Hello Folks,

If you check my posts, I have timing problems. When I do the test untimed, I get more than 20 points higher (160s) than the timed test. Any input is very appreciated.

I am signed up for Oct 2015 *freaks out* what happens if I chicken out and decide to change my date to December? What looks worse... Taking in October and get a shitty score and retake it in December or withdrawing from October and taking it in December

If you are having ANY issues with LR, especially flaw related questions (which if you haven't realized yet, they pretty much all are, and LSAT Trainer will tell you that) then you have got to get the LSAT Trainer. It is unreal how simple the book makes detecting and finding flaws. It trains you to approach questions in a way that neither 7sage nor PS have been able to do for me. I have only read about half of the LR curriculum in the book, but have already seen improvement. In fact, I just took PT 65 and only had -1 on the first LR section and -0 after BR, whereas I usually average -5. Granted it's a small sample size, but the key is that I no longer approach questions, especially NA and SA, and have NO clue what to do. Thanks to LSAT Trainer I have so much more confidence when going up against those questions.

TL;DR Buy LSAT trainer to help with LR, it works. And no, I don't work for the author. :)

Hello all,

I have been consistently scoring well on PT's in the 60's, but I've experienced a drop off on PT's 70-75 on reading comprehension and logic games. On those two sections, what exactly is the test doing differently? Has anyone noticed any patterns or tricky behavior by the test makers? I can't quite put my finger on it, but they seem tougher.

so basically I've been studying since May, but I made a mistake and was practicing with really old tests. So until last week, I was getting around 168-169 and a couple 170+ .....but then recently (right after the September 11 deadline to change test date) I tried the recent tests and my scores have dropped by a lot erratically. I know it's my fault - I was dumb and was practicing with ancient tests so I know what I did wrong there, but I wanted some advice on moving forward

I have to take the October test now but I'll cancel my score (which sucks), but I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong??? I feel like I forgot everything I've learned, and I still haven't established "habits" on any of the sections. Every time I get good at a section type, I feel like I forgot everything in the other sections!!! I don't know how to explain this but I just feel stupid

How do you guys organize your weeks with PTing and reviewing content? I've been PTing and BRing 3 times a week, but I still haven't established habits that come naturally. Under the time pressure, I always forget to do VERY important things, like identify the conclusion or find the flaw before moving on to answer choices! Especially with the recent tests, I go back to being a beginner when timing myself

Why is answer choice C correct? I thought this is a Most Strongly Supported question. I picked answer choice D thinking it is most supported since back then those who learned about natural processes through active learning where the only ones who learned at that time. So when compared to nonagricultural societies, they had learned how to grow plants. But I guess that is assuming too much. But that still doesn't explain to me why answer choice C is correct.

Hey 7Sagers! Here's a question from a student I thought you could help out with:

I am looking for someone to critique my attempted negations for necessary assumption question Dec 2009, s3,q25. Thank you so much.

My negations:-

A. Scientists ...always have biases...

B. ...biases...are shared among all scientists.

C. Biases ...are likely to impair...

D. Interpretation of data is not the only part...

E. ? (I am clueless in this one)

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-59-section-3-question-25/

"People want to be instantly"

Just want to make sure I'm diagramming correctly. The conclusion that it's imprudent to appear prudent can be diagrammed as the following:

It is imprudent to appear pru.

APrudent----> imprudent

I diagrammed the premise that people who appear prudent are generally resented as: APrudent-----> GR

The gap is GR------> imprudent which is what answer choice E is saying (It is imprudent to cause people to resent you) So if you cause people to resent you, it is imprudent. So the chain is as follows APrudent-----> GR----> Imprudent.

Was my diagramming correct?

Title basically sums it up. I'm wondering what's worked for people "drilling" RC. How many full sections per day would be ideal?

With approx 2 weeks till test day i am starting to feel stressed. I work 9 to 7 everyday and work out 4 days a week. In the past I have been waking up at 5 to study 3 hours before work. I have no new material to cover-- just all section work and full PTS (I'm scoring around 175 on retakes). Any suggestions for a study schedule moving forward? I want to be 100 percent for test day!

Sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere, but I'm wondering what procedure people use for adding an extra section in. Do you always do a particular one, like LG, or mix it up? How do you choose where to stick it in? One thing I'm concerned about is that I won't devote my full effort to it if I know which section is unscored. I just want to make my practice testing as representative as possible of the real LSAT

What the hell do I put aside from, "Dishwasher -- McDonald's 2008-2014" ?

jk, but really?

Ok so I would appreciate feedback on my thought process for this Nec. Assumption question. I chose B incorrectly and am trying f

Conclusion: philosophical thought is unique to humans

Evidence: Apes are the only nonhuman animals who can learn human language.

