Does question difficulty increase by the order of questions or they just randomly spread out?

Hello all,

So I finally got through the curriculum and finished my first PT since my diagnostic (+16 pts wahoo!!) But still got a long wait to go..I was just wondering how everyone was going about this phase of studying..I just finished BR'ing and am wondering what the next best thing to do would be ..Should I:

A. Go back to the question types I need most work on and review the course lessons, then take on problem sets timed/untimed?

B. Review the BR questions that I got wrong twice?

C. Stimulate test conditions on select sections I need work on?(for example sticking 4 RC passages together and doing it timed)

D. Continue simulating PT under test conditions?

I'm pretty sure I should be doing some combination of all 4, but given that I have 3 months left of full time study before the LSAT, I was wondering what regimen would be the best way to get the most gains in that time frame. I'm very tempted to just keep PT'ing and and plow thru 2-3 a week and rely on repetition under timed conditions instead of dedicating time to sections of the course to review.. Any thoughts and suggestions are appreciated. Thank you!!

When do schools usually publish their class profile of the new class on their website?

Hello guys,

really need some help here. I stopped doing lsat (for 2 weeks) because I was studying for my exams. Before I was able to have like 2-3 wrong for LR (BR score) and 1-2 for LG no BR and like 4-5 for RC (BR) and I was improving too..and now I just don't want to mention how much I get wrong even with BR :( Feeling stressed. Is it going to get better once I get back to the flow by doing more practice questions?

This question is about an ethicist who says love refers to a feeling therefore a marital vow saying to love until death do us part is a promise that makes no sense because feelings are not within our control and a promise to do something not within one's control makes no sense. He concludes that no one should take love in this context to be referring to feelings.

The conclusion follows logically if which is assumed?

The answer choices are:

a: no feelings are within our control

b. People should not promise to something not within their control

c. love can be taken to refer to something other then feelings

d. promises should not be interpreted in a way that makes no sense

e. promises that cannot be kept do not make sense

The answer is D and I can't figure out why. Help.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-1-question-23/

A lot of people don’t realize that “Won’t Get Fooled Again” is actually about proper Blind Review technique.

If the LSAT has ever fooled you, come to Group BR and don’t get fooled again.

Wednesday, June 29th at 8PM ET: PT 57

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

And if you’d like to see the full schedule, here it is: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=7sage.com_ft05lsm54j4ec1s6kj1d1bbpv0%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/Chicago

Note:

Hi 7Sagers,

On Wednesday, June 29, at 9 p.m. EST, I’ll give you a bird’s-eye view of the admissions process. We’ll touch on almost every component of your application:

• Personal statementsDiversity statementsCharacter and fitness addendaExtenuating circumstances addenda“Why school X?” essaysRésumésLetters of recommendation

I’ll will take questions at the end.

To join, just follow this link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/849030373

Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP). A headset is recommended. You can also call in using your telephone:

We’ll use Citrix GoToMeeting. The meeting ID is 849-030-373.

It all concerns the basic form of:

A->B (if you have a rocket, you can kill a cockroach)

Immediately, based on this form, I can think of potential OPs.

It is a mistake to assume that there are no other ways to kill a cockroach. So an argument like the one below would be an error because even though A->B, it could be that C->B as well, or Z->B.

"if you have a rocket, you can kill a cockroach.

Therefore, since you want to kill a cockroach, you must use a rocket"

[A->B, therefore B->A [mistaken reversal)]. This overlooks the possibility that you can use other sufficient means to kill a rocket, and that a rocket is not necessarily necessary to kill a cockroach. It could be, but doesn't have to.

Then there another form of OP derived from the same A->B idea

And that is

A->B ; not A-> not B [mistaken negation]

"if you have a rocket, you can kill a cockroach

Since you don't have a rocket, therefore you can't kill a cockroach."

This overlooks the possibility that without a rocket, you can still do other things. Like kill terrorists. But that is out of the scope relative to the conclusion. But moreover, it is not necessarily necessary that you need a rocket to kill a cockroach, for "A->B; not A->not B" = "A->B; B->A".

In other words, it seems like the overlooked possibilities derived from the A->B form are the same.

(And that is assuming that there are no other sufficient conditions. Conclusions that follow a premise of A->B and concludes in the form of not A -> not B and B->A are making the same flaw and that is missing OPs.

What are your thoughts on this?

What are some implications that I have missed?

Background

Just a little background for a moment, I am about to enter my third year of undergrad at a school with an 85% acceptance rate ( D: ). I have a 3.95 and I am planning on taking the June 2017 LSAT. During these 5.5 months leading up to the test, I will be taking only 3 credits at school, with no job or rent over my head. It seems a bit lazy, but last semester I took 21 credits and worked 25 hours a week as well. I realize that this test will determine the rest of my life so I am treating it as such. Harvard is my dream goal and I will be applying September 2017. I am a soon-to-be ultimate member on 7sage and will self-study, I feel as if I could push myself more that way.

