I usually finish all my sections in time. However, I rarely have enough time to check over my “starred” questions. The way how I skip is that if I feel that time is sinking, I choose one of the two or three answer choices left, after POE, and move on. I know that some people leave them blank, but I do not feel comfortable doing this. Normally, I star 5-7 questions per section, in which 3 - 4 questions end up being the right answer choices.

Recently, I watched Allison’s webinar on hitting 170+, and she talked about pushing yourself to allow at least 5 minutes at the end of a section (she was mainly talking about LR, but I feel that this could apply to RC as well) to go over the circled questions.

How does one go about doing this?

Thank you in advance!

Hey everyone,

So I decided to drill some full length sections of LR this weekend, now that I am done with the core curriculum and starting to PT. I did both LR sections from PT 1 only to find that there are no video explanations. Am I looking in the wrong place?

Hi guys.

This is my first post and I was hoping I could get some feedback as the June 2016 exam is approaching.

My background: I've take the LSAT officially three times. Yes, I know. The first two times were December 2013 and February 2014, both soon after I graduated college in May of 2013 and I was desperate to start law school right away. I took a course and just wasn't prepared. I held off and took the June 2015 exam and didn't do any better even after so much studying so I decided to put it off again for the following year.

Now, I've been studying for this upcoming exam for about six months and finally got my score into the mid 150s; my goal is 160. One day it just clicked and I became super motivated to simply practice and perfect the last few areas I could to attain my desired score. I was even able to figure out how to get a higher score than 160. However, I took an exam a few days ago and scored 147. Granted I was tired from a long day of work and days of studying but this has completely killed my motivation.

I've put this exam off way too many times I simply want to get it over. Putting this exam off for October will delay starting school for another full year.

So my question is, should I take this exam in June as planned being as though I am so near by desired score and if so, how do I regain my confidence?

Thanks to everyone who took the time to read and to those who take the time to reply. Best of luck!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-1-question-24/

I ran into some issues with a LR question on PT 70 S1 and would love some inputs from other students here. I chose E, which is the wrong answer, but I'm not at all sure why I am wrong.

For #24 (the Macro/Micronutrients question), the last sentence reads:

"To remain healthy in the long run, soils for lawns require the presence of these macronutrients and also trace amounts of micronutrients...which are depleted when grass clippings are raked up..."

Isn't this a conditional claim?

Healthy --> Macro + Micro, and

Grass Clips Raked --> Micro Depleted

Assuming that IF micronutrients are there, THEN it's NOT depleted (which is very reasonable to me), then taking the contrapositive, we can connect the two:

Healthy --> Macro + (Micro --> /MicroDepleted --> /GrassClipsRaked)

(Sorry for the visual representation. Couldn't get the format to look right. But Healthy is connected to Macro AND Micro, and Micro is itself connected to the rest of the chain).

So if you deny the last necessary condition, then you should be able to work your way back. So if Grass Clips are raked, then Micro Depleted, then /Micro (micronutrients are gone), then /Healthy.

I thought E communicated exactly this: "Homeowners who rake up their grass clippings are unable to maintain the long-term health of the soils in their lawns and gardens," which in lawgic is

Grass Clips Raked --> /Healthy

which to me is exactly as above. Where am I wrong?

I am having some difficulty on strengthening questions that do not use causal reasoning. I am getting nearly all the weakening questions right because I am in the mindset of contradicting the assumptions made in the argument. However, for strengthening questions, should I look for an answer choice that strengthens the underlying assumption? Alternatively, will an answer choice that only states the assumption strengthen the argument?

I am looking to find a place on 7sage (preferably a pdf document) that has all of the 9 valid argument forms written out. Is there a pdf of these? Thanks!

Hey everyone,

I've been on and off the 7Sage course for a while and am currently taking a live in person course near where I live and supplementing with 7Sage. I am scheduled to write in June.

I work 2 jobs basically equaling full time and am dealing with mental health problems and being properly medicated... So needless to say it's been hectic.

I've done a few PTs, my accuracy in LG is 90% but everywhere else I'm bombing it. My PT score is bouncing around 147-149 - I want to be in the high 150's or even 160.

Anyways, here comes the curve ball... My parents would kick my rear end if I changed my test date, only cause I live at home still and well, you know how that goes.... So I'm going to be essentially wasting away this LSAT chance. I keep telling them I'm not ready but noopeeeee I get the "you're 25, get your life together" talk.

I know a lot of you will say, postpone your test date! But I don't feel as if I have an option without causing family conflict. So, say I bomb this June test, when should I realistically plan to take the LSAT again? I'm thinking December to be properly prepared- but any advice welcome!

How do some of you do it? Balance everything, with prepping for this test?

Thanks so much.

Chels

Looking to confirm my thinking on the below. Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/or-but-not-both/

From this lesson:

Alan or Chris go to the park. (/A-->C)

And

Alan and Chris cannot both go to the park. (A-->/C)

I'm interested in diagramming these statements in relation to the third idea in the sentence, in this case "go to the park," as (P).

