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

This is the first one I have missed on the 7 practice sets I have done so far for MSS. Since there is no video explanation, I'll add a forum post to see if I can get some people's thoughts. Here is my process:

This is a most strongly supported except question. This was a really weird question stem that I had to reread a few times. It probably contributed to me missing the question. We have to find an answer choice that does not fit the evidence.

In all mammals, during their childhood years in which they play a lot correlates with the most rapid growth in their neural connections. These connections establish complex movement, posture, and social response. Thus, this playful activity is necessary for survival/well being as an adult.

What I am looking for: This is an argument, and there is a flaw (I know we don't need to evaluate the flaw for MSS, but I like the practice). It makes a correlation implies causation flaw. How do we know that it is the playful activity that causes the neural connections to form? Anyway, back to the question. Since I did not really understand the stem, it was hard to formulate what I was looking for.

Answer A: This seems supported. Young mammals are going to run away from predators (which is a similar activity to playing).

Answer B: We don't know anything about non-mammals. The passage is just about mammals. This is the correct answer because there is NO evidence supporting this claim.

Answer C: This seems reasonable supported. I think it is OK to say that this behavior is a type of social response.

Answer D: This is definitely supported. The whole point is of the passage is that playing while you were young mattered. If you didn't play, then you were a weird adult animal.

Answer E: This is what I chose (I had eliminated A-D during the timed section; I was not confident in my answer choice, either), and I ran out of time trying to redo this question. This is supported. When the young play, they practice things that will help them in adulthood. Like answer D, this seems to be explicitly stated.

I missed this because of the weird stem, and I got caught up trying to figure out what it means. Are there any other questions out there with similar MSS, except that are this difficult? I know PT28-Section 3-Question 4 (from the MSS set #6) is an except question, but it was really easy I thought.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-2-question-21/

Hello! This is my first time posting a question. I am having trouble understanding why e is the correct answer. Is it correct because to if it's unpopular with the teachers than we have to modify and the word modify implies adopt a new policy? So to make the students happy we should adopt a new policy? Because isn't adopting a new policy the necessary condition for it being unpopular with the students? not the teachers?

Are there any inaccuracies in this book? I am starting to get skeptic here, but I could just be cray cray.

Hello everyone.

So I've been studying for the LSAT daily since the beginning of May. I plan on taking the October 3rd LSAT, and my diagnostic was a 145.

However, thanks to BasedJ.Y., I've improved significantly. My problem, however, is that my preptests can be inconsistent. I've taken about 9 PTs now, and my scores range from 157-171, with the average being 163.5. There will be times where I'll score multiple mid-high 160s, and then my next PT will be like a 158.

With test day creeping up, I'm starting to get nervous. My goal is only to achieve somewhere between a 160-163 (obviously higher is better), and the law firm I work for told me that they're only scheduling me 1 day a week from now until the test, so I can focus on things (and thus have ample time to devote towards evening out this inconsistency). But I, under no circumstances, want to score under a 160, and my recent PTs of 158 scares me.

My inconsistency tends to be in logical reasoning. For example, on the preptest I just did I went: 22/28 RC, 21/22 LG, 15/25LR1, 20/25LR2, 20/25LR3(EXP). I often average between 20-22 per logical reasoning section, but there's just times where, like on this present PT, I just shit the bed entirely.

What does everyone here recommend? I plan on doing 3 preptests and blind review a week from now until the test. Should I expect my LR score to even out after all of the BRs? I've gone through the curriculum many times, but it seems as if my IQ will just drop to -3 randomly during an LR section.

7Sage has been a really great resource and community for all of my LSAT prep, but now I'm in, and I'm feeling lost. I start in the next few weeks. I was taking things one step at a time, never jumping too far ahead in the admissions process. So, until June, my only focus was LSAT studying. I started looking for 1L advice when I thought law school might actually be a realistic possibility after the June test. I have found so much conflicting information. Some people who recommend buying every 1L support book possible and others (mostly people I know) who went in completely blind and still graduated in the top 10% of their class. I have taken some of Larry's book recommendations, I have been reading Planet Law School (which recommends a million other support materials), Glannon on Civ Pro, and Delaney's Learning Legal Reasoning. I don't want to overwhelm myself by buying and reading every book ever written for 1L's (nor do I even have the time), but I also don't feel comfortable walking in without knowing exactly what to expect. I've been reading through Larry's Law School Master but it's so new it doesn't offer what 7Sage has in terms of community and consistency. I would love any advice!

