Has anyone saved a list of medium-difficult referential phrasing LR questions (especially forward-pointing referents) and/or multi-clause sentences that use referential phrasing? I'm trying to hone this skill and would love to help put together a list so others can do the same.

51.3.23 is a good one for starters, would love the help, thanks!

#help I have improved my score since starting 7sage but Sufficient Assumption questions give me a lot of trouble. They are my worst question type by far and I was wondering if anyone had any advice on how they approach these questions. If anyone could offer advice or their strategy that would be amazing! Thank you!

Proctors:

They have 3 proctors and they are very quiet throughout the whole process. They are not super familiar with the rules but you can tell that they have past experience as proctors for LSAT and are very very nice people.

Facilities:

Bathroom is very close to the classroom and is large enough to accommodate the test takers.

What kind of room:

Normal size classroom with AC on (Taiwan is still hot in September).

How many in the room:

They scheduled it 8*7, but about 30-40% of people didn't show up. So about 30 people in the room.

Desks:

Classroom-size desk and chair.

Left-handed accommodation:

Not sure.

Noise levels:

Quiet. At 9:30AM there were some noise because another test administered by ETC is happening downstairs. Didn't bother me that much.

Parking:

I walked to the test center, but, well, it's Taiwan. Why would you want to drive to the test center in Taiwan?

Time elapsed from arrival to test:

The test takers were split into two classrooms so the waiting time is not very long. I think we started before 9.

Irregularities or mishaps:

Didn't notice.

Other comments:

I like this test center a lot. Taipei in general is a relaxing place and the locals are super nice. There are also a lot of good food in this area, so I enjoyed staying there.

The classroom located in the International building, which is on the right side when you enter the main gate. You have to go all the way down the hall to the elevators. The location of the classrooms for LSAT won't be posted until the morning of the test, so don't worry.

And an very important notice: don't mistake National Taiwan University of Science and Technology from National Taipei University of Science and Technology. They are two different schools and located in different part of the city.

Would you take the test here again?

Yes, definitely. I also recommended this test center to my friends.

Date[s] of Exam[s]: September 25, 2016

.

The system always says "enroll in a full course", but I'm already enrolled and paid. Now I can't study any lesson except the free trail. Am I the only person having this problem? Plz help!

I'm really struggling to set up my game boards both quickly and in a manner that is helpful to solve the games. For example, I did PT 34, S4 today and could not for the life of me figure out how to set up the game board. Once I watched the explanation, it made total sense and it took me about :30 to answer each question.

Are there videos/tutorials I'm missing outside of these following lessons?:

Introduction to Logic Games & Sequencing Games

Sequencing Games with a Twist

Introduction to Grouping Games: The In-Out Games

Grouping Games

Grouping Games with a Chart

Grouping and Sequencing Games

Any other resources on learning how to set up game boards quickly and in a manner that actually helps the game would be much appreciated!

@mkang89

Correct answers in MSS questions are almost always one of two types: restatement of an idea from the stimulus or the conclusion of the stimulus (which was left unsaid in the stimulus).

But I've noticed a slight variant of the latter where the right answer choice asks us to identify a sub-conclusion -- slight more complex since we need to account for the premises and the conclusion stated in the stimulus. As a result, these operate a lot like a bridging question.

In 52.3.23, the stimulus gives us two survival benefits of HS and concludes from that support that a dense colony could survive indefinitely. That conclusion isn’t supported very strongly at all. There is so much we don’t know. But we need to accept the stimulus as true: these premises support that conclusion. It feels a lot like a bridge which means we are likely pushing out a sub-conclusion from the stimulus.

A. "If there was a dense colony then that colony would be capable of carrying out the two benefits indefinitely" (paraphrase). This is perfect -- it connects the survival benefits in the premises to the indefinite time horizon in the conclusion and in that way receives support.

B. This gives us a little more info about how one of those survival benefits operates but that's not supported by anything in the stimulus.

C. We don't know anything about "most organisms"

D. "If this bacteria thrives indefinitely, then HS has removed all oxygen and killed some organisms". There are two big problems here. First, it says these HS survival benefits are necessary for indefinite thriving. That's just not supported. What if we put the bacteria in a highly controlled lab environment with no oxygen and plenty of food which didin't need to be killed? Second, the stimulus doesn't say that all oxygen has to be removed.

