Here’s the schedule this week:

BR GROUPS

Tuesday, Mar 29th at 8PM ET: PT 59

Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219480381

Thursday, Mar 31st at 8PM ET: PT 75

Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219480381

LSATurday, April 2nd at 8PM ET: PT60

Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219480381

June BR Group Schedule: http://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/6171/june-test-takers-group-br-schedule-updated

You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.

United States +1 (571) 317-3112

Access Code: 219-480-381

HOPE TO SEE YOU THERE!

Be sure to announce in the comments which group(s) you’re planning on attending.

Fine Print (NOTE: you all want to be lawyers; reading fine print is what lawyers do, so READ IT!)

BR GROUP NOTES:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-2-question-17

Can someone help me to understand answer choice (B)?

I understood it to mean that the criteria of legal responsibility are different from that of moral responsibility, but Jon's explanation says that the criteria of legal responsibility include some of the stuff that moral responsibility does.

Thank you!

Hello, just wanted to notify someone on 7Sage that the sound quality for the linked video (see below) is really quite terrible and hard to understand the person talking. I was wondering if you would be able to re-do the explanation on a better recording device or somehow re-work the sound on the video so it isn't as ear-shattering?

Thanks a bunch.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-4-question-03

We can do this!!!

I have a question about when to use the chart versus the regular grouping game set up.

I’ve come up with a few indicators, please clarify the 3rd.

1) the items (variables) are mentioned as having to go “at least” once

2) you don’t know how many times each variable can go OR if each group or variable even needs to go at all

3) if each variable can only go ONCE in the group (which will have to be denoted in the rules or set up)

In the first video of this lesson (fruit cup, hot dog, sheeshkabob, etc) you explain how the first rule is basically saying that you can’t put double Fruit cup’s in any one particular cell. However, in the second game in the lesson (patients, fever, headache, sneezing) I can’t seem to find a similar rule… I understand intuitively that you can’t have double fever, or double headaches, lol, but in the lsat world, we’re never suppose to use an intuitive, common sense approach to anything, it seems.

ALSO, is this last indicator (i.e. the only 1 variable PER CELL rule) the reason WHY we did NOT use a chart on the october 2012 game (subzones, retail, housing, industrial)? If we did use a chart, then we would have HH or RRR in one cell, and that would not be correct?

Also, that OCTOBER 2012 GAME 4 IS RIDICULOUSLY TOUGH.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-49-section-2-question-21

We are told that Sugared beverages can be helpful in avoiding dehydration AND sugared beverages can delay muscle fatigue.

However, the stimulus denotes this is BEFORE one is dehydrated.Or at least that was my reading.

If you are already dehydrated, we are not told sugared beverages beverages with any level of sugar will help.

Thus for B, if you have problems that have come as a result of being dehydrated, how would taking in lightly sugared beverages be of assistance? If anything, it would seem they would make your problems worse every time for it would be drawing water from the blood to the stomach.

I might be interpreting this incorrectly.

Any and all help is greatly appreciated.

Hey, I was wondering that when we say that A causes B, do we understand it to mean that whenever A will happen B shall follow or does such a causal relationship accommodates some instances wherein A happens but then B does not follow. I had trouble with question 11 in LR Section 1 on PT 58 and I think it was because I wasn't clear on my understanding of causation.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-58-section-1-question-11

I started training for the LSAT a year ago, and after that time, my score has increased from an abysmal 137 to 160. I initially completed the BluePrint course, and after studying meticulously all of their material and hiring several of their tutors, my score wasn't moving beyond 159/160. One of the BluePrint tutors told me to watch the 7-Sage YouTube videos on LGs to increase my score. I took the advice, and it worked (well). Deciding not to remain in ignorance, I decided to re-take all the basics through the 7-Sage course, and guess what happened. 7-Sage has explained more than BluePrint entire corpus, and I'm not done with 7-Sage's core curriculum, yet.

Should "future" experience (for example, experience during the summer between application submission (Sept/Dec) and the start of the fall semester) be included on resumes? If so, how should it be listed?

