I'm getting concerned about timing with my apps. I'll likely take the test in Dec and again in Feb.

I really dont know much about this process, yet. If I take a Feb test, is that too late to get an app together for a few schools in time for the Fall 2016 year start times? Or is that too late, and will instead set me up to apply for 2017 start times?

just out of curiosity... anyone found the live video of JY doing LR? if so, please share the link! I know there's one by Jon...

So I'm currently going on my fourth month of studying, I have seen improvements in analytical reasoning and reading comp, although these improvements have all been untimed, but I cannot seem to get the hang

Of logical reasoning, the most

I've ever gotten correct is 18. I've made flash cards, gone through the techniques used for each question type rigorously. I feel hopeless at this and extremely discouraged. I'm writing in December and I feel like I'll never get the hang of this! Could anyone give advice for how they managed to conquer logical reasoning?!

PT67 BR Tonight at 7pm ET

Join us. Big/awesome group tonight.

This is what I'll be doing until you do.

Note on all groups

hey everyone,

sorry if this has been asked before. I'm signed up for the October LSAT but I want my score to go up by 6-8 points ideally, so I'm practicing but I don't know what to expect.

Do you guys think taking the LSAT in December will set me too late in the application process coming up? I really want to apply this year, so I just wanted some feedback.

Thanks,

Damini

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-4-question-07/

in my timed approach I was confident w answer choice E however in the blind review changed my response to D. During blind review I thought I was making an assumption about the bones having been examined. Where as D focused more on what was evident just by excavating the tomb. Help explaining why D is wrong is appreciated.

I am taking the LSAT in October, but I am still struggling with the logic games. What are the best advice on how to get better in this section. I am not doing well at all.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-20/

I got this question correct since C was obviously not relevant to the argument, but during BR, I can't seem to eliminate B or E. Why are these necessary assumptions? Here is my breakdown so far:

This is a necessary assumption EXCEPT question. Specifically, we are looking at the skeptic's argument.

Some people have been promoting some herbs to help treat colds. The herbs have a whole bunch of colorful sounding stuff in them: purple coneflower and goldenseal. This dude with a cold doesn't think that the herbs help. He argues, "Say that the herbs actually did work. Most people want to get better quickly. Therefore, almost everybody with a cold would already be using. Since there are many who have colds but don't use it, herbs aren't effective."

What I am looking for: I know we are looking for a NA, but I always like to break down the flaws in the argument if there are any. The skeptic is all over the place. He conflates "most" with "almost everybody." Certainly "most" includes "almost everybody," but 51% is "most" but would probably not be considered "almost everybody." Additionally, so what of "many" people still have colds? The proponents of herbs never said that herbs have a 100% effectiveness rate. Even worse, the skeptic's conclusion is borderline circular as well. The skeptic says that "almost everybody would be using it." He did NOT say that everyone would use it; there could be "many" or "some" people that don't use the herbs in the skeptic's hypothetical world. Anyway, we are looking for an answer that is a necessary assumption.

Answer A: This is a NA. If this answer was not true, then how could almost everyone be using it? There wouldn't be enough.

Answer B: I don't see how this is a NA. If you negate it: the mixture does have side effects severe enough to make many people with colds avoid it, then how does this wreck the argument? Wouldn't this strengthen the argument's conclusion that the herbs are not effective? The negation seems to do the opposite of wreck the argument.

Answer C: This is what I correctly chose because the argument does not concern itself with anything preventative. This answer does nothing to the argument, and it is totally irrelevant.

Answer D: This is similar to A, and it is a NA. If you negate it: if the herbs are not widely known, then how would people know to use it?

Answer E: This is like answer choice B for me. I don't see how this is a NA. What if there are effective cold remedies that people prefer? Does this mean that the herbs are not effective? I don't see how this affects the argument.

OKOK. I know we are not allow to apply multiple EDs...

But! Say I apply ED to School A right now and hear back within a couple weeks (whatever the likelihood of that happening) that I got rejected or moved to the regular pool. Does that mean it's okay for me to apply ED for school B in October (since the deadline for most EDs is mid-November)?

In the same line of thought, I had a similar question about ED Round II (due early Jan).

Since some schools have two Rounds of ED, does it mean I can apply ED for the second round for that school if my first ED for a different school had been rejected?

Thank you in advance,

JSK

Hi all,

I am looking for a Skype partner(s) to BR Preptests with for the December test. Ideally, I want to have a call at least twice a week, once on either Tues or Wed night and once on Saturday night. I should add that I am looking for serious and disciplined partner(s) who are committed to calling every week. I would like to start with PT 36 next week.

Please message me if you are interested!

Okay, I get I look like a sucker for paying $60 for something I could have paid $20 for, especially in light of the watch's very limited purpose.

