Is it possible to post an explanation for 19/2/9?

Quick question,

My PT scores overall, and for the last 10 tests especially, have remained constant:

159: 1

160: 1

162: 1

163: 6

164: 1

(in no particular order)

These exams have all been from PTs 55-66, so newer material. All of my BR ranges from 168-172. I have been at this since March, with a diagnostic score of 148. Have I peaked? What can I do to surge another couple points before test day?

I typically take a PT every other day, with BR, LG drills or study of a certain LR question type on the in between days.

Any help would be great!

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-2-question-19/

I do not understand how the answer choice C is supported at all. What part of the premise supports answer C? Thank you.

This list is not in any particular order.

1) Get exposure to natural light. Light inhibits melatonin production. Your body has a natural circadian rhythm that is tied to the day/night cycle. So basically, at night it produces melatonin and that helps you fall asleep. Keep in mind that exposure to smartphones also inhibits melatonin production. But you've probably already noticed that lol.

2) Take a very cold shower. When your body is experiencing a cold environment, it redistributes blood from external parts to more internal (and integral) parts of your body such as your heart and brain. In other words, it gives your body a little shock and improves blood circulation.

3) Short-term vs long-term energy. In short, if you're a coffee drinker, put a healthy fat in your coffee. Coconut oil (virgin) or butter for instance. Fat is a longer term energy source so it's a good sidekick for your coffee.

4) Exercise. Did you think I was going to leave this one out? This one is more obvious. I personally don't overdo it. Just some movement not necessarily power lifting or marathon running lol. The goal is to improve circulation.

This isn't an exhaustive list. There are other things you can do and I'm sure everyone has their own daily routine anyway. Maybe there are some exercise scientists here as well. I didn't mention ingesting protein as part of your breakfast, which is also beneficial. But anyway, I wanted to share this and maybe it'll help you out.

Hello Folks,

If you check my posts, I have timing problems. When I do the test untimed, I get more than 20 points higher (160s) than the timed test. Any input is very appreciated.

I am signed up for Oct 2015 *freaks out* what happens if I chicken out and decide to change my date to December? What looks worse... Taking in October and get a shitty score and retake it in December or withdrawing from October and taking it in December

If you are having ANY issues with LR, especially flaw related questions (which if you haven't realized yet, they pretty much all are, and LSAT Trainer will tell you that) then you have got to get the LSAT Trainer. It is unreal how simple the book makes detecting and finding flaws. It trains you to approach questions in a way that neither 7sage nor PS have been able to do for me. I have only read about half of the LR curriculum in the book, but have already seen improvement. In fact, I just took PT 65 and only had -1 on the first LR section and -0 after BR, whereas I usually average -5. Granted it's a small sample size, but the key is that I no longer approach questions, especially NA and SA, and have NO clue what to do. Thanks to LSAT Trainer I have so much more confidence when going up against those questions.

TL;DR Buy LSAT trainer to help with LR, it works. And no, I don't work for the author. :)

Hello all,

I have been consistently scoring well on PT's in the 60's, but I've experienced a drop off on PT's 70-75 on reading comprehension and logic games. On those two sections, what exactly is the test doing differently? Has anyone noticed any patterns or tricky behavior by the test makers? I can't quite put my finger on it, but they seem tougher.

so basically I've been studying since May, but I made a mistake and was practicing with really old tests. So until last week, I was getting around 168-169 and a couple 170+ .....but then recently (right after the September 11 deadline to change test date) I tried the recent tests and my scores have dropped by a lot erratically. I know it's my fault - I was dumb and was practicing with ancient tests so I know what I did wrong there, but I wanted some advice on moving forward

I have to take the October test now but I'll cancel my score (which sucks), but I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong??? I feel like I forgot everything I've learned, and I still haven't established "habits" on any of the sections. Every time I get good at a section type, I feel like I forgot everything in the other sections!!! I don't know how to explain this but I just feel stupid

How do you guys organize your weeks with PTing and reviewing content? I've been PTing and BRing 3 times a week, but I still haven't established habits that come naturally. Under the time pressure, I always forget to do VERY important things, like identify the conclusion or find the flaw before moving on to answer choices! Especially with the recent tests, I go back to being a beginner when timing myself

Why is answer choice C correct? I thought this is a Most Strongly Supported question. I picked answer choice D thinking it is most supported since back then those who learned about natural processes through active learning where the only ones who learned at that time. So when compared to nonagricultural societies, they had learned how to grow plants. But I guess that is assuming too much. But that still doesn't explain to me why answer choice C is correct.

