While beginning to do practice test, is it okay not to focus on time because I am still learning?

In looking through the combination of conditional logic lessons on 7Sage and in The LSAT Trainer, I think I may have hit on a much more simple way to translate sentences that contain both a group 3 and group 4 indicator.

The 7Sage group 3 indicators require negating an idea and making it sufficient. However, these indicators actually identify the necessary condition in the statement.

The group 4 indicators require negating an idea and making it necessary. However, these indicators identify the sufficient condition.

As a result, the suggested translation rule in lawgic that we pick one indicator to set the rule and then treat the other as a negation is actually somewhat of an extra step.

For example: No A, unless B. Typically we would choose "No" as the rule to apply (negate necessary) and then treat "unless" as a negation. So we would get A and /B and would instinctively apply the group 4 rule to the already negated element because that is easier to write out, thus giving us A-->B.

Likewise, choosing to apply the group 3 indicator rule (negate sufficient) and treat the other indicator as negation we get: /A and B and instinctively would apply the negate sufficient condition to the already negated element because that is easier to write out, thus given us A-->B.

We can reach the same result by just ignoring the indicator rules and instead understanding them as identifying either the sufficient or necessary condition, as applicable. In other words, when translating a statement with both group 3 and group 4 indicators treat the group 3 indicator as group 2 and the group 4 indicator as group 1.

Examples:

No dog (D) is without an owner (O).

D --> O

---

None of the participants were certified in special education (C) except for the director (D). (treating except as group 3 here)

C --> D

---

You should never go outside (G) unless you bring your umbrella (U).

G- -> U

----

Until the fire department gives the all clear (C), we cannot return to our offices (R).

R-->C

Hello, I was curious to know if JY will be posting the recordings from the course that he held last week on Reading comprehension.

Note: Please bring your questions! This will be happening same day/time each week until the end of April. Please post your questions in the comments below if you already have some in mind so that our leaders can prepare :)

Exciting news: Sage Allison (173) and Corey (176) will be offering FREE LSAT office hours weekly for the next 2 weeks!

To join, click the appropriate link below (at the appropriate time ;) ). Bring your questions on any LSAT topic and ask the Sages!

Corey Office Hours

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/275546485

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States +1 (571) 317-3112

Access Code: 275-546-485

Allison Office Hours

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/382933861

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States +1 (872) 240-3412

Access Code: 382-933-861

I'm really stuck. I understand that the correct answer is A, but I can't diagram the logic out. I'm fairly certain it involves subsets, which has always thrown me. So if anyone knows how, please share!

So, I finally finished the curriculum and bought the LSAC copies of almost every PT. My initial intentions were to write 36, as per the study schedule, but I photocopied 35.

My diagnostic from 11/19/2015 was 150/159 BR.

I was at the Queen's University campus, had a logistical problem figuring out the photocopier and finding a space to study, the libraries were swamped. Where I picked to write was in the basement and there were students everywhere around me. I wore similar clothing to what I plan to wear on test day, ensured I had my usual amount of caffeine for that time of day, and reviewed my cue cards before writing.

Sat down, realized I forgot a scantron, went and printed a bunch of copies, plugged my headphones into my partner's computer, started the 5 section proctor video and set to try it.

Complete PT35 S1, S2, then my "experimental section" (PT16 S1 G1, PT17 S1 G2, PT27 S2 G3, & PT18 S1 G4), took a 15min break, then finished PT36 S3, S4. Initially I felt confident that I only remember some of the recent questions, and the experimental section went really well. I was only checking time by asking my partner to switch back and hover over the proctor screen. My timing was good, had time the review at the end of each section, I know it should be taken with a grain of salt because 35 was chopped up and fed to me slowly over the curriculum.

Scoring

PT 35

Scaled 168

Raw 87/101

86.1%, 95.8 Percentile

S1 -6 (LR), S2 -3 (RC), S3 -3 (LG), S4 -2 (LR)

Experimental Section

PT16 S1 G1 -0

PT17 S1 G2 -0

PT27 S2 G3 -1 (I guess my copy was missing Q !19 so I'll treat it like a missed bubbling or something)

PT18 S1 G4 -0

How should I feel about it? Turns out I missed 2 softballs on 35, but I think it was a good intermediary test before I write 36... Goal is to finish 26-30 PTs before I try to write in June.

I'm shamelessly copying this from the front page of reddit:

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01100/full

Owing to the sheer length of the article, I don't think it's helpful to attempt to read it all in one go. If you can manage the feat, you will still want to often revisit the article to jog your memory. Instead, try to read this in over 50 days. One misconception corrected per day.

