Hello everybody,

I was wondering if anybody could help clarify something for me.

I am currently reading chapter 18 on the trainer re: SA and P questions, and there are some exercises and lessons on the conditional indicators covered early on in the 7sage curriculum. Mike Kim states that "unless" is used as a necessary indicator (vs. J.Y negate - sufficient method) and that "no" is a sufficient indicator (vs. J.Y negate - necessary method).

Example: "No duck likes water". My translation using 7sage method would be:

"No"= negate necessary category

2 idea's: Ducks; (liking) water

translation: pick and idea, negate it, make it your necessary condition

=> W --> /D

Mike Kim's answer is = D --> W.

Am I butchering the simple translation rules? Translating and "seeing" the logic, is something I feel that holds me back from progressing through the logical reasoning section/question types.

Thanks everyone.

As I've been doing more and more practice sets and going through problems showcased in the tutorial videos, I've started to not just read things like answer options in the order that they're listed when going about answering a question. For instance, when doing some practice RC questions this morning, I would read a question and then skip down to, e.g. answer E and work my way up to A rather than to read starting from A and go down to E. I don't think I started doing this for any particular reason other than sometimes I would get frustrated by the first few options and would want to see if I could find something better lower, but then I started to think that possibly this could insulate you from the tricks that the test occasionally throws at you such as putting really tempting answer options at the beginning or right before the actual answer at the end.

I'm just wondering if this is a viable strategy (or worst case just neutral) that could be useful to do when taking the test. I can't really think of any downside seeing and the upside would be that (I assume) LSAC assumes most people read from top to bottom and would thus try to design tricks that way. I also wonder (but haven't actually tried) if this kind of strategy would apply to doing individual questions too. Problem I see with that is that it could get cumbersome time-wise to be skipping around so much or starting from the end and coming forward (especially if the questions increase in difficulty towards the end, causing you to waste time on less questions).

Anywho, just wanted some thoughts on this. It seemed kinda helpful initially but just wondering if it could be a problematic strategy or what you think.

Surprisingly I am very strong in LR sections and I almost always get these right. The problem is I don't know why. Lol. Intuitively I guess I understand the question stem well but I feel as if I do not even after getting it right. I think I am confused about how I am using the flaw to derive at the correct answer.

When answering these questions I read the stem first, identify conclusion and support and then the flaw. But I don't think I actually use the flaw to get the right answer unless I am doing so sub-consciously. Is a strengthening question simply a matter of making the flaw "work" in the argument so that the conclusion of that argument is valid or more likely to be valid?

In weakening, it is the reverse so is it a matter of exposing the flaw and using it to make the "holes" in argument more noticeable so that the conclusion is invalid or less valid?

I guess I shouldn't freak out since I only get one or two wrong. But I am using the trainer and trying my best to incorporate Mike's train of thought to avoid loopholes in my fundamentals later.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-2-question-17/

This question was very confusing to me because I couldn't understand what assumption they could possibly be making.

I originally chose E. On BR, I chose E again. I chose E because of the statement "no nation should be required to assume the burden of enforcing a decision it found repugnant", so I thought the Council must have assumed E, "decisions reached by a majority of nations in response to threats to world peace would be biased in favor of one or more major powers." Because then there would always be a world power who didn't find some particular decision repugnant to enforce that decision.

But the correct answer is B. Of course, after learning the answer, I could make an explanation for why it worked: if there's a newcomer in the world powers club, then the burden of maintaining world peace would no longer rest on the world's major powers (only some of them), which goes against the intentions of the Council.

I'm still unsteady on this question.

Hello All,

I finished 7Sage's curriculum and now working on The Trainer. I see how they complement each other. I have an essential question and very appreciate your input. I am having difficulties finding the flaw after isolating the argument.

After you isolate the argument, do you sit and critically think of a scenario on when this premise doesn't support this conclusion? J.Y. does it all the time and so as Mike Kim, but I fail to do so. Most of the times I rely on the answer choices to lead me on the line of thoughts.

Using my small brain to come up with a dumb example:

"Louis is carrying a cup of water; hence, he is thirsty."

How would you go about the thought process?

The way I try to approach questions:

1- I think: carrying a cup of water doesn't mean he is thirsty (I just try to fail the argument).

2- Why the hell is he carrying a cup of water then? Ummmm, in my case I stop at this stage most of the time. Do you guys think: Oh he probably wants to water the plants. (I don't usually come up with a scenario and even when I come it is in many cases wrong.

I bought Cambridge LR recently and started with Flaw questions. I am doing them untimed and trying to stay on each question many minutes to dissect it inside out, but I think this is wrong too. I am not supposed to pay a lot of attention to the context info but concentrate of the argument only.

I very appreciate your help

im looking to buy the starter package ($179) but thinking if I get into this I should really get the ultimate or ultimate+ package to get the best materials. Can you upgrade between packages when you're ready for the difference ($549 - $179) or is it the sum of costs if you do this approach?

