ok people

@Jengibre and I and others will be READY to BR with you at 7pm ET tonight. Go take that PT. Add me on skype (nikkers625).

I feel like I am not grasping the fundamentals properly, I am rarely able to predict what the answer choice will be until I get to the answer choices, although I have this general idea of what could be wrong with the argument. I am also missing a ton of level 4 and 5 questions. After 4 PT's I have narrowed down my weaknesses to Flaw, NA, SA, and even though it does not happen often MBT questions. I want to add that even when I am BR'ing I don't I still lack the ability of choosing the correct answers for those questions. Do you guys think this is a fundamentals issue, or it is lack of experience since I have only done 4 PT's?

Hi everybody,

I am in desperate need of help with the RC section. The interesting thing about my progress is that it is getting continuously worse. Back when I first started reading comprehension passages, I didn't follow a specific method. I just read through the passage, underlined some important things, and moved straight to the questions. I would get between 2 and 3 wrong. I have subsequently tried the Memory Method and another methodology, similar to the Memory Method, but I would add the extra step of quickly skimming over the passage one more time before moving on to the questions. Unfortunately, both methods have not worked so well for me. On RC sections, I can get anywhere from 5 to 9 wrong.

I am not sure what is wrong, perhaps it is burnout or simply a loss of confidence, but no matter which of these three methods I try now, I end up doing poorly. Time is also an issue for me; I am a rather slow reader and it takes some time for me to process the ideas, especially in the times when my mind is not focusing optimally.

If anybody has been in a similar situation and has found a way out, or if you can offer any specific advice, I would really really appreciate it. The October LSAT is coming so fast, and I am in great need of finding the best method for me, even if it doesn't guarantee a perfect score on the RC section.

Thanks!

-Nastassia

Man, I got murdered on this PT (after completely destroying PT 38). I thought the RC and LR were nightmares on this PT. Anyway, I cannot figure out how C is better than A for this question. Here is my reasoning for this question:

This is a flaw/descriptive weaken question (specifically in S's argument).

R: If you are more diverse in experience, then the more you will understand the need for compromise. Therefore, to become a politician, a person should have a diversity of experience.

S: To be worthy of public trust, it's not enough to only have diverse experience. Such a person wouldn't necessarily be worthy of public trust.

What I am looking for: I know we only want S's flaw, but R is missing the link between compromise and becoming a politician. For S, she doesn't actually say anything. She pretty much goes "no, diverse experience isn't enough because it isn't enough." S also equivocates "becoming a politician" with "worthiness of public trust."

Answer A: How is this not it? S gives an opposite point of view (you don't need a diversity of experience) and she gives no reason for it (S gives absolutely no evidence; in my mind, S's second sentence is completely redundant of the first).

Answer B: S never talks about what is beneficial.

Answer C: How is possibly the credited answer? Yes, S attributes a view to R ("as you suggest"), but how is the second part of this answer choice correct? Where does S explicitly or implicitly say that the view is more vulnerable than what is actually expressed? I don't see anywhere where S remotely says something like "R, your belief about diverse experience is very vulnerable to critics."

Answer D: Personal vs. relevant? S doesn't mention this.

Answer E: Flexibility? S doesn't talk about this. Also, S doesn't actually talk about politics, only "worthiness of public trust."

Help much appreciated.

HI Folks!

I am looking for the previous post(s) that had a compilation of the hardest passages.

I am especially looking for hardest RC and LR.

Thanks a lot!

After multiple starts and stops due to family, I have covered the basics to prepare. I still have weaknesses in a few areas but feel confident in others. I would really like to expose all weaknesses under time constraints while not burning thru PT's while I am still learning through the BR process.

I started the LSAT journey haphazardly so I do not have a diagnostic, but the few PT's I have taken are 155-160, but no blind review as of yet for optimal knowledge of where I stand or as JY would say that it could have been "blind luck":)

My plan is 2 per week with thorough BR - thanks to everyone sharing their experiences to not burn-out. I am not sure that going sequentially is the best plan given the shifts in the later PT's (not harder, but different - thx again for all of the input). But, I am not sure it is wise to use more current PT's during this stage.

