I'm just getting started with this and I would like to know what is the difference between the Law, Humanities, Social Science and Natural Science passages, especially if the sole purpose ti for structure and reasoning. Is it important to make a distinction between them, if so why? Is there a difference between the types of questions asked, if so why? Is there a difference in the type of reading or style per passage. The test is not suppose to favor any particular major, however, the jargon and background knowledge makes it difficult and seems to favor or reward those in certain fields of study. For example, I would expect a criminal justice major to do well on the law passage, a biology major to breeze through the science passage, and an english major to thoroughly enjoy the literature humanities passage. Please comment. I need all the help and the advice I can get. Thank you

I changed my answer to A during BR since B-E are really bad, but I am not seeing how the company president "takes for granted " (assumes) what answer choice A states. Here is my breakdown:

For the new job, we are only going to interview people who have worked for the best firms. Therefore, when we choose someone, we will surely have selected one of the best people.

What I am looking for: This is a classic whole to part flaw. Maybe synergies or something creates the emergent property of being in the "top 1%." Also, is being in the top 1% even considered the best? What if the top 1% are very good, but only the top .01% are considered the best? The author's metric for "best" could be bad

Answer A: I confidently eliminated this one during the timed exam, which caused me to spin my wheels on B-E, which caused me to miss this one. During BR, I eliminated B-E first and chose this. But, I don't really understand where the author takes this idea for granted. To me, this isn't describing the "whole to part" flaw nor attacking the author's "best" metric. Specifically, the conclusion talks about "selecting one of the best." But, I don't see how this idea is limited only to the management consultants at top firms. Couldn't the author think that there are also some of the best at not top management firms? The author doesn't say anything to the contrary, so couldn't it be true? In my mind the word "only" is too strong; if this word was replaced with "sometimes," then I think this answer choice becomes more apparent. In other words, I just don't see where the author erroneously presumes this answer choice.

Additionally, say that there 200 firms. He is limiting is search to just the top 2 firms (the 1%). The company president makes no claim about people in the other 198 firms. Why couldn't a member of a top 4% firm be one of the best?

Answer B: What sample?

Answer C: This is what I chose during the timed exam, and the only reason I chose it was because I had to pick something (I had already eliminated A). This answer choice is backwards. It describes a "part to whole" flaw. If this answer choice were reversed, then I think it would work.

Answer D: Accepting? Irrelevant idea.

Answer E: Competent at every task? Irrelevant.

Don’t wait to hit the 70s in January! Be prepared!

Friday, Nov 13th at 8PM ET: PT71

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

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

Note:

I am wondering if the word "then" introduces a necessary condition and/or the conclusion to premise(s); and if "then" is only pertinent to conditional statements, or to cause and effect statements, as well. Of note, I am wondering this because the word "then" seems to function similarly to words that I know introduce necessary conditions and conclusions -- such as, "requires" or "must" (for necessary conditions); and "therefore" or "thus" (for conclusions) -- but I do not see "then" on any official list of indicator words that introduce necessary conditions or conclusions.

Thank you!

Michael

Hey guys, just wanted to let you know I got PT 76 this morning - I ordered in Sept when I ordered my 10 actual LSAT series books from LSAC, so if you ordered & haven't gotten it yet, it should be coming soon. Now to decide if I go ahead & take it or save it for a week or two before the Dec exam.

So everyone, our first meeting is the day after tomorrow / Saturday the 14th at 9 PST, 10 MST, 11CST, & 12 EST. Sorry, I know that's confusing but it's the same time; since we all live in different regions, I just want everyone to be on the same page. Please try to have PT 37 done so we can all move forward together. If interested, please send me your Skype handle so I can add you to the group.

Is it just me or are the question stems actually diverging from the clear cut categories 7Sage had them in in the PTs in the 60s and 70s? Any advice on how to handle this?

I took the LSAT this past October and scored a 159. In retrospect, I made just about every rookie mistake in the book: gave myself about 2 1/2 months to study total and two months of that was with 7Sage, set an unrealistic study schedule given my work hours, was usually low on sleep, boozed a couple times, took four practice tests total before the test, didn't finish the curriculum, rushed through BR...

When I got my score (159) I was livid, and I immediately registered for the December LSAT. I had known even on test day that I underperformed, so when my score validated that I became hell-bent on scoring higher. However, for reasons I'll explain below, I'm considering just keeping the 159 and applying.

The 159 is good enough to get me into a law school near home/work. (The school's 75th percentile LSAT score is 154.) I know it's not a strong school (according to LSAT scores), but my boss got his JD there and he's encouraged me to apply for next fall. He's been fairly successful in his law career, and he has expressed a willingness to bring me into his practice if I graduate/pass the bar, and to help out where he can in the process of applying to/attending school. It's an attractive offer.

But at the same time, I still want to retake. I'm worried about attending a lower-ranked school for the purpose of fast-tracking myself into law school, only to see my boss change his circumstances (for example, abandon his solo firm for another gig) and leave me with a degree from a school with a so-so reputation, fending for myself.