With "A or C go to the park" I would diagram as follows:

A-->P

C-->P

With "A and C cannot both go to the park" I would diagram as follows:

P --> /A or /C which can be diagrammed as P-->(A-->/C)

Now to link up the two statements:

A-->P-->(A-->/C)

I'm getting "If Alan goes to the park, then Chris does not go to the park."

Alternatively:

C-->P-->(C-->/A)

I'm getting "If Chris goes to the park, then Alan does not go to to the park."

Hey everyone!

I have pretty severe ADHD, which has led me to change my study habits for the LSAT quite a bit. @nicole.hopkins, @amanda_kw and I have been working pretty hard on really nailing the fundamentals of logic to improve our scores over the past several weeks, and it's been helping immensely. That said, there's still a lot to be done and as Jonathan said a few weeks ago, knowing logic like the back of your hand is crucial to scoring highly on the LSAT.

I've been studying up on mind-maps to help stimulate my creative side and find something that'll really make all of the logic lessons click for me. I'm finishing up the full logic map tonight, and will be doing two more over the course of the week: one for valid/invalid argument types, and one for LR question types.

I wanted to reach out and see if anyone would have an interest in me uploading these to share with anyone who might be more of a visual learner such as myself, or even if any of y'all have made mind maps that have worked for you!

It's happening again!

You obviously don't want to miss this.

Sunday, May 15th at 8PM ET: PT54

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:

Hey 7Sagers!

Question for you all - what's your trick to stay motivated throughout the study process? I've had to have some surgery done about two/three weeks ago, and have been MIA on here as well as in my studying, as recovery was tough and painful.

I'm trying to get back into my study grind, but found myself lacking energy and motivation (plus being spoiled from being on pain killers and watching TV and sleeping all day... woo me).

I'm also WAY behind my study schedule now. I was planning on joining the September BR group within the next week, but now I am only about halfway through the curriculum since I've lost so much time.

Where would you guys pick up at? I'm thinking about re-reading all of my notes that I've made throughout the course of the curriculum and just trying to pick up where I left off.

I'd love to join the BR groups and really don't want to miss out, but feel as if it's probably more important just to get through the core curriculum right now?

I just found a copy of PT74 I bought from CambridgeLSAT awhile ago. It looks like it's got 5 sections, with the 3rd section labeled as (PT-A) on the Answer Key page. There is no label to indicate whether this section came from another PT.

Are there more than 4 LSAT sections? Many different test centers get different combinations? Or am I missing something here?

Hello, I was wondering may I bring a silent stop watch to the testing center? I have accommodations that give me more time and to use an analog watch or the Perfect Lsat watch wouldnt be of any use, so I was wondering if it is possible?

I feel that this question categorizes more as a MoR, or MISC, than a Flaw/Descriptive.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-4-question-07/

Although we were determining the argument’s “flaw”, we had to choose an answer choice that summarized the attorney’s flawed “Reasoning”, not its actual flaw. The correct answer choice is exceedingly different from the normal flaw a.c.

If this question wasn’t categorized under flaw drills, I think more people would have gotten this answer correctly, especially because we’ve already established a strong foundation for MoR questions.

Regardless, I should be more careful by reading the question stem more meticulously.

Pseudo-Sufficient Assumptions with Sage Jimmy Dahroug

Friday 5/13 at 8pm ET

Sage Jimmy (173) will be leading an intensive on PSA questions (sometimes called "Supporting Principle" questions). There's been a lot of buzz about this question type recently so be sure to tune in!

To join the webinar, please do the following:

Pseudo-Sufficient Assumptions with Sage Jimmy Dahroug

Fri, May 13, 2016 8:00 PM ET

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

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/614923157

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States +1 (872) 240-3212

Access Code: 614-923-157

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.

"Diagramming on Gameboard: Two ‘not both’ Conditional Statements with Common Necessary Cond."

Hi 7Sagers,

In this game: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-3-game-2/

We have N ---> to both R and S

Why, when J.Y. fills up one of the ‘out group’ slots on the gameboard, does he say that "it doesn’t matter" of you fill the slot with N/R or N/S? I’m not sure I understand how these two conditional statements with a common necessary condition interact with each other. One of N/S AND one of N/R have to be in the out group, yes?

Thanks!

Bonus question: I’m also wondering why it’s best to solve this game by filling in the game board as J.Y. does, as opposed to filling in three slots for the L/M/R variables (two in, one out), or even splitting into three game boards, each with a single of those three variables out.

BR calls are great covering LR but RC does not really lend itself to a true BR process.

For me, RC is inconsistent varying on my ability to either parse out heavily convoluted text or to recognize the inferences within the passage. Given everyone's different backgrounds with different strengths, I am hoping to find a group to break down the weekly BR PT passages with a quick review of questions. Maybe macro summary of the passages mirroring the 8+ minutes we have per passage?

I know that I would greatly benefit from different perspectives on how to relate to a passage and gain wisdom from different thought processes on how to strategically read passages that are difficult for me.

If anyone is interested, please share any ideas of how to build a study group!

Hey,

So I'm taking the June LSAT. My LR score is great, LG is steadily rising, but my RC score fluctuates on a consistent basis. My plan was to take a PT from here on out, every day or at least every other day. But I really need to solidify my RC score. Any tips of advice on what to do here?

