I know it may not be much, but I finally broke an LSAT barrier and scored in the 150's 150 and BR 157! Again, I know it's nothing amazing and very mediocre for many people, but considering all of my prior PT's had been 144 and below, I'm glad I finally got into the 150's haha.

I'm preparing for the June exam and kept telling myself I better break into the 150's soon if not my confidence and motivation was just gonna be horrible. Really motivated to study now and reach my goal of +160 by June. Thank you to all the awesome people here at 7Sage!

Hey All,

You can never have too much practice with RC, right? Which is why you should definitely go check out this passage and then help a girl out with a question that is causing her to pull her hair out :)

E is saying that phytopathogens typically attack some plant species but find other species to be unsuitable hosts. I eliminated this answer choice because the passage never says that it is the species that causes them to be unsuitable hosts. Rather, it is the fact that the crops are rotated, not giving the soil a chance to become suppressive.

Plant A is sowed in a field, lets say. But the crops aren't rotated so the phytopathogens do their thing and the yields decrease. But then, the farmer notices this decrease in yield, so Plant B is sowed in Plant A's place. But after a while, the soil become suppressive again and the phytopathogens come back into the picture. Then Plant C replaces Plant B, etc.

Furthermore, the passage says: "The problem can be cured by crop rotation, denying the pathogens a suitable host for a period of time." (emphasis added)

The species of plant is irrelevant. The phytopathogens are "triggered" by lack of crop rotation and they can only be stalled for a period of time. I mean, I know we can't infer that every single plant species is in danger of phytophathogen wrath, but I definitely don't see how we can infer that there are some species that are not.

I chose D, which I realized was wrong because of "majority," but E just seems completely unsupported.

Am a big fan of knowing that on RC questions there is always specific, identifiable evidence for why an answer choice is right/wrong. However, I am struggling on this question.

Question: ""The passage suggests that Dworkin would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements?"

I chose B:

"Judges should not use their moral intuition when it conflicts with the intentions of those legislators who authored the law being interpreted."

Because of lines 7-11:

"their own moral convictions, even if this means ignoring the letter of the law and the legal precedents for its interpretation. Dworkin regards this as an impermissible form of judicial activism that arrogates to judges powers properly reserved for legislators."

The passage clearly states Dworkin thinks judges should not override legislators by applying their own moral intuition. Why is this not captured in choice B?

I understand that E is something Dworkin would agree with given that legal positivists don't accept moral guides whereas Dworkin suggests they play a role in law.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-2-passage-4-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-2-passage-4-questions/

Hey Yall!

We have a new study group geared for those of you who are planning on taking the June 2017 LSAT. This post is to gauge interest and to give you all a heads up about the new LSAT study group. Below I have posted a schedule that is very flexible. This is a new feature of the study group. This means that those of you who attend will get to help decide what PTs we take, what day and time you want to BR them, when we want to take breaks (we'll adjust the schedule for holidays), and what question types and LSAT sections we workshop with Sages etc. I really want this to be more than a Blind Review group, so it is to your advantage to be vocal during the study group session about what particular PTs we should switch in (provided we start with the lower number PTs and work in ascending order). You (the June2017 LSAT taker) should also speak up about what issues, question types, LSAT sections etc we should look into work-shopping when we meet.

Comment below if you would like me to tag you for our first meeting on December 3rd at 5pm EST and complete the attached poll to provide feedback for the date that we will meet next, after the initial December 3rd meeting.

Current tentative PT schedule -- https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=aWw1aWEzYTRkbWdoaDZsa3U3YjBsaDBlZDBAZ3JvdXAuY2FsZW5kYXIuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbQ

Note this is subject to change to reflect the needs of the group.

I'm really looking forward to this and I can't wait to begin studying with you!

P.S. theme gif requests welcome :)

Back in November I eagerly signed up for the February administration (let's be real, I had wanted to take in December, but life got in the way of studying properly). Plenty of time to get ready, and worst case I would just postpone to June.

