Proctors: Three each time. In December, they were a bit too chatty for my liking; tried a bit too hard to be funny. In February, the proctors were brief, concise, quiet, and even used their own electronic stopwatches to get the time accurate to the second.

Facilities: Includes cloak room and very nice bathrooms. Nice heaters. Large desks and comfortable chairs. No vending machines. Not sure if they have water fountains either. Two clocks in the room but would still recommend a wrist watch as you may be too far from the clock. In December I got to choose my seat; in February, seats were assigned by the proctor.

What kind of room: Classroom-esque

How many in the room: I think it was 5 X 5

Desks: Nice, spacey, and comfortable

Left-handed accommodation: No need. Desks are spacey.

Noise levels: Not loud.

Parking: Not sure. Well connected to public transportation though.

Time elapsed from arrival to test: In the December test, it took 30 minutes for everyone to get registered, and then 30 minutes for instruction. In February, only 15 minutes or so for registration. Same for instruction.

Irregularities or mishaps: None.

Other comments: There was one little mouse going in and out of a corner during the February test, but I think I was the only one who saw it. The building itself is fairly new though.

Would you take the test here again? For sure.

Date[s] of Exam[s]: December 2015, February 2016

Proctors: Four proctors, two women and two men. The woman actually reading the exam instructions was a terrible reader - she was tripping over every other word, which was terribly distracting. I'm just glad I had used the 7sage proctor and was already familiar with the spiel, otherwise it would have been unnecessary stress.

Facilities: Took place in one of the newest buildings on campus, CCIS. Gorgeous building, great rooms and big tables.

What kind of room: Large theatre-style lecture hall (all four rooms)

How many in the room: ~75-100

Desks: Bench-style desks with pull-out chairs. Lots of room to work.

Left-handed accommodation: N/A, bench-style desks.

Noise levels: low.

Parking: ~$5 for the full testing time, or less depending on where you parked. Public transport available.

Time elapsed from arrival to test: 45 minutes, proctors were slow to check people in.

Irregularities or mishaps: None!

Other comments:

Would you take the test here again? Yes - but I don't have to :)

Date[s] of Exam[s]: December 5 2015

Proctors: Two at the front of the room.

Facilities: In the basement of the University Community Center. There's around 5-6 rooms in total, all full.

What kind of room: in basement, but bright and spacious. Air conditioning can be a bit cool so layer up.

How many in the room: around 20

Desks: around 15

Left-handed accommodation: not sure

Noise levels: Low in the room. But also depends on the people taking the test with you.

Parking: Paid parking available in the back of the community center.

Time elapsed from arrival to test: 30 min. Test administered on time.

Irregularities or mishaps: None, except for proctor whispering to coordinate test procedure. Also, proctor was unfamiliar with procedure (she thought we couldn't go back to a prior page in the same section) so future test takers, please be familiar with the procedure.

Other comments: Lots of people (70+), so can be crowded during registration. If you're a student from uwo, very likely to bump into people you know, if you care about that.

Would you take the test here again? Yes.

Date[s] of Exam[s]: December 2015

Hi folks,

I'm currently on the section of our syllabus that requires us to draw valid conclusions. I can't seem to figure out why/when to fail sufficient and necessary conditions.

(i.e.) Y-->G-->H-->B

/H

Can someone help explain?! Much appreciated!

For Flawed Method of Reasoning section, Manhattan LR only talks about "mismatch between premises and conclusion" and "causation" whereas 7sage and Powerscore talk about many different types of recurring flaws.

I was just wandering why Manhattan chose to do so. Anybody has an idea?

Just some Confusion on statement with both "and" and "or" in the stimulus. For example how would I draw a conditional statement with a stimulus like "If A or B than C and D" and ho would you negate this statement as well. may be a dumb question but having trouble drawing it out, especially while splitting the 'or" in the Sufficient and the "and" in the necessary

Happy Saturday everyone,

I'm finishing up my last semester of undergrad while prepping for the June LSAT. I'm pretty deep into the PT phase, so my typical schedule is a rotation of 1. PT, 2. deep BR, 3. work on whatever I want to drill, 4. day off. *Rinse and repeat*

I've been seeing great improvement with this strategy and planned to keep this schedule until I finish finals in late April. Then I was going to turn on the gas hardcore until end of May, and pull off as June begins and we get closer to the 6th. I really want to avoid burn out (huge weakness for me prepping last October) and still kill it in my classes. With this schedule, I feel ready to attack PTs, which was not how I felt last fall.

Anyway, I had a really busy week with midterms, paper, etc, and was forced to take 3 days off and not BR my most recent PT. I always PT on Saturdays though so I'm at a crossroads..do I BR my most recent test and forget about today's PT? Or do I chalk last week up as a loss, PT today, and just move forward as normal?

What do you guys do when real life forces you to take unplanned days off?

Thanks!

Hi all,

I'm desperate for frank advice from someone who knows this test and has been through the grind.