Hey 7Sagers! Here's a question from a student I thought you could help out with:

I am looking for someone to critique my attempted negations for necessary assumption question Dec 2009, s3,q25. Thank you so much.

My negations:-

A. Scientists ...always have biases...

B. ...biases...are shared among all scientists.

C. Biases ...are likely to impair...

D. Interpretation of data is not the only part...

E. ? (I am clueless in this one)

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-59-section-3-question-25/

"People want to be instantly"

Just want to make sure I'm diagramming correctly. The conclusion that it's imprudent to appear prudent can be diagrammed as the following:

It is imprudent to appear pru.

APrudent----> imprudent

I diagrammed the premise that people who appear prudent are generally resented as: APrudent-----> GR

The gap is GR------> imprudent which is what answer choice E is saying (It is imprudent to cause people to resent you) So if you cause people to resent you, it is imprudent. So the chain is as follows APrudent-----> GR----> Imprudent.

Was my diagramming correct?

Title basically sums it up. I'm wondering what's worked for people "drilling" RC. How many full sections per day would be ideal?

With approx 2 weeks till test day i am starting to feel stressed. I work 9 to 7 everyday and work out 4 days a week. In the past I have been waking up at 5 to study 3 hours before work. I have no new material to cover-- just all section work and full PTS (I'm scoring around 175 on retakes). Any suggestions for a study schedule moving forward? I want to be 100 percent for test day!

Sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere, but I'm wondering what procedure people use for adding an extra section in. Do you always do a particular one, like LG, or mix it up? How do you choose where to stick it in? One thing I'm concerned about is that I won't devote my full effort to it if I know which section is unscored. I just want to make my practice testing as representative as possible of the real LSAT

What the hell do I put aside from, "Dishwasher -- McDonald's 2008-2014" ?

jk, but really?

Ok so I would appreciate feedback on my thought process for this Nec. Assumption question. I chose B incorrectly and am trying f

Conclusion: philosophical thought is unique to humans

Evidence: Apes are the only nonhuman animals who can learn human language.

Apes have never verbally articulated, in human language, philosophical questions

Ok, so the gaps/assumptions I noted were:

1. The author is assuming that because the apes haven't asked these questions in human language that they are incapable of phil. thought; but what if the apes are perfectly capable of asking phil. questions in human language but just haven't done so. So to add on to the first assumption the author is concluding that in order to prove that a creature can think philosophically, the creature has to have demonstrated that it can think philosophically by expressing philosophical thoughts through human language. The ape hasn't expressed philosophical thoughts through human language and therefore must be incapable of philosophical thought.

I chose B because I was focusing on this gap of the argument; just because the ape hasn't physically expressed a philosophical question in human language doesn't mean that they can't think philosophically. Maybe they can think about these philosophical things without speaking (which means they are capable of philosophical thought). So I chose B because I felt it closed up the gap. If apes are incapable of thinking in human language, that can explain why they haven't asked any phil questions in human language.

But I'm noticing something as I type. Just because apes are incapable of thinking in human language doesn't mean that they are necessarily incapable of philosophical thought. It could be the case that they think philosophically in their own ape language. So the assumption I'm realizing now that the test is looking for is something along the lines that to be capable of philosophical thoughts, creatures must be able to express phil. thoughts using human language.

An ape can't express phil. thoughts using human language and therefore can't think phil.

A bear can't express phil. thoughts using human langauge and therefore can't think phil.

This matches up best with answer C.

Why I didn't choose C was because it discusses the way in which philosophical thought can be expressed and I reckoned that we're more concerned with if creatures can think a certain way not if they can express that they think a certain way. In other words, if the answer choice said THE ONLY creatures capable of philosophical thought can express phil. thought in human language, I would have chosen this.

Can someone explain why answer choice C is correct even though it just talks about how phil. thought can be expressed??

Thanks so much in advance

I completely missed this question. I thought B was very unattractive, and I confidently eliminated it during the test and during BR. I would appreciate it if someone just completely dismantled my reasoning because I don't understand how my reasoning is wrong on this:

Some people think that highway speed limits should be increased to reflect the actual speeds of drivers (which are higher than current speed limits). This increase would greatly decrease saftey since higher average speeds would result. Most violators would obey the new law and almost all of the people that obey the current speed limit would increase their speed.

