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!

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

P: Because Mike likes rich life

C: he works hard to make money

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

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

Another way is to show that C happens without P.

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

Please share your thoughts!

Thank you 7Sage!

7Sage had Office Hours in my city, and I had the privilege to meet and talk to J.Y. in person! (perks of being one of the few 7Sagers in the city! :) )

I would like to share some of the advice I got from J.Y. about Reading Comprehension that might be helpful to some of you.

• Read for the structure

I'm sure 7Sagers already know this, and J.Y. stresses this point in videos too, but for RC, always you should **read for the structure**. J.Y. advised me that I should practice the following:

1) Have a **low-resolution summary** of each paragraph first and then think of a high-resolution summary second.

2) Find a **connection** between the paragraphs.

3) **Predict** what the author is going to say next.

Somehow it's harder to remember the structure and the main point when you first try to remember little details in the passage.

e.g.) Low resolution summary of S19 Passage 3

P1: Phenomenon; P2: Hypothesis 1 & the author's counter-argument; P3: Hypothesis 2 & the author's counter-argument;

P4: Hypothesis 3 & the author's counter-argument; P5: Hypothesis 4 & the author thinks this is most promising; P6: Mechanism of Hypothesis 4

• Dual Passages (A B Passage)

For dual passages in RC, J.Y. told me that we actually should read Passage A and answer the questions first and then read Passage B. There are questions which you can answer by just reading Passage A. Also, you can eliminate answer choices after reading Passage A, and after reading Passage B, you can choose among a few answer choices.

• YouTubing

When I told him that I sometimes freeze when I see scientific passages, J.Y. suggested that I should go YouTubing about an unfamiliar scientific topic in RC for just 30 minutes after every PT. I watched some clips about "latitudinal gradient" on YouTube for 30 minutes, and it was fun and educational!

I'm a low scorer (especially bad at RC) so I don't know if these pieces of advice apply to you, but I wanted to share these with you because I'm grateful for the opportunity of having met him :)

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!

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.

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!

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

I had a quick question - based on the 7sage lessons on weakening, you never directly attack a premise or conclusion; rather, you take support away from the premise(s). So, a lot of trap answer choices will seem like they're attacking a premise when they're not.

However, is there ever a case where an answer choice DOES directly attack the premise? And if so, is it right?

I ask because I think I remember JY saying in a video (and i can't remember which - I was BR'ing an exam): "When answer choices seem to attack a premise, 9 times out of 10 they're not actually attacking the premise, it just looks like they are. For the 1 time out of 10 though, it's a great way to weaken an argument."

So, if it does actually attack the premise, it would be right, but it's highly unlikely that they would do that, so they're probably just trapping you?

Thanks guys!

I would like to know where 7Sagers usually take PrepTests. I read somewhere that it is better to get used to distractions so I usually take in a public library. But do you think it's ok to do PTs at home?

I'm asking this because I want to record myself doing PTs, and today I stacked a bunch of large books on a library desk and put iPhone on top of it to record myself (I was definitely the weirdest person in the library), but the battery went out after 1.5 hours of recording....! (Next time I'll bring a portable battery charger....and I also ordered an iPhone clip holder stand so that I don't have to stack books....still going to be the weirdest person in the library though)

Sorry for a stupid question!

Hi all,

2 questions.

I likely will only have 3 full days off before the June LSAT I am planning to take. Is this enough time? (I.e., I will work on Thursday and take the test on Monday) Or should I try and swing for more days?

Any advice appreciated, especially from people that have already taken the test before!

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?

Hey guys,

Had a 7Sager email me with a question that I thought you guys could help out with. Here it is:

I was wondering if you could tell me what the phrase "or else" means in logic sequencing games? For example, a rule given is "H is assembled on line 1 or else line 7"

There is a really tough and confused question I have: IS No effective law(A) is unenforceable(B) = All enforceable laws(-B) are effective(-A) RIGHT?