Fortunately, I started studying before PDF ban and have all PT's and JY's videos to make the process easier. My plan is to join as many BR group sessions as I can that do not conflict with family obligations.

For you that have been there - done that - what sequence would you advise to begin serious PT'ing?

I have been placed on academic probation (which relates back to medical issues) and therefore I have to write a statement. My question is (or rather idea) is that this statement should describe any affected periods in my transcripts and does not have to be creative like the personal statement... Is this the correct way to approach this character and fitness addendum?

Great 3 min clip to think about your day!

This question was included in the weaken drill and I can't seem to figure out the reason as to why D was the correct answer. Someone please help!

I usually take a timed PT and then do the whole PT again untimed (BR all questions). Afterwards I review the answers for all questions using LSAT Analytics. For explanations, I use JY's videos for the questions I got wrong in the BR, and I use Manhattan for the questions I got right. This process is taking hours upon hours.

I want to do 2 PTs a week but that's not happening with this process with a 3-4 hours/day LSAT study time allocation. I also desire to drill LR and follow @pacifico LG drilling technique.

Your advice is very appreciated

Hello 7sagers,

I'm currently finished with the curriculum and have taken 15 PTs with BR and I've plateaued around 157 with my BR as high as 171. One issue I have is the lack of ability to predict one or multiple predictions, or even a general prediction before I reach the answer choices. I want to be able to predict the right answer choice and then be able to find the one I predicted and have it right there glaring in the answer choice.

I noticed reading the stimulus SLOWER has made it slightly easier to predict answers because reading it slower made it easier to grasp the understanding of the stimulus, but more times than not, I still can't predict answers the way I should be.

I've drilled almost all of the Cambridge sets and now just drilling practice LR sections. My goal is a 161 and I'm currently enrolled for the October exam. Any thoughts?

I'm having trouble with the following question from Superprep, A:

L: People's intentions cannot be, on the whole, more bad than good. Were we to believe otherwise, we would inevitably cease to trust each other, and no society can survive without mutual trust among its members.

Stem: Most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?

A (correct) - It fails to rule out the possibility that a true belief can have deleterious (harmful) conseuqences

My analysis:

The author claims that if we believe that intentions are more good than bad, we would cease to trust one another and as a result without this mutual trust we would not survive. We are surviving, so we must not have the belief that that intentions are more good than bad.

There is clearly a gap between believing and the truth of a statement, but I cant put my finger on the flaw. I would normally say that the flaw is that just because a belief can't be true, doesn't mean that the underlying element can't be true. This, however, doesn't line up with the flaw stated in A.

I actually understand C and how it is the answer, I am more confused around making sense of its meaning in a practical way, as it stands I need a way to understand how it was put it into practical understandable language (ie positive form) I watch the video and the answer choice was translated as : an ideal bureaucracy will always (never elminated) have (without eliminated) complaints about a problem that are not covered by regulation.

I'm just not sure what rules he was using to get here. Like when I come across these type of statements in the future, I need some method for dealing with them. Because I would have likely eliminated all the nots in the statement and I know it is wrong. Why did never become always instead of some times, and why did he elminate both without and never?

Would the negation test for this be:

an ideal bureaucracy will never have (without eliminated) complaints about a problem that are not covered by regulation.

or

an ideal bureaucracy will always/sometimes [not sure which one] (never elminated) have permanently without complaints about a problem that are not covered by regulation.

I have taken 3 PT's so far. For my BR I re-do the section without looking at the answers. Here is my problem.

I did not get to the last 4 questions during my test so I missed these and 3 others. On my blind review I got the last 4 correct and the ones I missed, but heres the catch. I missed 5 questions I got correct because I chose a different answer in BR.

What is the solution? Just study more? I am somewhat frustrated by this Lol.

Thanks as always. Hope I am the only one in the library tonight. Smoke a cigar/have a beer for me.

I got burned out and said eff the LSAT for two weeks... Now it's time to refocus and get back the momentum before gameday. The moral to the story is burnout is real. The End.