Apes have never verbally articulated, in human language, philosophical questions

Ok, so the gaps/assumptions I noted were:

1. The author is assuming that because the apes haven't asked these questions in human language that they are incapable of phil. thought; but what if the apes are perfectly capable of asking phil. questions in human language but just haven't done so. So to add on to the first assumption the author is concluding that in order to prove that a creature can think philosophically, the creature has to have demonstrated that it can think philosophically by expressing philosophical thoughts through human language. The ape hasn't expressed philosophical thoughts through human language and therefore must be incapable of philosophical thought.

I chose B because I was focusing on this gap of the argument; just because the ape hasn't physically expressed a philosophical question in human language doesn't mean that they can't think philosophically. Maybe they can think about these philosophical things without speaking (which means they are capable of philosophical thought). So I chose B because I felt it closed up the gap. If apes are incapable of thinking in human language, that can explain why they haven't asked any phil questions in human language.

But I'm noticing something as I type. Just because apes are incapable of thinking in human language doesn't mean that they are necessarily incapable of philosophical thought. It could be the case that they think philosophically in their own ape language. So the assumption I'm realizing now that the test is looking for is something along the lines that to be capable of philosophical thoughts, creatures must be able to express phil. thoughts using human language.

An ape can't express phil. thoughts using human language and therefore can't think phil.

A bear can't express phil. thoughts using human langauge and therefore can't think phil.

This matches up best with answer C.

Why I didn't choose C was because it discusses the way in which philosophical thought can be expressed and I reckoned that we're more concerned with if creatures can think a certain way not if they can express that they think a certain way. In other words, if the answer choice said THE ONLY creatures capable of philosophical thought can express phil. thought in human language, I would have chosen this.

Can someone explain why answer choice C is correct even though it just talks about how phil. thought can be expressed??

Thanks so much in advance

I completely missed this question. I thought B was very unattractive, and I confidently eliminated it during the test and during BR. I would appreciate it if someone just completely dismantled my reasoning because I don't understand how my reasoning is wrong on this:

Some people think that highway speed limits should be increased to reflect the actual speeds of drivers (which are higher than current speed limits). This increase would greatly decrease saftey since higher average speeds would result. Most violators would obey the new law and almost all of the people that obey the current speed limit would increase their speed.

What I am looking for: This is a very hard passage to understand. The support for the conclusion is that higher average speeds would result since most violators would obey the new law (either increase, decrease, or stay the same speed depending on how much the speed was increased) and current law abiding drivers would increase their speed. The argument is flawed because we don’t know the magnitude of the change. What if the speed limit is increased by 1 MPH? Almost all law abiding citizens could increase by 1 MPH and the most fast drivers could decrease by 15 MPH (if you assume that they were driving very fast). So, it is possible that the average speed actually decreases!

Answer A: This is consistent with the argument since “almost all” (in other words “some won’t) increase their speed.

Answer B: IDK, I still am very skeptical that this weakens the argument. Where does the argument imply or give evidence that uniformity of speed is important? I have a feeling that the author would just say “so what?” to this. Also, the argument doesn’t talk about what a “low speed” is. The argument is talking about “higher vs. lower” speeds. This answer choice seems to making a “relative vs. absolute” flaw that we talked about during the 7sage course. The argument says that some of the drivers (“almost all” idea like in answer choice A) are not going to increase their speed, so there won’t be “uniformity” of speed because some are still going to be below the speed limit. I just feel like the author would respond by saying “dude, you just helped my argument! The speeds aren’t going to be uniform!” Additionally, I don’t see how JY assumes that a shift in the distribution now becomes a narrower distribution. Can someone break this one down?

Answer C: So what? Just because you haven’t been involved in an accident doesn’t mean your danger level has decreased.

Answer D: This is consistent with the argument, so it is not a weakener. The author says that most will obey the law, which could imply that some will still not.

Answer E: Is believing what is safe the same as actual saftey? What if the violators are very risk loving?

Still available! Any takers??

Or is this just a temporary thing that later changes to an actual amount? 3 chicago schools show as $0 (no, not UC or NW)

Statement reads:

"Rattlesnakes molt exactly once a year."

How would you negate this? Is is better to use one statement that says "Rattlesnakes do not molt exactly once a year" or is it better to split it into two that each say "Rattlesnakes molt less than once a year" and "Rattlesnakes molt at least twice a year"? Or is the first statement logically equivalent to the combination of the second and third? Thanks

Thoughts of the day:

Had a phone call last night with a close college friend who is very business minded. We discussed my current standing with LSAT prep. I confidently believe I'm on pace to get into some pretty awesome schools (top 30). My favorites are constantly changing, but these days my eye is on Arizona State University. They have a sport law concentration (I majored in sport management at UMass for undergrad), and their law school is in downtown Phoenix (30min from main campus in Tempe). Everything about their program sounds phenomenal, and right up my alley. With 18 pro teams in Cali and 4 in AZ, I feel like my networking potential is evident.

My "fear the fork" fantasies have been limitless, until the phone call. In summation, my friend made me aware that if I go to law school on the west coast, I will likely struggle to find a job on the east coast where I'm from. (I live in NY now, would ideally love to move to Boston after school, but I would really like to go south for school.)