Also, I volunteered with an organization that monitored sea turtle nests during nesting season (May - Oct) on weekends and school breaks -- what would be the most comprehensive way to date this experience?

Should references be included on resumes? Although some schools allow resumes up to two pages, the personal statement add on course to stick to one (references are currently on a second page). Also, the section titled "What to Cut" includes the phrase "references available upon request", which gives me the feeling I should not include references at all on my resume. Are recommenders on LSAC considered to be the same as references on a resume?

Thanks!

Hi guys and gals,

I thought I'd poll the collective wisdom of 7Sagers for advice.

I'm taking a week-long unavoidable trip to Europe at the end of May (coming back June 02). I'm not thrilled about it, as a 7 hour jet lag is not exactly optimal preparation for the LSAT, but I hope 4 days would be enough to get over most of it. Because my little girl will be with me and I'll be busy with all kinds of errands, it will be very difficult to find time to do full length PT's, although I have been toying with the idea of doing one on the flight out and one on the flight back.

I'm planning to keep up the LG drilling, because my scores drop when I slack off.

What would you do for PT's if you were in my shoes? Finish all the fresh ones before going and maybe do a repeat on the flight and another after coming back? Save a fresh one for after coming back? Something else?

I've been taking 2 PT's a week religiously for what seems like an eternity and I got into a really nice groove with them. Seems like the best balance for me personally between a small enough load to avoid burnout and allow for drilling and BR, but large enough to keep those skills nice and sharp. I'm a bit worried to let go of my "safety blanket" routine, even though my rational mind tells me all of that work won't magically evaporate in a week.

How are you guys planning to "taper"? For those that already took the LSAT with pleasing results, what did you do during the last couple of weeks?

Many thanks!

Hello,

I am not sure as to whether I should take the June or the Sep exam. I am aiming for 165+(canadian) . My recent PTs have been in the 166-168 range. With only 13 fresh PTs left, I am alternating between retakes and fresh exams.

Should I take the exam when I am well above my target score,in order to be safe, or do you think I should still aim for June??

Thank you in advance for your advice

Note: Please bring your questions!

Exciting news: Sage Allison (173) will be offering FREE LSAT office hours again this week. (5/25)

To join, click the link below (at the appropriate time ;) ). Bring your questions on any LSAT topic and ask the Sage!

Office Hours with Allison (6-8 PM ET Wednesday)

1. Please join my meeting.

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/382933861

2. Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone.

Dial +1 (872) 240-3412

Access Code: 382-933-861

Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting

Meeting ID: 382-933-861

Hi All,

I am currently signed up for the Ultimate package with 7Sage. After taking some time off, I am back to studying for LSAT. I noticed that 7Sage now has Ultimate+ (sorry if this has been out for a while and has already been discussed, but I just noticed it recently). Is an upgrade from Ultimate to Ultimate+ recommended? For anyone who has upgraded and been through the new offering, please let me know your thoughts and recommendations.

Thanks a lot for your time.

Hi everyone,

I'm on about 6 waitlists now & one hold & I'm curious if anyone has had any luck getting scholarships if admitted off waitlists?

My current LSAT score is 160 w/ adjusted LSAC GPA of 3.15, degree GPA of 3.43 w/upward trending. Strong softs including long career in corporate finance, Letters of recommendation & personal statements & addendum. I'm a non-traditional student.

I'm planning on visiting some of my top picks I'm waitlisted at over the next few weeks.

I'm also preparing to retake the LSAT in June to try to raise my score.

Thank you in advance for any tips or advice.

So, I’m wanting to participate in the September BR group, but I’m in a good place with the curriculum and eager to start; so thought I’d lay out my ideas of how to balance that and get some input.

I’ve begun fool proofing the games and have developed what I think is a really good system for me based off of 7Sage’s recommendations with some modifications of my own. I feel great there, so it’s more LR and RC I’m unsure of how to study in the meantime. I guess I’ll just drill sections, alternating between using a timer and a stopwatch to develop my pace, followed of course by thorough Blind Review. I will return to the curriculum to address any BR misses and over confidence errors.

