Hello fellow 7sagers,

I'm trying to decide whether to sit out another cycle. I'm blind reviewing in the 170s, but I can't seem to get my actual score up from the low 160s. I've gone through JY's course twice, the LSAT Trainer, and Manhattan RC. My brain often turns to mush on the harder, convoluted questions under intense timing conditions. I started taking timed PTs around mid October but can't seem to get over this anxiety. I've taken about 10 PTs. Clean copy BR each time. I really need advice on how to get over my timing issues. LG is my strongest section. The timing issues only affect me with RC and LR.

I'm considering postponing until February, but I know applying that late in the cycle would severely hurt my chances at getting accepted to high ranked schools with a scholarship, as most of the seats and scholarship money will be gone by then.

I've been studying 5+ hours everyday (8+ on the weekends) and work full-time. I've been at this since late August, so I fear I'm risking burnout. It would be extremely painful to have to keep pushing through until February, but I know the golden rule is "Don't take the LSAT until you are 100% ready." :(

Things to consider:

- Very scared I won't have new stuff to work with if I sit out another cycle. Only about 30 fresh PTs left.

- Aiming for 165+

Anyone planning on taking the Dec 2016 LSAT? I'm starting to study.

I was hoping to find a search function so I didn't have to start a new discussion, but I couldn't find one. Anyway, I was looking at the different course subscriptions, and there was a line where the description went from "easiest problem sets" to "easy" to "easy and medium" then "easy, medium, and hard." What exactly are "problem sets?"

quick, whats the rule of thumb as to which you should use?

December Test Takers, I give you Fallacy Man. Our hero!

Don’t go it alone! Group BR! :)

Wednesday, Nov. 18th at 8PM ET: PT 72

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/wGTZaVjudu5m

Friday, Nov. 20th at 8PM ET: PT C

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/qzGIJoSAyLJT

LSATurday, Nov 21st at 8PM ET: PT73

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/tA67DTS6xgqW

MONDAY, November 23rd at 11AM ET: PT54

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/tLgIUSlQDEPg

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

Note:

Potential negative consequence of all this LSAT training.

Wednesday, Nov 18th at 8PM ET: PT54

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/w7McAagFN3pf

Friday, Nov 20th at 8PM ET: PT73

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/sdiINq0J9AwI

LSATurday, Nov 21st at 8PM ET: PT55

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/C8Yeac0csm8G

Be sure to click the link of the conversation you’re attending and announce in the comments which group(s) you’re planning on attending.

Note:

I see why A, C,D, and E are incorrect, but I cannot figure out how B doesn't resolve the paradox. Here is the video explanation: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-4-question-26/

Smoking in bed is the main cause of home fires. Fewer people smoke now than did twenty years ago. But, the number of people killed in home fires hasn't declined.

What I am looking for: What if fewer people smoking decreased smoking related home fires, but another cause increased over that time? What if former smokers substitute smoking for playing with all of their extra matches? Also, there is a difference between people who smoke in bed and smokers in general.

Answer A: This is what I chose, but it is pretty subtle why it is wrong. This is suggesting that smoking related home fires aren't actually deadly, so it's actually not a paradox that the number of deaths didn't decline. It never was a big deal to begin with.

Answer B: If you see what A was doing, then this is the answer you are left with after POE, but I am really struggling to see how this doesn't resolve the paradox. JY is certainty correct in saying that this answer choice presents smoking in bed as a very risky thing: you might fall asleep when the fire starts and die. But, doesn't JY's explanation resolve the paradox? If smoking in bed is an inherently riskier activity, then doesn't it make sense that the number of deaths didn't decline?

Answer C: This definitely resolves the paradox. Just because there are fewer smokers doesn't mean that the right type of smoker has stopped smoking. What if none of those that are most susceptible for starting a fire didn't quit?

Answer D: This addresses the thing that I anticipated. What if another cause of fires increased?

Answer E: This definitely resolves the paradox. If there are more people living together, which can increase the cause of death, then sure, the there hasn't been a decrease in deaths.

As I am spending most of my time working on recent PTs for the December test, I have been solving some of old LR questions as well (I would consider PT 1-30 old).

After working on both, I think a conspicuous difference between old and newer ones is that old LR questions are not as tightly worded as new ones. I feel like old ones are cruder while newer ones are more refined in terms of their writing styles.

Assuming there are differences, I don't think they are about different flaws or different assumptions but more about different writing styles. I don't know if this is just me but I definitely spend more time reading/understanding old LR questions' stimuli than those of newer ones.

Do you guys think that there are any differences between old LR questions and newer ones? I would love to hear your opinions about this :D Thank you!

The other day, I came across a question in a practice test that used the phrase "results in," and I really struggled with the question because I wasn't sure how to translate that into "lawgic," as J.Y. calls it, or if it even could be translated. I don't remember what PT is was exactly, although I know it was somewhere between PT 65 and 68, and it dealt with bees. The sentence in question said something along the line of "Excellent pollination requires the presence of bees and results in a better harvest of fruits and vegetables," or something along those lines.