While struggling to study during the morning hours this week (for Oct 3rd), I had to wonder if anyone has taken LSAC to task for always offering the LSAT in the morning. I'm a night owl who usually doesn't conk out until the 11p-12a mark. This is my nature, even as a wee one. My "power hours" are most often in the afternoon.

That being said, for the other night owls out there, how are you preparing for test day? Are you going all in and temporarily resetting your circadian rhythm? Testing out various caffeinated concoctions in the morning (quite a balance between a quick boost and jittery-anxiety)? Surrendering to the wind?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-3-question-06/

I had some reservations in choosing answer choice C. I was able to eliminate all the others so answer choice C seemed most likely to be correct, but I wasn't 100% sure. The reason is that the premise states "The purse of a trader in the city "would probably" have contained a more diverse set of coins." and the C uses more definitive word, "had been brought". I think we don't know for a fact that it 'had been' brought by the pilgrims. It is a speculation. Since it is only a speculation that the purse would probably have contained a more diverse set of coins. I would think the correct answer would say "The purse... was probably brought . . . by a pilgrim."

Hey, folks,

I'm working on getting my application materials in anticipation of my October retake score and I've run across something on LSAC's website that I am not familiar with.

Can anybody give me more information about this "evaluator" business? It looks like you have the option to designate references as either recommenders, evaluators or both and that the evaluator option includes some sort of questionnaire.

I know that requirements vary but are these evaluations generally requested by schools? Should they be submitted even if not required by the law school?

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Do you know, @Pacifico ? You're generally our admissions expert.

hey everyone,

I'm curious about what a good mental warm-up would consist of on test day? Obviously, it's critical to conserve one's mental energy for the test. There are also those who require no warm-up at all. But, personally, I find it necessary to warm-up as it takes me time to regulate my focus. Any experiences/recommendations would be appreciated.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-1-question-18/

I am having trouble with these main point questions in general. It seems I always fall for the trap answer which is usually some kind of point just not the main one. In this one I picked C. I understand E matches that part of the passage after However, I just don't understand why it is the main point. The video explanation just kind of took it for granted that it was more clear that the first statement wasn't the conclusion. But it seemed to me that is what he was trying to convince me of and what the entire argument was structured around. The however part seemed more like it was supporting the first sentence.

I know it's only a *very* small sample size of 2 PTs, but how do I go about assessing my weaknesses?

My stats: -2 Avg. for LG... -11 Avg. for LR... -13 Avg. for RC

For LR do I go drill the question types that have a "higher priority"? Or is there another characterization that I should be looking at?

For RC I'm just going to keep doing passage after passage after passage to practice.

(Also, I'm thinking about just focusing on completing/devoting almost all of the allotted time to 3 passages while I'm PT'ing instead of all 4, would you advise against this?)

Is anyone experiencing a lack of consistency similar to mine? When I first started PT-ing I started strong with a 167, 168, then a 171. Against the advice of 7sage I was taking PTs everyday and consequently my scores started to fall, for about 8 exams my score was in the 164-166 range and then I hit a 160. At that point I decided I shouldn't be taking PTs everyday. I took a few days off, and then started on a one day on one day off schedule. When I got back I thought I had it figured out - PT 58 - 170, PT 59 - 173. Now I just finished scoring PT 60 and I got a 165. I respect the beast that the LSAT is, but I just can't seem to formulate the appropriate strategy to attain consistent test scores. I am doing proper BR and dissecting every question in my review. Any tips or pointers would be much appreciated.

During BR of the PTs, after I watch the video explanation, I sometimes would like to "star" the video so I can come back in a few weeks and watch it again. Is there a favorites feature on the videos? Right now, I am using an Excel spreadsheet to do this, but it doesn't seem to be very efficient.

I couldn't pick between A and D and finally chose A. But the answer is D.

I kept trying to find out why A is wrong, but I still don't understand why A can't be an answer.

If A is an assumption, I think it all makes sense at all just like D.

Why A is wrong and D should be an answer?

Please someone explain me.

Thanks!

I am wondering if there is a feature that gathers all "star" questions I selected. If there is, I would like to make use of the feature before the October test.

Thank you guys!