Well, the last day to change your test date from February is here, and now the "worst case" that I thought wouldn't come to fruition has. Here's why I'm postponing to June:

I'm not ready.

I've taken three PTs total, including my diagnostic. My last PT was in December, and I scored 11 points higher than my diagnostic. But both my actual score and my BR score are not at my target score. There is still room to move up. And I haven't even touched any of the PTs in the 70s yet.

I just finished the core curriculum last week. I need more than just three weeks of PTing to ensure I'm at my target score. It's just not an adequate amount of time to really understand and fix my weaknesses in LR and RC post-CC.

I haven't really mastered LG yet. I'm getting better and still getting them all correct, but my timing still isn't where it should be.

I'm not really exciting about postponing

I really wanted to be one-and-done in February. I'm out another $90 bucks. But I know it's going to be worth it (plus I'd be out $180 if I had waited until early February to decide I wasn't ready). And yeah, I'm a little nervous about waiting all the way until June. What if I burn out in between now and then, what if I peak months before June and then have a decline? Is taking the test at noon on a Monday going to be worse than taking it on a Saturday morning?

But I figure a lot of us are in this same boat. So I'm making the switch!

Hi guys!

I hope to finish the curriculum in approximately 9 weeks in March. I plan to take 1 Pt a week and bump it to 2 PT with the 7SAGE group calls once I get a grip on my schedule.

What PTs should I take?

So far, my study plan says PT 36-44 and I know I need to be taking more recent exams. Does anyone have a similar study time who could give me their insight and plans? Also, should I upgrade I have the Starter, LOVE IT, thoughts?

Also, would it be too soon to start taking PTs maybe in my 6th or 7th week of curriculum?

I have done Blueprint which I loved, but 7SAGE matches my learning style and really brings all the logic concepts full circle.

Thank you!

I know it will differ for each person, but I usually hear the norm is around 30+. I'm just wondering if this is your case as well?

Hi everyone, I'm looking to join (or create) a study group for the June 2017 LSAT in the New Orleans area.

I was scheduled for the December test but I had to push it for June. My study partner took it December test, and pretty much not around anymore. I am done with the curriculum, except I am reviewing LR & LG. I am planning to take two tests a week starting Feb 20. I am free during the weekday. Ideal schedule will be

M-F. 10-2 and Saturday and Sunday i am open to meet morning or afternoon. As a matter a fact I am studying with 2 people on the weekend, just looking for someone during the weekday but you are welcome to join us on the weekend. I am on the upper east side. But I can meet any where else in the city and I drive so I am open for a little drive during the weekend. Thanks looking forward to hearing from you.

Hey all,

I will be taking the JUNE 2017 LSAT and I have just recently began studying . I live in Yonkers, NY but work in the city on the upper west side. I would prefer coffee shops anything after 3pm but am flexible for earlier. I would prefer someone at my level. I took a PT and my diagnostic was 149 :(. I Also drive so I don't mind traveling if you're in westchester or even NJ. I am using the trainer, bibles + manhattan books too.

Hi Guys,

I think I have spent a lot of effort in coming this up and I want to share with you my hypothesis to see what you guys think about this as of how do you correctly tackle every SA, PSA, Strengthen and Weakening. (I suppose that I can add the NA question type into it as well, but...I am not there yet)

If you like it, please comment. if you hate it, please comment. If you want to add on or correct me, please please comment.

So here is my hypothesis:

1) Every SA, PSA, Strengthen, and weaken is an argument. Therefore, there is/are assumption[s].

2) First job is to read the stimulus and find the task. The task requested will then require us to go to various stages. For instance, If it is SA and PSA then we need to find the assumptions. But if it is strengthen or weakening then we need to bring one step further to find the best way to address it.

3) Read the question steam. When reading, it is important to find the stimulus and conclusion. When identifying, we have to be able to find the relationship between the stimulus and conclusion. For example, does the stimulus jump right into conclusion or does it just go from stimulus then major stimulus then minor conclusion then major conclusion, etc.