My questions boil down like this. Does it make sense to go far away to school (AZ, Cali, TX, Georgia, Florida), if I would like to live in Boston? Or should I stop being a snow-pansy and establish myself at BU/BC/Northeastern?

Bottom Line: How easy is it to find a job on the opposite coast of the school you attend???

I know this was wordy, sorry, I'm in borderline panic mode after last night's deflating conversation.

JY is organizing a social gathering in NYC next Tuesday, September 22nd. I hope to see a lot of you there.

The Overlook Bar on E 44th b/t 2nd and 3rd

Tues. Sept. 22, 8pm-11pm

#7sagersunite

@jyang72

Admin edit: Made sure you're RSVPing here:

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/7sage-meet-greet-in-nyc-tickets-18655408830

An answer choice reads:

"A totalitarian regime can perceive loss of public passivity as a threat to its power."

How would you go about negating this statement, beyond simply saying "It is not the case that..." Is there a general rule for negating statements containing the word "can"? Do we negate it by saying that it becomes "may not" or "will not" or "cannot"?

So I've seen A LOT of improvement on most of the question types. When I get to specific questions, I know exactly how to approach them and what to look for. I also can gage trap answer choices pretty well. However, It's like I'm completely blind on strength and weaken questions. Any advice on how to approach them? I've gone through the lessons a few times, but it hasn't helped much. These should be easy! You're just trying to strength and weaken, but some reason I can't do it!

New to 7Sage discussions, but I love how everyone seems very helpful and genuine. I am currently studying for the Dec test, and wanted some opinions on what is going to be more beneficial in these last 2 months and a half.

I currently am PT'ing around 168-169 average, BR around 173-175. My goal for the exam is in the 170-172 range. I would probably not retake if I hit 170. But I also know people's average scores tend to drop 2-3 points, so I want to be at about a 174~ average by the end of my PTs.

I am wrapping up a Testmasters course and have gone through most of the LSAT starter kit to supplement areas where I felt TM lacked (a lot lol). As of now, my main focus is drilling problem areas and PT'ing. I currently have PT 29-38, and like 25 more modern PTs (52+range). I also have the Cambridge packets for all LG PT 1-38, and for Weaken, Flaw, and NA since those are my weak areas. I want to look into some sort of prep for RC, because I do tend to miss avg 5 for this section, but not sure which packet or prep method is best for this.

Now that I am more wise in terms of LSAT prep, I realize that doing PT's 38 and below can be good practice for timing and comfortability but because I am drilling with those older problems my scores are always inflated for the older tests. like 179-180 range haha, which is inconsistent with my scores for newer exams that I have taken through TM. So would it be worth it to buy a few more PT's to avoid having to PT with the older exams?

Is my time better spent drilling or taking more PTs? I currently have like 30 PTs scheduled between now and the Dec test date.

As far as my time available to devote to LSAT, I currently work about 25-30 hours a week and that will increase to 35+ around mid-October.

Opinions and thoughts, thanks!

Hey guys,

So I've been following the RC memory method that JY talks about, and it's definitely helped me; however, I'm nowhere near where I want to be in my PT's when I grade my RC section. What are some of the alternative methods and ways that I can improve my RC score. Right now, I'm averaging -16 on my RC section *sighhh*. PLEASE HELP!!!!!

The newest version of Apple's iPhone/iPad/iPod operating system, iOS 9, was just released earlier today. Upgrading to this new version may cause parts of the 7Sage app to stop working for some devices.

I've been running the app on my iPhone with iOS 9 (I got an early release) for about a week without seeing any problems on the app. But I've heard that there are problems with other people's devices, and I confirmed that the Grader and Course options stopped working on my iPad mini after upgrading.

Sorry if this iOS 9 problem affects your device! We already made a fix, and submitted it to Apple for approval just a minute ago. Hopefully they'll approve the update quickly, but they usually take a week, sometimes much longer.

Planned test date: December 5th. Shooting for 170. Will be happy with 165.

I've been studying about 3 weeks now, and I'm only barely starting to see how the LSAT ticks. I've taken 4 PTs- J07,14,40,71 and scored 153,152,154,153.

My weakest area is Logic Games. I just need to grind them, I think. I'm slow as dirt and don't have the different setups for the game boards memorized (internalized?).

My strongest area is RC- in the 80% range, but I'm not really sure how to improve that except maybe by taking a lot of PTs and going over the missed questions.

LR seems to baffle me. I feel I do good on the questions, and then I see I am only getting around 60%. I have Nathan Fox's LR book. My main problem areas are Nec. Assumption, Flaw, and Most strongly supported. I'm not a complete dunce when it comes to logic (my minor is in Philosophy, so I have a bit of a background in syllogistic logic).

I have not BRd any of the tests. I will start doing so, and using the 7sage foolproof method for the logic games (god, thats going to be painful).

However, as far as LR and RC are concerned, what really makes a difference? Doing PTs or studying a method? Neither of them seem to lend themselves to a method like the LG section does.

Any advice or suggestions as to where I'm off base is appreciated.

Jim