Superprep! Get your formerly non-disclosed test on! Answer that age old question: Is it really the “Champion of LSAT preparation”?

Friday, Nov. 13th at 8PM ET: PT B

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/qzGIJoSAyLJT

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

Note:

I had a diagnostic of 156 in June. By end of September I was averaging 167/168 range. I didn't do as well as I hoped on October exam so decided to retake in december. I have been testing again and scored a 169,170,and 174 respectively on my last 3 tests. This is obviously great news, however, I haven't changed anything up such really such as drilling,new methods, etc aside from a small focus on RC which has been my weak spot but I haven't really improved there much. My biggest improvement has been on LR actually although I've done nothing other than PTs and BR to work on it. Has anyone else seen these types of improvements just "happen"?lol Whatever is happening I hope it keeps up until December 5th.

PT70 Section4 # 17

For #17: Parallel Form

I got confused on how to diagram it (I understood everything except how to diagram (Note: the way I diagram for these is using broad A-->B,etc since the context isn't important but the form of the logic is):

The stimulus says that:

-some halogen lamps are well-crafted

-because halogen lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at FL

-and any item on display at FL is well-crafted

I wrote it as

some A-->B or A(--some-)B

A-->C

C-->B

But my diagram is wrong for:

because halogen lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at FL

it should be A(-some-)C

why is it some?

I had a very tough time with this question, can someone evaluate my analysis of A, D, and E for me?

This is a weaken question.

The Kiffer Forest Preserve (KFP), which is a part of the A Valley, is where most of the bears in the valley live. The main road through the KFP has been closed for 8 years. During those 8 years, the bear population in the KFP has doubled. Therefore, the A Valley's population will increase if the road is kept closed.

What I am looking for: I think there are a few things wrong with this argument. First is the "part to whole" flaw. It is true that the KFP's population increased, but is that support for the idea that the entire valley's population will increase? Not really. What if the bears just moved there from other parts of the valley? Second is the causal flaw. What if there was something else that led to the increase in the bear population, and the road being closed is spurious? Third is the futuristic prediction. Let's assume that closing the road was the reason for the increase in the bear population, will continuing to keep it closed work? What if the bear population is at max capacity right now and no new bears can live there? You'd have to assume that that isn't the case.

Answer A: I had a very tough time eliminating this one, and I originally chose it during the timed exam. I had enough time to come back to it, and I did change it. I think this is wrong because to weaken the argument, you have to assume that the migration came entirely from other parts of the valley. But, that isn't an OK assumption. This answer choice leaves open the possibility that the migration came entirely from outside the valley.

Answer B: I think this may strengthen the argument since it sort of implies that migration from other parts of the valley was not another cause of the population increase in KFP.

Answer C: This is superficially similar to B, but it is wrong for a different reason. The statement is too weak to undermine the argument. Sure, the population increase in KFP didn't come from bears outside the valley, but what if the bears in KFP just had more babies or something due to cars not scaring off the bears? This answer choice doesn't do a whole lot.

Answer D: I changed my answer from A to this one. I think this is wrong because leaving out the rate of increase in KFP is important. Say that it is true that the population of the bears outside the KFP decreased a little bit, but what if bear population in the KFP increased by a million times? This scenario might strengthen the argument since the total population of the valley would still increase, even though only one small part of the valley is responsible for the increase.

Answer E: This is what I changed my answer to during BR. If the total population of the valley remained the same, then the doubling of the KFP population was solely due to internal migration. It wouldn't make any sense to say that the increase in the population of a part (KFP) transfers to a population increase of the whole.

For #17: Parallel Form

I got confused on how to diagram it (I understood everything except how to diagram (Note: the way I diagram for these is using broad A-->B,etc since the context isn't impotrant but the form of the logic is):

The stimulus says that:

-some halogen lamps are well-crafted

-because halogen lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at FL

-and any item on display at FL is well-crafted

I wrote it as

some A-->B or A(--some-)B

A-->C

C-->B

But my diagram is wrong for:

because halogen lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at FL

it should be A(-some-)C

why is it some?

Can someone please explain this question... I'm not really sure what's even going on in the stimulus.