I've been studying full-time for the LSAT for roughly 8 months. I started at a 140 diagnostic.

In September 2015 (after 3 months of studying), I scored a 159 and figured if I could just keep doing practice tests and BRing, I would bump up my score by at least 2 points within a few months so I could take the test in December 2015.

I kept taking tests and kept reviewing (completing 10 full-length tests) until November when I realized I still wasn't breaking past a 159 (my last 3 PTS at the time were a 158,155, and 158).

I figured I needed to take a different approach and perhaps re-visit the fundamentals, so I enrolled in the 7sage Ultimate+ curriculum hoping I could bump up my score by just 2-3 points (I only need a 160 and/or above to be competitive for my target lawschools).

I started the curriculum mid December 2015 and finished it this week.

A couple of days ago, I took my first PT and scored a 159 (2 raw points short of a 160). I was disappointed to say the least, but I thought maybe I scored a little less because of anxiety, having not taken a PT for 2 months.

I thoroughly BRd the test, my BR score was a 178.

I took another test today, but unfortunately I scored even lower, a 157.

I'm at the point where I feel feel like I may be cursed. I've been in the same score range for what feels like eternity (6 months full-time feels like forever. I usually spend 8+ hours a day, everyday studying).

My average scores are -7/-8 on each LR section, -8 on LG, and -8 on RC which can sometimes go lower :(

I can continue to drill PTs but I don't know how effective that will be, considering that I've been doing the same thing for at least 4 months previously.

Any advice on what I should do? I'm slowly going crazy.

Thank you in advance!

After listening to the skipping webinar, I have started to implement skipping when I PT mostly in the LR sections. Now that I have started skipping, I am averaging about 5-7 minutes left over at the end of an LR section, so I go back and do the questions that I skipped. Right now I am able to select an answer choice for every question that I skipped by the time the 35 minutes is up. Is that the proper way to skip? Should I aim to have an answer for every question that I skip or should it be that there are two or three questions blank with no answer selected at the of end of an LR section?

I'm getting ready to take PTs. Is it better to work from older to newer, vice versa, or jump around?

7Sage, you rock! I couldn't have made it into my dream school without you. Keep up all the amazing work you're doing here.

BR Group!!!! PT 50!

Talk to your heart’s content at Group BR

Saturday, Feb 27th at 8PM ET: PT50

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:

Hey guys, I have found motivating myself to study for the lsat to be very hard. I'm just wondering if I should be taking this as a sign that I should not go to law school since I seem to be overwhelmed with the amount of studying for this one test. Any advice?

In the existential quantifiers lessons, JY explains how to negate statements with the universal quantifier "all." The conclusion was that "some are not" was the negation and that the new set contained 0-99 items, whereas the original "all" represented 100 items.

In the comments section there was some confusion about why the "some are not" statement included 0 items in the new set and some contributors suggested the statement encompassed only 1-100 items.

After diagramming the all statement and its negation, I think I see where some (myself included) may have become confused. The important distinction is that the new set of 0 to 99 items is comprised of items with the same property mentioned in the all statement. My reasoning is below and I welcome any input on its accuracy. Thanks!

Example: All cats (C) are pretentious (P)

For simplicity, let us assume that there are only four cats in the world. The total number of cats which are pretentious and not pretentious must add up to 4.

P | /P

4 | 0 <-- every cat is P; the all statement we negate

---- <-- the binary cut

3 | 1 <-- min. condition to contradict our all statement

2 | 2

1 | 3

0 | 4 <-- often thought of as negation of all; "No cats are P"

In the above table we see that in the 5 possible groupings based on our 4 cats, one represents the all statement and the other 4 cases together represent the negation of that all statement. The set which represents 0 through 3 inclusive (comparable to 0 - 99) is the set of pretentious cats. I believe this is where many became confused and thought the set of 0-99 was made up of unpretentious (that is /P) cats. However, above we see that our unpretentious set always contains at least 1 cat and therefore follows our definition of some (it is comprised of one, possibly all cats, but not 0).

As I was reviewing my old notes, I've noticed that I wrote the definition of "few are" as some are/SOME ARE NOT but "few not" as most are/some are not.

Shouldn't "few are" mean some are / MOST ARE NOT?

I can't believe I'm still confused about this concept..wow. English.

http://www.wsj.com/article_email/lsats-grip-on-law-school-admissions-loosens-1455964203-lMyQjAxMTA2NTI2MjYyMjI5Wj

Interesting article. Part of me does wish the LSAT was more similar to the GRE like offering the LSAT on a rolling basis and making it computer based so results can get back faster. To do that though, I think you'd have to get rid of the games section. As much as the games are "fun" and relatively "easy" points once you fool proof them, it is a useless section that should be replaced with a math section like on the GRE, but that's a totally separate discussion.

Also, many law schools are trying to find ways to combat the declining application problem. Getting rid of the LSAT barrier and accepting the GRE (which far more people take) might cause someone on the margin to decide to apply to law school (and boost revenue numbers via application fees and stuff). It's not that uncommon for people to wake up one day, decide to take the LSAT, and apply to law school (as weird as that sounds); making it easier for people to apply in general by accepting a broader test is just going to encourage those people more I think.