I know the first half translates to EP ---> PB, but is there a way to translate "results in?" Would you say EP ---> BF&V because if you have excellent pollination, then you know you'll have better fruits and vegetables, or would you write it as BF&V ---> EP because if you're garden produced better fruits and vegetables, then you know that you had excellent pollination?

Is there an ETA on when the video explanations will be out/and if that will happen prior to the December lsat

Hi all. I am looking for some input on a realistic timeline to prepare for the LSAT. I am currently active duty Army with about 8.5 months until I start ETS leave and transition into a full time student. Currently I attend a university part time near my post so that is added in along with my full time job. I will have approximately two years of college left once I exit the military. I see this upcoming period to be my best chance to focus on the LSAT and would like to aim to take the LSAT June 2016 or September 2016 if that is more realistic.

My work schedule is the normal military schedule with my day ending around 1700. I have my own office to spend breakfast and lunch break studying which could add about 1.5 to 2 hours of study time throughout the day. Along with this I will have a few classes but nothing too hard or time consuming and after February I will not have any classes at all to worry about. However classes are accelerated.

I am contemplating purchasing the Premium, giving myself right at 6 months of study time to nail concepts and take as many PTs as possible. Then if I am not averaging 170+ over the last 10 PTs look at extending and aiming for September. I already have paper copies of 17-38 and 52-71.

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Hi all, I'm trying to better understand Flaw-Descriptive Weakening Questions and this one stumped me. After listening to the explanation, I better understand why AC C is correct. However, I am wondering if AC C would still hold up if the wording was changed to "neglects the possibility that there might be widespread disagreement among connoisseurs.." instead of "neglects the possibility that there may be widespread agreement among connoisseurs.."

Any thoughts/clarification/tips would be greatly appreciated on this question?

I'm notice that doing the questions timed I tend to get them right but when I go back for the blind review I tend to get them wrong. Its like I look for reasons for my 1st answer choice to be wrong and then start to psych myself out and proceed to choose a different answer.

Do you guys find your elminating skills getting better by doin it constantly? I haven't devoted my time solely to it, but I'm willing to try anything to improve my score. It seems when I eliminate, I can only elminate two at most. So I'm wondering if i eliminate it more, does it become easier to do?

...for Group BR

MONDAY, November 16th at 11AM ET: PT53

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/tLgIUSlQDEPg

Note: That 11 AM start time is EASTERN STANDARD TIME. So if you’re on the west coast, that’s an 8:00 AM.

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

Note:

I was wondering how you would translate an embedded conditional if the conditional in the necessary condition is negated. For example, A--->[Not (B--->C)].

My best guess would be to say that it is A--->(B Some Not C), but I don't think that is a very helpful notation. Is there a way to make this is into an "easier" to visualize conditional chain?

EDIT: Added some brackets to make the embedded condition easier to see.

I don't know if I'm overthinking it, or the diagrams truly represent different ideas. Logically, they both seem equivalent to be, just diagrammed differently.

What's the difference between these two ideas?

1. Either F or L, but not both, will go before M

2. L will go before F or G, but not both

Are these the same ideas? or represent different concepts?

I diagrammed these ideas in different forms. Can you let me know if my diagramming is merely aesthetic or it symbolizes some other idea

DIAGRAM 1:

1. F---M

L---M

F---M---L or L---M--F

DIAGRAM 2:

F----M

L---M

F----------M

F----------L

or

M--------F

L-----------F

Hi all,

This is similar to a post below so apologies if it's just askig for redundant advice. I did read that thread but thought I might post my own question with my own score range.

Basically I feel I have plateaued in the mid 160s. The last 6 PTs I have taken I have gotten in the 160-163 range, this includes PT 73 and 74. PT 74 I got 177 with BR which I was quite shocked/happy about. PT 73 I got 173 BR.

Previous to taking PT 73 and 74, I bought LSAT trainer and have been using it and Cambridge packets to drill on my weak points -- namely LR Flaw, Weaken, Strengthen and MSS questions.

I have noticed a marked improvement in untimed Flaw Qs which is great! I can finally identify the Flaw which I was really struggling with. On my last few timed PTs I got only 1-2 flaw questions wrong.

My LG still suffers, usually getting 1-2 wrong per timed section. PT 74 I totally bombed the last two LGs so will foolproof that one.

My RC is quite good - 0 wrong in BR and 2-3 wrong in timed conditions.

So all this boils down to... How can I get my Timed score to halfway meet my BR score?! My goal is 170.

Perhaps it is not possible with just a few weeks left in the game. I am open to the possibility of taking Feb test. However I would like to do everything possible to get my timed score as high as I can in the next few weeks bc I am registered for December and will sit for the Dec test regardless.

Any advice or thoughts is greatly appreciated. Thank you!

I've been reading the LSAT trainer and am a little confused about the diagramming of the bi-conditional.

