So just bombed my fourth PT and I think it's about time I reevaluate my timeline and goals in here. Mid 160's is my target but I can't seem to see the light at the end of the tunnel here. So far my PT have been embarrassing at best. My initial diagnostic was 146. I've taken PT 36 - 39. So far I've gotten 133 (Didn't even think that was possible), 141, 146, and 147. I started the course in April and finished a couple of weeks ago and just started PT. Thing is, my BR has been comparably much better, in fact, probably right where I'd like to end up at. I've BR at 150, 156, 168, and 162. On RC I'm averaging -11.5 on LR I'm -14 and LG I'm -17. On BR for RC I'm -5, on LR I'm -7, and LG -8. A lot of these are really brought down by my first test where I pretty much locked up like a deer in headlights. But still, I'm thinking tempted to start from scratch here. Thing is, when I come back for BR, even for the ones I get wrong on BR, I'm seeing very clearly where I was wrong and most of the time, the right answer is the one I struggled with debating for. It leads me to believe there is something that's sunk in. I just don't know if this means I should continue PT and BR to a greater extent to work on timing and understanding the stimulus quickly, or if I should come back to the fundamentals of the course again before taking any more exams. Even since my first PT I've noticed a difference, especially in LG where I am at least completing a couple of games, but I'm nowhere where I thought I would be with 60 days until October. At this point, I'm thinking I should push this out till December. I'm already working full time and I'll be starting school at the end of this month. If anyone could help me gauge the mess I've made here, it'd be much appreciated.

Hey Fellow 7Sagers,

Just wanted to ask you a question about something that I've been seeing throughout Logical Reasoning questions and oftentimes, answer choices as well. What's a good way to remember what testmakers are talking about when they say "Confuses _____ for/with _____"??

For example:

B) LSAC confuses a necessary condition for a sufficient conditions.

Does this mean that what is meant to be a necessary condition is being mistaken by LSAC as a sufficient condition?....or vice versa...?

So should I remember this as whatever comes after "Mistakes/Confuses a _____" to be what is correct and that the author is mistakenly thinking of it as whatever comes after "...for a ____"?

Sorry for the extremely confusing explanation and wording....

Hi all. I'm about to do my June 2007 preptest tomorrow according to my syllabus. I know I'm supposed to emulate the test conditions to be the same time as what the real test would be held (early morning). However I can't do it this week b/c of my child's school schedule. The timing is super tight so I would be distracted during the test about being tardy to pick up at school. Would it be terrible to take the preptest any other time during the day when I feel alert? Or....should I wait and move on to the rest of the core curriculum and do the preptest next week when I have the time. Thanks so much.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-2-question-13/

I wonder whether this is really necessary assumption question.

Isn't this most strongly supported question or anything else?

There's no clear conclusion in the stimulus and although I negate (D) I am not sure if I can entirely wreck the argument.

I got this question right, but just wonder whether this question is properly categorized.

So I was reading a blog post on personal statements by the Yale Dean of Admissions, and she linked to this video as a "law school reality check:"

I know we have all heard these critiques about going to law school before, but watching it in the context of what not to do in my personal statement made me second guess everything I was planning on writing.

I'm hoping to get thoughts from you guys (because posting this on TLS would likely make me cry) regarding the video. How have you convinced yourselves that you're not whom this video is making fun of, and how will you prove that to law schools in your applications?

Thank you and I apologize if this is old news.

I have been studying for the LSAT for MONTHS... almost a year. In that time, all of my sections have improved except for Logic Games. I average about a 68% correct on this section. I have used the Foolproof Method for all of the practice tests I've taken. I drill and drill until I can do each game perfectly. But as soon as I get to a new PT, I freeze up. I usually only have time for the first and second game... and if I'm really stuck, I'll only have time for the first game. Another common fate: I finish the first and second games in good time. And then I get stuck on 3 and 4, and get flustered and read everything wrong and end up guessing for the last two games. It's really, really bad. If the first game is usually the easiest and I'm stuck on it... I clearly have serious issues.

I really do not know what more I can do. I am signed up for the test in October and I'm getting nervous. I just don't know what to do. This is apparently the easiest section for most people to improve in, and the easiest one to get -0 on, so... what's wrong with me? What am I doing wrong? I can't seem to take the things I learned from my drills and apply them. Even if I remember the answer in a drill, I still practice as if I don't, going through the thinking process of elimination and selection. I'll pull out entire game sections from a month ago, and still be able to do the old ones perfectly. I just can't do any new ones.

I'm so stuck :(.

Hey all!

I know the topic retaking PTs (and the value of that) has been discussed many times, but I just wanted to get a little more specific advice.

