336 posts in the last 30 days
I took a little over 6 full weeks off from studying for the December 2015 LSAT test. I was wondering, what is the best way to get back in the flow of things? I have started to do a mix of starting from where I stopped along with reviewing from the beginning, but I need guidance. Should I start from where I stopped, should I review from the beginning, or should I start from the beginning? You wise counsel would be greatly appreciated.
After reviewing, i understand the conflict is that Kendrick says cig ads should be prevented but also remain legal. I dont understand how that's a conflict.There are lots of things we all think should be prevented, but to make illegal would be over the top.
I am obviously one of those who fell for the sucker conflict and thought the conflict was that "how could it be legal to have fatty food commercials and not cigarette commercials?", but after reviewing, i still think my sucker conflict makes more sense.
can someone help me understand more intuitively why the previous was the conflict and not the latter?
PT65 BR Tonight at 7pm ET
Can you believe we've made it back up to PT65 again???
I know @nye8870 will be there. Will you?
Note on all groups
So Ive been using the BR method strictly on reading comp for the last couple of days and my accuracy has improved tremendously but EVERY time Im incorporating time into the process, my accuracy goes down significantly. Im currently aiming at 3.5 min for reading and the last 4.5-5 doing the questions. Any suggestions? Also, any passage that has 7-8 questions immediately has meant I wont get through all the questions. It freaks me out haha
I notice that I tend to get a bunch of easier LR questions wrong, which is incredibly frustrating. A lot of the time, the question type/category varies, so it's hard to pinpoint exactly. According to the analytic feature, though, my weaknesses are weaken and flaw questions mainly. I've already done the Cambridge drilling packets for those and I have improved but not as much as I was hoping I would. What else can I do, not only for these specific types, but for my LR performance overall? I know I can get -2/-3 with enough practice and focus but the question is how do I get there?
http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-05/
After reading the answers, I think I can see how this one justifies the argument but still a little unsure about how the answer was found.
What were the steps?
How did you do compared to your first diagnostic? I'm very curious since I finish the curriculum next week and start PT'ing the following week.
Was it something drastic?
In addition, timing still seems to be a bit of a problem when drilling. Hopefully when I start PT'ing the rhythm just comes naturally after seeing so many questions!
Hi there,
I was wondering if anybody could clarify (please) why the Substitution and Equivalence section was placed at the end of the PTs ( i have the 2nd package). Is this because these types of questions only appear on later LSATs?
I just started PT-ing so i'm at 37.
Please let me know what you guys think.
Thanks :)
You can find it here:
Note: We have several Fridays (after Aug. 21st) that are currently open. If folks want to do additional PT's, please propose in the comments.
http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-49-section-1-game-1/
Can someone explain question 7 of this game to me?
I get how there are three possible worlds: _ _ N G I N ; N _ G I N _ ; N _ _ G I N
The question asks "...then a film in Norwegian must be shown on". Why is it JUST day 1 and 3. I mean, it could also be shown on day 5 (per the second option above) or day 6 (per the third option above). Why is option "Day 1 and 3" correct as opposed to "Day 1 and 5", which is incorrect?
I notice that almost ALL the questions I get wrong on PT (not many) are at or near the end each section. These are questions I worked on, and answered; I didn't have to guess. Also I generally don't have problems running out of time before I'm done with all the questions, so I don't think I was rushing it...
Any comments on why this may be? Any suggestions? I can't help but feel there's a psychological reason this keeps happening to me.
http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-2-question-20/
I got this one correct by POE, but I am having a lot of trouble explicitly understanding why E is correct (I was wishy washy with A, but I get why it's wrong). Here is my analysis:
This is a flaw/weaken question.
If it's music, then it has a temporal element since parts of the song are presented over time. However, a painting has no temporal element since parts of the painting are not presented over time. Thus, the viewer's eye has no one path to follow in order to "read" the painting [the "" on read are kind of weird, I think]. As a result, a key difference between listening to music and viewing a painting is that music has a time element while looking at a painting doesn't.
What I am looking for: This argument seemed (at least to me) pretty decent. Temporal order is a necessary condition for music, but it is not for painting. So that seems like an "essential" [necessary] difference between the two. The only flaw that I could see was relating "path" to time. That didn't seem like very good evidence to me.