4) Find the word that is linked. One word or term is always in the premise and another is always in the conclusion. And if you link them, there comes your assumption, which is where you stop for your SA and PSA questions. SA and PSA questions can be made hard in 2 ways. The first way is that they give you 2 premises, which means that you have 2 assumptions (P1-C1), (P2-C2). But the method used is the same. The second way is to introduce something similar but not exact as of your anticipation.

And now comes to the answer choices. When answering the question, be mindful of how difficult the question is. If it is an easy question then your assumption, which you had anticipated should show up there in plain side. Some cosmetic on wording can occur, but there should be little difficulty in identifying them. You circle and move on.

But now for harder questions, while you do exactly the same thing above, you deploy the process of elimination method and find your final 2 candidates. When found, read carefully as of how they are worded. One wording can make a whole difference.

5) From step 5,we move into strengthening and weakening questions. The strengthening and weakening is just either block an objection (strengthen) or call out an assumption (weakening), but the twist here is that you have to assess how to best address it. But once again, your pre-forumulated assumptions stays.

The easy strengthening and weakening question just do this. But for the harder ones, they do something else.

They have a general tendency to call out an still connected but indirect the answer choice that deviates from you initial anticipation.

But before we go there, let's take a look at a question, where I disagree with JY's analysis. https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/new-appliance-models-weaken-question/

In this question, there are embedded in it 2 argument parties making 2 arguments. On one side, there is the consumer, who claims because there are different modifications, product name should be different to differentiate them. On the other side, it says, because every modification is beneficial to the consumer, consumer should just ignore it)

So if you analyse the argument this way, the assumption pops out to you right away by connecting the words.

Assumption 1 from the consumers: The appearance of the product is not enough for the consumer to identify the modified version.

Assumption 2 from the merchant: every modification will benefit consumers.

And answer choice D, directly calls out the first assumption.

In the end, I always believe there is a model to solve these questions. A fool proof model.

I watched the video.Yet I'm still stuck in (B). Any ideas and insight will be appreciated.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-1-question-23/

hey guys,

after studying for about a month in september last year and a gap of more than 3 months, i have jumpstarted the core curriculum all over again. i am an ESL student but don't find it so difficult to read and write complex english. i was thinking about preparing for the exam for about 8 months and finally giving it in the month of september this year, the only thing that is bothering me is that when i read it in the discussion forum that most of the successful people in this community had prepared for at least a year or so before giving their respective exams, it makes me ponder upon as to what would be an ideal amount of time for me to prepare for the exam. i am open to any suggestions.

also the december 2017 exam will be the last option for me to be considered for the admission cycle of fall 2018.

Hello ,

i no this has probably been beaten to death on this forum.. but i was wondering if backing out of the February administration will count as a take?

were only a few weeks out and im still 7 points off my goal score. although im not giving up , i was just wondering what my options where if i decide to reapply to schools for the next cycle ( official LSAT 150 , 151av on PT, 153 highest).

thanks

x

Hey guys!

Ok so... I wrote in December and I actually went from a really low diagnostic of 144 to 160 (YAY) but I know I can do better and have been averaging higher so I'm writing again in February. Because I wrote it recently, I focused a lot on the modern LSATs and took every preptest from 50-79. I'm focusing on my shitty areas and have been doing prep tests as well, but because I've done most of the modern ones I was working on the 30s and 40s, and I don't know how useful that is. For the last few weeks here, do you guys think I should just retake some of the more modern ones that I have already done and BR those...or attempt old ones that I've never done?

Thanks for all the help guys, couldn't have improved so much without 7sage!

Hi All,

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-07/

I was between B and C for this question and was hoping folks could weigh in on why C was wrong. I did listen to JY's explanation but still have some hesitations for getting rid of C. Here's the overview:

Context: Scientists are said to assume that something is not the case until there is proof that it is the case

Conclusion: The characterization (above) of scientists is false.

Premise: In evaluating a question of whether an unresearched additive is safe, scientists would say the following based on the characterization:

1. The additive is unsafe because it has not been proven to be safe

2. The additive is safe because it has not been proven to be unsafe.

Premise 2 : No scientist can assume without contradiction that a given substance is both safe and unsafe.