I've decided to take a break from PTs, and go back over the basics. I think one of my weaknesses is taking the Lawgic that we were taught, and applying it to the questions. So... if I can get someone to breakdown for me EXACTLY WHY and HOW we put questions into lawgic. Simplify for it me. How does it help with logical reasoning and reading comprehension questions, and then apply it to a question. I think this will help to unlock whatever block I'm feeling about understanding how this works exactly.

let's use a question I get wrong every time. Test 29 Section 1 Question 7.

Find the logical operator?

Identify two main concepts

Assign symbols to the 2 main groups

Apply translation rule

Find contrapositive

Translate back to English

Sooooo, I just did Pt 27 S2 G2 which is the lizards and snakes game. That was challenging as hell. Did you guys struggle with this game as well? Also I am a bit flustered by the explanation of this game. JY makes the claim that the 1st premise of this game means that each habitat has 2 slots, but how do we know that if the rule just states MAX 2 PER SLOT? Max 2 does not mean every habitat has 2 slots. Also, during the exam you are not going to "ignore certain elements of the game." How did you guys go about solving this game?

Okay, I just wanted to post this. I know I post a lot sometimmmmeeeessss.

I don't know what my initial diagnostic score was, but I'm sure it was the worst. I started prepping for the LSAT last May of 2014. I started with Kaplan for a few months, then I eventually found 7Sage, but there wasn't enough time for me to get my *best* mark before the December 2014 write. I wrote anyways and received a sad 155.

I was discouraged to say the least! I didn't get into any of the schools I applied for (not surprising), but I decided to hit the books every single day since I took that exam, even if it was for an hour or two in the morning before work and on my lunch break.

I started taking timed PTs once a week since the end of May. I have taken 9 so far. I posted in June that I received my first 170! Yesterday I took PT 57 and received a 168. I took today to BR and I received a 180 for the first time EVER.

The point of this post is thiiiiissss. I remember reading so many discussions when I started last year about people reaching (what seemed like) impossibly amazing scores. I was so insecure with my ability and didn't really believe that I could do it. I also was naive to think that you could fully prep for this exam in such a short time period. And, while I don't mean to discourage those reading this who are within that tight time frame, I can say that I benefited most from sitting back, reassessing, and taking my TIME with prepping. Sure, I would have loved to start at a law school for this September, but when I was prepping back in 2014 I would literally wake up at 3 AM every day and study until 10 PM every night (after an 8 hour day, so I would study in the AM for 2-3 hours, on my lunch break, and then from 5-10 daily). It was exhausting to say the least. But, and more importantly, I wasn't ever giving my brain any opportunity to absorb the information it was taking in every single day. I couldn't let my brain process how to answer questions. I used to get so much test anxiety when sitting down to write a PT at 3 AM that I would almost make myself physically ill and then cry when a dismal 152 would pop up on the grader and I would wonder how on earth I could ever increase my score.

SO. THE point is this. You can do it, everyone has it in them, all it takes is consistency, perseverance, belief in your ability, and TIME.

:)

For the practice sets of 5 problems. It says to time ourselves. Should we time ourselves to see how long each question takes us? Or time in a limited time sense. And if so how long should I give myself to do 5 questions. Thanks

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-3-question-08/

I think I may have answered this question myself, but can you guys chime in on this one? I chose D instead of A because "their investments" didn't have to be true. They could make a profit from someone else's investment, right? However, since this is an inference question I should be taking all of the answer choices to be true and then seeing which one can be proven from the stimulus? True, meaning that all of the answer choices are true, but only one can be proven from the stimulus. Does that make sense? I chose D because I didn't feel that there was anything in the stimulus that specifically stated, or even implied, in my opinion, that the investors were making investments only from "their" investments and I took "most" from the first sentence and "majority" from the last sentence to seem the same. If A hadn't included "their" it would've been my choice. I hope I didn't confuse anyone because I think I just confused myself!

Hi everyone,

I took a couple RC (and even LR) sections recently, and noticed that I made 70% of my mistakes because I did not fully understand the meaning, or alternate meanings, to key words in the passages or question stems. I'm an English major, so I thought I had a strong grasp of vocab but now I just feel kind of stupid. I've started noting down these words and will try to expand my vocabulary on the side, but I was wondering - have any of you encountered this problem? Are there any techniques you could suggest to overcome this?

Thank you so much for any advice!

Why A? And why not E?

I think I misinterpretted "addressing" in option A to mean that "referring to the..." Instead, by "address" I now think he means "considering and potentially implementing the critics claims doesn't matter yet cause now we need money."

