http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-20/

I got this question correct since C was obviously not relevant to the argument, but during BR, I can't seem to eliminate B or E. Why are these necessary assumptions? Here is my breakdown so far:

This is a necessary assumption EXCEPT question. Specifically, we are looking at the skeptic's argument.

Some people have been promoting some herbs to help treat colds. The herbs have a whole bunch of colorful sounding stuff in them: purple coneflower and goldenseal. This dude with a cold doesn't think that the herbs help. He argues, "Say that the herbs actually did work. Most people want to get better quickly. Therefore, almost everybody with a cold would already be using. Since there are many who have colds but don't use it, herbs aren't effective."

What I am looking for: I know we are looking for a NA, but I always like to break down the flaws in the argument if there are any. The skeptic is all over the place. He conflates "most" with "almost everybody." Certainly "most" includes "almost everybody," but 51% is "most" but would probably not be considered "almost everybody." Additionally, so what of "many" people still have colds? The proponents of herbs never said that herbs have a 100% effectiveness rate. Even worse, the skeptic's conclusion is borderline circular as well. The skeptic says that "almost everybody would be using it." He did NOT say that everyone would use it; there could be "many" or "some" people that don't use the herbs in the skeptic's hypothetical world. Anyway, we are looking for an answer that is a necessary assumption.

Answer A: This is a NA. If this answer was not true, then how could almost everyone be using it? There wouldn't be enough.

Answer B: I don't see how this is a NA. If you negate it: the mixture does have side effects severe enough to make many people with colds avoid it, then how does this wreck the argument? Wouldn't this strengthen the argument's conclusion that the herbs are not effective? The negation seems to do the opposite of wreck the argument.

Answer C: This is what I correctly chose because the argument does not concern itself with anything preventative. This answer does nothing to the argument, and it is totally irrelevant.

Answer D: This is similar to A, and it is a NA. If you negate it: if the herbs are not widely known, then how would people know to use it?

Answer E: This is like answer choice B for me. I don't see how this is a NA. What if there are effective cold remedies that people prefer? Does this mean that the herbs are not effective? I don't see how this affects the argument.

OKOK. I know we are not allow to apply multiple EDs...

But! Say I apply ED to School A right now and hear back within a couple weeks (whatever the likelihood of that happening) that I got rejected or moved to the regular pool. Does that mean it's okay for me to apply ED for school B in October (since the deadline for most EDs is mid-November)?

In the same line of thought, I had a similar question about ED Round II (due early Jan).

Since some schools have two Rounds of ED, does it mean I can apply ED for the second round for that school if my first ED for a different school had been rejected?

Thank you in advance,

JSK

While I've seen my LG and LR improve a lot over time, I'm afraid I've plateaued a bit in RC. On average I make -4. I've already done the whole 7sage curriculum (twice) and I'm reading the LSAT Trainer for the second time. Does anyone recommend the RC Manhattan Prep for RC? I saw it's $10 on Amazon, but I was just wondering if it was worth my time to read through it. Any thoughts or advice on this question and more generally the RC section would be appreciated :)

7Sage!

I have a question regarding registration/LSAC business.

I wanted to write the October exam, but I’m not feeling confident as of late. I was scoring in the 165 ish range, which was fantastic, but I’ve since seen a drastic drop in score. I think this is due to anxiety and a combination of burnout. I want to keep going as if I am writing the October exam and see how I PT in the coming weeks. I don’t think that I’ll have a good picture of my ability before September 9th. With that said, am I right in assuming I can withdraw from the October exam up until the test day, I can cancel my score on the test day with no penalty, and I can re-register for the December exam by October 30th?

I guess I’m just wondering if it’s okay for me to keep myself registered for October, see how I PT and see how my confidence is leading up to the October exam, maybe even possibly write it? And if I’m not confident/my PTs aren’t within a good range, or I want to re-register for December, I can do so, as long as I pay the extra fees?

I want to leave as many options open and available to myself so I don’t feel constricted by one particular deadline.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-4-question-14/

The conclusion is that reducing speed limits neither saves

lives nor protects the environment. The evidence is that the more slowly a car moves the

more time it spends on the road spewing exhaust and running the risk of collision.

