I just signed up and purchased the Ultimate course package, and I was able to see the material. I logged out, and I was unable to log back in. I think I signed up with an incorrect/misspelled email address when I actually paid for the account. I had to create a trial account with my correct email so I can post my problem here. I've emailed but haven't had a response yet. I know I should be patient, but I'm kind of freaking out.

Has anyone had this problem?

Hello all!

I recently finished taking PT 58 and 59, and got the same exact score!(feeling slightly bummed) I would love to have a skype/google hangout group where we can discuss PT 58 and PT 59 in detail! If anyone is interested? Let me know :)

Please help!! I'm currently working on the curriculum and I'm up to sequencing games with a twist. I've done two games and missed a few. I'm at the third game and I'm having trouble getting through it. I'm missing a few inferences even after watching the explanation. My question is should I continue without getting them right or should I pull out my trainer and logic games bibles and work on drills for inferences. I've extended my curriculum twice .. Please help.

Hello everyone!

I am desperately looking for advice on how to improve my LR score. I have been studying on and off for my LSAT over the past 2 years with lengthy breaks in between (studying during my Master's was a bad idea). My original diagnostic score was a sad 138 and now I'm scoring around a 153. I know it is really hard to come up from such a low score, but I'm determined.

I have seen some improvements and have hired a private tutor, but my LR score is stagnating. The most I ever get correct in a given section is 15 and I usually get to anywhere between 17-20 questions on any given LR section. I time myself religiously and almost every single time I get 15 correct. I want to score in the low 160s this December and I am currently dedicating all of my time to studying. I know I am having a serious time management issue, but I'm not sure how to fix it. My goal is to get a minimum of 20 correct on LR.

I review every single one of the problems I get wrong, but I cannot seem to break this pattern. Are my goals realistic and if so how do I achieve them?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

I agree that I most certainly need to take a break from the LSAT, which I am. However, in the mean time I'm trying to work on logic or establishing validity. I've done numerous random worksheets online and in this course on validity and logic. 8/10, I'm getting the logic right as far as drawing valid conclusions and negating statements, drawing could be true and must be true inferences from the logic. However, although I am seemingly able to to identify the the valid and invalid argument forms when it's in its form (for example, A--->B, A--m--> B, etc.), I have a hard time consistently identifying them when I see them in REAL LR questions. Why is that? Almost every quiz I take on drawing valid conclusions, I pretty much nail it. But when it comes to the LR questions such as SA and MBT, or even parallel flaw/reasoning questions, I tend to get the answer wrong. Why is that? Is this normal?

So is order to avoid burnout and a brain drain, I'm curious to see what absorption time you guys give yourself after blind reviewing before starting a new pt session. Today for instance, I've BR and drilled all day since 9 AM, and I'm debating about a PT tonight at 9PM. I'm sure with less then 30 days left til DEC lot of cramming is being done around this time and subjectivity aside, some guidance from the vets would be much appreciated.

I have found myself getting irritated and impatient when people make illogical arguments during general conversations. I am also painfully cognizant of the "illogical-ness" of their arguments. Social events are even more stressful ;-) Please add your observed "side-effects"

Hello,

What logic form are these? ? And how would you translate this into logic as well as obtain its contrapositive?

I will run for office or I will shut my mouth. I ran for office. Thus, I didn't shut my mouth

If I am literate, then I can read and write. I can read but I can't write. Thus I am not literate

Hello all,

I really need some sage advice.

I have been following the LG attack strategy and the foolproof review method for LG sections. LG is by far my biggest trouble area. I know you gotta get LG perfect to see scores above 170s. LG is the section that is holding me back in high 160s area, and I am really really desperate to change this before the December test.

People say LG is the easiest section to improve, but for me.... I just can't do games well under a timed condition!! I can solve games well when I am just drilling non-timed.

Besides following the LG attack strategy Mr. Pacifico kindly shared with the community.... is there anything else I should be doing to get perfect on LG....? I would really really appreciate any advice. I never expected LG would be such a problem for me :(

Hey guys! Can anyone recommend an optimal study schedule from now up to the December test? I'm averaging 158 on my PTs and I am hoping for 165+. Is this a realistic goal?

I am on PT 45 right now and I hope to work up to the newest one. I understand that the December test is in less than a month-- should I try do a PT everyday (or would I burn out)? Or should I do a PT every other day and blind review/drill on the other days?

My weakest section is RC; I find that I rarely have the time to even read the last passage. Any tips?

Can someone please explain why C is the correct answer and A is wrong.... And also maybe a guide how to approach a similar question.

Would anyone be willing to discuss their explanations with me? I have handful of questions from each section, especially Game 3.

Just throwing this out there, has anyone/a sibling/a friend played a club sport while attending law school? The schools I'm eyeing these days have club hockey teams that practice 2h/wk and play 2 games/weekend (~8-10h/wk commitment). Wondering if anyone knows if this is feasible, or if I need a reality check. I'm definitely eligible by NCAA rules and regs, but I'm going to law school to learn and network, not to screw around and graduate with no employment. Thus, if it would make more sense to devote myself to a moot court or an academic club, then I will do so...but it would be really nice if I could do it all.

Any insight would be appreciated. Thanks all.

Hi guys,

For question #2, we are asked to break down this argument into premises, conclusion, and context.

The common procedure for determining whether a food additive should be banned from use is to compare its health related benefits with its potential risks. Yellow Dye No. 5, an additive used to color lemon soda, might cause allergic reactions in a few consumers. For most consumers of lemon soda, however, the coloring enhances their enjoyment of the beverage. This particular additive should not be banned, therefore, because its benefits greatly outweigh its risks.