E. Any colony? Ensures? Not supported in the least.

46.4.09 is another example of such a MSS although I think it is much more difficult.

Admin note: edited title for formatting

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/

Hi I took the April LSAT and got a 161. Much lower than my average Pt's. My last 5 PT average is 168.6 and my last 10 is a 166.8. If anybody wants free tutoring I'm offering it. This is would be my first time tutoring someone and also keep in mind I am still in the process of taking this exam. The reason I am doing this is because it would benefit me as well in explaining topics or AC's to someone. If interested lmk

Please also DM a short paragraph where you are in your study journey/ skills/ weaknesses/ how many PTs you have taken/ if you've finished the CC/ and anything else you'd think is important to state.

I was browsing youtube in my daily routine to relax before the test when all of a sudden, I got hit with a deja vu moment. For those who remember the RC passage about the ultraviolet catastrophe:

Enjoy~

The video explanation was a bit murky here. I'm not so sure why the answer choice is C. I have a good theory on why people likely mistakenly pick C even though it is the right a/c. There are some issues I have with it.

1. its trying to say that if the number of science and engineering students in university programs has increased in the last 5 years then that is somehow proof or strengthening the idea of there being no shortage of scientist and engineers. This is a problematic shift, it requires us to assume they stay in that program, graduate it, AND work in that field. There is no evidence that these people have even graduated never mind ward off an IMMINENT and CATASTROPHIC shortage. Imminent means about to happen, how can people who entered university 3 years ago and are not even employed ward off and IMMINENT shortage? we don't even know when in the last 5 years this increase happened. We just know generally

2. It is also using a raw number to address a question about a total proportion. In otherwords, the correct answer choice here, C, is a percents and numbers FLAW! It would be like saying ok you have a shortage of 90% of workers. C is saying but you have a significant increase in the NUMBER of science grads, so what, you went from 10,000 to 50,000, that doesn't ward of the IMMINENT AND CATASTROPHIC shortage of 400,000 science grads needed. This matters because shortage means proportion it is a ratio not a raw number. It is the amount of jobs to job seeker ratio. You cannot solve this question with a total number.

3. I try to see how C could at least be right, but I have a real problem with it. I suspect most people don't recognize it as a ratio issue and just say yeah more students ----> more grads -----> -more job seekers ----->avert shortage and therefore Strengthen conclusion. There is a problem at literally everyone of these jumps but the worse one is you can have a significant increase of students, grads, job seekers, and still not avert an IMMINENT and catastrophic shortage. Maybe I am just not seeing where he is trying to strengthen correctly.

4. So which a/c would I have chosen? Probably D? Why, it is the only question who addresses the issue in the argument and thus has the POTENTIAL to strengthen. If certain science fields have an oversupply and others have a shortage. That indicates 2 thins. 1) For the oversupply field clearly there is no imminent and catastrophic shortage, supporting the conclusion. 2) For the shortage field there is also no imminent and catastrophic shortage, it is a shortage but its not described as imminent or catastrophic, so it indeed also supports the conclusion.

Hi Everyone!

I was wondering any of you guys had opinions as to the difficulty of the new flex tests? It seems like on all previous (non flex tests) there is one harder LR and a less hard LR section (proof in that 7Sage seems to rank one section as 2/5 and the other as 3/5), do the flex tests seem to have a middling difficulty in the one LR section? I haven't taken any of the actual flex tests yet.

Any opinions would be appreciated! I have been using the flex converter on my PT's now and I'm wondering how accurate the scores are.

PT73 BR Tonight at 8pm ET

Well, well, well. About 2 months out and we're gonna BR us some PT73. Needless to say ...

NOTE: We are meeting at 8pm ET tonight. Not 8:30. Latecomers welcome! Gotta give the East Coast folks a break.

Note on all groups

Just curious to know how the recent USSC decision on affirmative action will affect admission chances. For instance, would this be put into play for this admission cycle? Thanks!

https://discord.gg/E2sXxhe7. DO NOT JOIN IF YOU CANNOT DO THE FOLLOWING:

-Download and use FLIP to track your study time

I am taking the test in June. PT review starts with PT1

I know. You're thinking about skipping out on BR groups this week. It's summer, you're having "fun," and October seems so far away. Well, it's not. Don't skip BR groups this week.

Listen to the GIF!