What makes this a little more complicated is that I'm almost positive I can score a good deal higher on the LSAT with some hard work. The four tests I took before October I scored:

161 (skipped BR)

159 (176 BR)

156 (159 BR--my first tour of burnout city)

164 (169 BR)

After October, I walked away from the LSAT completely. Following a month break, here are my newest PT scores:

167 (BR 176)

170 (BR 180)

I know these last two could be flukes, but I've also felt like the test made more sense to me as I was taking it each time and in BR. I intend to take a few more PT's in the coming weeks to see if I fall back to down to where I was pre-October. If the most recent scores are flukes, I'll probably retake in December (for scholarship money) and apply for next fall at the school near me regardless of my scores. If I actually feel that I can continue to improve at any rate (I realize 170 on up is slow going for most people), then I'll postpone the retake until June or next October.

The difficulty with the latter is I have to tell my boss that I'm delaying school a year (he's generally impatient, so the thought alone would bother him a bit). He's talked to me a number of times about my attending his alma mater next fall and my eventual move into the firm as a lawyer, and if I give myself time to study and score higher it will be obvious that I'm doing so in order to attend a better school (which will obviously affect the plans for my track toward firm employment).

So, I guess I'm looking for a few people in the 7Sage community to weigh in on this. Given the above, do I take the 159 and apply, or do I cancel December and retake later so that I have the opportunity to score higher, attend a better school, and leave myself a few more options after law school?

My apologies for the post length and thanks in advance.

Can someone please explain this question... I'm not really sure what's even going on in the stimulus.

Admin edit: Here's the passage for reference

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-3-question-12/

On PT 58.1.13, we have one of the harder main point questions. I got this one correct, but I want to make sure I am understanding the passage correctly.

Does the phrase "it is a given" introduce a premise? Also, does "for such" introduce a premise?

EDIT: I got rid of the "always introduce" since there are probably exceptions. I am more wondering if they tend to introduce premises.

I had a very tough time with this question, can someone evaluate my analysis of A, D, and E for me?

This is a weaken question.

The Kiffer Forest Preserve (KFP), which is a part of the A Valley, is where most of the bears in the valley live. The main road through the KFP has been closed for 8 years. During those 8 years, the bear population in the KFP has doubled. Therefore, the A Valley's population will increase if the road is kept closed.

What I am looking for: I think there are a few things wrong with this argument. First is the "part to whole" flaw. It is true that the KFP's population increased, but is that support for the idea that the entire valley's population will increase? Not really. What if the bears just moved there from other parts of the valley? Second is the causal flaw. What if there was something else that led to the increase in the bear population, and the road being closed is spurious? Third is the futuristic prediction. Let's assume that closing the road was the reason for the increase in the bear population, will continuing to keep it closed work? What if the bear population is at max capacity right now and no new bears can live there? You'd have to assume that that isn't the case.

Answer A: I had a very tough time eliminating this one, and I originally chose it during the timed exam. I had enough time to come back to it, and I did change it. I think this is wrong because to weaken the argument, you have to assume that the migration came entirely from other parts of the valley. But, that isn't an OK assumption. This answer choice leaves open the possibility that the migration came entirely from outside the valley.

Answer B: I think this may strengthen the argument since it sort of implies that migration from other parts of the valley was not another cause of the population increase in KFP.

Answer C: This is superficially similar to B, but it is wrong for a different reason. The statement is too weak to undermine the argument. Sure, the population increase in KFP didn't come from bears outside the valley, but what if the bears in KFP just had more babies or something due to cars not scaring off the bears? This answer choice doesn't do a whole lot.

Answer D: I changed my answer from A to this one. I think this is wrong because leaving out the rate of increase in KFP is important. Say that it is true that the population of the bears outside the KFP decreased a little bit, but what if bear population in the KFP increased by a million times? This scenario might strengthen the argument since the total population of the valley would still increase, even though only one small part of the valley is responsible for the increase.

Answer E: This is what I changed my answer to during BR. If the total population of the valley remained the same, then the doubling of the KFP population was solely due to internal migration. It wouldn't make any sense to say that the increase in the population of a part (KFP) transfers to a population increase of the whole.

PT70 Section4 # 17

For #17: Parallel Form

I got confused on how to diagram it (I understood everything except how to diagram (Note: the way I diagram for these is using broad A-->B,etc since the context isn't important but the form of the logic is):

The stimulus says that:

-some halogen lamps are well-crafted

-because halogen lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at FL

-and any item on display at FL is well-crafted

I wrote it as

some A-->B or A(--some-)B

A-->C

C-->B

But my diagram is wrong for:

because halogen lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at FL

it should be A(-some-)C

why is it some?

Need some help. There are huge gaps between by BR and actual PT scores, i.e. (175/155). Would love to hear how some you overcame this challenge.

