Hi guys,

Do you have any idea how the sections affect the overall score? I just took a PT and got a 160, while completely bombing the Logic Games (like I only got 6 correct in the entire section -__-). I'm obviously drilling them and I normally don't do that badly, but I was just wondering what score you think I might expect if I were to do better in that section.

Thanks!!

Anybody taking the test at Wagner college on Staten Island? I'm coming from Brooklyn... I think I have a ride worked out but I wouldn't mind making a back up plan with someone else. The whole no phones allowed thing really makes it hard to work out a cab or anything like that, and I am, like most of NY, sadly car-less.

LSAC just opened registration for the September, December, and February LSATs. The good seats are filling up fast. You want to register as soon as you can so that you won't to drive far to your test location. Also keep in mind that some test locations are more comfortable than others. Some locations have long tables available instead of small desks. So read some online reviews before choosing your test location. I hope this tip helps, and good luck to all of you.

I am registered to take the LSAT this September. I am looking for a serious study partner who is diligent, enjoys strategy, and is taking the intuitive approach to studying. I am open to using Skype chat, or any other online or over the phone method of communication. I am a Philosophy major, and would love to meet others from my major.

Best,

Anne

Anne2Hoang@Gmail.com

Location reviews:

http://www.simugator.com/lsat-test-site-rater.php

http://lsatcenters.wikia.com/wiki/LSAT_Test_Center_Wiki

I took the LSAT last december (thanks to 7sage!) and scored 167. While my average on tests had been 165, I saw on my test results that I had actually missed a bubble on Section 2, pushing my remaining answers back! Fortunately it was towards the end, but I still missed out on 2 correct answers (argh!!). I could have had a 169.

I'm considering taking again. But I know it's a risk- I could score the same, or lower. It's also incredibly expensive in terms of time and money and I'm now working full time. I'd welcome any thoughts on whether a second try is worthwhile, or advice from anyone who has taken it more than once. Thanks!

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-69-section-4-question-16/

Hey test-takers! If you have PT69, care to discuss this question with me?

Upon review, the flaw is glaring and answer choice (B) makes sense.

During the timed test, I chose (C) and now I still can't see why the author did not make that error. H/she went from "salespeople" (whole) to "salespeople in major health stores" (part). This was the reasoning used to the reach the conclusion, so why is it not right to attack it?

Thank you!

This text comes up whenever I hover over a recent post but it does not include any time limit.

Okay, so I havent seen this in a problem and if I have I cant remember. But how would someone diagram this: If necessary, they need to register for the race, mainly the if necessary is what throws me off.

Hi 7sage community,

I just want to share a little story that might help some of you who are in a similar situation as I am.

Never have been a smart kid in my life and I was mainly fascinated with lines and colors so I assumed I would grow up to be an artist. After graduating, I did become an artist and I was fairly content with my occupation.

But somewhere along the line, I found myself taking more pleasure in drafting contracts and negotiating with my clients. After much thoughts and research, I decided to enter law school to specialize in design copyrights. But before I could set my feet in the school, I needed to take this freaky monster called the LSATs. This test was like encountering an extraterrestrial deformed monster from Dead Space. Each question attacked me with its ugly testicles and claws. Not fun at all.

But I sticked through to no avail.

I knew how to attack them, theoretically, but when I was out in the field, my hands trembled and quickly they ripped me apart with their slimy trickeries.

Main problems for me were that I could not stop stressing about the test and the meaning of the score I would eventually receive. But then I realized that this was just a test and I could not allow this test to dictate my own self worth as a person. After this conviction, I solved through PTs with clam hearts, without stressing myself.

And lo! I was in control. I sliced through the trickeries and punched each question with efficiency and I ended up getting 1 question wrong for LR, which is my weakest section.