Does that seem like a productive use of a month? Or should I not worry so much about the group and just go ahead with PTs?

Does anyone know which states offer the multi state bar exam?

I've also heard that some states offer reciprocity but I'm not sure which ones & if you have to be practicing law for a while or not to do that.

Thank you in advance for any information.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-3-passage-2-questions

Okay, so I really debated between "C" and "D" (the former apparently being a crappy choice), and ended up selecting "C" only because the term "approving" in "D" seemed too strong and altogether inapplicable for describing the author's attitude. "C" to me seemed like a piece of the author's overall attitude, but is this in itself reason to not select "C"?

In other words, do questions regarding one's attitude inherently ask for the overall, holistic viewpoint as opposed to something the author may or may not agree with? I don't think I have ever seen a correct answer choice claiming the author has a particular viewpoint or judgement on the topic discussed when the author seems to have no such voice at all. The author points to evidence supporting the lawyers' claim, yes, but even if the author believes there to be sufficient evidence for the legitimacy of "stealing thunder," there is no indication of his approval of the use of it. By "approving," does the author believe that the use of "stealing thunder" is logical and sound? If "approving" were to take that meaning, I can completely understand why "D" is correct.

Finally, I assume "C" is wrong at least in part because of the term "anecdotal evidence," which doesn't fit at all with the speculation discussed at the end of the paragraph. My two concerns, then, lie with the use of "approving" as well as the inherent meaning of Attitude questions in general.

Thanks in advance for any responses.

By an astounding miracle, I was admitted to the Northwestern class of 2019 today.

Hey all,

I seem to have found an issue in my thought process which needs addressing. I cannot distinguish between an analogy in an argument and counterexample.

For PT23 S2 Q11, an AP question type, I was pretty convinced that the part of the argument I was asked to describe was a counterexample when in fact, it was an analogy (question wrong :( ). After watching the explanation video I was still a little hazy on this but could definitely see it as an analogy.

Fast forward to PT33 S1 Q2, a MR question, I was faced with the same dilemma. Down to two answer choices, one describing the argument as using an analogy and the other saying it was a counterexample. My instinct wanted to choose the counterexample but I began to recall what caused me to err on the aforementioned AP question. I ended up choosing the analogy AC which ended up being correct.

I feel as if I am on the brink of having an 'ah ha' moment (or am way overthinking this) and was curious if anyone could shed some light and help clarify these two concepts for me.

From what I have taken away, an analogy is used in an argument to show that something is like something else and, because of the similarities, proof that the original reason for the initial something being argued for is in fact a valid. For example, If I say all Jedi use the Force and all Sith Lords use the Force as well, then Luke Skywalker is, therefore, both a Jedi Knight and a Sith Lord. The analogy of the Jedi and Sith assumes that Luke is both, when all avid Star Wars fans know this is not the case (although, this is not an entirely invalid argument. Anakin Skywalker--Luke's father--was, technically, both a Jedi and a Sith).

A counterexample almost directly opposes the initial claim made by the argument. If I say that all Jedi use the Force and I find a Jedi who has no ability to use the Force, then that would be a counterexample. It's like an exception to a rule.

Am I thinking straight? Thank you in advance.

Hey 7Sagers,

I'm teaching a live RC webinar mini course! Seriously, it's going to be me but live.

What is it?

We'll start with RC theory and fundamentals and then we'll apply it to select RC passages. Some materials in this webinar will overlap with what's in the Core Curriculum but most will be new. We're only using pre PT 36 materials. You don't need to have anything printed out, just follow along on screen or you can access the content via the Question Bank.

Who's it for?

I'll be picking a very very small group so everyone can interact. I will be asking lots of questions and will cold call just like in law school! Terrifyingly fun! Priority will be given to enrolled 7Sagers. You should have completed the Intro to Arguments, Grammar, and Main Point/Conclusion classes. No other background in RC necessary. If you're already advanced in RC, eh, this is probably not for you.

