If anyone would like to meet up in the DC or Northern Virginia area to go over some practice tests leading up to the December LSAT, feel free to reach out to me. I work in Arlington (Ballston) during the week, but am available most weekends leading up to the test. Also, most days after work if we schedule in advance. If anyone prefers skype that's an option as well. Trying to set myself up for success on this test, and I feel that it would be beneficial to have someone else to bounce ideas off. Let's crush this test together.

-Chad

The answer should be D, as the other answers all call for too much. There is no apparent need for real strength. 'To be believed' is the key phrase.

I am still confused why the conclusion is adequate productivity --> high- tech technology. I negated the high tech technology part because of the "not" present in the sentence. I tried reviewing my notes and I can't find where he explains in the negation of conditional logic that this is viable.

Hey guys.. It looks like the guys over at 180watch.com ran out of stock. Anyone know where else I can pick it up? I'd love to buy it!

Hello fellow 7sagers!

I hope that studying and preparing applications is going well!

I was just wondering if I should write a "Why X?" essay to the law school I will be applying ED. I read on TLS (http://www.top-law-schools.com/writing-effective-why-x-addendum.html) that I run the risk of being redundant if I do write one, as my decision to apply ED essentially says more than my essay ever could. Should I go on ahead and write one anyway? I feel like I should just to be safe...Thanks!

How does the BR group work, I just tried calling into it & it didn't seem to work?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-04/

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

*The kind of question this is:* Weaken

*Premise(s):* Marijuana has THC → THC has been found to inactivate herpesvirus (IH) → IH can convert healthy cells into cancer cells.

*Conclusion:* Marijuana can cause cancer.

*What I am looking for:* extra information that we didn’t know about marijuana and its correlation with THC.

*Answer A:* No. That strengthens the argument by showing that scientists had a consensus and the same results.

*Answer B:* Yes. There is information we did not know about marijuana and how it neutralizes THC.

*Answer C:* No. That strengthens the conclusion.

*Answer D:* No. Great, but that is only an “IF.” It would still stand that marijuana causes cancer.

*Answer E:* No. Marijuana is beneficial to cancer patients, but it would still cause cancer for none cancer patients.

I got this question correct by POE, but I don't have any clue why C is something the author would most likely to agree with. Can someone point to where this idea is supported in the passage? Also, why is answer choice D explicitly incorrect?

LSAT Prep Test 28 (June 1999) - S2 - Logic Game 3

As explained in the video, there are so many probabilities on where to put the entities that attempting to make all of the inferences at the beginning becomes an hindrance because too much time is taken up.

I am getting a lot better at games because I attempt to make as many inferences as possible at the beginning.

My question is, what should I look for when a game is designed, such as LSAT Prep Test 28 (June 1999) - S2 - Logic Game 3, to make a person waste a lot of time making inferences?

Skipping making inferences/ not splitting up boards seems to be very dangerous!

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

*The kind of question this is:* Weaken

*Premise(s):* There are several unsuccessful immature works by Renoir and Cezanne that should be sold because they are inferior quality and add nothing to the overall quality of the museum’s collection.

*Conclusion:* The board’s action (to sell some works from its collection in order to raise the funds necessary to refurbish its galleries) will not detract form the quality of the museum’s collection.

*What I am looking for:* The benefit of keeping the unsuccessful immature works?

*Answer A:* No. This is attacking the premise, so I am skeptical. This answer talks about directors of art museums in general, and how they can raise funds through other ways. The Federici Art Museum may have its own reason why it cannot do that, we don’t know. This answer would have been right if it said Federici Art Museum can raise funds through other ways, but it talks about directors of art museums in general.

*Answer B:* Yes, quality is subjective, so selling these art pieces may detract form the quality of the museum’s collection.

*Answer C:* No. This is just a history lesson on the art pieces. This extra information does nothing to the argument.

*Answer D:* No. This is other information that is irrelevant to the argument. The issue at hand is not whether or not inflation happens.