So the moral of the story would be this; don't stress out and solve the questions without the fear of receiving low scores and know that there is no causal relationship between the score and your intelligence.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-3-question-14/

I'm very confused with this specific question, one of the few LR that I have ever blind reviewed and been unable to get correct. It's a weaken question but the correct answer choice DIRECTLY attacks the main premise of the argument, basically completely renders it false. It is a, if true, question so in hindsight I can see how the answer choice is correct but it seems to defy my strategy for attacking weakening questions. Am I missing a subtlety here or did I just think to deeply into this question and miss the obvious answer..it doesn't help that none of the other answer choices seemed correct so I went with C because the argument claims that EVERYBODY needs to wear sun screen and the answer says that some people are allergic, but it does say some people allergic to most sunscreen so they clearly can just buy stuff they aren't allergic to. Mainly, does this answer choice bypass our Goku lazer beam analogy?

Ecologist: It is true that the solution of the problem of global warming will require important changes in the way we use fossil fuels over the long term and that the free market must play an important role in making these changes possible. But these facts should not make us forget how crucial near-term limits on the emissions of "greenhouse gases" are to motivate these changes. When the issue was the limitation of ozone-reducing substances, it was short-term emissions limits that quickly brought the needed technologies to the marketplace. These technologies were not available until the international community had adopted specific limits on ozone-depleting substances.

By which one of the following means does the author of this passage make his case?

(A) making a careful distinction between two key terms

(B) questioning the accuracy of the evidence given to support the opposition's case

(C) using an appropriate analogy

(D) using the literal meaning of a word that could be construed as metaphoric

(E) using premises that are contradictory

What is the passage talking about? And why is the answer "C"?

For those getting 173/175 +... what's your breakdown per section?

I am having difficulty translating statements with both cannot and without. For example:

A business cannot change its core corporate philosophy without becoming a different corporation. Would I translate this as, [if a company changes its corporate philosophy-> then the company becomes a different corporation]?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-2-question-24/

i'm having difficulty with the following question:

ID THE FLAW: "studies have found that human tears...[redacted]"

CORRECT answer: argument "takes for granted that because certain substances are present...[redacted]"

i can understand why the correct answer is correct by breaking down the argument:

P1: tears have hormones

P2: stress has hormones

conc: so shedding tears must reduce stress.

assumption: hormones CAUSE stress. this is why the author is saying that ~Hormone --> ~Stress

my WRONG answer: argument "overlooks the possibility that if crying has...[redacted]"

but even though i can understand why the correct answer is right i'm having a hard time articulating why my answer (above) is wrong. i thought that the answer was touching upon the idea that there is a correlation, not causation (i.e., if stress is reduced when we cry, this may be because something other than crying causes stress levels to decrease -- so the effect is just a coincidence, not a true causation). could you please help?

thanks, as always! :)

blank

Non-math major here. So I found out that one of my biggest weaknesses in LR questions is the question type which deals with percentages and averages. I always sucked at math and thinking in terms of percentages and averages does not come naturally to me. Should I break out a math book and review? What do you guys do?

Hello,

I've got a common question about linking up a logic chain. I just re-watched the video lesson but it's not precisely the answer to my question. Any help is appreciated!

If you have:

Premise: A ---> B ----> C

-------------------------------------

Conclusion: D ---> C

Is it correct to try to make D ---> A and D ---> B (either one works, along with their contrapositives) OR would it be correct to make A ---> D and B ---> D?

My question is from PT 47 section 3, number 21. According to the video, it is the former method, but I remember doing it the other way sometimes. I got the Q right doing it in my head but it'd be great to confirm it. Thanks again

I started some preliminary LSAT prep, and on my diagnostic, I'm currently -5 on LG, -6 on LR, and -4 on RC. I know it's not great, but if I do the full course, is it gonna give me the bump I need? I know not a lot of programs do small bumps in each section easily.

Hello guys,

So I've been studying for the LSAT for about 3 months now, but not at all in the correct, intensive way that 7Sage shows us. As a matter of fact, I've been studying the wrong way...This course recommends that we prepare for a year maybe more, but with life and work that doesn't seem realistic. My fear about putting the LSAT off until a year from now, is what if I get discouraged or life gets in the way and I end up not taking the test.

That said, how long are you guys planning to prepare for before taking the LSAT?

Does anybody have neck pain from all this studying and test taking? My neck is killing me today! Any advice?

Hi 7sagers!

I browsed all RC courses but I found that there's no specific video teaching what we should be aware while reading comparative passages.

