I know it might sound obvious but I want to know your take on the fact that when a question states "If J in two..." we can take J2 at the very least as a CBT; I write them down in corner of my paper so they might come handy in answering rest of question and sometimes they helped eliminating answer choices in other questions in games from bundle (PT 1-35).

Do you think writing them down is a wise use of time? Have you seen such instances in recent games or this just happens in old games?

Hi all

I searched the forum and turned up some posts about new problem sets from about a year ago, so my apologies if this question is answered elsewhere.

First, I was wondering if there was a way/would it be beneficial to know the supposed difficulty of problem sets before we take them. I understand that the difficulty increases from the first to last problem set of a section, but is it possible, for example, to know that problem set #3 out of 10 is on average a "medium" difficulty? I would like to be know that without having to open up the answer key. Or perhaps there is a reason we only see the relative difficulty after taking the set?

Second, how is the difficulty ranking in the question bank determined? I remember seeing something about it being the results from 7Sage members. How is that data gathered and is it a good indication of general difficulty?

Thanks!

How do you translate this rule...?

K is evaluated either at some time after M or at some time before T, but not both.

Thanks for the help!

I'm at the point where if I get any wrong with LGs, it's almost never due to a misunderstanding on the game itself - consistently -0 through -3.

Upon BR, I am 100% on LGs without question (and capable of easily showing it), but my problem is that with this section because it's as visibly deductive as it is, I have a lot of confidence as I go through so I don't have the same luxury of knowing which to spend extra time at the end checking like in RC and LR.

Does anyone have a good method for quickly checking correct answers or knowing which to check by their nature with time left over at the end of the game to minimize these types of mistakes - given that I'm always understanding the game itself quite well?

Seeking others, close to175 range, to join our informal yet focused BR group..

Most Strongly Supported with Sage Corey Janson

Friday 5/20 9pm ET

Back by popular demand (y'all are practically beating the door down on this one). Corey gives us round 2 of his most excellent MSS intensive this Friday!

Does this look familiar?

This is how a lot of people feel about Most Strongly Supported questions.

Sage Corey will guide you across this scary bridge in his MSS Intensive webinar.

To join the webinar, please do the following:

MSS with Corey

Fri, May 20, 2016 8:00 PM - 10:00 PM CDT

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

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/701297733

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States +1 (872) 240-3212

Access Code: 701-297-733

Note on all webinars: Only the live webinars are free and open to the public. No recordings will be made publicly available, but we do make webinar recordings available to 7sage's students as part of the paid course. So if you want to get some great webinar content for free, be sure to attend the live version. Furthermore, any recording or broadcasting of webinars is strictly prohibited (Periscope, screencapture, etc.) and constitutes a violation of LSAC's copyright. Copyright infringement is not a good way to start a legal career.

https://copyright.lib.utexas.edu/copypol2.html

The requirements could easily be met to satisfy Fair Use prerequisites.

Seems to me all we need to say is that we aren't taking the tests, but reviewing them for educational and learning objectives.

I've been stuck in the 175-177 range for the past 15ish practice tests. Any advice on moving up to a 180? I've been getting anywhere from 0-3 wrong total LR and 0-3 wrong RC. Sometimes I get a 178-180 but it's infrequent because I keep getting a couple wrong in both LR and RC. Tips from others who've moved up to the 178-180 range? What helped you to improve on LR and RC? Thanks!

Hi guys! Sorry for the redundant post but a few weeks ago I saw pinned on here (maybe at the top?) a compiled list of recommendations on where to buy prep tests. I can't seem to find it now. Can anyone steer me in the right direction? Thanks!

Have any of you found the older PT's helpful to take as in pre-2007? I have done the June 2007 and then PT's 62-70. I have the book for Pt's 52-61 then practice tests 75,76,77 and am ordering 72-74. I just wonder if its beneficial to get the older ones too or just stick with the ones I have ?

Note: Please bring your questions!

Exciting news: Sage Allison (173) will be offering FREE LSAT office hours again this week. (5/25)

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

Office Hours with Allison (6-8 PM ET Wednesday)

1. Please join my meeting.

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

2. Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone.

Dial +1 (872) 240-3412

Access Code: 382-933-861

Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting

Meeting ID: 382-933-861

I postponed my test until September instead of taking the June one so I have time to study. I steadily increased in my score for the first 9 or so practice tests and made it all the way up to a 162. Now my last three scores respectively have been 156, 153, 153..... I don't know if its the stress or anxiety or what it is but I am now performing so much worse then before. The arguments section I usually am amazing at, and now I am getting so many wrong. Is this normal/what do I do about this?? Any advice for improving on the reading comprehension because that section I never seem to get better at.

Getting pretty close to June and a wee bit closer to September.