My question is why is A wrong. The author assumes people follow the limits. If they ignore the limits then guess what, it doesn't matter if they reduce them. But more importantly, how is it we are suppose to see that the author is trying to assume that the more slowly a car is driven, the more time it spends on the road spewing [more] exhaust into the air.

You see the part in brackets is what you have to ASSUME the author to be saying, otherwise the question makes no sense. You read it and think it is a perfect argument. I don't understand how we are suppose to infer this. Otherwise it just looks like he is saying, well yeah, you drive slower, you spend more time on the road spewing exhaust but there is actually no indicator that the author thinks the exhaust expelled from the vehicle will be larger or more just from driving slower. Is this some kind of grammar trick?

Had it said drive slower, spend more time on the road, and shoot out more exhaust, then D would be perfectly logical. But that last part isn't there, so how do we infer it?

Hi 7sagers,

Background:

I'm signed up for the October tests, and will most likely postpone till December. I finished LR and RC books for Manhattan LSAT, and finished the LR portion of the 7sage curriculum, and went through LG PT 1-35 once, and am going through them again. I took 7 PTs, and got between 160--164. When I blind review, I get 165-168 usually. Sometimes, I get the question right but miss it after BR. I was wondering if I'm doing BR wrong, and how I could start BR'ing to increase PT scores into the 170s. I noticed that some people can score in the mid 160's but after BR score in the mid-170s. I score roughly -4 on LG, and -9 on LR and -7 RC

I have a gpa that allows me to contend for HYS, and would prefer not to settle.

The October test is just under a month away, and it's been extremely discouraging to not even be able to break the upper 160's at this point. I started actually fully studying since roughly the last week of June.

Need all the help and advice I can get!

So, I'm a little confused about the inclusive "or". As an example, let's say that we have this statement: "Either John or Tom will attend the meeting". Translate that into lawgic and it becomes: "/J --> T" and "/T --> J".

What I don't understand is that the if the above lawgic is correct, how is this statement an inclusive or. If John attends, Tom won't attend and vice versa. But, as per the statement, we can easily see that they both can attend (statement doesn't say "but not both").

Can anyone shed some light on this. It could be (probably is) that my understanding of this concept is flawed.

Thank you!

I've been reading a bit lately about the "attractiveness" of splitters. How does being a splitter work in relation to T14 or hey...15-75ish? Does high GPA and lowerish LSAT usually mean waitlist/reject, or can it sometimes mean foot-in-the-door for T14 if you rock your personal statement and other soft stuff?

.

2 post in one day, I know, I'm sorry.

SO after PTing consistently in the mid 160s, I've started to crumble. My last PT's have been 159, 162 and 161 respectively. (60, 61, 62).

"But that's an average variance in test scores" one might say. Not necessarily. For LR I'm doing better than when I was in the mid 160s, for LG I'm doing the same, but I'm bombing Reading Comprehension every time, once even going -15. I drilled the hell out of RC for a week, using 'newer' (55 and on) sections, and consistently got only -5. After drilling, I decided to do preptest 62 today. The only reason I scored so low on reading comp was because I spent way too much time on passage 3, which caused me to completely miss a section. When I repeated the specific passage that I missed under timed constraints, I only got 1 wrong.

So tonight, unbelievably stressed, I've been trying to drill reading comp again, and have been failing miserably. I have spent the last 5 hours drilling RC, on top of doing a full 5-section test this morning.

I seem to 'forget' how to do reading comprehension. It's almost like I've lost everything I've built up.

What should I do? I'm getting extremely nervous as test day is soon. I was using JY's memory method, and it worked, but it's almost like Will Smith came up to me with that device from Men In Black and wiped my knowledge.

All of my other sections are always consistent but I'm afraid, because of my recent trends, RC will break me come test day.

