As I am working through the games, I find myself going over the ideal time and I miss a few of the answers. However, when I redo the games, my speed increases and I get more answers correct, sometimes perfect score.

When I take the LSAT, all of the games will be new to me, so I am worried that my speed and accuracy may be hindered. I am worried!

Should I be worried about this, or is this a normal process when introduced to unfamiliar games during this program?

3 weeks away, people!!!!! Let’s do this!

LSATurday, Nov 14th at 8PM ET: PT71

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/tA67DTS6xgqW

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

Note:

I don't know if I'm overthinking it, or the diagrams truly represent different ideas. Logically, they both seem equivalent to be, just diagrammed differently.

What's the difference between these two ideas?

1. Either F or L, but not both, will go before M

2. L will go before F or G, but not both

Are these the same ideas? or represent different concepts?

I diagrammed these ideas in different forms. Can you let me know if my diagramming is merely aesthetic or it symbolizes some other idea

DIAGRAM 1:

1. F---M

L---M

F---M---L or L---M--F

DIAGRAM 2:

F----M

L---M

F----------M

F----------L

or

M--------F

L-----------F

I've been reading the LSAT trainer and am a little confused about the diagramming of the bi-conditional.

One question was: L will go before J if and only if L is after G. I diagrammed this as follows: L--J (----) G---L--J. However, the answer sheet has two different answers This:: L--J (----) G---L--J. and this: J---L---G. I don't understand the later. Is this supposed to be the contropsoitive or something?

In my opinion, this is the hardest question on PT 58. I missed it because I didn't understand what B was saying. Can someone help me translate it/evaluate my translation of B into English? Here is my breakdown for this one:

There are eight craters in a straight line somewhere. Some of these craters have rocks that have undergone high pressure shocks. These shocks could have been caused by meteors or volcanoes. Since the craters are in a straight line, it isn't likely the existence of the craters is due to both meteors and volcanoes. Since the craters are different ages, it must have been volcanoes.

What I am looking for: We need to strengthen the argument. The argument seems to be making an either/or but not both argument. In other words, the craters were caused by either volcanoes or meteors, but not both. The argument is assuming that saying something about the ages of craters is evidence that it was NOT meteors. That's the assumption.

Answer A: This is what I chose, but I really didn't like it. I think this does actually strengthen the conclusion because it provides some evidence that volcanoes can actually create a "similar" line of craters. However, I don't like this answer very much because the line was "shorter" and the craters were the "same age." This doesn't address the assumption that age matters since it controls for that factor. So although this does strengthen the conclusion, it doesn't strengthen the argument.

Answer B: This is the correct answer, but I am having a very tough time translating this into English. This is saying that there is no known natural cause that could account for 8 meteor craters of different ages in a straight line; I probably should have chosen this answer in hindsight since it is the only answer choice that even talks about a relevant case of different aged craters. I think we can assume two things from this answer choice: volcanoes are a natural thing and meteors are a natural thing. Here is my translation:

1.) There is no known volcano that would likely account for the craters being from a meteor. To me this is like a "duh?" statement. Volcanoes and meteors are independent things. Of course volcanoes wouldn't account for the meteor craters.

2.) There is no known meteor that would likely account for the craters being from a meteor. I think this is the reason why this answer strengthens the argument. Does this flat out deny the chance that meteors were the cause? I think at best it only sort of does since the idea of "known" isn't all encompassing. There could be cases that we don't know about. So, in my mind, at best this is a pretty weak strengthener. It depends heavily on the idea that what is "known" is actually a reliable thing to use as evidence in this inductive argument.

Answer C: I think this severely weakens the argument since it suggests that it was neither meteors nor volcanoes. Definitely don't want this one.

Answer D: This is similar to C. This weakens the argument since this suggests that volcanoes were not the cause.

Answer E: This is another trap answer choice that I had a tough time eliminating during the timed exam. I think this answer is very similar to A in that it does strengthen the conclusion, but not the argument. This answer choice suggests that a single meteor shower couldn't have created the craters. However, what about meteors from different showers at different times? Being from the same meteor shower implies that the craters that would have been potentially created would be roughly the same age, which wouldn't create an analogous situation to begin with.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-58-section-4-question-23/

LSAT Party time, that is!

LSATurday, Nov 14th at 8PM ET: PT53

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/C8Yeac0csm8G

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

Note:

I am pretty clueless on this one. I had the answer down to C or D, and I chose D (kept it during BR). I am completely lost as to how E is the weakener, so help would be greatly appreciated. Here is my breakdown:

This is a weaken question.

Few graduate students are aware of the attempt to unionize (some are aware; most are not aware). From there, I diagrammed the rest:

Grad students MOST not aware

Grad students SOME aware‑m→believe union would not represent their interest or do a bad job pursuing those interests

Therefore, grad students‑m→disapprove. Therefore, grad students shouldn't unionize.