What I am looking for: This is a very hard passage to understand. The support for the conclusion is that higher average speeds would result since most violators would obey the new law (either increase, decrease, or stay the same speed depending on how much the speed was increased) and current law abiding drivers would increase their speed. The argument is flawed because we don’t know the magnitude of the change. What if the speed limit is increased by 1 MPH? Almost all law abiding citizens could increase by 1 MPH and the most fast drivers could decrease by 15 MPH (if you assume that they were driving very fast). So, it is possible that the average speed actually decreases!

Answer A: This is consistent with the argument since “almost all” (in other words “some won’t) increase their speed.

Answer B: IDK, I still am very skeptical that this weakens the argument. Where does the argument imply or give evidence that uniformity of speed is important? I have a feeling that the author would just say “so what?” to this. Also, the argument doesn’t talk about what a “low speed” is. The argument is talking about “higher vs. lower” speeds. This answer choice seems to making a “relative vs. absolute” flaw that we talked about during the 7sage course. The argument says that some of the drivers (“almost all” idea like in answer choice A) are not going to increase their speed, so there won’t be “uniformity” of speed because some are still going to be below the speed limit. I just feel like the author would respond by saying “dude, you just helped my argument! The speeds aren’t going to be uniform!” Additionally, I don’t see how JY assumes that a shift in the distribution now becomes a narrower distribution. Can someone break this one down?

Answer C: So what? Just because you haven’t been involved in an accident doesn’t mean your danger level has decreased.

Answer D: This is consistent with the argument, so it is not a weakener. The author says that most will obey the law, which could imply that some will still not.

Answer E: Is believing what is safe the same as actual saftey? What if the violators are very risk loving?

Still available! Any takers??

Or is this just a temporary thing that later changes to an actual amount? 3 chicago schools show as $0 (no, not UC or NW)

Statement reads:

"Rattlesnakes molt exactly once a year."

How would you negate this? Is is better to use one statement that says "Rattlesnakes do not molt exactly once a year" or is it better to split it into two that each say "Rattlesnakes molt less than once a year" and "Rattlesnakes molt at least twice a year"? Or is the first statement logically equivalent to the combination of the second and third? Thanks

Thoughts of the day:

Had a phone call last night with a close college friend who is very business minded. We discussed my current standing with LSAT prep. I confidently believe I'm on pace to get into some pretty awesome schools (top 30). My favorites are constantly changing, but these days my eye is on Arizona State University. They have a sport law concentration (I majored in sport management at UMass for undergrad), and their law school is in downtown Phoenix (30min from main campus in Tempe). Everything about their program sounds phenomenal, and right up my alley. With 18 pro teams in Cali and 4 in AZ, I feel like my networking potential is evident.

My "fear the fork" fantasies have been limitless, until the phone call. In summation, my friend made me aware that if I go to law school on the west coast, I will likely struggle to find a job on the east coast where I'm from. (I live in NY now, would ideally love to move to Boston after school, but I would really like to go south for school.)

My questions boil down like this. Does it make sense to go far away to school (AZ, Cali, TX, Georgia, Florida), if I would like to live in Boston? Or should I stop being a snow-pansy and establish myself at BU/BC/Northeastern?

Bottom Line: How easy is it to find a job on the opposite coast of the school you attend???

I know this was wordy, sorry, I'm in borderline panic mode after last night's deflating conversation.

JY is organizing a social gathering in NYC next Tuesday, September 22nd. I hope to see a lot of you there.

The Overlook Bar on E 44th b/t 2nd and 3rd

Tues. Sept. 22, 8pm-11pm

#7sagersunite

@jyang72

Admin edit: Made sure you're RSVPing here:

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/7sage-meet-greet-in-nyc-tickets-18655408830

An answer choice reads:

"A totalitarian regime can perceive loss of public passivity as a threat to its power."

How would you go about negating this statement, beyond simply saying "It is not the case that..." Is there a general rule for negating statements containing the word "can"? Do we negate it by saying that it becomes "may not" or "will not" or "cannot"?

So I've seen A LOT of improvement on most of the question types. When I get to specific questions, I know exactly how to approach them and what to look for. I also can gage trap answer choices pretty well. However, It's like I'm completely blind on strength and weaken questions. Any advice on how to approach them? I've gone through the lessons a few times, but it hasn't helped much. These should be easy! You're just trying to strength and weaken, but some reason I can't do it!