One question was: L will go before J if and only if L is after G. I diagrammed this as follows: L--J (----) G---L--J. However, the answer sheet has two different answers This:: L--J (----) G---L--J. and this: J---L---G. I don't understand the later. Is this supposed to be the contropsoitive or something?

I don't really see how B is supported in the situation nor how D does not. Can someone evaluate my reasoning?

The question stem is pretty weird. My best guess is that this is a MSS question or a principle question. According to Google, proposition means "a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion."

Industrialists address problems by simplifying them. In farming, this tends to lead to oversimplification. To illustrate, industrialists think water retention and drainage are two independent/unrelated things. That isn't true. Thus, more farming farming problems are created than solved when industrialist get involved in farming.

What I am looking for: My best guess for a principle would be that farmers shouldn't listen to industrialists when they suggest things about farming issues.

Answer A: Most important? No.

Answer B: This is the correct answer choice, but I don't understand how the passage illustrates this proposition. Viewed in all of their complexity? Where is this idea in the passage?

Answer C: Anyone else? No.

Answer D: I I felt pretty good about this one during the exam, and I kept it during BR. Isn't this pretty much verbatim stated in the final sentence of the passage?

Answer E: This was difficult to eliminate, but it is too broad. We know that industrialists oversimplify things, but we only know that it creates problems in the realm of farming, not everything. Plus, you would have to assume that oversimplifying something is fundamentally flawed. Maybe it is or maybe it isn't.

3 weeks away, people!!!!! Let’s do this!

LSATurday, Nov 14th at 8PM ET: PT71

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/tA67DTS6xgqW

Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

Note:

Only poetry cannot be translated well.

Why is it diagrammed /TW-->P?

I thought that with cannot we pick one idea, negate it and make it the necessary. So if I chose poetry to be negated, why can it not be TW-->/P. Some help would be great. Thank you!

For those of you who have hired a consultant, or know of someone who has and are familiar with their experience. How was your/their experience working with the consultant & would you do it again? Was it worth it? How did you/they find the consultant? What did the consultant do (advise you to make changes to your personal statement, give tips on how to edit your essays or diversity statement , or help you get scholarship money etc.)? How expensive is it to hire them? Thank you in advance.

Hello folks,

Here it is me whining again. When I BR, I score in the 160s but when I do timed PT, I can't pass the 146-147. I did most of 7Sage's video twice, and I am redoing The Trainer again now. I really don't know what to do any more. I feel (which probably wrong) that I know the material. Currently I am doing two PTs a week, and I BR after every PT.

I improved by 10 points since I started last December. My diagnostic was a horrible 130's yet my current score is still horrible!

Please, I need your advice :)

I am pretty clueless on this one. I had the answer down to C or D, and I chose D (kept it during BR). I am completely lost as to how E is the weakener, so help would be greatly appreciated. Here is my breakdown:

This is a weaken question.

Few graduate students are aware of the attempt to unionize (some are aware; most are not aware). From there, I diagrammed the rest:

Grad students MOST not aware

Grad students SOME aware‑m→believe union would not represent their interest or do a bad job pursuing those interests

Therefore, grad students‑m→disapprove. Therefore, grad students shouldn't unionize.

What I am looking for: A lot wrong with this one. First, the argument assumes that if most of a group disapprove of something, then that thing shouldn't be done; this is sort of like an appeal to the crowd fallacy. What if it is in everyone's best interest for everyone eat their vegetables, but most people don't want to do it? Second, the argument makes an invalid inference. We don't know if MOST grad students disapprove. We only know that SOME of them are aware and Most are not aware (does no awareness mean disapproval? What if they are just ignorant?) Along the same lines, the argument is assuming that believing the union would not represent their interests/believing that the union wouldn't effectively pursue their interests is the same thing as disapproval. Lastly, the argument seems to be making a pro vs. con flaw by ignoring the potential benefits/pros of unionizing. The argument only talks about the possibility that the union won't have some people's interests in mind or won't be effective. What if there are things that outweigh those potential cons? The argument doesn't even address that relevant concern.

Answer A: What long standing practice?

Answer B: Fails to exclude alternative explanations? Why does the argument need to do this? We presumably have a few reasons why the students don't like the idea.

Answer C: I had it down to this one and D. I eliminated this one because something not being a good idea isn't mentioned in the passage. Just because something "shouldn't be done" doesn't necessarily imply that that thing isn't a good idea. I think this answer choice would have been better if "not a good idea" were substituted for "not be done."

Answer D: I was pretty confident with this answer choice, and I kept it during BR. Doesn't the argument do this? The argument is limiting it self to the potential cons of unionizing: it might not represent the interests of people or it might do a bad job representing the interest of people. What if there are other reasons to unionize that outweigh those concerns?

Answer E: This is the correct answer, but I felt 100% confident eliminating it. Does the argument equivocate on active disapproval and lack of approval? I don't see where it does this. Sure, it blurs the distinction between active disapproval (assuming that those who are aware of the union and believe that the union won't have their interests at heart/think the union won't do an effective job disapprove) and lack of awareness, but I don't see where the argument conflates active disapproval and mere lack of approval.