down on frantically looking for silver bullets later on like

PT 77 Review on Saturday, May 6th 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=il5ia3a4dmghh6lku7b0lh0ed0%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/New_York

Note:

So I have gone through the entire course and I would say it has helped greatly, before when I would do a LR section I would be getting 14-15 right untimed. Now untimed (which generally takes me 45-50 minutes) I am seeing improvements where I usually end up with 20 right (I always do BR, where I choose to keep or change my answers, so sometimes ill hit 20 with changed answers sometimes i'll hit 20 without changing any answers). I have noticed though that I am consistently atleast -5 to -6 wrong on my LR sections untimed. I have also realized that flaw, parallel and Resolve reconcile explain give me the most trouble. What do I need to do to greatly increase my score on untimed sections? I have reviewed the flaw, causation and parallel sections on 7sage. Does this just come with continued practice and extensive review on untimed LR? and once I am seeing these improvements on untimed tests, how will I begin to increase my speed? Should I be doing blind review on every single question after I do a section or just the questions that posed me difficulty?

I wrote the December LSAT and scored a 151, due to bombing the logical reasonings sections. I am writing in September 2017 and will spend however many hours necessary in order to increase my accuracy and speed on logical reasoning.

Would anyone have any advice for selecting the correct answer choices for weaken questions? It seems that I still get stuck between two or three answers, especially the non-causation ones. How have you mastered this question type? Any ideas would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!

Hi, I'm hoping my fellow 7Sagers could help clarify my muddled brain (I'm probably overthinking this).

When a stimulus says something is more/less likely, I understand it's regarding a chance, but does it already take into account the total amount in each group? For example, I was reviewing PT 37.2.25 - my question doesn't really have anything to do with the actual answer, but wanted to clarify and get feedback on my thought process:

One of the flaws I anticipated was that cars with air bags may be more likely because there are just more cars on the road with air bags v. non-air bags. I think this is a very reasonable assumption since in our real world, it's mandatory to manufacture cars with air bags and there are simply not as many non-air bag cars anymore. However, is this a reasonable flaw to make or should I understand that the argument has already taken into account the total number of cars with air bags v. non-air bags and so I should just take at face value that the percentage of accidents is higher for cars with air bags? Hopefully this made sense - appreciate your responses in advance.

Link to the PT Q referenced above: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-37-section-2-question-25/

Hi guys, I'm going through the biconditional part of the curriculum. Im wondering, for the Or, but not both biconditional, why don't we just write it out like this A -> /B and B->/A, that way you can link it up as well if a chain comes up?

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

https://media.giphy.com/media/3oEdv5hgaihi21MhyM/giphy.gif

https://media4.giphy.com/media/3o6gaQc4a0hghj1T2w/giphy.gif

We are coming down to the final stretch...

https://media1.giphy.com/media/xT5LMz1fARkO1JhWyQ/giphy.gif

If you are... then please let us know!

So thankful for all that 7Sage offers to the community & I know that we can be a support system for each other during these last weeks.

Most importantly if there are any areas that could help us achieve our goals, please share any and all questions so we can reach out to Sages to provide their expertise.

Hello!

I wonder whether anyone here has been able to "close the gap" between their timed practice tests and their blind reviews in a short-ish period of time, especially when the errors are not in the LG section? If so, do you have any suggestions about studying habits for this next month? Normally I would just wait and take the test in September, give myself ample preparatory time. However, my schedule will be ramping up significantly in the coming months, and so June seems an ideal time to get this thing over with!

A bit about me: I am new to the site, and relatively new to the LSAT. I began studying about a month and a half ago. After familiarizing myself with the logic games, I took a couple practice tests near the end of March and scored in the mid-160s. Since then, I've improved; my last four tests have been 172, 173, 170 and 170 (from earlier to most recent).

This improvement is in large part due to 7Sage. Though I did not purchase the materials (I'm on a grad-student budget), I make extensive use of the analytics tool and read the forum often. I'm consistently amazed at this service and the generosity of its creators and users. And I'm really excited to be testing closer to my ideal range (173-180) for scholarships and admittance to my top choices for schools. BUT I am worried about my ability to break into that mid or high-170s realm in only another month of work. My blind reviewing is consistently in the high-170s (176-178), and the still-wrong answers are typically questions I don't circle and miss because of a reading error. My errors are almost all in LR and RC. RC varies wildly, from -2 in a section to -6. LR typically averages out to around -4 per test (i.e. -2 per LR section).

I've been doing 2 practice tests a week, a two or three-hour blind review the next day, and then a couple random sections from early tests on free days (timed and then reviewed untimed).

Finally: does anyone have tips for time management on the Reading Comprehension section? I am pretty sure that most of my errors come about because I panic about time and don't read the final two passages appropriately carefully.

Thanks for reading!

I believe I have almost completed my cycle for this year. And I am glad that I have secured a school that will give me a very good opportunity to start my career as a transaction lawyer.

I was able to boost my lsat score from 149 (cold diagnostic : PT no. 69) to 170+ (2016 official score).

Unlike some crappy online forums, 7sage discussion forum has been precious resource for me.

I firmly believe that this test is learnable, even for those who are not perfect with the language. (For the record, English is my second language and I started learning English at the age of 10). I guess the hardest part is not letting go of such belief.