No Idea

My problem right now is that I will have a decent amount of time to study (I realize this is a double edge sword). Nevertheless I am absolutely lost when it comes down to where to start and how to schedule a very efficient planner in order to really kill this test.

I hear many say that 5.5 months is too long, but I know myself, and I I've taught myself how to grind out work for hours. I think I will be ready, I just need a plan of attack.

Mindset?

I was reading a great article about burning out and everything else that comes with the LSAT struggle, but I really believe that article (so mad I didn't save it) changed me. My goal is a 180 but I am not going try for perfection at first, or maybe at all, rather, I will strive to learn as much as I can from my mistakes and work on fixing my thinking. I hope this thinking is the right mindset, what do y'all think? Any advice on what a realistic mindset would be entering into this phase of studying?

Books? Order of Reading? Schedule?... AHHHHH

With this being said, I feel like I am mentally prepared to have the best experience I can while studying, I am just fearful of not knowing how to plan it. I read all these guides about what books to read, mixed options on what is better and what is not. But after reading them, I felt more confused than I did before I read them!

So.. really, where is the best place to start? Should I buy books now and start reading, or should I be reading in this 5.5 months I would be studying? How many hours each day is good? days a week? planned PT's each week?

Do I start learning all the sections at the same time of focus on one at a time?

Sorry for all of the questions, I just feel like a little clownfish fish in a vast LSAT ocean (Finding Nemo reference).

Thanks for reading and I'm excited to start this journey with everyone here.

Also, if there are any NEED to read articles or posts, I'd love to read your favorites!!

I am getting a little discouraged. I am seeing major improvements in my other sections, but am still doing incredibly bad on RC. Just looking for some inspiration.

Dear Sir,

I am uncertain about my analysis of this passage. Can you please share yours?

PT9, S2, Q3,

Admin edit: Please do not post full questions.

Context: Balance in particularly important when reporting the background of civil wars and conflicts.

Context: Facts must not be deliberately manipulated to show one party in a favorable light, and the views of each side should be fairly represented

Conclusion: This concept of balance, however, does not justify concealing or glossing over basic injustices in an effort to be even-handed.

Premise: If all the media were to adopt such a perverse interpretation of balanced reporting, the public would be given a picture of a world where each party in every conflict had an equal measure of justice on its side, Premise: contrary to our experience of life and, indeed, our common sense.

Dear Sir,

Here is my question: please take a look at the statement above. Of the 3rd sentence, begins with "Many important...", do you consider the sentence a minor conclusion or a major premise or a rephrase of the (major) conclusion?

And a general question, does the statement, "A major premise" is always a sub-conclusion" stand? if not, can you please explain, thanks.

Admin edit: Please do not post full questions! You can get in trouble with LSAC.

• Conclusion: Such position ignores the lessons of experience Referential phrase “such position” referring to the, “Some legislators refuse to commit public funds for new scientific research if they cannot be assured that the research will contribute to the public welfare”.

• Minor conclusion/major premise/Rephrase of major conclusion: Many important contributions to the public welfare that resulted from scientific research were never predicted as potential outcomes of that research.

• Minor premise/citing example: Suppose that a scientist in the early twentieth century had applied for public funds to study molds: who would have predicted that such research would lead to the discovery of antibiotics—one of the greatest contribution ever made to the public welfare.

I'm having trouble translating "only" statements... can anyone help me out?

For example:

Only the best artworks are beautiful. (PT 49, Section 4, Question 16)

Since "only" is a group 2 indicator (necessary), wouldn't it be the following:

Best Artworks --> Beautiful

Or, is it:

Beautiful --> Best Artworks

Thanks for your help, guys! Much appreciated.

Hey guys! Something I've started to realize is how important eating correctly (and not drinking too much coffee) is important for these tests. Since this test is around 3 hours, and you'll be using every ounce of energy in your brain throughout, the energy you put in is an underrated part of taking this test. At first, I felt that as long as I was full, I could move on through the test without any issues. But the more tests I took, the more I realized that eating a properly balanced meal (one that includes a lean protein, some whole grains and vegetables) allowed me to stay focused throughout. As far as coffee goes, I've personally found that drinking over 2 cups of coffee before a test makes me twitchy and more prone to a crash during the test. I'd love to hear what you guys think about this!