But please, "hear" me out on this (if you'd rather not, please buy from me my LSAT Max watch). I purchased the watch from LSAT Max after much consideration. Honestly, I didn't want to buy an LSAT watch at all, but particularly after hearing horror stories of careless proctor's messing with much-coveted minutes, I felt it was worth the plunge. But if you're going to buy a watch to save you any from trouble or perfect planning outside of the actual performance on the LSAT, The 180 Watch seems to be the only one comfortably worth your while.

There's nothing necessarily wrong with the LSAT Max watch or others within its price range, but the fact that you have to manually reset your time (with a second hand that does not reset) is a legitimate thorn in the side. Maybe others here will disagree with me, but I would at least caution those who are thinking of buying a watch to consider what the difference in the available selection actually entails.

The 180 Watch is less distracting, given the "second hand" moves less frequently and is actually within a much smaller frame than the head of the watch itself. I consider the strategic markings (such as the longer tick marks at 8:00 intervals) to be helpful but not deal-makers. The fact that the watch can be reset with the push of a button and down to the second is huge. As one who involuntarily obsesses over little things like the first scratch on a new pair of shoes or a video game case, knowing I'm not (at the very least) seconds off in time lets me proceed much more smoothly. Not to mention, the better accuracy is just simply better.

I didn't know this key difference existed between The 180 Watch and its competitors. Now, I have two watches with the same, very limited purpose.

Hi guys, I wanted to share an idea that may be helpful in improving RC. One of my biggest stumbling blocks in RC is freezing when I run into topics I'm unfamiliar with (science and economics, mostly). Reading articles on Scientific American and the Economist have been very helpful to increase my familiarity with certain terms. Another tool that came to mind this morning is Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has a "Random Article" link on the left sidebar, and sends you to a completely random Wikipedia article. I feel like this could also be helpful as a means to gaining familiarity with unfamiliar topics. For example, a few that came up were a description of birds in Yemen, an English journalist and publicist named Derek Taylor, and Secretary of State for Scotland. You may have to click a couple times to find something that could be useful, but some of the topics are really out there... like LSAT RC passages.

Obviously, this can't replace any of the main RC study tools like doing actual RC sections, reading dense articles, etc., but it could be useful if you just have a few minutes here or there.

I've been reading a bit lately about the "attractiveness" of splitters. How does being a splitter work in relation to T14 or hey...15-75ish? Does high GPA and lowerish LSAT usually mean waitlist/reject, or can it sometimes mean foot-in-the-door for T14 if you rock your personal statement and other soft stuff?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-04/

I got this one wrong... even after blind review -___- but now I think I know why it's actually B and not C

The explanation I'm giving myself is that the experiments performed take THC on its own and not Marijuana as a whole? Then the conclusion states that all of Marijuana contains THC, thus Marijuana causes cancer. While completely disregarding any other properties Marijuana may have?

Can this be considered a "some" statement? (Some of marijuana --> then cancer)

I hope I'm making sense.

All groups now meeting at 7pm ET. Folks with schedule restraints—please just join when you can. You won't miss much. Any serious objections, please PM me. Schedules can be changed but only if you let me know!!

Questions about upcoming weeks' schedules? Look at this. http://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/3490/october-15-group-br-calendar-now-available

BR Groups, Week of September 2nd: Weds (PT67) (NO LSATurday group scheduled due to Labor Day)

Are you ready for your breakthrough?

Well there's no magic to this test. But come sledgehammer it with us this week.

Wednesday, September 2nd at 7PM ET: PT67

I'll be there.

Note on all groups

I personally love Social Media, though that just may be due to the fact that I never go outside, haw haw. So let's share our Social Media!

7Sage's Pages

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/7sagelsat

Twitter: https://twitter.com/7SageLSAT

Tumblr: http://7sage.tumblr.com/

Instagram: https://instagram.com/7sage/

My (Dillon's) Pages

Twitter: https://twitter.com/dillonuniverse

Tumblr: http://wright-wrong.tumblr.com

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-4-question-14/

The conclusion is that reducing speed limits neither saves

lives nor protects the environment. The evidence is that the more slowly a car moves the

more time it spends on the road spewing exhaust and running the risk of collision.

My question is why is A wrong. The author assumes people follow the limits. If they ignore the limits then guess what, it doesn't matter if they reduce them. But more importantly, how is it we are suppose to see that the author is trying to assume that the more slowly a car is driven, the more time it spends on the road spewing [more] exhaust into the air.

You see the part in brackets is what you have to ASSUME the author to be saying, otherwise the question makes no sense. You read it and think it is a perfect argument. I don't understand how we are suppose to infer this. Otherwise it just looks like he is saying, well yeah, you drive slower, you spend more time on the road spewing exhaust but there is actually no indicator that the author thinks the exhaust expelled from the vehicle will be larger or more just from driving slower. Is this some kind of grammar trick?

Had it said drive slower, spend more time on the road, and shoot out more exhaust, then D would be perfectly logical. But that last part isn't there, so how do we infer it?

7Sage!

I have a question regarding registration/LSAC business.