When?

Session 1: Monday, April 4

Session 2: Wednesday, April 6

Session 3: Friday, April 8

All sessions 8pm - 9:30pm (Eastern Time)

You have to commit to attending all three sessions. This is a long term relationship.

How do I sign up?

Step 1: Fill out this Google Survey before Sunday night 11:59pm.

Step 2: We'll do selections and email you next week.

Step 3: If selected, we'll ask you to place a small deposit to incentivize your attending all three sessions. If you do attend all three sessions in their entirety, we will refund you 100%. If you don't attend, you will not get your deposit back. Instead, we will donate your deposit to the political organization that you hate the most.

Hello everyone, I wanted to see if there was anyone studying for the LSAT in Vancouver, BC that was interested in meeting up sometime. I know there was a meet up recently; unfortunately I had plans that evening and was not able to attend. I think it would be nice to meet some Vancouverite 7Sagers. I don't know anyone studying for the LSAT in my area, and I think having a support group would be a great idea!

Hi all,

Link to the lesson: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/traffic-accident-principle-question?ss_completed_lesson=1135

First of all, C can be eliminated because of sequence: car stolen a week before the suggested actions were published. But I had a different view, below.

I'm looking to get some clarification about why exactly answer choice C is wrong and I think it has to do with translating the scope of "voluntarily" as an adverb as being more important than the positively stated "undertake" versus "not undertake."

Any help appreciated!

Regarding answer choice C, it states that Collen voluntarily did NOT take some action (which one could argue I guess is a form of voluntary action itself), whereas the principle states that the actions are undertaken (affirmatively). The video explanation does just this, stating that Collen's failure to do something was a voluntary action, but this kind of reasoning makes the distinction between undertaking and not undertaking meaningless, if we talk about not undertaking an action in that context, that just ends equating with, oh, you made a choice NOT to do something, so you chose to do something.

Is it possible to rule out C since it is talking about an action that she did NOT undertake when the principle is talking about actions that the person DOES undertake? To me this looks like a failure of the sufficient condition, which means the rule is irrelevant.

I guess we could see the principle as having an AND statement in the sufficient condition:

undertook action AND knew consequences AND did so voluntarily, therefore responsible.

C looks like we fail the first segment of the AND, while satisfying the last two, so the conclusion doesn't follow.

Also, another way to get at this confusion might be looking at producing a contra positive of the principle because it is difficult to determine how to properly negate the original premise.

Contra positive: A person is not responsible for the consequences because NOT(know that actions they voluntarily undertake risk such consequences)

A person is not responsible for the consequences because they did not know the consequences OR did not do so voluntarily Or did NOT undertake an action.

Answer choice D seems to be getting at the idea that not doing an action is part of the negation. Colleen did not undertake the slamming of the door. We know D is wrong because it is trying to conclude she IS responsible for an action she did NOT undertake. In parallel to C, Collen voluntarily did NOT undertake the precautions, here Collen voluntarily(?) did NOT undertake the slamming of the door, just her here brother did it, whereas in answer choice C, no one did it.

For some reason I'm not getting any RC data for my analytics. The other sections show up fine, but for question type analysis, RC is blank. It says "no data available"

Anyone else having this issue?

The question is as follows:

Admin edit: Please do not post full questions on the discussion forums! Removed the question.

I chose (A), but it was incorrect because the actual correct answer is (B). I understand the reasoning behind why answer choice (B) is correct. However, I am concerned as to the actual fact that we are taught to consider the stimulus truth and to not question the premise, rather we ought to question the conclusions.

As this was an older LSAT - ought test takers still concern themselves with these types of questions (where the premise/speaker of said premise may be questionable)?

Hope to receive word from someone soon.

I am taking the June 2016 LSAT. I am in need of a serious study buddy. My goal is to score a 165. If you are looking for a study buddy please let me know. I can be reached ]via email (Admin edit: Email removed. Please pm for email). I am currently in New York. I hope we can encourage each other in this brutal LSAT journey! Lets beat the LSAT together!