Never fear! Guided BR Group is here.

Saturday, May 21st at 8PM ET: PT74

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

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:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-2-question-12/

Hey 7Sagers, I just did this question and did almost everything right, but ultimately chose (E). I understood there to be 2 gaps,the first between: ~being able to tell ulterior motive——>~possible to tell whether an action is moral/ and the second gap being: ~being able to tell an action is moral——> should evaluate the consequences > morality. I took the last link in this chain (should evaluate the consequences) as the major conclusion. So I pre-phrased my answer to anticipate some iteration on the second link (or it’s contrapositive), thinking that what I wanted to build towards with the selection of a principle is something that would allow the major conclusion to properly stand.

Like several other 7Sagers, I usually write down why I am eliminating answer choices. I recognized (A) as the contrapositive of the first gap and didn’t eliminate it at first. B-D introduced new ideas or something we didn’t need. I eliminated (E) with my notes reading “Not what I need.” I recognized (E) as wrong, but (A) as simply something restated, So opted (with reservations) for (E). I now know a glimpse of what it must feel like to score 40 points but lose the game hahaha. I did almost everything correct and understood what was going on, but didn’t get the correct answer. :(

My questions about this question are the following: If we are asked to find something to “justify the reasoning,” wouldn’t any choice that leaves one of the 2 gaps unfilled not really “justify” much? I mean, I get that it says “most,” but aren’t we at least looking for something that justifies the Major Conclusion rather than some subsidiary minor premise/major premise link? Are there any sufficient assumption/pseudo sufficient assumption questions (that you are aware of) in which we will be forced to choose between bridging the gap between a minor premise/major premise at the behest of bridging the gap between a major premise/major conclusion? Are there questions in which adding a sufficient assumption or principle to the wrong gap nets the wrong answer?

I'm curious if anyone has a good way to handle group 3 indicators "unless" or "until." In English these are often used to heavily imply an EXCLUSIVE or relationship, but in logic they only give us an inclusive or.

Example: I will go golfing (G) unless it rains (R).

Applying our group 3 translation rules strictly, we arrive at: "/R --> G" and the contrapositive "/G-->R"

Translating the above statements back into English,

"If it is not raining, I will go golfing," and "If I am not golfing then it is raining."

That is fine. The trouble comes when you try to reason from the fact that it is raining. In our common understanding of the above original statement if we knew it was raining, then we would be inclined to say the person is not golfing. However, that is not correct based on our translations.

More frustrating is the idea that this person could be golfing in the rain as nothing prevents R AND G from being together. That is the essence of inclusive or and is the possibility that is implicitly ruled out in our natural reading of the statement. Obviously, we can't apply a conversational implicature on the LSAT and we have to obey a strict logical understanding. I can easily imagine a question giving us the original statement and then supplying an answer choice that says "It is raining, therefore you are not golfing."

I would be grateful if anyone has a way to explain the possibility of the inclusive or outcome in the original statement by giving an example in which this person could be golfing in the rain and such outcome is acceptable.

Logically I understand the possibility, but making it more intuitive by having an example in mind would greatly help.

--

It's interesting to note that the implicature of exclusive or seems to be most strong in statements of "until" involving time and "unless" involving things such as the weather. The possibility of an inclusive outcome is easier to understand on a different example.

I will be angry (A) with you unless you clean your room (CR).

/A --> CR "If I am not angry with you, then you cleaned your room"

/CR-->A "If you did not clean your room, then I am angry"

I believe we all still see the possibility that I could be angry with you and you cleaned your room. Maybe you didn't do your homework, etc. That makes it fairly obvious that we can't conclude the condition of your room from my anger. I'm wondering what that "other 'cause'" might be for the golfing example.

Thanks!

What happened to the logical reasoning videos for these PTs? Why have they been removed?

Hi guys,

I am taking the Sept Lsat. I am a LLM grad. majored in international business law in D.C. Now I am working in mid-town for an international law firm. I am finding an enthusiastic, self-driving and well-discipline study partner to work together. Anyone want to study with me?

Thanks! Please PM me

Regards,

Joy

So you want to do BR group for PT73.

That's pretty much how it's gonna be. I'll be the Smithers to your Mr. Burns. How should you feel about that?

Saturday, May 14th at 8PM ET: PT73

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

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:

I am currently studying for the June 2016 LSAT and have been studying for 3 months. I desperately want a 170 on the LSAT but the last practice test I took I got a 162 missing roughly 4-6 questions per section. Is it possible to increase my score by 8 points in the next 24 days if I aim for 6-8 hours a day 4-5 days a week? And at least 1 hour every day? My practice tests have steadily increased beginning at a 149 then going from that to: 150, 152, 154, 154, 156, 162.