Due to the first sentence is a double negative one, should I reverses it directly like -B→-A? Then it becomes like that: Enforceable is effective law and it is the same as the sentence in my question.

However, if I change the double negative sentence to an affirmative one, then it becomes: Effective law is enforceable. Then reverses it: Unenforceable is not effective law, which is not the same as the sentence in my question.

I have no idea which one is correct, should I change the double negative sentence first? Or should I reverse the double negative sentence directly?

In general, I got 2 wrong for each passage. In total, 8-10 wrong. I need some suggestions on how review the RC passage efficiently.

Hi everyone, is there a study/blind review group for those prepping to take the test in September or December? If not, can we start one? The support of a study group is invaluable during this tough time!

@"Dillon A. Wright" Can you please check my account? Yesterday my unlocked content was at 100% and now it is not. I don't know what changed. I am an Ultimate+.

Thanks in advance,

S.S

so Einstein has this riddle i'll paste it here .. basically he said 98% of people dont get it right.. not sure if thats true or not, but once i saw it i realized .. ITS A LOGIC GAME !!! its not evena full game its the sitting up of a game give it a try and i'll tell you the answer ...

Einstein's riddle

The situation

There are 5 houses in five different colors.

In each house lives a person with a different nationality.

These five owners drink a certain type of beverage, smoke a certain brand of cigar and keep a certain pet.

No owners have the same pet, smoke the same brand of cigar or drink the same beverage.

The question is: Who owns the fish?

Hints

the Brit lives in the red house

the Swede keeps dogs as pets

the Dane drinks tea

the green house is on the left of the white house

the green house's owner drinks coffee

the person who smokes Pall Mall rears birds

the owner of the yellow house smokes Dunhill

the man living in the center house drinks milk

the Norwegian lives in the first house

the man who smokes blends lives next to the one who keeps cats

the man who keeps horses lives next to the man who smokes Dunhill

the owner who smokes BlueMaster drinks beer

the German smokes Prince

the Norwegian lives next to the blue house

the man who smokes blend has a neighbor who drinks water

Einstein wrote this riddle this century. He said that 98% of the world could not solve it.

I sensed a burn out/ slump and took off last Thursday afternoon and the entire weekend. Before taking the time off, I think I was getting emotionally involved with the exam. I was getting anxious just by seeing the questions. I was focusing on getting all the details right and was not in the right mindset to see structures. I think when I get anxious, I tend to want to control everything and understand everything perfectly, which is detrimental to succeeding on the LSAT (and anything in life in general...). Now I am in quite a happy place again. Here's a note to a future self (and also to my current self to ingrain these insights) and to anyone who wants to prevent/ overcome a slump. Please feel free to add any more insights.

Anyways, I think the weekend off helped me to really experience all of the 3 above (these are all quite common wisdom, but really believing in them and acting in accordance with them is a different issue). I'm going to keep this in mind going forward.

Please add any more insights to this if you have them!!

I just received the news that I have been accepted to University of Ottawa!!! One year ago today, I never thought that this would be possible. I must say, thank you to the 7sage community for making this happen. The video explanations helped me tremendously as well as all the discussion boards.

To all those applying, never give up! I know the battle is long and treacherous but trust me, hard work really does pay off. If it takes you 6 months of studying or1 year or even 2 years... who cares. The only dreams that are unreachable are the ones you don't reach for.

Thanks again (3(/p)

Hi 7sagers... I've noticed that in my recent PT's I have finished the LR sections with approximately 5 - 7 minutes left at which time I will go back to the questions I circled because I was not completely confident with my answer. When I go back through the section to these questions, I get worried about time and tend to spend no more than 45 seconds on them before usually confirming my first answer and going on to the next circled one. I am missing an average of 5 questions per LR section and mostly on these circled (curve breaker) questions.

How do you approach your second time through a section? Would it be better for me to hone in on 2 or 3 circled questions and absolutely get them right at the expense of not double checking all of the circled questions? Any light you can shed would be greatly appreciated.