I'm reviewing why I struggled more than I should've on game 3, and JY labeled the in/out differently than I did. He labels "finance" as out and "incentives" as in. I switched mine around and while I was still able to solve the game, I struggled more than I should've have on this simple in/out game. If you linked up the conditional chains with "finance" as in and "incentives" as out, I don't think you get the correct split boards. Has anyone tried this game with the same labels as me? Trying to figure out if I made a logic mistake or if I'm missing something in this game (whyyyyy).

Thanks in advance!!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-2-game-3/

Dear there,

How do you read these articles? Especially the last one: Science Magazine.

The article most often, if not all, are subjects that I have no knowledge of and most often, every sentence contain a term, undefined, and require in depth background knowledge. For example, in this issue, Title "Biochemical and genomic data elucidate how fungal enzyme attacks polysaccharides", and my brain can only understand, "Data+verb, don't know what it means+how enzyme attacks+this object"

And it gets even crazier when you go down into the actual passage.

I made a similar post in TLS where the community recommends me just focus at the underlying logic and take undefined terms by its first letter (Like math, assume X is this junk)...

Any lights on how you will do it?

[I find these article great practice on RC and LR just because it is always wrote in a commanding voice on something that I have no idea about]

I attended a community college in my hometown during the summer of my sophomore year as a transient student. Do I need to send the transcript from that college to LSAC or will that be included on my University's transcript?

Thank you.

Hello 7Sage world!

Need some advice. So, I have taken 10 PTs up to this point. Scores are all over the place, but I am definitely seeing progress. I am wondering, how does one become consistent with their scoring?

My scores are as follows:

Actual/BR

Pre-7Sage

142/No BR

148/158

Post-7Sage Curriculum

146/159

142/158

143/155

147/162

150/160

146/156

159/175

and then today's score of 148/170....

On days I score well I definitely feel like things click, but on other days when it's not going well, I feel like I am trying to transcribe Portuguese in Chinese.

I am a full time student, so I have only been studying when schedule permits, usually around 10-20 hours per week. I have been going at this for about six months. I just felt so shitty after today's result. I feel like I have a hard time staying in the LSAT "zone".

Has anyone else ever had issues similar to mine? I really need some motivation, today felt like a swift kick right where the sun doesn't shine. ='(

Hi there,

I just started studying LSAT and was wondering how does the team spots conclusions?

Do you use indicator words as from the lecture?

Or

Do you just read an question and always ask why or the assumption method? (assume X is conclusion, whether the passage supports?

I believe so?!? Or am I merely hopeful?

Does anyone have a hint, clue, inkling, feeling and/or knowledge of when grey/gray day will commence?

[Admin title edit: Don't want folks to get the wrong idea about what this thread is about. We will make an official announcement as soon as we know.]

Hi Everyone!

I've been doing a lot of work recently with memorizing valid inferences that can be made from conditional and inter-sectional statements. I find that when I have a few extra minutes during blind review, I have no issue drawing the correct inferences. Unfortunately, during my practice tests I am unable to do the same. Guessing this means I need more timed practice. I was wondering if anyone had gathered a practice set of questions similar to PT 43, Section 3, Question 9, beginning "Most lecturers"? I've noticed mapping isn't strictly limited to most strongly supported questions/inference questions. Perhaps there is a filter I didn't know about in the question bank that would help me isolate more questions like these (specifically ones that incorporate diagramming).

Would greatly appreciate any/all advice or help.

Well, so much for plan A.

Plan B: BR until we can answer them.

Saturday, June 25th at 8PM ET: PT 53

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

And if you’d like to see the full schedule, here it is: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=7sage.com_ft05lsm54j4ec1s6kj1d1bbpv0%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/Chicago

Note:

Hey Everyone,

Needed some help with this conditional statement.

"Deep empathy is required for full understanding of an individual's actions. Internal empathy will grant partial understanding, but only if the individual is open minded towards the process."

I have: Full Understanding ---> Deep Empathy ; (Internal Empathy --> Partial Understanding) --> Open Minded.

The question asks: Dina has acquired both deep and internal empathy of Barry, who is not open minded towards anything. Relative to Barry, Dina will gain: _________

So I know that it is unknown whether Dina will gain full understanding as she satisfies a necessary condition. But, will she also not gain partial understanding since the necessary condition is deinied (Barry is not open minded)??

How do we translate this statement and it's contrapositive: "Internal empathy will grant partial understanding, but only if the individual is open minded towards the process".

Any help would be great. Thanks for your time.

Okay am I the only one that thinks this no mechanical pencils rule is a load of bs? I literally have blisters on my hands from sharpening pencils. And how am I supposed to do logic games with these blunt things?!?! Seriously lol. Has anyone found any techniques to deal with this?

[Admin edit: please refrain from using all-caps in titles :) ]