Note: Weekday (Weds/Fri) calls now starting at 8PM ET. We haven't had many West Coasters with schedule restraints on recently and would like to give the East Coasters a break (since we've been on until nearly midnight for them recently).

Please also note: Saturday calls still start at 8PM ET!

Wednesday, August 5th at 8PM ET: PT59

Last PT in the 50's!

(s)Friday, August 7th at 8PM ET: PT74

Frighteningly recent test.(/s) rescheduled for next Friday.

LSATurday, August 8th at 8PM ET: PT60

Did you ever imagine having this much fun on a Saturday night??!

Note on all groups

I'm taking the January LSAT but already applied to all my schools, indicating on the apps that I'll be taking the future January LSAT (so presumably they're holding my application until the Jan. score comes in).

But in the hopefully avoidable event that my January LSAT score is lower than my present score and I decide to cancel it with score preview, will law schools automatically know that I cancelled my Jan. score and proceed with review or will they still hold my application, expecting Jan scores to come in? Am I supposed to update them that I cancelled my score or does LSAC send a report?

Hey,

I am looking for a study buddy. I live in Connecticut around Storrs area. I finished my CC. I currently work on PT 1-36 drills. Looking for someone who wants to put in 15+ hours a week.

Let me know or direct message. Thanks!

Hi,

I wanna discuss the approach to this question.

I picked the right answer but I spend too muhc time on this one.

When I first looked at it, because of "based on the passage", I thought this is not a inference type of question but more like an "strict evidence/text-referencing" question. Unfortunately to me, there is no direct explaination about what's the retributive nature, so I have to use my back-up plan, which is POE and I was left with B.

So my question is: which part of the question stem can lead us to think that this is a inference question? If you could share your approach on this question, I would very appreciate it!

Thanks.

Hey ! I live in Pembroke Pines, but study at FIU South Campus. I can meet anywhere in between. I would love to have someone to study with! Please let me know!

My email is michiarmen@Hotmail.com

Targeting a summer/early fall exam date. Let me know if you are interested. Thanks.

Hey there,

We noticed an issue with our videos not playing on our app after the latest iOS update. Sorry about that!

We're investigating a fix but it might take a while. In the meantime, to access 7Sage on your iPhone or iPad, please use Safari or Chrome and go to 7sage.com and login from there.

Let us know (studentservice@7sage.com) if this is affecting you and we will add +1 month access time to your account for the trouble. 

Hi Guys,

Can you guys please help me take a look if my analysis on B & C is correct? https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-3-question-08/

The question is very much like a SA question. The answer choices can be quickly eliminated by a match principle into the sufficient condition. However, I think we can expand on this problem more.

A is correct. So won't go into detail about it.

B. The sentence is wrong based on 2 reasons. The first reason is by putting the conclusion as the sufficient condition. Even if we were to change the answer into: If election campaigns are to be funded from public funds, it will allow politian to devote less time asking for money than serving the interest of the public, this is still wrong because it is formulated into a C-->P Relationship, while what we are looking for is P-->C relationship.

C is wrong because it talks of a different set that we do not know. Had this question be translated into an Inference MBT Except question, the asnwer choice then is correct.

D. is wrong based on 2 counts. The first count is of the same reason as B by messing up the location of the conclusion into the suffcient condition. But in addition to it that the question steam mix in an unrealted element. Evne if we have deleted that related element from the sentence, it is still incorrect and not 50% correct due to the location issue with the conclusion statement.

If we were to extent this answer choice's analysis a bit further.

Suppose that in this case, the answer choice for A is wrong too. But D is formulated in the following fashion: "if public funding of some activity produces a benefit to the public but also inevitably a special benefit for specific individuals, the activity should be fully funded by the public while the special interest taker group contributes proportionally more".

In this answer choice, iff answer choice is made wrong in other fashion. D will be correct on 2 counts. 1) The sentence is 50% correct. Although it do have irrelevant items in it but part of the argument goes through along with our principle. 2) It is the most correct answer in comparison with the rest of the answer choice.

Had LSAT do this, then the question's difficulty is pushed to a level 4 or 5 difficulty.

E. is wrong because it like C speaks of another different set of population that is above this univerise. Again, it can become a correct answer choice if it is an MBT Inference Except question.

"June 2014 lsat score" thanks

Hey, I'm pretty new to the LSAT I've been studying for a month using prep books. It's my first time using 7sage. Anyone wanna form a study group? I'm planning on taking the test in June 2026