And I also searched the Forum but didn't find any post concerning this question.

Does anyone has any suggestion?

Thank you very much.

I just bought the 7Sage package like a week ago, and my schedule says I'm going to need at least 8 hours a day, six days a week until my end date to finish this program. I just don't have that time in my schedule. I'm concurrently taking two summer classes, plus an additional Kaplan course. I've just finished the Nova book, and I have two Bibles to go through. What do I do? Is there anything I can skip?

Hi! I am having difficulty with predicting descriptive flaw questions. If anyone has done this question can you please explain to me how the correct answer is D.

Getting started for September test, and would definitely want to meet up a few times over the summer before September 27th.

I work on the Hill but also commute out to Annapolis and Bethesda area, if anyone else is preparing and wants to meet up.

I was under the impression that, on reading comprehension, reading the questions before you read the passage was a bad idea and a waste of time. However, I have been struggling with reading comprehension lately, and so wanted to experiment with some new techniques.

I decided to read the questions ahead of time. Specifically, I read for the details. I tried my method out on PrepTest 60. On one of the passages, I noticed that about three questions were about a group called the 'New Urbanists." Also, I found one question that mentioned a specific line, and marked this in the passage. Basically, I took a note of the concept in each question. This probably took me 15 seconds.

That ended up changing the way I read the passage. I now read with a focus on those details I had just scanned. It made the right parts of the passage pop out and ultimately led me to be able to finish all four passages (which I had been struggling to do).

This approach just make reading comprehension a lot more straightforward because I approached the passage with a direction instead of feeling around for which details would be important.

I would compare it to reading the question stem before doing a logical reasoning question. It seems similar to me because reading an RC passage without reading the questions beforehand gives me the same feeling that reading a logical reasoning stimulus without knowing the question stem. A feeling of foreboding about what would be coming at the end. I tried to retain what I'd read in the stimulus, but was always jarred by the need to contemplate the question stem and its effect on the passage. I find reading the questions for the first time after reading a passage is like someone pushing me while I'm trying to balance on a ball or something. It's such an effort to stuff the passage into my brain that trying to juggle the questions and their effects on the passage really throws me off.

By having a heads up on the questions, I am able to search my way through the passage instead of stumble my way through.

It made me wonder if somehow logic games might benefit from the same approach?

I have found that labelling the answers in LR as either "True," "Could be...," or "False" helps me to understand the question types better.

The only significance compared to the way I've seen answer choices labelled in other places is that I don't separate Could be true or could be false.

If you think about it, there is no question where you would need both could be true and could be false answers. If an answer COULD be true then just by definition it could also be false.

In a can't be true question, you would say a wrong answer choice could be true.

In a must be true question, you would say that very same answer choice could be false.

So, in the context of the question, it doesn't matter if you label CBT or CBF, you might as well shorten it to C.

I eventually started to notice that question types tend towards distribution patterns.

For instance, a necessary assumption might have a distribution like T T T C F where..

T (1) is the correct answer, a necessary assumption...

T (2) restates the conclusion and...

T (3) restates a premise,

C is a sufficient assumption answer choice (and so it COULD be true and so bring the argument to validity, but also COULD be false, and so must not be true in other words is not a necessary assumption.), and...

F is a can't be true answer choice, that is, it would evoke some sort of contradiction in the stimulus.

Compare that to a Can't be true question, which might be F C C C T

F - Correct answer. Evokes a contradiction.

C - Random, Irrelevant. And so could be true or could be false.

C - Random, Irrelevant. And so could be true or false.

C - Random, Irrelevant. T/F

T - Something that must be true. Some tautology or inference.

Compared to a Could be true, which is probably C F F F F (and is pretty strict, I find)

C Correct answer. Some possibility given the stimulus.

F Contradiction

F Contradiction

F Contradiction

F Contradiction

So you can see that the question types tend to have different types of distributions...

This is not to say that every question type has an exact distribution, but they tend towards particular patterns.

A CBT question couldn't have a distribution like CCFFF and it also probably wouldn't have a distribution like CTTTT. I've rarely seen one that has any T's in it, though I do remember one case where they put a T into a CBT Q.

Any critiques or comments?