*Answer E:* No. Yet again, this is information we don’t need. This answer is talking about what the artist demands in the art market.

Are we REALLY altruistic so we can spread our genes around? Or in the words of my costar Ariana Grande...

I’m not certain she actually said this, but my former life prevents me from missing an opportunity to name drop ... so sorry, not sorry.

Wednesday, October 21st at 8PM ET: PT64

Note:

I thought I diagrammed this correctly, but I can't figure out how E is "properly concluded" or must be true.

Here is my diagram:

Explanation--->Must Distinguish from justification

Human action--->potentially has an explanation-->Can give an accurate description of the causes of the action (I don't think you can link these up to the first sentence)

Action justified--->person performing has sufficient reason to act

Action justified SOME justification forms no part of the explanation (These you can link together).

Generally, rational--->justification/reasons form an essential part of the explanation

What I was looking for: Since the only thing I could link up were those two middle statements, I thought the answer was going to be Person performing has sufficient reason to act SOME justification forms no part of the explanation. This isn't an answer choice though.

Answer A: This isn't in any of my chains.

Answer B: This isn't in any of my chains.

Answer C: I ended up picking this one even though I didn't see any support/I had eliminated all of the other answer choices. It was the "closest" to what what I was looking for, but it still wasn't in any of my chains. Explanation isn't part of the linked up middle statements.

Answer D: Discovered? Totally irrelevant idea.

Answer E: This is the answer choice, but where is the support? The only time "cause" is mentioned is in the second conditional statement. But even then, it is only talking about giving a "description of the cause." Rationality does imply reasons forming an essential part of the explanation (last conditional statement), but why must they be causes? Shouldn't this answer choice be "If any human actions are rational, then the reasons must be given an accurate description of the causes of the action?" I don't see how this is the same thing as what answer choice E states.

Hi 7sagers!

I've been working on keeping track of the amount of question types I keep getting incorrect. What I'm currently doing is writing everything out by hand with every test by creating a table. In this table I have 4 columns. The first column includes question types(each question type = one row) and the other 3 include tests (one test per column) I then go down each row and tally the amount of questions per question type I get wrong. After three tests I count how many MBT question types I got wrong, or how many Strengthen questions I got wrong. By visually seeing the last 3 tests tests and amount of incorrect question types, it gives me a better visualization on what I have to work on.

A major perk I learned for doing this is:

- it forces me to label all question stems during blind review (I double check them through 7sage grader if I'm having trouble)

I'm not scoring that high yet, and I can imagine this not really working on the high scorers (since you're probably only missing like 2 questions per section anyway). But for the newbies, like myself :) I've found it to be helpful and just wanted to share :)

If anybody has any recommendations or ideas let me know! I can always use some guidance.

So I've gotten through 17 PTs, and until the last couple of weeks my BR score has consistently been between 173-177, although it jumped around spastically within that range. A few weeks ago, that suddenly jumped to a consistent 178-179. Then, four tests ago, I FINALLY got a 180 and I've managed to do the same on each test since. I'm curious, for those who have a good number of PTs under their belts, did your BR scores follow a similar pattern? It was a little odd to me how they seemed to move in such discrete steps. And once you got to that point, did your actual scores level off as well, or did they continue to improve afterwards? I'm still not quite where I want to be and I'm hoping that my BR is indicating that I've mastered my fundamentals and may see a corresponding increase in my true score if I keep at it!

receive a news alert for the millionth tree being planted in NY, and the first thing you think is, "but no... deforestation to plant more trees can release more carbon dioxide in the short term..."

that would be my brain on LSAT crack

Hi everyone, I just did preptest 64 & just realized my premium course only includes the video explanations up to 58 (except for games of course). Just curious how many of you high scorers out there upgraded your course, and if so was it worth the extra expense? Thanks in advance.

I love music and sharing music, so I want to know what your HAPPY song is!

This is (currently) mine:

Obvious title is obvious. It's catchy and I'm a sucker for catchy songs. (ADHD forces catchy songs to repeat over and over in my head... Sigh.)