Hi JY,

I've been getting through the curriculum at my own pace this last year, but I'd just like to say thank you so much for creating this curriculum. I plan to write 7sage a great review once I'm done with the curriculum and LSAT in December, but I'm so thankful this program exists. I first struggled with LSAT in 2012 with Stratus Prep's summer intensive. I remember thinking there's no way I'll ever understand this material because my instructor at the time seemed to almost enjoy talking over our heads. Then, I had a tutor who taught me much of the basics, but never could go beyond and get to the depth of what I needed to understand logic. Once again, I felt hopeless - that was in 2013. The last year, I've slowly but surely been working on the LSAT at my own pace and I'm finally realizing the flaws in my learning one day at a time. Yesterday, I had such an ah-ha moment when I realized the conditional logic rules cannot be applied to existential quantifiers. It was a huge moment for me. So thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for creating a curriculum that really goes into the greatest detail of explanations. After doing Teach for America for two years, I fully understand how hard it can be to create a curriculum and also differentiate based on everyone's learning needs. You are an awesome teacher and I am incredibly impressed.

Best,

Liz

So based on 9 LSATs so far with 7sage, these 4 categories are my worst. I am averaging a 164 (low of 162 and high of 170), but this could definitely be higher if I could master these problem types. PSA and flaw aren't too bad to understand theoretically and I am usually down to 2 answers and pick the wrong one. With NA and SA though, sometimes I can't even eliminate any answer choices and sometimes the answer is as clear as day, but usually I get these wrong. Just wondering if anyone has any tips that haven't already been mentioned in the curriculum about how to conquer these 4 question types? A potential 165+ or even 170 could be within reach if I could nail these down. Thanks a lot!

Hey there, so I just started this program and have been going over the fundamentals since it seems like a good point to start at. Without a doubt the most trouble I have is properly placing the Sufficient and Necessary conditions when it comes to the group 1. 2 and 3 exercises/quiz within the logic section.

Often, I will find myself getting close to the right answer BUT its in reverse. So let's say /m --- > f is right, my answer is f -----> /m.

I'll try to get to the root of why it's happening myself, but would appreciate feedback from anyone that might have encountered the same problem and resolved it. Thanks for reading.

I am taking the LSAT in October, but I am still struggling with the logic games. What are the best advice on how to get better in this section. I am not doing well at all.

For the regular weaken and strengthen questions, I am starting to get better. However, when it comes to causation, I am really confused. There is so much information to take in.

Can someone please give me some pointers?

All groups now meeting at 7pm ET. Folks with schedule restraints—please just join when you can. You won't miss much. Any serious objections, please PM me. Schedules can be changed but only if you let me know!!

Questions about upcoming weeks' schedules? Look at this. http://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/3490/october-15-group-br-calendar-now-available

BR Groups, Week of September 2nd: Weds (PT67) (NO LSATurday group scheduled due to Labor Day)

Are you ready for your breakthrough?

Well there's no magic to this test. But come sledgehammer it with us this week.

Wednesday, September 2nd at 7PM ET: PT67

I'll be there.

Note on all groups

So just finished the course and it was really unbelievable. I was planning on taking the October test but I don't think I'll be able to hit my target score by then. Realistically, I think I'll end up taking December (will have to pay the change date fee) and I hope to get a good enough score so that I can still apply this upcoming cycle.

My question: Should I go straight to taking practice tests or should I work on individual sections first before transitioning to full exams in order to work on timing? And how many exams should I take per week in preparation for December? I know many here have been taking PT's for 5+ months and I want to find the right balance between taking enough practice tests without sacrificing thorough review. One of the best things about the course was that it provided me with structure/guidance and so now that I'm done I'd really appreciate some advice on how to proceed. Thanks in advance, you all are so helpful!

So I'm starting to prepare my law school applications, and I have a question about bringing up "special considerations". For myself, it has to do about my cGPA being on the lower side while my L2 is above the average for all of the law schools I'm concerned with. Keep in mind that I am Canadian/applying to Canadian schools.

In particular, from gr.12 up to about the end of my second year of university, my father was overcoming a disease that would render him bedside for several days. I went to school away from home, and on weekends I often traveled back home to help take care of my brother, whom has spina bifida and is a paraplegic. I'm a first generation student and the son of immigrants, so my father and mother always wanted to make sure I succeeded in school so I could fulfill my dream of going to law school, as they didn't have the economic resources to go to post-secondary. Thankfully, my father fully recovered when I was entering my 3rd year. Thus I no longer had weight on my mind, and didn't go home as much to help out. My grades drastically increased.