In regards to "E" I interpreted it to mean that, "giving the report a single focus ('coherent vision of future') is less desirable than the critics claim seeing as we need some effing money." However, the true translation is "the author thought the critic's idea wasn't that awesome."

Did I just totally misread what was said? Is my misreading completely unwarranted (Am I cray)? Any strategies on how to not to misread?

How often do you find yourself finishing sections early? If so what sections particularly, & how much extra time do you typically have to go back and double check questions that you weren't 100% on?

I've hit a plateau at the 159 - 162 timed range, with a BR between 167-170.I'm typically finishing RC with literally no time to spare and average around minus 6-9. LR I can usually get through every question in time, with the exception being skipping and guessing on a difficult parallel reasoning question. LR average is between minus 5-8 per section with the a few minus 3's. LG is undoubtedly my worst section. I usually finish the first three games (or easiest three) relatively comfortably, but always run out of time and end up guessing on the last game. If I'm lucky I'll have time to read through the rules of the fourth game and get the easy acceptable situation type question. My LG average usually falls between minus 7-9, but I've had a couple as bad as minus 11-12. I don't typically have trouble picking the right game board or setting them up correctly, however it still just flat out takes me too long to make the necessary inferences. I typically resort to not making multiple set ups before attacking questions. Most of the time I write the rules, then move straight to the questions and brute force the correct answer after POE for obvious wrong answers. This is partly because I'm terrible at deciding when it's going to be extremely helpful to make multiple set ups before hand, and partly because I'm not confident enough to do it thoroughly in a reasonable amount of time.

I truly feel like if I could just get faster (especially in LG but also LR) I could get over the hump, but obviously that's way easier said than done. I'd love to be consistently hitting 165 before October. At this point I have completed the entire 7sage core curriculum, about 3/4 the LG bundle, and taken PT's 36 - 38, and 51 - 60. I'm trying fine tune my approach for the final 7 weeks before October. Any guidance would be much appreciated.

PT59 BR Tonight at 8pm ET

EVERYBODY.

YEEEEAH. Rock your BR with us tonight at 8pm ET!

Note on all groups

I am starting to get more answers correct. Do you guys view the explanation videos on the ones you got right? I want to get my money's worth, but not sure if that's a waste of time.

Yo people.

I loved my LSAT watch from 35minutes.com. I used the heck out of it from Feb. thru July. Then I finally ripped the mechanism out (better it happen now than, you know, like the week before). So now I want a new watch.

I'm looking at this one. http://www.amazon.com/Perfect-Score-LSAT-Watch-Exam/dp/B00SC6FJ3M/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1438699397&sr=8-3&keywords=lsat+watch

And this one. http://www.180watch.com/

I stopped caring about price because I'd rather have a better watch than save ~$20-$30. You feel ??

Any thoughts? Priorities are ... Either 4 section color coding or none, love the nifty "section reset" button (otherwise I was planning on having my nails done to guarantee that they're long/strong enough to pull the little doohickey out ... maybe that last part belongs in the Confessional thread).

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-4-question-08/

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-4-question-10/

Hi all, I just took PT 62 today and I would like to get some input from other 7sagers regarding the answer choices for these two questions. I scored a 173 on the exam, but there were a couple of answers that still do not sit right with me after watching each explanation ten times. For question 8 the stimulus refers to "diverse cultures," but the correct answer choice includes the phrase, "all of the world's cultures," which seems overreaching. I initially circled this answer choice (C), but I changed it to "A," which I thought was incorrect as well. As for question 10, it seems to me that the flaw is that liquid water is not sufficient for primitive life to evolve, but the correct answer choice reads, "fails to consider that there are conditions necessary for the evolution of life in addition to the presence of liquid water." How does this introduce the notion that water is not sufficient? It just points out that there might be other necessary factors. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Hey Everyone,

Began studying for the LSAT March 1st 2015. Did the bibles and numerous PTs (about 17) in anticipation of the June 2015 test. My cold diagnostic was 148 but I was consistently PTing 158-162 (Most of PTs 19-28 and 62-71) when I decided to postpone until October. At that point, I studied much less from mid-May through mid-July because I had a solid grasp on fundamentals but knew it was important to save the later preptests that I accidentally burned so early.

Then I found 7sage.. This program has been awesome at renewing my confidence and giving me the tools to attack this test. The straightforward way that JY teaches is superior to powerscore. I'm 45% through the core curriculum and cruising (I study about 3 hours most days). I'm hoping to be done with it in mid-August and move on to taking 4 PTs per week right up until the test.