Admin edit: Here's the passage for reference

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-3-question-12/

I took the LSAT this past October and scored a 159. In retrospect, I made just about every rookie mistake in the book: gave myself about 2 1/2 months to study total and two months of that was with 7Sage, set an unrealistic study schedule given my work hours, was usually low on sleep, boozed a couple times, took four practice tests total before the test, didn't finish the curriculum, rushed through BR...

When I got my score (159) I was livid, and I immediately registered for the December LSAT. I had known even on test day that I underperformed, so when my score validated that I became hell-bent on scoring higher. However, for reasons I'll explain below, I'm considering just keeping the 159 and applying.

The 159 is good enough to get me into a law school near home/work. (The school's 75th percentile LSAT score is 154.) I know it's not a strong school (according to LSAT scores), but my boss got his JD there and he's encouraged me to apply for next fall. He's been fairly successful in his law career, and he has expressed a willingness to bring me into his practice if I graduate/pass the bar, and to help out where he can in the process of applying to/attending school. It's an attractive offer.

But at the same time, I still want to retake. I'm worried about attending a lower-ranked school for the purpose of fast-tracking myself into law school, only to see my boss change his circumstances (for example, abandon his solo firm for another gig) and leave me with a degree from a school with a so-so reputation, fending for myself.

What makes this a little more complicated is that I'm almost positive I can score a good deal higher on the LSAT with some hard work. The four tests I took before October I scored:

161 (skipped BR)

159 (176 BR)

156 (159 BR--my first tour of burnout city)

164 (169 BR)

After October, I walked away from the LSAT completely. Following a month break, here are my newest PT scores:

167 (BR 176)

170 (BR 180)

I know these last two could be flukes, but I've also felt like the test made more sense to me as I was taking it each time and in BR. I intend to take a few more PT's in the coming weeks to see if I fall back to down to where I was pre-October. If the most recent scores are flukes, I'll probably retake in December (for scholarship money) and apply for next fall at the school near me regardless of my scores. If I actually feel that I can continue to improve at any rate (I realize 170 on up is slow going for most people), then I'll postpone the retake until June or next October.

The difficulty with the latter is I have to tell my boss that I'm delaying school a year (he's generally impatient, so the thought alone would bother him a bit). He's talked to me a number of times about my attending his alma mater next fall and my eventual move into the firm as a lawyer, and if I give myself time to study and score higher it will be obvious that I'm doing so in order to attend a better school (which will obviously affect the plans for my track toward firm employment).

So, I guess I'm looking for a few people in the 7Sage community to weigh in on this. Given the above, do I take the 159 and apply, or do I cancel December and retake later so that I have the opportunity to score higher, attend a better school, and leave myself a few more options after law school?

My apologies for the post length and thanks in advance.

Does anyone actually waive it?

For #23:Parallel Flaw

like in #17 I had trouble diagramming a part of this stim.

The stimulus says that:

Almost every SP in the past had MTC

Using MTC to introduce VB

Therefore VB will be a SP

I diagrammed:

A-->B

B-->C

-----------

C-->A

But for "Using MTC to introduce VB" is suppose to be diagrammed as:

C-->B

Why? And why is my diagram wrong?

I've been taking the infamous birds watchers, fruit stand and cd LGs at least once a day. Why? I like them! JY says in the videos that they're incredibly easy although the rest of society (not really but yeah!) thinks they're among the toughest LGs released. So last night I was doing the cd game and I could tell immediately my timing was off but I kept moving. Long story short, I eventually just put my pencil down, brushed my teeth and went to bed. I couldn't finish it. I have no clue why I couldn't figure it out??? I can't count the number of times I've done this game. I remember the answers for the most part, but not all. I didn't just circle and move on because I already knew the answer, but for some reason it was like I had never seen the game ever in my life! Or even attempted a LG for that matter! I was disgusted! I know I've been frustrated before and just decided not to do anything LSAT related for that day, but that was just unreal to me! First true experience of burnout for me. It's real folks! I've got my clean copies and I'll be back at it on my lunch break!

Just want to confirm my diagram of "Not Otherwise" is correct.

A police officer is eligible for a Mayor's Commendation if the officer has exemplary record, but not otherwise.