I wanted to write the October exam, but I’m not feeling confident as of late. I was scoring in the 165 ish range, which was fantastic, but I’ve since seen a drastic drop in score. I think this is due to anxiety and a combination of burnout. I want to keep going as if I am writing the October exam and see how I PT in the coming weeks. I don’t think that I’ll have a good picture of my ability before September 9th. With that said, am I right in assuming I can withdraw from the October exam up until the test day, I can cancel my score on the test day with no penalty, and I can re-register for the December exam by October 30th?

I guess I’m just wondering if it’s okay for me to keep myself registered for October, see how I PT and see how my confidence is leading up to the October exam, maybe even possibly write it? And if I’m not confident/my PTs aren’t within a good range, or I want to re-register for December, I can do so, as long as I pay the extra fees?

I want to leave as many options open and available to myself so I don’t feel constricted by one particular deadline.

So based on 9 LSATs so far with 7sage, these 4 categories are my worst. I am averaging a 164 (low of 162 and high of 170), but this could definitely be higher if I could master these problem types. PSA and flaw aren't too bad to understand theoretically and I am usually down to 2 answers and pick the wrong one. With NA and SA though, sometimes I can't even eliminate any answer choices and sometimes the answer is as clear as day, but usually I get these wrong. Just wondering if anyone has any tips that haven't already been mentioned in the curriculum about how to conquer these 4 question types? A potential 165+ or even 170 could be within reach if I could nail these down. Thanks a lot!

So, I'm a little confused about the inclusive "or". As an example, let's say that we have this statement: "Either John or Tom will attend the meeting". Translate that into lawgic and it becomes: "/J --> T" and "/T --> J".

What I don't understand is that the if the above lawgic is correct, how is this statement an inclusive or. If John attends, Tom won't attend and vice versa. But, as per the statement, we can easily see that they both can attend (statement doesn't say "but not both").

Can anyone shed some light on this. It could be (probably is) that my understanding of this concept is flawed.

Thank you!

I had to halt my study since last September test (yikes) and I am ready to jump back into LSAT. I only had 3 months to prepare for September 2014 Lsat and was hoping to have a good year to prepare for this coming October test but with a newborn baby (born on Dec, 2014) and a full time job, it just was impossible to make any time for a study.

I hope past study was not a complete waste of time.

I am considering taking 7 sage premium course. Has anyone had a big improvement after taking the course? Also, how does upgrade work? If I start with premium then want to sign up for Ultimate, do I just pay the difference or do I have to pay Thor the full Ultimate course?

Thank you in advance!

.

Hi Guys

I have a question I hope someone can answer, I am currently on track to take the LSAT in this coming october. The question that I have is that due to some unforseen circumstances in the past i have to retake 2 courses in this coming fall as well. These courses will affect my gpa (in a good way). Will Law Schools take into consideration my final grades, will these grades be updated as the year goes on (if i dont get accepted in the first wave and would it make more sense for me to apply later for those law schools that will accept my application at a later date so everything is updated all at one point (vs applying early with a lower gpa). Thanks in advance

So just finished the course and it was really unbelievable. I was planning on taking the October test but I don't think I'll be able to hit my target score by then. Realistically, I think I'll end up taking December (will have to pay the change date fee) and I hope to get a good enough score so that I can still apply this upcoming cycle.

My question: Should I go straight to taking practice tests or should I work on individual sections first before transitioning to full exams in order to work on timing? And how many exams should I take per week in preparation for December? I know many here have been taking PT's for 5+ months and I want to find the right balance between taking enough practice tests without sacrificing thorough review. One of the best things about the course was that it provided me with structure/guidance and so now that I'm done I'd really appreciate some advice on how to proceed. Thanks in advance, you all are so helpful!

2 post in one day, I know, I'm sorry.

SO after PTing consistently in the mid 160s, I've started to crumble. My last PT's have been 159, 162 and 161 respectively. (60, 61, 62).

"But that's an average variance in test scores" one might say. Not necessarily. For LR I'm doing better than when I was in the mid 160s, for LG I'm doing the same, but I'm bombing Reading Comprehension every time, once even going -15. I drilled the hell out of RC for a week, using 'newer' (55 and on) sections, and consistently got only -5. After drilling, I decided to do preptest 62 today. The only reason I scored so low on reading comp was because I spent way too much time on passage 3, which caused me to completely miss a section. When I repeated the specific passage that I missed under timed constraints, I only got 1 wrong.

So tonight, unbelievably stressed, I've been trying to drill reading comp again, and have been failing miserably. I have spent the last 5 hours drilling RC, on top of doing a full 5-section test this morning.

I seem to 'forget' how to do reading comprehension. It's almost like I've lost everything I've built up.

What should I do? I'm getting extremely nervous as test day is soon. I was using JY's memory method, and it worked, but it's almost like Will Smith came up to me with that device from Men In Black and wiped my knowledge.

All of my other sections are always consistent but I'm afraid, because of my recent trends, RC will break me come test day.