This was my answer:

Context: The common procedure for determining whether a food additive should be banned from use is to compare its [food additive] health related benefits with its potential risks.

Premise: Yellow Dye No. 5, an additive used to color lemon soda, might cause allergic reactions in a few consumers.

Premise: For most consumers of lemon soda, however, the coloring enhances their [most consumers] enjoyment of the beverage.

Premise/Sub Conclusion: because its [Yellow Dye No. 5] benefits greatly outweigh its risks.

Main Conclusion: This particular additive [Yellow Dye No. 5] should not be banned.

J.Y.'s was different. Can people explain to me why my answer is wrong? It makes sense to me since the first two premises explain why the sub conclusion (Yellow Dye No.5 benefits greatly outweigh its risks) which then in turn supports the main conclusion. Thanks!

Admin note: This is the lesson:

http://classic.7sage.com/lesson/quiz-context-identification-1-answers/

Has anyone been able to get their hands on the October test yet? It's showing up on Amazon but it says out of stock. So what's more likely ,everyone and their mother bought it or is it showing up to order even though it's not available yet?

In the LSAT Ultimate course package, I noticed that full explanations for LSAT exams before PT 36 are provided when watching individual explanations for problem sets. Is there a direct way I can access these explanations without having to first find an explanation for a problem set?

Help

[Mod edit]

For reference: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-4-question-22/

Although I struggle with consistency identifying these arguments in complicated passages, I do tend to recognize them in easier forms. Hopefully this helps someone in need of a better understanding of this particular concept

BR Groups for LSAT in February are so fetch!! Thank goodness we all found 7Sage instead of... Kaplan!

Wednesday, Nov 11th at 8PM ET: PT52

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

Friday, Nov 13th at 8PM ET: PT72

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

LSATurday, Nov 14th at 8PM ET: PT53

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

Be sure to click the link of the conversation you’re attending and announce in the comments which group(s) you’re planning on attending.

Note:

I really can't wait to be done with this exam. I'm starting to get a headache every time I see a question. I feel like I've put a lot of time and energy into this exam but am not getting the results I want. I gave up on trying to score in the high 160s. Hell, I'll be happy with a solid 155, but it seems impossible to achieve, despite my efforts. I am not reconsidering going to law school at all, but I really wish I could just get past this rough patch in my life, known as the LSAT. I feel like I'm in a bind. On one hand, I can't just say F it because if my score is below average, I doubt if I can get into a decent school. On the other hand, I'm struggling to get into the 150s, Lord help me!

Hello,

Does anyone have a cleat sheet on which LR questions you need to identify conclusion/P. I know, or atleast I'm under the impression that, there are some questions that don't require this.

Do anyone share the same feeling that PT in #60s are much harder than PT in #40s and #50s? I completed fewer questions when I took PT in #60s.

I am doing the Miscellaneous Questions Problem Set 5, and 18.4.21 has me really confused. I googled the meaning and got this: http://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/11060/how-to-use-what-is-more

To me it boils down to "furthermore." If that is the case, then how is B not the correct answer? Wouldn't starting your response argument with "furthermore..." mean that you are using the same premises as the previous argument?

Independently, I don't see how E accurately describes the relationship between the arguments. What is the conflicting supposition? I think this answer choice is trying to get you to assume that since there is no general agreement in evaluating the merits of sound (Jane's argument), Mark's claim about "tonal quality" conflicts with that idea. But, isn't tone a more refined idea than sound?

I Googled the definition of sound and got: "vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear." The definition of tone according to Google is: "A musical tone is a steady periodic sound. A musical tone is characterized by its duration, pitch, intensity (or loudness), and timbre (or quality). The notes used in music can be more complex than musical tones, as they may include aperiodic aspects, such as attack transients, vibrato, and envelope modulation."

Sound to me could be anything: random noises to steady/periodic/intentional sound choice. Musical tone, which is a type of sound, has to more with the latter than the former. Doesn't this mean that Jane's premises about sound and Mark's premise about tone both be true? Aren't sound and tone related, but not completely synonymous? I don't see how they necessarily conflict, which is what answer choice E states.

For the regular weaken and strengthen questions, I am starting to get better. However, when it comes to causation, I am really confused. There is so much information to take in.

Can someone please give me some pointers?

We debated this question for a long time in Group BR last night. While almost everyone got the correct answer, we were strongly divided about the actual flaw in the stimulus. Some people held the explanation essentially that the argument failed to consider that it was a dichotomy or binary choice. Now, I know JY, Manhattan Forums, and Graeme Blake all state this as the purported flaw of the stimulus, but I find this explanation to be wanting.

Others, including myself, felt that the stimulus was guilty of circular reasoning. To be honest, to explain that an argument fails to consider the possibility of a binary choice seem like a huge assumption. It also seems downright arbitrary. If that were true, wouldn’t that call into question every time we find that an argument is guilty of a false dichotomy? Whereas Circular Reasoning makes sense to me because the conclusion is essentially a restatement of the premises. This explanation requires far less assumptions (especially the difficult-to-swallow “The two options given COULD be the ONLY options”) than those previously mentioned.

I think this is worthy of discussion and I invite mentors, Sages, tutors, and everyone else who wants to to weigh in on it.

@PMLSAT83

@nicole.hopkins

@poohbear

@c.janson35

@Pacifico

[Mod edit]

For reference:

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-69-section-1-question-14/