To post yours, just paste the YouTube link here!

It seems like the LSAT score is valid for 5 years after you take the test.

I'm planning on working for a couple years after I take the LSAT.

It is possible to apply then with the LSAT taken a couple years before right?

I just wanted to make sure.

Thanks in advance!

But I was under the impression that conditional statements are not comparisons. I read the first sentence as a comparison and therefore ignored it since I did not read it as a conditional statement. How should I have broken down the first sentence to see the conditional?

So for questions where they ask you to refer to a given statement in the question stem, are we looking for a subtle answer that's not too specific in general?

How is answer A incorrect and E correct? First, where in the passage is E supported? I can't find it. Next, doesn't A capture not only the main point of the passage but also Goodrich's prescription in lines 40-43 and line 45? Goodrich doesn't think that common law should be looked at as a set of rules (a legal code). Also, line 45 states that common law is a text with history and tradition, and in line 46, studying common law historically is really important. How does this not capture the idea of "a relic of the history of the English people?"

I didn't like any of the answer choices, but I comfortably eliminated D. I still fail to see how D is even remotely parallel to the stimulus. Additionally, what makes A incorrect? Isn't the general point of the argument that you shouldn't do things too quickly? Doesn't A do this? How does the reasoning in D capture this idea?

I've looked at a several games in this type. Are there common inferences that we usually see in this set of categorized game? Most seem like rule driven games for the most part

LSAT Takers And Widow Makers,

90 days ago I was chilling in my dorm waiting to meet with a few of my residents and thought "you know what I am actually going to study for the LSAT". I took the 2007 test a few months prior scored it and got a whopping 147 and did nothing until July 20th.

I started by reading through the Logic Games Bible and LR Bible. I bounced back and fourth for about 2 weeks getting through 80ish% and then the most vital and important moment of my studying hit me. I googled one of the games to get some feedback and was brought to the voice of J.Y. Ping telling me how to do the game and EVERY OTHER SINGLE GAME EVER FOR FREE. I said to myself "I like this guy I am going to buy his coarse" and so I did. For the weeks following I started blowing through. I averaged about 8-10 hours a day but I think I took breaks totaling at least 2 hours a day until school hit mid august then slowed my pace. During the coarse I took notes and watched videos twice if I had the slightest confusion. I do also want to say that every test I take I watch EVERY single J.Y. video explanation for every question. Then I go through it again but this time I pretend like I am making the video and speak out loud explaining why all the wrong answers are wrong and why the correct answer is.. you guessed it...correct.

In 73ish day's I have been able to raise my score 13 points as I scored a 160 on PT41 (my last PT I have taken). Here is the kicker though. I feel really fucking good about this test. When I blind review I miss 2-3 questions for the entire test. I have only taken I think 5 PT's so yeah I am quite happy with my progress. If I scored into the 170's on my next PT I honestly would not at all be surprised and I am not saying that to brag, I am saying that because I think it speaks for itself what this coarse has done for me.

One other thing though that is important. Friday and Saturday night want to know where I am? The library. The past 90 days I have watched the sun come up more than I have watched it set. I am in the worst physical shape of my life and my friends and family tell me to "just take the test to see how you do" which anyone who is studying for this test understand why this is so hurtful? Even when I meet other LSAT takers which is rare they didn't study and thus all have scores in the 150s so not even they can relate. I am keeping a journal so I am tossing the idea around about posting it but I am going to wait to make sure I hit my test day target of at least 176 before I go spouting any type of advice.

J.Y. Thank you for the help. I feel like we are best of friends and you don't even know it, I mean we hang out every weekend. bahahaha.

Best,

LSATKingsman

The first section of the PT59's logical reasoning is quite killing me.

Anyway, I was stuck between B and C and then chose C. But the answer is A.

I thought B or C can block another possibility which can weaken the argument and enhance the argument that nutritious breakfasts can the only reason to increase productivity of Plant A.

So I still have no idea why B or C can't be an answer and why A is correct.

Can someone explain me A, B and C?

Thanks in advance!