Do people think I have enough time to max out my score? My benchmark minimum is 166, but the ultimate goal is a 170. I'm prepared to go all in for October, but if it's not worth it I'll restructure and go December...although I may not have the luxury of a retake at that point.

Thanks for any and all feedback!

Which study method is better if you have enough time to take and BR 60 LSAT PTs... Take the 20 most recent PTs 3x's (56-75) or 60 PTs (16-75) once... Please explain your decision... I actually am on pace to accomplish 20 x 3...

From various posts, I see that there are a lot of Canadians here. I figured that it might be useful to have a thread devoted to Canadian related topics, whether related to the LSAT or law school.

I am entering my 2nd year at a Canadian law school, and try helping out on the forum when I can. Feel free to ask me anything on the forum or via PM; I'd love to help to the extent that I can. Regardless, I think a Canadian thread might be useful as these topics will all be in one post instead of strewn all over.

Hi guys,

I'm retaking the LSAT in October, so I already have familiarity with each LSAT section, but not in the in-depth way that many people on this forum seem to have. I have the Powerscore Bible for LG 'cause it's my weakest section, but I'd like something to drill and keep somewhat sharp on Arguments and RC (was getting -2/-4 on PTs in those sections). Since I'm pretty good at them, I don't want to drop $50 a piece on the PS Bibles and spend a ton of time on them.

Does anyone know about the viability and/or helpfulness of the "LSAT Superprep" book published by LSAC to help me drill in these sections? (Thinking maybe it could help me understand the sometimes baffling logic of LSAC) Or is there maybe a better way?

Thanks for your help!

Christian

So just bombed my fourth PT and I think it's about time I reevaluate my timeline and goals in here. Mid 160's is my target but I can't seem to see the light at the end of the tunnel here. So far my PT have been embarrassing at best. My initial diagnostic was 146. I've taken PT 36 - 39. So far I've gotten 133 (Didn't even think that was possible), 141, 146, and 147. I started the course in April and finished a couple of weeks ago and just started PT. Thing is, my BR has been comparably much better, in fact, probably right where I'd like to end up at. I've BR at 150, 156, 168, and 162. On RC I'm averaging -11.5 on LR I'm -14 and LG I'm -17. On BR for RC I'm -5, on LR I'm -7, and LG -8. A lot of these are really brought down by my first test where I pretty much locked up like a deer in headlights. But still, I'm thinking tempted to start from scratch here. Thing is, when I come back for BR, even for the ones I get wrong on BR, I'm seeing very clearly where I was wrong and most of the time, the right answer is the one I struggled with debating for. It leads me to believe there is something that's sunk in. I just don't know if this means I should continue PT and BR to a greater extent to work on timing and understanding the stimulus quickly, or if I should come back to the fundamentals of the course again before taking any more exams. Even since my first PT I've noticed a difference, especially in LG where I am at least completing a couple of games, but I'm nowhere where I thought I would be with 60 days until October. At this point, I'm thinking I should push this out till December. I'm already working full time and I'll be starting school at the end of this month. If anyone could help me gauge the mess I've made here, it'd be much appreciated.

Hey Fellow 7Sagers,

Just wanted to ask you a question about something that I've been seeing throughout Logical Reasoning questions and oftentimes, answer choices as well. What's a good way to remember what testmakers are talking about when they say "Confuses _____ for/with _____"??

For example:

B) LSAC confuses a necessary condition for a sufficient conditions.

Does this mean that what is meant to be a necessary condition is being mistaken by LSAC as a sufficient condition?....or vice versa...?

So should I remember this as whatever comes after "Mistakes/Confuses a _____" to be what is correct and that the author is mistakenly thinking of it as whatever comes after "...for a ____"?

Sorry for the extremely confusing explanation and wording....

Hi all. I'm about to do my June 2007 preptest tomorrow according to my syllabus. I know I'm supposed to emulate the test conditions to be the same time as what the real test would be held (early morning). However I can't do it this week b/c of my child's school schedule. The timing is super tight so I would be distracted during the test about being tardy to pick up at school. Would it be terrible to take the preptest any other time during the day when I feel alert? Or....should I wait and move on to the rest of the core curriculum and do the preptest next week when I have the time. Thanks so much.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-2-question-13/

I wonder whether this is really necessary assumption question.

Isn't this most strongly supported question or anything else?

There's no clear conclusion in the stimulus and although I negate (D) I am not sure if I can entirely wreck the argument.

I got this question right, but just wonder whether this question is properly categorized.