Lastly, LOL at this part: "The entirety of the LSAT was meant to mimic the law school experience..."

Why can we infer that the Antibiotics group cannot have all 3 treatments in from Rule #1?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-4-game-4

I'am depressed and anxious... Does anybody know anyone who was accepted to T-14 as an older (again, 53+ years old) applicant? If one had all the right numbers (LSAT and GPA at or above 50% of those accepted), do you think age would preclude them from being accepted? Does anyone know?!!

Do all method of reasoning questions contain flawed arguments? Or are there some valid arguments out there? I'm getting confused whether I'm suppose to look for the flaw or just how the argument functions as a whole or even BOTH. I'm not sure what kind of mindset to have for attacking method of reasoning questions.

Talk to your heart’s content at Group BR

Thursday, Feb 25th at 8PM ET: PT 70

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

NOTE: I front-loaded the PT 70 - 75 because I believe that people need to get eyes on 70s sooner rather than later. We’ll still have PT 76 and 77 available to PT in May. Trust me when I say it is worth it to do these tests twice. And if you don’t feel comfortable hitting the 70s yet, don’t worry. We’re going to repeat this cycle of PT 70-75 at the end of February just in case.

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

Note:

Looking for a LSAT tutor?

As you know, we have a number of folks in our community who are active LSAT tutors. All of them tutor virtually and several of them tutor in person as well. These are folks we know who we believe to be excellent tutors. While they don't work for 7sage, they're active members of our community and we want to identify them for you.

A man who probably needs no introduction, Corey Janson has been a Mentor, Sage, and all-around active leader in our community since the summer of 2015. @c.janson35 has led a bunch of webinars for us (you can see videos of his work at 7sage.com/webinar ) and has been tutoring for a while now. Also known as "The Logic Catcher," Corey scored a 176 on the October 2015 LSAT and teaches all three sections of the test. He's an exceptionally nice guy and has a deep knowledge of the LSAT.

Corey offers free consults and has a limited number of subsidized hours available through 7sage for those for whom cost is a concern.

PM @c.janson35 if you'd like to inquire about rates and/or to set up a free 30 minute consult!

For the purpose of ruminating on my mistakes after reviewing few recent (post 65) PTs before February LSAT this Sunday,

I would like to share my thoughts on some noticeable tendencies in newer reading comprehension questions.

(For the record, I was usually scoring -3~-5 on reading comprehension sections during 40s~lower 60s PT,

and dear God I am scoring -7~-11 in newer PTs.)

1. There is more wiggle room for choices of words in answer choices.

Particularly among those newer suggestion/inference questions,

i found that answer choices that might have been easily regarded as wrong or overstretching inferences

getting to become an answer choice after the process of elimination.

In addition, some answer choices in non-inference questions are sometimes themselves written in a twisted way,

forcing me to take another step to see them as valid answer choices.

2. For reference questions that ask the purpose or meaning of certain parts in a paragraph,

answer choices are starting to make INTRA-passage inferences.

Previously on eariler LSATs, i guess it was safe or generally correct to focus your choices of answer on a specific paragraph for reference questions. However on recent questions there have been few instances where the answer choices were inferences made outside a specific paragraph but made within specific passage, connecting ideas from other paragraphs in a passage.

As a non-native English speaker i have felt that these changes in a more pronounced way, but I have to admit that I may have been wrong since I do not have a firm grasp on every nuance of the language. And some recent passages like Dodo extinction and mirror reflection have been brutal on me regardless of shifts in questions.

Any feedback is welcomed!

Hi there! I wanted to ask for tips from anyone who has studied for the LSAT with a baby around (or with a full time job that drains like a 4-month old). I took the LSAT in February and expect a score in the high160s (my last prep tests ranged from 167 to 172). My goal is 170+ on the actual exam. My husband is firmly behind me and my LSAT efforts (he used to be an LSAT tutor!) and helps whenever he can, but he has a full-time job, and the baby is my responsibility during the day (no relatives around). The problem is that once he comes back from work, I'm way too exhausted to do LSAT, and I feel like weekends are not enough at this point when I'm trying to break into the 170's. When I studied for the February LSAT, I went to coffee shops with the stroller, studied while the baby was napping during the day, and my husband took some time off to help with the baby towards the end. I now realize that while this was a productive time for me, I wasn't 100% focused and therefore made little progress after a certain point. What I really need is a 3-4 hours of quiet LSAT time every day, and the only way for me to get that is to take advantage of the evenings. How do you do quality LSAT work in the evenings/nights after a long day? Is it even possible? Any tips? I used to pull all-nighters in college all the time, but here I am at 24 and falling apart by 9pm.

@"Dillon A. Wright"

Hey, I found a video that I couldn't get to play.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-1-passage-1-questions

What should you wear when you visit a law school?