What I am looking for: A lot wrong with this one. First, the argument assumes that if most of a group disapprove of something, then that thing shouldn't be done; this is sort of like an appeal to the crowd fallacy. What if it is in everyone's best interest for everyone eat their vegetables, but most people don't want to do it? Second, the argument makes an invalid inference. We don't know if MOST grad students disapprove. We only know that SOME of them are aware and Most are not aware (does no awareness mean disapproval? What if they are just ignorant?) Along the same lines, the argument is assuming that believing the union would not represent their interests/believing that the union wouldn't effectively pursue their interests is the same thing as disapproval. Lastly, the argument seems to be making a pro vs. con flaw by ignoring the potential benefits/pros of unionizing. The argument only talks about the possibility that the union won't have some people's interests in mind or won't be effective. What if there are things that outweigh those potential cons? The argument doesn't even address that relevant concern.

Answer A: What long standing practice?

Answer B: Fails to exclude alternative explanations? Why does the argument need to do this? We presumably have a few reasons why the students don't like the idea.

Answer C: I had it down to this one and D. I eliminated this one because something not being a good idea isn't mentioned in the passage. Just because something "shouldn't be done" doesn't necessarily imply that that thing isn't a good idea. I think this answer choice would have been better if "not a good idea" were substituted for "not be done."

Answer D: I was pretty confident with this answer choice, and I kept it during BR. Doesn't the argument do this? The argument is limiting it self to the potential cons of unionizing: it might not represent the interests of people or it might do a bad job representing the interest of people. What if there are other reasons to unionize that outweigh those concerns?

Answer E: This is the correct answer, but I felt 100% confident eliminating it. Does the argument equivocate on active disapproval and lack of approval? I don't see where it does this. Sure, it blurs the distinction between active disapproval (assuming that those who are aware of the union and believe that the union won't have their interests at heart/think the union won't do an effective job disapprove) and lack of awareness, but I don't see where the argument conflates active disapproval and mere lack of approval.

Hello folks,

Here it is me whining again. When I BR, I score in the 160s but when I do timed PT, I can't pass the 146-147. I did most of 7Sage's video twice, and I am redoing The Trainer again now. I really don't know what to do any more. I feel (which probably wrong) that I know the material. Currently I am doing two PTs a week, and I BR after every PT.

I improved by 10 points since I started last December. My diagnostic was a horrible 130's yet my current score is still horrible!

Please, I need your advice :)

Hey guys, just wanted to let you know I got PT 76 this morning - I ordered in Sept when I ordered my 10 actual LSAT series books from LSAC, so if you ordered & haven't gotten it yet, it should be coming soon. Now to decide if I go ahead & take it or save it for a week or two before the Dec exam.

For those of you who have hired a consultant, or know of someone who has and are familiar with their experience. How was your/their experience working with the consultant & would you do it again? Was it worth it? How did you/they find the consultant? What did the consultant do (advise you to make changes to your personal statement, give tips on how to edit your essays or diversity statement , or help you get scholarship money etc.)? How expensive is it to hire them? Thank you in advance.

If AC "C" only said "children tend to have more acute tastes: therefore, they zero in on foods with the most distinctive tastes" I would have seen it as being the correct AC right away, but instead this answer goes on to state they get sick more often than adults do? I thought we were not supposed to make assumptions or add things that aren't there when dealing with MSS question types? Although every other AC seemed no good, what popped into my head when looking at AC "C" is how do we know... children become sick more than adults do -where does it state this or is it even allude to it in the stimulus? Any insight would be nice. Thanks!

I changed my answer to A during BR since B-E are really bad, but I am not seeing how the company president "takes for granted " (assumes) what answer choice A states. Here is my breakdown:

For the new job, we are only going to interview people who have worked for the best firms. Therefore, when we choose someone, we will surely have selected one of the best people.

What I am looking for: This is a classic whole to part flaw. Maybe synergies or something creates the emergent property of being in the "top 1%." Also, is being in the top 1% even considered the best? What if the top 1% are very good, but only the top .01% are considered the best? The author's metric for "best" could be bad

Answer A: I confidently eliminated this one during the timed exam, which caused me to spin my wheels on B-E, which caused me to miss this one. During BR, I eliminated B-E first and chose this. But, I don't really understand where the author takes this idea for granted. To me, this isn't describing the "whole to part" flaw nor attacking the author's "best" metric. Specifically, the conclusion talks about "selecting one of the best." But, I don't see how this idea is limited only to the management consultants at top firms. Couldn't the author think that there are also some of the best at not top management firms? The author doesn't say anything to the contrary, so couldn't it be true? In my mind the word "only" is too strong; if this word was replaced with "sometimes," then I think this answer choice becomes more apparent. In other words, I just don't see where the author erroneously presumes this answer choice.

Additionally, say that there 200 firms. He is limiting is search to just the top 2 firms (the 1%). The company president makes no claim about people in the other 198 firms. Why couldn't a member of a top 4% firm be one of the best?

Answer B: What sample?

Answer C: This is what I chose during the timed exam, and the only reason I chose it was because I had to pick something (I had already eliminated A). This answer choice is backwards. It describes a "part to whole" flaw. If this answer choice were reversed, then I think it would work.

Answer D: Accepting? Irrelevant idea.

Answer E: Competent at every task? Irrelevant.

Don’t wait to hit the 70s in January! Be prepared!

Friday, Nov 13th at 8PM ET: PT71

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/sdiINq0J9AwI

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

Note:

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.