Listen to this as background music for this post:

Hey guys,

I want to share a method that I use in RC and that I have been teaching several of my students recently. RC is at least in certain instances designed to test your short term memory. To that end, there's a question type that seems to be designed to do exactly that. I've collected a few examples and have a method to recommend for approaching these questions.

Here's what I do with these questions.

Most of the time, only one AC rings a bell. And that's the right answer (barring hallucinations/clear over-inferences/reasons to eliminate an AC. I don't think I've ever had an AC that truly rang a bell that ended up being wrong).

Try this out for this QT and see where you end up. By focusing on what LSAC is testing on these QT's, you avoid the pitfalls of wasting time and misdirecting energy.

Hey folks,

Lately I've been meeting many other 7Sagers who are interested in pursuing a public interest legal career. This is my own area of interest, and in the course of getting prepared for school this fall I've learned a lot about the realities of this type of work and how to position yourself to do it. If I get enough interest on this thread, I'll host a webinar in a couple of weeks for any and all public interest folks.

As we do here at 7Sage, I want to both encourage everyone, and also help people consider if this is a feasible and realistic career path. With few exceptions, public interest career paths are tough, unconventional, and require flexibility and tenacity to break into.

Here are some topics we would discuss:

- What types of legal careers fall within the designation "public interest"?

- How to mitigate debt

- The importance of where you go to school

- What to focus on during school

- How to stay in public interest work for the long term

Interested?

Is there something I am perhaps missing in my studying? To just go over the lessons regarding logic games in the core curriculum takes a few days, and, unfortunately, almost every time I'm faced with a new game with no guidance it's as if I don't retain any of the information, and basically have to start out at square one - even though I've drilled many different games repetitively until I've "memorized the inferences" under the proper time time constraints. It's frustrating to think that despite spending entire days devoted to studying for the LSAT at times, I've essentially wasted my time and efforts because my performance doesn't seem to be improving with this section. Over the span of 3 PTs my score has only improved by 5 points, and I'm sure it's because logic games seem to be so inscrutable to me. I'm starting to feel that my energy on logic games is most likely futile at this point and I would have done better to just skip over it in favor of improving my skills with logical reasoning, which seems a lot more straight forward. I can't get that time back though, and now I'm most likely going to have to reschedule my LSAT exam for later in the year. Scheduling so soon was probably very overly optimistic. I just didn't think they would still be such a challenge after devoting so much time into them, I really expected to see an improvement. Any suggestions on what I can do beyond drilling games to the memorize inferences? Or suggestions as to why it's not seeming to work? It's very worrying because the concepts just seem to build and build on top of one another and I can't seem to develop much confidence. Even though there are identifiable types of logic games, they - so far - seem far from uniform, and I can't seem to get them down to a system although I've really tried.

Any help is appreciated.

I stopped studying for the LSAT back in January after a year of 8hr study days and little progress. I went through the Blueprint curriculum and read the PowerScore bibles, but never hit my target score. I've been thinking of getting back into it now that I have a full-time job, but I don't want to put my hopes into another prep course if it won't deliver. What different things in LR and RC does 7sage offer that the others don't exactly?

Thanks,

Do y'all know what the deal is with glasses? I'm wearing glasses (just regular ones, not sunglasses) in my picture, but I don't plan on wearing them on test day.

Should I resubmit a picture without the glasses?

Hi everyone,

At the end of this long journey of applying to law school, I've had the misfortune of second-guessing myself. I got accepted with no scholarship at NYU, but in the past few days the thought of incurring so much debt has felt daunting. I'm not horribly debt averse, but sticker price just seems overwhelming. My goal is to pursue a career in public interest law, so NYU has been my dream school for the past two years. I thought I could do BigLaw for 2-3 years, pay down as much as I could in that time, and then transition into public interest. With NYU's generous LRAP program, I thought I'd be able to handle the remaining debt. But as @"Jonathan Wang" stated in a previous post, 10 years is an extremely long time and my interests and goals could change drastically in the meantime.

With strong softs and an acceptable GPA, I'm confident that the only reason I haven't been offered financial aid at NYU and have been waitlisted at my other top choices is because of my LSAT score.

I had originally planned on applying to law school in 2014, but postponed in order to re-take the LSAT. Now I'm wondering, should I continue working another year and re-take and re-apply in the fall? I think I'd need to increase my score about 4 points in order to get generous financial aid from Chicago/Columbia or get accepted into HYS.

When I took the LSAT last time in October, I felt like I hadn't reached my full potential on the LSAT. However, I'm afraid that taking the LSAT a fourth time is very risky; what if my score decreases, stays the same, or only increases one or two points? Should I just count my blessings and go to NYU this fall?

What do you guys think? You guys have always been supportive and helpful in the past; any thoughts/advice would be greatly appreciated :)