So, despite my confident suspicion that 7sage pwns PowerScore, I still bought the LR Bible cuz it was "only" $40 bucks. But, after having read the first couple chapters, I am totes concerned. I have read multiple "How I got a 180" etc. articles, and a lot of those people used powerscore. Bless their hearts because dang doe. In two chapters I have gotten a lot of the basics which I guess are necessary for the first 2 chapters. But it seems that the way this book is mapped out, where its heading, is extremely inefficient and odd (categorization), though admittedly quite exhaustive. (Exhaustive at this point is what I am looking for. I have finished the Trainer and twas excellent, but I need some more detes on my weak question types).

Given my circumstance, am I going to benefit from the time I put into this book? I really do prefer book learning to video learning, for multiple reasons---time efficiency being one of them. I would like to keep the Trainer as my main template and incorporate detes from LR Bible. My LR is pretty low, too low to be honest about publicly. But I have only done one PT, and a lot will come naturally with practice and mental endurance. However, I would hate to establish bad habits in PTing or inefficient habits in theory with the Bible. I am taking the October LSAT and completely plan on 170 or 173 +, and I am studying more than full time.

Punchline: Do I continue with the LR Bible? will it give me new insights and the deh-tails I need to fill specific, tiny wholes in the Trainer, even if its overall structure is wackasblackcrackonthesalerack?

Hello all,

I'm fairly new to the forums and I have just learned about the MM and BR.

I have recently applied the MM to a RC section (pre-test 29) and followed all the directions carefully (e.g. 3.5 minutes reading, 1.5 min memory, etc.). In addition, I've applied the BR after I've completed the RC section in order to gain further insights to errors I have made while using the MM. My results in the MM were low (12/27) and I didn't have a chance to tackle 10 questions due to timing. After the MM, I started to BR and my results only improved by one (13/27). I took my time, tried to justify my answer and reasoning behind it, etc.

I noticed that there wasn't much improvement. This the first time I have used these methods and was wondering if these results are normal after the first application? Am I approaching the questions wrong? Am I have trouble understanding the questions? Does time play a huge factor?

I'd also like to note that when I do RC untimed I usually get around 75-80% right. What do you folks think?

Feedback is much appreciated! :)

Sorry for all of my recent posts. If 7Sage charged $10 a post JY would be able to take an extra vacation this year on me.

I was going to shoot for the October LSAT. I did a few PTs last week and didn't improve from my 148 diagnostic. Safe to say, more work was needed.

My solace was deciding to shoot for the December test instead of October. The extra two months alone lifted a huge weight off me.

However, if I can improve my skills by August 1st, I may still shoot for October. My questions is, is 2 months enough for the PT stage? I own a business so am slightly blessed with the luxury of being able to wrap my work up my Noon and devote the rest of the day to LSAT work. So 7/8 hours a day is no problem.

Any thoughts? Should I stick with December or is October still a possibility?

Thanks,

Jim @ the point of confusion

Reusing Lsats from 2-3 months ago has really helped me to consolidate all of patterns of the LSAT and trick answers that we commonly see. I can honestly say I don't remember too many questions but it feels as if blinders have been taken off my face and I am able to really understand the depths of the LSAT. Blind reviews help a lot but this process allows me to see the extent of my potential. There are a couple questions I would never get right under test conditions but it has helped me solidify my strengths.

To date I have been through 7Sage twice, the Trainer twice and Manhattan LR twice; my conditional logic principles are strong but I fall apart when seeing it in the form of a written stimulus.

Getting the text translated is fine, but the trouble is working through the "process" of the logic from that point forward.

I think I need to consider other resources out there. Has anyone uncovered anything that helped them in this area? There's boundless virtual beer available to anyone who can assist!

Thanks in advance,

Jimmy the logical reasoning nemesis

I recently posted about this I think.

I found the LSAT Trainer was a really helpful resource and I saw vast improvement in my score, but.... now I feel as if, as I'm moving up in LSAT #..... I am again lagging in Reading Comprehension.

I think, to improve, I have to change my method or tweak my method.

How do you study for Reading Comprehension? Right now I'm going through past LSATs (just did #40) and drilling the full 4 passage section. I am then going through and circling the ones I am not sure on, going back to try and find support for the answer, and then correcting.

Should I go through EACH question? and not just the ones I felt were wrong? should I re read the entire passage again?

What do you do?

PT70 BR Tonight at 8:30pm ET

Well, well, well. We finally hit 70. Just add 100 to that and everyone be happy, happy, happy (within +/- 5 points or so).

Note on all groups

Does anyone know how 7sage assigns the difficulty ratings for questions? Also, when you look at the answers for a question, there are percentages associated with each answer choice. How are the percentages calculated? Are they based on the 7sage students who have submitted responses to those questions?