Today, please read the intro and phrase #1 "A gene for"

[Intro redacted, please read on frontiersin.org. Text for phrase #1 copied below]

(1) A gene for. The news media is awash in reports of identifying “genes for” a myriad of phenotypes, including personality traits, mental illnesses, homosexuality, and political attitudes (Sapolsky, 1997). For example, in 2010, The Telegraph (2010) trumpeted the headline, “‘Liberal gene’ discovered by scientists.” Nevertheless, because genes code for proteins, there are no “genes for” phenotypes per se, including behavioral phenotypes (Falk, 2014). Moreover, genome-wide association studies of major psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, suggest that there are probably few or no genes of major effect (Kendler, 2005). In this respect, these disorders are unlike single-gene medical disorders, such as Huntington’s disease or cystic fibrosis. The same conclusion probably holds for all personality traits (De Moor et al., 2012).

Not surprisingly, early claims that the monoamine oxidase-A (MAO-A) gene is a “warrior gene” (McDermott et al., 2009) have not withstood scrutiny. This polymorphism appears to be only modestly associated with risk for aggression, and it has been reported to be associated with conditions that are not tied to a markedly heightened risk of aggression, such as major depression, panic disorder, and autism spectrum disorder (Buckholtz and Meyer-Lindenberg, 2013; Ficks and Waldman, 2014). The evidence for a “God gene,” which supposedly predisposes people to mystical or spiritual experiences, is arguably even less impressive (Shermer, 2015) and no more compelling than that for a “God spot” in the brain (see “God spot”). Incidentally, the term “gene” should not be confused with the term “allele”; genes are stretches of DNA that code for a given morphological or behavioral characteristic, whereas alleles are differing versions of a specific polymorphism in a gene (Pashley, 1994).

Hello 7Sage Users/Administrators,

I didn't know who to address this to, but as I am going through the course, I am finding that the comments section of the course videos is, most of the times, equally helpful as the videos themselves.

Some of the comments are very very helpful in understanding the material better. Most of these helpful comments are popular, given the number of "likes" that they have. However, some lessons have close to a hundred comments and it's difficult sorting through them to find the most helpful (or most liked). I was wondering if an update can be made to the comments section where users can sort them by "newest first" and "most popular". That way, the most helpful ones can be at the top and easier to find. Of course, some of the most liked comments are also humourous and thought provoking, which I wouldn't mind reading as well, hehe.

Well that was it. Back to the videos. Hope everyone has a nice day.

Someone I went to law school with just posted this to his facebook:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CfYleuDXEAA9HP2.jpg:large

don't think i am the only one torn between a few different possibilities right now, wondering how other posters are making their decision?

I've observed that my performance on a PT will affect my overall daily mood; if I have a good PT I'm ecstatic and have a sense of accomplishment, but if I score poorly it can throw a wrench in my entire week. Overall I'm very happy with the progress I've made, with a couple months left until test day I'm averaging my goal score, with time to still make improvements that should mitigate test-day anxiety, but I can't help but get bogged down by a single test or even a single section.

Today I PT'd the lowest I have in over a month, but only because my entire score was killed by a LG section with 3/4 games being In/Out, my biggest weakness. Even though I had my best LR section performance on the same PT, I feel like I've accomplished nothing. Contrasted with last week, when I scored my highest ever, I felt like I was on top of the world ready to take the June test by the horns.

I'm sure this is an issue that a lot of people here deal with, and I would be interested to hear how other's have dealt with this issue.

I got this one right, and I was able to easily eliminate C-E, but I don't understand how to eliminate B.

I spent a lot of time debating between A and B. I chose A as the right answer because if urban populations have doubled in the past decade then it does not indicate an increase deaths but rather indicates the population was the same amount of deaths as before SO it is not an increased amount of deaths proportionate to the death rate.

Can someone please explain B to me!? Thanks!!!

Hoooo boy do we have something special for you all this week!

Saturday, April 9th at 8PM ET: PT62

Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219480381

June BR Group Schedule: http://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/6171/june-test-takers-group-br-schedule-updated

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

You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.

United States +1 (571) 317-3112

Access Code: 219-480-381

Note:

Can someone explain why C is wrong? I don't understand the reasoning for it. I think B is correct because if the amount of child passengers remain the same, then it indicates less deaths.

Please, would like to see what suggestions from everyone would be on how to handle the resume length?

Hey All,

Can anyone help me with this question (PT27 S4 Q15). This one is confusing and bothering me at the same time.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-4-question-15

The passage says "It is often said that beauty is subjective. But this judgement has to be false..." From what I understand, the author is saying that beauty isn't subjective (meaning, your opinion will be different from my opinion about what we consider to be beautiful). We are asked to weaken this argument where the correct answer is "C" (Our own standard of beauty was strongly influenced by our exposure to works that were considered beautiful in other cultures").

Doesn't that actually strengthen the argument rather than weaken it? If my standard of beautiful art was shaped by what my art teacher thinks is beautiful art, then that means that I am just following her opinion and have no say of my own (therefore, my opinion is not subjective at all), which actually strengthens the argument.