My Pre-phrase: Argument shows that taking a statement to be true results in a contradiction, so the statement cannot be true.

Answer Choice B: A statement is argued to be false by showing that taking it to be true leads to implausible consequences.

My Thoughts: I circled this upon first reading it but wasn't crazy about the word implausible, which I read as unlikely or not probable. If they would have given me something more like illogical, I would never have read on.

Answer Choice C: A statement is shown to be false by showing that it directly contradicts a second statement that is taken to be true.

My Thoughts: I read this as...a statement (ie the context) is shown to be false by showing that it directly contradicts a second statement (Premise 2) that is taken to be true. JY's explanation stated that there was no second statement, which seemed to me to exist. I can throw it out for not being a "direct" contradiction since the contradiction is in the application...

Would love any feedback on C!

quick question regarding study scheduling: I began studying for Logic Games this past fall, then took the month of December off because I thought my schedule was going to change and force me to take the LSAT in Sept 2017 instead of my initially intended June 2017 test date. I am now, however, back to the June 2017 plan. Would you all suggest that I start over from scratch or more briefly review the LG's and push on? thank you!!!

Hi all, I've been studying on and off for the LSAT here and the biggest challenge I've run across is improving my speed. I do okay with accuracy on both LR and RC but can't seem to do it fast enough. Any tips? Thanks mucho!

Today is last day to withdraw officially.

My understanding is if i don't withdraw today but withdraw later by (i think) Jan 31 i will still save my 1/3 attempts. Is my understanding correct? If i don't withdraw today, will i lose my attempt?

I want to see how much better i can get before i withdraw. Do not care about wasted money but absolutely don't want to waste an attempt.

Because who doesn't need another police TV show

https://media4.giphy.com/media/OfLjjJvAS5oM8/200_s.gif#2

Hope to hear you there!

Wednesday, January 11, 2016 at 12PM ET: PT76

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

The Full Schedule for Feb Test Takers

12pm EST, Wednesday, December 28, 2016 - PT 74

12pm EST, Wednesday, January 4, 2016 - PT 75

12pm EST, Wednesday, January 11, 2016 - PT 76

12pm EST, Monday, January 16, 2016 - PT 77

12pm EST, Thursday, January 19, 2016 - PT 78

12pm EST, Wednesday, January 25, 2016 - PT 79

12pm EST, Wednesday, February 1, 2016 - PT 80

Google Calendar: Coming soon!

Note:

Now I finished majority class for LG(except some sequencing game and miscellaneous game) while cracking the LR by type.

I basically drilled the PT1-38 LG twice and finish under estimated time. I feel more confident for coming Feb test at least LG.

While I drill LR, I need some advice on LR and RC drill(if needed).

Thanks!!

Should I apply this cycle? Or should I wait till the next cycle and/or re-take.

Does anyone know when JY will be hosting the next blind review session?

Hey everyone, hope studying is going well. I am writing this thread to seek some insight on my situation.

I've been studying since June. I plan to sit for February and I have for the most part been consistent with my studies. I have also seen my score improve 19 points since June (albeit I have only hit that score once, a more telling increase I would say is about 14 points). But unfortunately, I have realized that as test day looms closer and closer I am finding it increasingly difficult to remain at the level of consistency with my studies that I have had for the past 7 months going on 7 and a half.

Lately I'll sit down with my regular routine and start to study and I just cannot stop thinking about how "over this" I am. Like today, I sat down to BR these 2 RC sections I should've BR'd like about 3-4 days ago but kept putting off (to do other sorts of LSAT practice which I also had to rally up the motivation to do) and just thought "I really don't feel like doing this right now."

So I guess my question is, is there any advice on how to get back into a good mental space as game day approaches and get back to a nice level of consistency? I'd like to add that I don't really know if it's burnout because I do always take one day off a week(but for these past couple weeks it's been a little more due to issues described above). Any advice is greatly appreciated.