Exemplary Record >> Eligible

Not (Exemplary Record) >> Not (Eligible)

Need some help. There are huge gaps between by BR and actual PT scores, i.e. (175/155). Would love to hear how some you overcame this challenge.

This is kind of a dumb question and I feel like no one else has this problem, but I've realized I constantly make mistakes identifying the scope or relevance of an AC on logical reasoning (RC too). If I'm choosing between two answer choices, I'll choose the more tempting one and later realize it was out of scope, and the right AC was really subtle.

Does anyone have any suggestions for this/exercises I can try/lessons I should focus on? I think I read carefully but I really don't know how far away I can go from the scope of the stimulus

i finally get logic games. i get 9/10 correct but each game takes me around 15 minutes. What can i do to cut it in 1/2 without sacrificing accuracy?

thanks

Ok so when you get a question that asks you to find the argument with the most simillar reasoning or matches the arguement above are they never a flawed argument? I know we get questions that ask you to match the flaw but I am hoping to use this thinking to eliminate a wrong answer choice or two is this holds.

In short if the Question stem does not say "flaw" is it ok to assume the correct answer choice and the argument in the stimulus are logical arguments?

@nicole.hopkins @Pacifico I could use your wisdom.

The Trainer PREACHED to eliminate all wrong answer choices first for 99% of questions then chose the right answer. Do you do this? I have found that it really is taking me more time and that it is making me consider answers I never would have. I have adapted this skill when I run into hard questions and has helped 10000% but this book was hell bent on doing it every single time. I am averaging about -2 per section LR. What do you guys do?

Unsure on how to approach this. I scored a perfect on the Games section from PT43 when normally I do not what should I think of this?

I've read over and over that people advise against drinking coffee before the LSAT to avoid a crash and to avoid the... Laxative response it often elicits. However, I believe I am probably not the only one who is physically incapable of functioning at a college level without some form of caffeine. I generally drink coffee both before and during my PT's. What are you coffee drinkers planning to do? Drink a cup before going inside the testing center? Bring some coffee for the break? Caffeine pills? ADULT DIAPER!?!?

Hi 7sagers, I just had a confusion cause by PT 68 section 2 question 24. JY's explanation is if Hormone causes Stress, then reducing Hormone can reduce stress. However, I always think if A causes B, then it works like conditional logic A--->B, \A does not mean \B. Is A causes B necessarily equal to A--->B? Thank you so much.

For #26: I understand why (E) is wrong because the stim. is not defending (never says if right or wrong) but I was just wondering if someone could explain the difference between context and fact (this is what confused me answer (D) says historical fact while (E) says historical context, I just wanted to get a better understand of context vs fact in case it shows up on another question then I can eliminate them even quicker) Thanks :)

Dear JY,

I love your website. The explanations for the logical games are carefully thought out and well presented. I wished I knew about your website before I spent $3000 on testprep material from Kaplan and Powerscore. Sage7 appears to have a far superior lesson plan for the LSAT.

So far, I have completed about 100 games and I plan on doing all 340 games. However, I am struggling with sufficiency/ necessary and formal logical concepts. Does the either the LSAT Ultimate or Premium cover these concepts in greater detail than what I can find in my Power Score books?

As an older research scientist (and patent analyst) with several graduate degrees and significant experience in academia, I find the process of law school admissions quite myopic and certainly not holistic; despite what some adcoms might say publicly. Lawyers I know say the process is flawed: “Just get the best scores possible and get into the most reputable (based on rankings) school possible; UT Austin law top 50% makes it much easier to get a job than a top 5% at Texas A&M.”

In your opinion, how heavily weighted is the LSAT score above anything else in your application?

After applying to several schools in 2010, I got the impression there is a minimal threshold of either an Index or LSAT score before they will review an application. I would predict they triage applications based on LSAT scores (e.g. 170s vs 160s vs 150s vs 140s stacks) until they fill up their class. In 2010, I was accepted at two private schools ranked about 80th and 120th with a 154 and about a 3.20 total GPA. However, I wasn't offered any financial aid. So, I decided not to attend because of the debt and the difficulty in finding a job from those schools.