Like many others, I have exhausted all of the PTs, except for 72-74. There are some PTs that I have reviewed very extensively. Some PTs I have only taken once and may not have done a very thorough review. I think there is value in finding which ones I am less familiar with, and re-taking + BR. Right now my main focus is working through the Cambridge drilling packets, and really honing my fundamentals.

What can you glean from the score inflation of retakes? For example, I just took a PT and scored a 180, but I remembered the logical reasoning very clearly, so I don't take it seriously at all. RC and LG I did not remember as well. How about for a PT that I do not remember as well, what can I take away from the score?

I am just worried that for the questions I have reviewed a lot previously, I am remembering the right answer, and sure why it is the right answer in that instance. But I want to be extra sure that I am reinforcing the right reasoning skills and not just the right answers.

Thank you so much!

Julia

In 2 out of my last 3 PT's, I have scored over 175... Unreal.... I would have never guessed I would do this in my wildest dreams. Thanks 7 sage and community

Hey 7Sagers,

Had a user email in with a question that I think you could help out with! Here it is:

Hey guys

I have a quick question, I was wondering is it possible to get into any Law School with a 3 year degree? This is a general degree offered in Canada and in Canada it says you can still get an admission into Law School with this degree but I was wondering is it the same in the USA. If it is I was wondering if you can point out any potential pitfalls of 3 year degree vs a 4 year degree?

Thanks in Advance

I scored a 168 on June 2015. I made the decision to take it only 9 weeks before-- In those subsequent weeks I took 30 pt's. The 4 weeks before the test I took a pt every week day, and would study till I was on the verge of tears. It was brutal, and by the last week before the test I was inconceivably burnt out. I had to neglect taking the last pt's I planned to. I was going for quantity this first time taking the test, and now I'm gearing up for Oct 2015. I want quality this time; I want less hours of studying but I want to maximize the time I spend. Most of all, I want to be as fresh as possible on test day. Burnout is not going to slide this time.

Has anybody else experienced this crisis? At some point, quantity, the amount of hours and pt's, begins to yield little in terms of becoming better at taking the test. And it burns you out-- I scored 3 below my average in pt's for June 2015, which I hear is actually normal. How do I, with limited hours and only a few pt's (I'm planning on only taking 5-6 pt's before Oct), maximize the time I spend?

I believe that I'm going to find out that quality of study time, after thoroughly acquainting one's self with the LSAT, is far superior than the quantity of hours spent studying.

I'm starting to build a large enough sample of PTs (just took my 7th today) that using the analytics to inform my prep seems like a sensible option. There's a lot of information, though, and I'm not too sure how to translate it into a study strategy. I understand the basic idea; it tells me that I'm bad at pseudo-sufficient assumption, so I should work on that. I'm curious, though, what else you guys get from it and how you apply it. For instance, do the question/section difficulty ratings tell you anything during your review?

What information on there do you guys most value, and how do you use it specifically to guide your next week of studying?

Thanks, all.

You can find it here:

https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=uo98fv4muqt7l3t87off6q7960%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/Chicago

Note: We have several Fridays (after Aug. 21st) that are currently open. If folks want to do additional PT's, please propose in the comments.

So, I took my third PT today, PT 37, and it seemed like I was doing well with RC, until I got to the last passage. This passage was too difficult, so I kind of ended up guessing on those last few questions.

When I finally scored my test, I saw I only got six questions wrong. That's a good score for me anyways, but four of those six questions were on the last passage.

Is it possible I just was lucky with those first three passages? I have gotten that few wrong in the past, but the questions I got wrong were more scattered throughout the section.

Hello all,

So here I am whining again. I started PTing from PT36 and now I am at PT39. Between PT38 and PT39, I did 50 questions of Flaw and 50 questions of NA from Cambridge, and I got most, if not all, correct.

My score on PT39 went down by 6 points from PT38. I am devastated and don't know what to do. There are so many great stories in this forum but I see that might not be applicable to me. I am trying and trying but I just can't see improvement. I seriously want to cry while writing this message.

I am drilling but I am not improving. When I BR, I do way better, duh!

Be honest, is it possible that there are people who can never improve in this test?

Hi Everyone

I finally score 20+ in RC recently but I am sure I still need to keep my diligence up. I am reading the Economist, the scientific americans,and supreme court argument. However, I think passages in scientific american are too short compared to RC passages. I love the Economist but they only have a few science passages. Does anyone try other outside sources for RC? Thank you!!

Maybe a silly question to some, but nonetheless this is important to me and possibly many more.