Anybody having issues getting to the webinar videos on a tablet? I can access them just fine on my phone and laptop. When on the tablet I click discussion and I'm immediately directed to the forum. I don't have enough time to select any other options from the drop down menu. When selecting categories from the righ hand side and then webinars I can only see the announcement for the webinars that were posted in the forum. I'm using a Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1. I found a link someone posted and I was able to access the videos from there. Just wondering if I can figure this out.

It seems to me that it is impossible to form a complete logical argument in which the key terms do not appear at least twice, and it also seems that every logical argument but one necessarily uses at least two terms. (The only logical argument that only uses one term is the "double negative," which states: "A," therefore "~(~A)," and I have never seen this in an LSAT stimulus.)

As far as I can tell, a complete LSAT question (by which I mean the stimulus plus the correct answer) must necessarily include at least two terms, and each of these terms must appear at least twice.

I may be failing to consider certain unusual question types that don't actually consist of logical arguments as such. If so, that might be the exception that proves the rule.

If anybody can provide an example of an argument (other than the "double negative" above) that has less than two terms, or refers to a key term only once, please let me know.

"Finding the conclusion" is as easy as riding a bicycle... and as hard, for struggling students.

I have noticed that the word "should" is as helpful as "thus" or "therefore" when it comes to finding a conclusion. Unlike the typical conclusion keywords, "should" appears in conclusions because conclusions tend to be recommendations, predictions, and judgments. (See Kaplan's list of six conclusion types for more on this.) "Should" can be used for all three of those sentence forms.

Sometimes "should" appears in a premise as well as the conclusion. This routinely happens in moral arguments (we should obey the law, the law says drive 55, therefore we should drive 55). While it is possible to use "should" in a premise but not in the conclusion, I have yet to find example of that happening in a published LSAT question.

As usual, I'm looking for criticism (constructive or otherwise) and counterexamples. This may not be a big deal for you folks who have been riding your bicycle for years, but it's a small step forward for the folks who are still on training wheels.

As I've finished the curriculum, I'm beginning to heavily invest my time in fool-proofing. My big question is: should I drill extensively on categorized games (i.e. grouping, sequencing, in-out) or should I take a broader random game approach?

I worry that I'd lose some of the practice I'd gained in grouping games if I spend a few weeks on sequencing games specifically. It also just seems easier to start with PT 1 and go in order rather than sorting through all my PT PDFs for the right game at the right time.

I plan to first work by way through all LGs from 1-36 and then move onto more recent LG's once I've taken the clean PT.

Thank you for your thoughts on this! :)

My logical reasoning was terrible, and I ran out of time for games. Has this happened to anyone else?

A throwaway account to stay anonymous. I want to thank @"J.Y. Ping" @"Jonathan Wang" @"Alan Cheuk" @"Dillon A. Wright" also all 7Sagers I was in touch with in the past year and a half. As an ESL person, my road was extra rough. I hated the LSAT, and I still hate it. So without all your help and encouragement, I wouldn't be where I am today.

In a year and a half, I have improved more than 20 points (yes it is doable), 138 to 162 (Feb write). So many things suffered in my life, but I did it guys :) I studied almost every day, and the road was very bumpy. I did the LSAT twice, December, where I was screwed up by the third game and February where I did better. I was the type of people who wanted -0 in games (obviously, an ESL person), so when I don't do well in games my other sections suffer. The rule was always not to let previous questions affect your upcoming ones, but I couldn't follow that :) So I didn't do well in December.

I would be lying if I say 7Sage was my only prep material, but it was the only course I took. It provided me with the foundation and the mindset. Most of my improvement was through it. I also used The Trainer, PowerScore LR, and another random book which is not one of the known ones. Trust me, I even read LSAT for Dummies. My LG was solely through 7Sage. My PowerScore LG is untouched. Frankly speaking, I even skipped LG in The Trainer.

Here is the good news. I received an admission to my top-choice school, Osgoode, in Canada, and I am beyond thrilled.

Cheers to all of you,

P.S. @"Dillon A. Wright" You have a great customer service. Thank you for freezing my account. I will message you shortly from my real account to unfreeze it and let it rest in peace :)

Hey everyone!

Here's a question that's been on my mind for quite some time. I've long been contemplating the various school's I'm going to apply to (knowing that my final LSAT score is going to be the deciding factor on this). I know everyone says to apply to a reach school in the state you want to practice, but I personally would most likely practice wherever I go to law school. I don't feel tied down anywhere, and am very much open to moving and exploring life in another area.

Now with that being said, I have a friend that is starting law school at Tulane this year. She's lived in Louisiana her whole life, and does not plan on ever moving to a different state (but never say never, right!!). Now, for people that would like to eventually move later in life (perhaps after the 5 year reciprocity period is over), what is your opinion on being a lawyer in LA? I love New Orleans (actually have family/friends there) and am interested in applying to Tulane. Since LA is a civil law state and the rest of the US are common law states, would staying and practicing law in LA actually be detrimental to a law career if you decide to move to another state later on in life?

Just something I've been very curious about.