Happy Veterans Day to all my brothers and sisters in arms! If any vets out there need help with anything from the LSAT to admissions to educational benefits, I offer a free full hour of one on one assistance either in person or over Skype! Thank you all for your service and have an awesome day!

I've been taking the infamous birds watchers, fruit stand and cd LGs at least once a day. Why? I like them! JY says in the videos that they're incredibly easy although the rest of society (not really but yeah!) thinks they're among the toughest LGs released. So last night I was doing the cd game and I could tell immediately my timing was off but I kept moving. Long story short, I eventually just put my pencil down, brushed my teeth and went to bed. I couldn't finish it. I have no clue why I couldn't figure it out??? I can't count the number of times I've done this game. I remember the answers for the most part, but not all. I didn't just circle and move on because I already knew the answer, but for some reason it was like I had never seen the game ever in my life! Or even attempted a LG for that matter! I was disgusted! I know I've been frustrated before and just decided not to do anything LSAT related for that day, but that was just unreal to me! First true experience of burnout for me. It's real folks! I've got my clean copies and I'll be back at it on my lunch break!

I had a diagnostic of 156 in June. By end of September I was averaging 167/168 range. I didn't do as well as I hoped on October exam so decided to retake in december. I have been testing again and scored a 169,170,and 174 respectively on my last 3 tests. This is obviously great news, however, I haven't changed anything up such really such as drilling,new methods, etc aside from a small focus on RC which has been my weak spot but I haven't really improved there much. My biggest improvement has been on LR actually although I've done nothing other than PTs and BR to work on it. Has anyone else seen these types of improvements just "happen"?lol Whatever is happening I hope it keeps up until December 5th.

@nicole.hopkins @Pacifico I could use your wisdom.

The Trainer PREACHED to eliminate all wrong answer choices first for 99% of questions then chose the right answer. Do you do this? I have found that it really is taking me more time and that it is making me consider answers I never would have. I have adapted this skill when I run into hard questions and has helped 10000% but this book was hell bent on doing it every single time. I am averaging about -2 per section LR. What do you guys do?

Just want to confirm my diagram of "Not Otherwise" is correct.

A police officer is eligible for a Mayor's Commendation if the officer has exemplary record, but not otherwise.

Exemplary Record >> Eligible

Not (Exemplary Record) >> Not (Eligible)

i finally get logic games. i get 9/10 correct but each game takes me around 15 minutes. What can i do to cut it in 1/2 without sacrificing accuracy?

thanks

For #23:Parallel Flaw

like in #17 I had trouble diagramming a part of this stim.

The stimulus says that:

Almost every SP in the past had MTC

Using MTC to introduce VB

Therefore VB will be a SP

I diagrammed:

A-->B

B-->C

-----------

C-->A

But for "Using MTC to introduce VB" is suppose to be diagrammed as:

C-->B

Why? And why is my diagram wrong?

Unsure on how to approach this. I scored a perfect on the Games section from PT43 when normally I do not what should I think of this?

This is kind of a dumb question and I feel like no one else has this problem, but I've realized I constantly make mistakes identifying the scope or relevance of an AC on logical reasoning (RC too). If I'm choosing between two answer choices, I'll choose the more tempting one and later realize it was out of scope, and the right AC was really subtle.

Does anyone have any suggestions for this/exercises I can try/lessons I should focus on? I think I read carefully but I really don't know how far away I can go from the scope of the stimulus

If AC "C" only said "children tend to have more acute tastes: therefore, they zero in on foods with the most distinctive tastes" I would have seen it as being the correct AC right away, but instead this answer goes on to state they get sick more often than adults do? I thought we were not supposed to make assumptions or add things that aren't there when dealing with MSS question types? Although every other AC seemed no good, what popped into my head when looking at AC "C" is how do we know... children become sick more than adults do -where does it state this or is it even allude to it in the stimulus? Any insight would be nice. Thanks!

How is is C the correct answer... I'm not seeing the connection. Someone please help!

The conclusion is "we can now dismiss the widely held suspicion that sugar consumption often exacerbates hyperactivity in children with attention deficit disorder". The supporting premises are the results of the study and it concludes that there was no significant difference between the experimental groups (received a type of sugar) and control (sugar substitute).

How does (C) weaken the support of anything I assumed it would strengthen the conclusion. (C) states that the consumption of some sugar substitutes exacerbates the symptoms of hyperactivity. I immediately thought this was irrelevant because a sugar substitute is not sugar... I don't see how this would weaken the support.

For #17: Parallel Form

I got confused on how to diagram it (I understood everything except how to diagram (Note: the way I diagram for these is using broad A-->B,etc since the context isn't impotrant but the form of the logic is):

The stimulus says that:

-some halogen lamps are well-crafted

-because halogen lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at FL

-and any item on display at FL is well-crafted

I wrote it as

some A-->B or A(--some-)B

A-->C

C-->B

But my diagram is wrong for:

because halogen lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at FL

it should be A(-some-)C

why is it some?