Since then, I have worked for a patent litigation firm as a scientific adviser and passed the patent bar exam.

My goal is to get my LSAT score between the 25%-75% admissions profile of all my target schools (ranked 20-100) and then just let my applications fly.

Given the expense of law school, how associates are hired (based on class rank and perceived school reputation) and that only a few big firms which do IP work in the life sciences, I am only going to aim for law schools ranked between 20-100 (mostly 20-50). Otherwise, it might not be a prudent investment to attend a lesser ranked school (or at least until I can obtain the right LSAT score to get in the right school with financial aid). I predict I will need about a 160-165 before my application would be considered or even possibly read by these schools. In my opinion, a tier 3 or 4 school is not worth the 100-150 K in debt and the lack of job prospects.

Recently, I contacted a highly regarded admissions consultant and got into a rather contentious discussion about the relevance of the LSAT in the admissions process. Further, we talked how rankings influence a student's ability to get a job after graduation. In my opinion, this over-emphasis on LSAT scores seems rather silly and doctoral programs never place so much weight on one's GRE scores. She kept arguing that the LSAT is a good indicator of first year grades. As I laughed, I told her that's manure and certainly not worth $250 per hour.

I pointed out that the correlation coefficient between LSAT scores and first year grades is roughly 0.36 median with a margin of error between .12 to .56. The correlation coefficient between LSAT scores and the bar passage rate is even lower. Law school grades and bar passage rates seem to be more strongly correlated. As a scientist who has performed correlation analysis on medical data, any statistician will tell you that a correlation less than 0.40 is rather meaningless and that there is no relationship between the two events. Plus, the margin of error is rather large. The distinctions adcoms (and students) try to make about subtle scores differences is just flawed based on the LSAC statistics.

So why do administrative legal professionals make these conclusions about LSAT scores, law schools grades, rankings, and bar passage rates?

Are they just trying to protect their jobs and voice their support for the standardized test industry?

Don't they understand the LSAT is teachable with practice and favors rich students with a lot of money to pay for tutors and LSAT prep classes?

My boss, a partner, remarked to me about this: "the most qualitative profession chooses the most quantitative approach for admissions into the profession."

References:

http://www.lsac.org/jd/lsat/your-score/law-school-performance

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2013/09/law-school-gpa-.html

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-interpret-a-correlation-coefficient-r.html

(see the last section on interpreting coefficients)

How is is C the correct answer... I'm not seeing the connection. Someone please help!

The conclusion is "we can now dismiss the widely held suspicion that sugar consumption often exacerbates hyperactivity in children with attention deficit disorder". The supporting premises are the results of the study and it concludes that there was no significant difference between the experimental groups (received a type of sugar) and control (sugar substitute).

How does (C) weaken the support of anything I assumed it would strengthen the conclusion. (C) states that the consumption of some sugar substitutes exacerbates the symptoms of hyperactivity. I immediately thought this was irrelevant because a sugar substitute is not sugar... I don't see how this would weaken the support.

What DOES make a Democracy not a well-functioning one?????

Find out tonight at Group BR!

Wednesday, Nov 11th at 8PM ET: PT52

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/w7McAagFN3pf

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

Note:

Centaurs and Unicorns. The Parallel Flaw question from the underworld.

Wednesday, November 11th at 8PM ET: PT52

DON’T FORGET TO CLICK THIS LINK: https://join.skype.com/w7McAagFN3pf

IF YOU DON’T CLICK THIS LINK YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE BR GROUP

Note:

Hi all, I'm posting so as to ask for help in regards to how I should be interpreting my PT scores. When I take the LSAT this coming December, I'm aiming for a 169+. If I don't get that, I'm retaking. Also, come December I intend to have taken at least 35 PTs. I'm working towards that goal now, and am about 2/5ths of the way through.

I don't know what to make of my PT scores. I've been told that people generally score lower on the real test than they do on PTs, which is worrying to me, given that my current average is roughly a 170. In any case, I'm curious as to what kind of PT scores people who have taken the test and who have score at or about my goal were averaging. I'm wondering basically whether the fact that I'm not doing better, or the potential that I might not do substantially do better as I work my way through the rest of my PTs, is a problem.

Thanks