Does anyone have a particular pencil brand/type which abides to the HB / #2 pencil requirements needed for the LSAT of which they recommend?

I ask this because I am tired of shopping for pencils that either 1, fail to sharpen correctly (e.g.) break repeativley upon sharpening. 2, have worthless erasers (e.g.) smudge pencil marks more that remove them.

I know right?! I'm asking about pencils. I should be honing in on my sufficient assumption logic mapping, however the frustration and energy used in cursing my pencils is taking away from that.

Thanks in advance

I am in need of some advice. I am currently registered to take the October LSAT but feel as though more time to study would be extremely beneficial. I plan on enrolling fall 2016 and am heading into my last undergraduate semester this fall. I have been told that it is preferable to take the October LSAT but am wondering if December would be better in my case.

Now, as I've been going through the exercises, I am able to identify the necessary condition and the sufficient condition for the work the majority of the time, until I get to the very convoluted passages/sentences/whatever. I have an extraordinarily tough time when it comes to PF/ Negation/ SA. I review the valid and invalid argument forms every night for two hours with flash cards trying to get it, but as of right now, I'm only able to memorize the forms. I have a hard time identifying them in practice. I feel that this has to do in part to lack of understanding the working difference between the SC and the NC. Does anyone have a way that helped them "get it", as well as any other tips for understanding Lawgic? Thanks!

@Pacifico

@nicole.hopkins

http://img2.findthebest.com/sites/default/files/980/media/images/t2/Bernie_Sanders_1786280.jpg

So I'm two months into studying for the Oct. LSAT and am working on improving my accuracy regarding necessary assumption questions. I encountered 2 problems from practice tests (PT 56 Section 3 # 18 "Fund-raiser" and PT 3 Section 2 #3 "In Europe school children devote") that require you to find a nec. assumption.

For #3 from PT 3 section 2, I was between answer choice A and the correct answer, D. I chose D because it would destroy the argument if negated, but I couldn't eliminate A (All children can be made physically fit by daily calisthenics). I looked on LSAT forums online and one reason cited as to why the A was incorrect was that the answer choice makes daily calisthenics sufficient and not necessary (which contradicts the conclusion that states that calisthenics is necessary for physical fitness).

However, I diagrammed answer choice A as All children can be made physically fit---> by daily calisthenics

According to the forums online and speaking to other students, my diagram above is wrong. My question is why is it wrong and how would I diagram this answer choice. Does "by" indicate the sufficient condition and I'm just unaware of this or is there another method as to how we can diagram conditionals without indicator words like (if or without)?

Got You! SOOO I am almost half way though the 7sage coarse and decided I am going to take a break. Now throughout the course we keep using Luke is a Jedi etc. etc. Well, I feel it's time I watch these movies to get in on this but as my title says I am lost and confused. Where do I start? with the first movie? The fourth? I don't understand what movie I start with? Do I work my way from 6 to the first?

Also anything else I need to know before I start my series marathon?

J.Y. I-AM-YOUR-STUDENTTTTT

I hate these questions, they truly are the bane of my existence, and study. I am not sure what I am missing, but I am just not accurate with these questions. How did you guys better understand this question type? what was your technique, and what made them click for you? In on of JY's videos, he claims that for 170+ target scorers there is not enough time to conditionally map out the question, but for me, the harder ones just seem impossible without mapping. Also, sometimes mapping is difficult due to my inability to identify which is the sufficient, and which is the necessary condition. With the latter issue, there are no conditional words for guidance. How does one become better at identifying the sufficient/necessary condition without the trigger words being present (aside from just practice of course because once I finish the 7sage course, practice is all I will be doing).

PT58 BR Tonight at 8pm ET

Come on. We've got 63 days until October 3rd. You don't seriously have other plans for tonight, besides PT58 BR?

Make Putin proud. BR with us tonight at 8pm ET!

Note on all groups

Hi everyone. I took the June LSAT after taking an in-person Blueprint course. I did well but not as well as I wanted to or think I could. I've now put off starting to study again for the October re-take way too long, but here I am. I was thinking of doing 7Sage Premium somewhat selectively, focusing on my problem areas (definitely LG and a bit of RC), and then supplementing with something like the Cambridge bundles since I've heard 7Sage's problem sets aren't great (and only easy ones available in Premium). Note I also bought the Blueprint LG book and I've heard good things about the LSAT Trainer, but I don't want to overwhelm myself with too many things. I work in tech and have a full-time, demanding job. Any advice on the best approach here would be thoroughly appreciated!

Does anyone do this or thought of doing this? Could it be potentially helpful since the passages get increasingly difficult, starting with the harder ones would give you a fresher mind. Any thoughts?