About a month ago I purchased the 7Sage Law School Prep Course and got a bit of the way through it. At the begining it's mostly Larry, (the instructor) explaining how law school works and breaking down any misconceptions about how law school actually works. I've had the luxury of knowing individuals in 3L at the law school I intend to go to, explain to me how law school works. Larry is pretty spot on with most of it, but then again, I may have just totally ignorant of the obvious, as I let the LSAT consume me for the better part of a year. It was only $99 and I fully intend to finish the course, but will it help me? Some people say they did nothing before law school (including the 3L I spoke to about law school, in fact, she TOLD me to just enjoy my last summer). I'm just worried about issue spotting, and Larry REALLY emphasizes the importance of being good at it. If I want to be ahead of everyone in my class, the sooner I can issue spot better than most, I'm ahead of the game, right? I know it sounds sadistic, but I'm just thinking about my future! I know most of you guys are still studying the LSAT and haven't looked past that, yet. If anyone has more knowledge/opinion, please don't hesitate to respond! Love you all!

Mostly a question for those who are on the fence between law and another career field. Took the LSAT in June, got a 174, pretty pumped. However, my GPA is weak in comparison (~3.4) so im wondering if its even worth it to pursue law school given the costs and the fact that I still probably wont get into a top school even with my score. Tempted to just go into finance (what my degree is in) and abandon law school or maybe wait a couple years and then go. Anyone else is a similar boat? How did you decide?

I'm spending 3-4 hours/day on LSAT. By the time I'm done with LR and some RC blind review and 7sage curriculum, I have little time left on LG. If you have a good time management tip on giving LG the proper time to study, please let me know. My LG is 60-70% accurate, so it needs a lot of work.

Logic games are 2 pages per game now, with the first page being occupied by the game rules, etc and the first question. The second page contains the vast majority of questions per game (usually at around 6 questions). Now, before starting those questions, one has to draw the game board. But on which page? Drawing it on page 1 not only gives you ample space but would allow your diagramming to be very close to the written rules themselves, perhaps ensuring more accuracy in diagramming. Drawing it on page 2 however, allows the game board to be near the bulk of the questions with less page-flipping and eye-scanning, ensuring greater accuracy in the questions.

So on which page do you draw your game board? Personally, (and this is going to sound somewhat ridiculous) I've begun folding the first page in half vertically and drawing on page 2. This allows me to be near the written game rules and draw on page 2 at the same time. Do you think my technique is stupid? Is there a more efficient (and accurate) way to do this?

Awesome course so far! Just a couple of questions:

1. I am a mature student. If my marks from my early school career were less than stellar, should I consider applying in this (mature student) discretionary category?

2. How does taking the LSAT during the December sitting compared with the October sitting affect law school applications?

Thanks so much.

I have a 3.3 GPA (I know) and unique softs (international WE for a MNC and I teach Legal English at an international law school) but I would really like to target T14 schools. This is my 3rd time taking the LSAT (took it twice in 2013) and frankly I am feeling so frustrated because each time I took it I scored lower than practice exams. This time I was BRing in the low 170's and PTing in the high 160's. I also just received a promotion at work so I am expecting more work and travel in the near future so I don't know if I will be able to study as hard as I did for the June exam. I guess my question is this: at what point to you make peace with your LSAT score and move forward?

So in this sentence which is the sufficient and which is the necessary? "The only kids with green eyes are the ones who wear red shoes." In this sentence, which is the S and which is the N? "Kids with green eyes are the only ones who wear red shoes."

Ok so I am currently doing my masters in counseling. Long story short I got into this field because it was "convenient". I always wanted to go to law school but always had an excuse (im too old, too expensive, too long) I enjoy my field but I think about law school all the time!

I am 27, my gpa for undergrad is 3.4, gpa for grad school is 4.0 first year 2nd semester.

Should I take a "leave of absence" from my masters and aim to study for the December LSAT? I have a lot of student loans and I would like to get a scholarship for law school. I am aiming for Seton Hall or Rutgers Newark (NJ). What LSAT score would I need with my gpa? Do they even look at my MS gpa?

Also would you even bother with law school, or just continue with my masters? Im sorry for all the questions, I am really confused and would like some opinions!

Thank you

I took the June LSAT abroad so I only got the test results this morning. Scored a 170, which I'm pretty happy about, but I'm thinking of retaking in October anyway. I have a 3.5 GPA from a prestigious liberal arts college, and have worked abroad for 2.5 years at a MNC until I quit in April to study full time. My dream school is Columbia so I was going to retake no matter what, but then I started reading some posts about retake decisions elsewhere and began to have doubts. (170 is already a solid score, etc.)

I did about 51 PTs total and averaged around 171 overall with lowest at 164 and highest 176. On more recent ones I averaged around 172, which is where I'd like to be after the retake. Granted, I'm glad I pulled off a 170 and it's more or less how I've been doing, but I would also love to increase the score to compensate for my GPA.

Am I being unrealistic/too optimistic about this? Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

JY says you have the same subject in both parts of the sentence that has "the only." Ex. The only kids with green eyes are the ones with red shoes." But, what about this sentence. "The only way to New York is through Florida." Way to New York is not the same as through Florida???

Does anyone know what character and fitness flaws are dealbreakers?