I know I am missing something but am totally confused as to what it is. Any help would be appreciated :)

Been trying for several months to tie down logic games. Hasn't happened yet. I'm averaging about -3 on my last several preptests, but that belies big swings. For example, PT 60 crushed me, PT 61 was -0, and PT 62 was -6.

I don't know if I'm very good at diagnosing my own problems. The only trend I can maybe see -- and this might just be recency bias -- is that I struggle with open-ended and even slightly nonstandard games. For example, PT 62 game 2 is definitely a grouping game, broadly defined, but it's a weird one. Same with game 3 from that test. I've done literally every game ever published multiple times but I don't have the pattern recognition necessary to adapt on my first time through lots of games.

Is there any specific remedy for this type of thing? Should I just keep "foolproofing?" I don't want to keep banging my head against the wall if there's something more targeted I can do, because time is becoming precious for us June takers.

i was wondering what peoples thoughts were. Basically taking an acceptance from one school and show it to competitor schools in hopes of the competitor school to offer a better package to accept their offer instead. For example, im trying to get a 170 on the LSAT so i can get an acceptance letter from Vanderbilt. i would like to take that to another school thats maybe lower in ranking or in the same geographical area and see if they would offer me more scholarship/grant/stipens to accept their school instead. if its possible i would like to try it against schools such as Bama or Ole Miss (theyre all in the SEC) or maybe a school like Southern Methodist University. With the cost of law school as is and being from Canada, anything i can do to get as much of it paid by the school i go to i will. if anyone has tried doing this, how has that worked out for you?

When taking fresh PTs, I'm obviously interested in how long each logic game in the section is taking me so I can compare those times with JY's targets. I set my watch as usual, but use the stopwatch on my phone simultaneously, hitting "lap" after each game.

What strategies do you use to get this sort of data on your games? I wonder if anyone has any better methods.

Thursday, April 7th at 8PM ET: PT75

Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219480381

June BR Group Schedule: http://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/6171/june-test-takers-group-br-schedule-updated

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

You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.

United States +1 (571) 317-3112

Access Code: 219-480-381

Note:

Hello, all! I hope all is well.

I'll keep this brief: we're busy individuals, after all.

What I believe my question boils down to is this: how much influence does the university from which one earns their undergraduate GPA exert on the number itself? For example, if two students were to earn the same GPA - say, a 3.5 - from different academic institutions - say, one prestigious and one not - would these numbers be weighted much differently by law schools during the admissions process? Or is it the number itself that matters? Or, like all things, is it somewhere between the two and dependent upon the university to which one applies?

Thanks, all! I wish you all well. I'd wish you the best of luck, but you won't need it, and our aim is mitigate that, anyway.

Just wondering if anyone is doing additional problem sets outside of those included in the curriculum? I am feeling the urge to review previous question types as I progress through the course, to make sure I don't forget any of the skills (ex. currently learning about strengthening, but want to go back and do some MSS for practice/review). However, I don't want to waste any valuable LSATS...

And I wonder if this is even necessary since it isn't already factored into the course...

Let me know what you are doing/think. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated

Thanks! =)

Thanks so much to everyone who participated in our Sept BR polls! At this point we've got more votes than people who have expressed interested, so I feel confident the vote is in! We didn't reach much of a consensus on most items, so one more round of runoff voting and we should have everything nailed down and can release the official schedule. So here's the new polls, and as always, please feel free to tag anyone I missed or who you think might be interested.

@bjphillips5 @jennilynn89 @Skywalker @MrSamIam @Mitzyyyy @ericbarocio @nader.parham @Omed_OvO @learn2225 @lenelson2 @radsay @jessicalj @johanna.ea.greenberg @Mookittyy @kylereinhard @LostInLawLawLand @lois.s.ahn @jimenezja.jj @180pronto @CocoZhang @sweetsecret @LSATKingsman @katherine.t @kokobazooka @TheGreatRaymondo @nasphill @kelseyLV @"Purple Paris" @"Will Giron" @"Jonathan W." @"Jeong P." @"Keane Xavier"

So I'm going to have ~22 weeks to take PTs after I finish the curriculum this week. I want to take a reasonable amount of PTs, yet not over do it like how I did the last time I studied for this test (took December 2015 LSAT); I took 3 PTs a week, with crappy BR to follow and basically no time at all for drilling. I'd like to change that this time around. With that said, I have 10 fresh PTs (several in the 50's, 60's, and 70's) but also plan on re-taking other PTs. Here are my questions:

How should I go about planning my PTs? Should I start off with 1 PT per week then move on to 2 per week?

What PT # should I start at? Start from PT 41 and work my way up?

Just a heads up for you folks—Jimmy will be leading the BR call for PT62 on Saturday (8pm ET). More info soon—save the date!