Answer A: This was my trap answer. I didn't pick it, but I wasted a lot of time eliminating it. The argument doesn't say that you need to be conscious of the passage of time. The passage of time (in and of itself) is the necessary condition for music and not one for a painting. Also, time is an element of the painting and not of the viewer. It is possible that the viewer is looking at his watch the entire time while looking at a painting; that doesn't change the fact that the medium of art (painting) itself doesn't have a temporal element.
Answer B: Who cares about the definition of music/differences between styles.
Answer C: Who cares about their commonalities? Our conclusion is about differences.
Answer D: Is "reading" a metaphor? Maybe. However, the substance of this answer choice is to say that the flaw is circular reasoning. The argument is not. The "reading" analogy is evidence in support of the conclusion, not a restatement of it.
Answer E: This is it by POE. However, I still am having trouble seeing how this actually attacks the relationship between the premise and conclusion. This answer to me juts flat out contradicts the "path" premise and not the substance of the argument.
This might seem a bit silly, but in after doing the translations into lawgic exercise...do we always diagram logic whenever we see it in any LSAT question? For instance pt 27 st 1 q 17, I started reading the stem and noticed the logic and diagram quickly but then I didn't really need it. Is that a special case? Does anyone have a recommendation? Thanks!
Anyone know how to adjust your bowel movement?
The last thing I want is to get distracted during the test by the need of going to bathroom. If I have my breakfast around 7:30AM, I will need to take a bathroom break around 10AM. I just realized that I have this issue, as I start to take more PT in the morning.
Again, I'm not trying to be funny here. Any suggestions?
http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-4-question-21/
Between a/c B and C. Firstly I have issues with how the Conclusion is about labor savng technology tends to undermine values--- being interpreted as a conditional statement. We do not know it is guaranted because it is just a TENDENCY. So if when I golf it tends to rain, you cannot make that a conditional statement. Because if it doesn't rain that doesn't mean I cannot golf. I can golf and it not rain. That is why C doesn't make sense to me. You have to view the last sentence as a C.S. for it to. B is a better answer. No type of tech will fail to undermine the values of a social system = a type of tech will undermine the values in a social system. Yes that type of tech is labour saving tech. so it seems correct.
Can you conclude from A cause B cause C that A cause C?
Happy Women's Equality Day! :)
More work needs to be done!
Check out this article: http://fortune.com/2015/08/26/on-our-95th-womens-equality-day-women-are-still-waiting-for-equal-treatment/
Is there a particular strategy that is recommended for these two types of questions? I feel with MBT questions, it's easier to come up with a more concrete prephase that will resemble an AC closely, whereas this is a lot less likely with MSS. Either way, what's a good mindset to get into in order to consistently answer these types? Is it just absorbing and analyzing the stimulus, trying to prephase, and POE? Are there any tips or insights beyond that?
I have three, great professors who all agreed to write an LOR, and I picked each of them for various reasons, one being that each has a different perspective on who I am as a person and on my strengths applicable to law school.
Do other 7Sagers ask their recommenders to write on specific subjects or to focus on certain points? Or do you simply send them the necessary forms for LORs? Do you view these LORs yourself?
Thanks in advance!
I applied to law school before and didn't like how things were looking so I'm taking a year off to retake the LSAT and re-apply. Since I would ask at least one or two of the same people who wrote me letters of rec last year, should I reuse the ones they wrote me? Maybe change the date? Idk. Or tell them my predicament and ask if they can write a new one? Not much has changed in the last year so it's not like the letters would be all that different. Thanks!
Mods - is there anyway to access LRs and RCs explanations or are those not prepared?
Hey!
So, I have nearly every PT that has ever been released and I felt it would be a tremendous waste to just forget about them as soon as I'm done with my application cycle.
I was figuring it might be a good idea to create a PT bank on a google drive with all of them. That way, those who don't have them would have access. In addition, for the 5 or so I don't have, we can add those to the group.
What do you all think?
I find my true weakness in logic games is over-thinking the game board which causes me to make invalid inferences or duplicate game boards that do not need to be done. does anyone know how I can correct this mistake.
When people on 7Sage discuss "drilling" I am confused as to what they are referring to.
Is "drilling" doing Blind Reviews and re-writing the same Logic Game over and over?
Please, please correct me if I am wrong.
Thanks.
If anyone is interested in doing proctored mock exams in the GTA-Mississauga/Toronto area contact me!!!