These are the resources I found especially helpful

There are some talented people who are able to finish preparation within short span of time. I was blessed to have them as my friends.

Yet I have to say I was not one of them and it took me more than a year to reach the point I wanted.

For those who are on the struggle bus, say June LSAT or whatever,

I know how much it sucks (I am a 3rd time LSAT taker) and I hope that you hold onto the belief that you are going to get through it.

And if there is any question let me know! Thank you!

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!

I just finished my first pretest after completing the CC and I have jumped up 18 points in my LSAT score. Needless to say, I am super stoked to see that these past few months have paid off.

Regarding the question posed in this topic post, I missed a flaw question by picking the same cookie cutter answer choice under timed conditions as well as during a freshly printed BR. This was an AC that J.Y. always says will reappear as the correct AC in the future (I did PT 35). I realized, ironically I guess, I have a flawed sense of understanding about this particular flaw. So, I was wondering if there is a function to find where this cookie cutter answer choice would have actually had been the right AC, so that I am able to fix this mistake for good.

Thank you!

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!

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

I love the fact that J.Y. adds the target time in all the logic game explanations. It just hit me that i don't practice my logic game full proof method with a scantron. I normally just use scantrons during my PT and BR or when I'm doing random timed sections from old LSAT's.

Do those target times for LG include bubbling in the scantron or without the scantron? If the target time includes bubbling in, i will begin using a scantron when doing the full proof method.

(Full proof method is so wonderful because I've done it for like 15 or so games and now when I do games I've never seen before the inferences are so clear, the rules are easier to understand along with the questions. Having a better idea of when and when not to split the game is incredible. Along with knowing when rules do and don't kick. I just couldn't have asked for a better prep.)

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!

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:

Any advice for breaking down SA questions into valid argument forms like JY does in the videos? The more questions I see, the more challenging it is to find an AC that matches my diagram. Is there another way to approach SA questions? Sometimes it seems like the AC for these questions is just a restatement of the conclusion and/or my prephrases don't match the answer choices very well. Does anyone think of these questions like strengthen questions? Any suggestions would be great! Thank you!

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?

Blank

Edit: Why are they not categorized by type?

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 know that the fellow 7sagers already know what the answer is, but I just wanted to say it one more time, prob just to tell myself (and get some resonance from others too!) that I made a right decision and nothing's wrong with it.

The answer: however long it takes to master the skills necessary and feel confident walking into the exam room that I have and will realize my potential.

I am saying this because i have a lot of LSAT beast friends around. I have a college friend who studied for a month and scored a 179. Another college friend who studied 4 hours a day for 3 months and got 175+. (He, by the way, told me: "If you study for 4 hours a day for 3 months, you will get the score you want." ) I also have another friend in my church Bible studies group who studied for a month, killed it, and got into Yale. So my Bible studies folks think that the ideal time to study for the LSAT is a month, and they are puzzled when I say I need more time than that. LOL... Yes I admit, they hurt my pride a bit.

But that's great, because I learned that being humble is the best way to conquer the LSAT. (and in general to conquer life). It's ok, because they have their own pace to things in life, and I have my own pace. I know what I am capable and not capable of, and I will not define my pace based on other people's pace.

I do need more time. I wanted to take it in June (and might try to if I progress quicker than what I currently anticipate), but 3 months of full time studying isn't going to be enough for me. I need to work on LG a lot more, to the point that I will feel confident and relaxed even when I see an unusual game thrown at me. I want to realize my potential on all sections.

That's the answer for me.

The end.

So I’m really struggling with these causation questions, not because I'm getting the wrong answer, but because I’m confused about Causation strategy, and when to use it. So I have 2 questions.

1st one is, When approaching general weakening/strengthening questions, that are not causal, we approach these with the strategies JY has laid out for us, in those lessons, and not as a causation question, correct? Is there an easy way to tell the difference between general weakening strengthening/weakening questions? What tips would you recommend?

2nd question is, I'm having trouble in applying the causation strategy to questions. I just did the Synesthesiacs question, under the Causation questions in the syllabus (LSAT Preptest 34, Section 2, Question 12). I asked this in the question just now, but I'm hoping I'll get more replies here.

So I hovered over A and B. A to me felt like it most weakened it, and I wanted to pick it, but to me it didn’t really feel like I was following the structure of how to attack these. In it, this question introduces a data set, in the form of research, with some people. Don’t know if I should have construed that as co-incidence or correlation, since some is kinda vague, so I went with Correlation. Since it’s a data set, I looked for an answer that introduces a competing data set. And B was the only one. B didn’t really seem like it weakened it, but hey, I followed the structure (or did I?). If I had followed the Co-incidence rules, then I would have arrived at A, since it is a competing explanation. Is that where I screwed up?

If not, could someone please clarify for me what I’m doing wrong. Do I follow this strategy down to a T? It feels like when I go off intuition I do better, but I don’t want to rely on that.

Thank you

Hi Everyone hope all is well. So I have a quick question. How does application fee waivers work? I took the recent Feb LSAT and I received no fee waivers however when I saw some forums with people who had comparable scores to mine, they spoke about being able to apply to a bunch of reach schools because of fee waivers. Could it be due to the timing that I took the LSAT seeing as how I took it in February? I plan on applying for Fall 2018 by the way. Any insight would be great. Thank you!

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