Now are schools going to require medical documentation of bother my father and brothers conditions? Will they require bus/train receipts to show that I actually went home a fair amount? Or are special considerations done more so on the honour system, where I won't have to provide any documentation? This adversity will mostly be described in my Personal Statement.

Getting notes from a doctor will be no problem, just we have no actual documentation saying that his disease went away. Also, things like travel receipts will be near impossible to obtain.

Thanks for the assistance!

EDIT: Incase it's not clear, going home to take care of my brother rendered me with not a lot of time to do work. And obviously knowing that your family cannot sustain itself because your father is bedridden brings an emotional burden alongside it as well that made it hard for me to focus.

Has anyone tried Manhattan's RC strategy? It seems like a waste of mental energy to me, but other people swear by it. If any of you have tried it, I'd be interested in knowing your experiences. Thanks!

I am currently working at a boutique law firm supporting eight attorneys and their paralegals. Since our firm is small and close-knit I've been able to work closely with every team member in various aspects. Any thoughts on a rec. letter written on behalf of all the attorneys or is it best to only have it written from one attorney? I already have two traditional letters but am hoping to have a powerful third. Thanks for your insight!

Hey, Im working my way through the RC section and have a couple quick questions. For doing the memory Method is it best that I print out the RC questions and do it by hand or is it fine to just look at the screen, read through it, then look away and try to recall? I know this may be a personal preference thing. JY says to flip over the page. Im struggling to get this method to work for me and it seems to be taking me large amounts of time so if someone could give me a little more insight and detailed or even semi detailed explanation into their process that would be very helpful to me.

I went through the explanation video again and realized that my summaries at the end of the paragraph where way to long so I will have to cut that down.

I was out for a run yesterday and crashed and burned - hard. It was really only a matter of time before I managed to lose a little skin in the name of fitness, but I never imagined that I would end up with a broken elbow, which is what the urgent care doc diagnosed. So, I'm in a sling and temporary cast (and doing everything with one hand...) and while I likely won't need surgery, I will probably be in a cast come October 3. I've never broken a bone before and would appreciate any thoughts or insight about what test day might look like.

This weekend a large wind storm knocked out power at my house for a few days leaving me without access to 7 Sage! Luckily I had my untouched Trainer to satisfy my burning desire to study all weekend... Seriously though, I'm about 40% through the ultimate course and it got me thinking what would be the best way to implement both these resources. My initial idea was to first complete 7 sage using the old practice sets, which I was fortunate enough to download before the ban. Next, I was going to do some review and then go through the Trainer. Lastly the plan was to go through 7 sage again using the new sets while refering to both curriculums to see what ideas worked best and how they could be combined. From previous research I was planning on mostly using 7 Sage for the LG section but I feel like for LR and RC they could be used together. What do you guys think? Should I stay the course with my original plan or somehow go through them together?

Hi guys, I wanted to share an idea that may be helpful in improving RC. One of my biggest stumbling blocks in RC is freezing when I run into topics I'm unfamiliar with (science and economics, mostly). Reading articles on Scientific American and the Economist have been very helpful to increase my familiarity with certain terms. Another tool that came to mind this morning is Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has a "Random Article" link on the left sidebar, and sends you to a completely random Wikipedia article. I feel like this could also be helpful as a means to gaining familiarity with unfamiliar topics. For example, a few that came up were a description of birds in Yemen, an English journalist and publicist named Derek Taylor, and Secretary of State for Scotland. You may have to click a couple times to find something that could be useful, but some of the topics are really out there... like LSAT RC passages.

Obviously, this can't replace any of the main RC study tools like doing actual RC sections, reading dense articles, etc., but it could be useful if you just have a few minutes here or there.

Hey guys! I have just started going over the lessons for the games and am feeling discouraged. I always don't make enough inferences and have difficulty solving the problems. How long did it take you guys to start doing well on them? Thanks!