Could someone explain why the answer is C? What does attending a college of choice have anything to do with it?

Hey all,

Do you have any suggestions for preventing careless mistakes? For example, after you've completed a few questions, all of a sudden forgetting one of the rules, or one of the inferences. Is this just something you have to hone by practice? Or perfecting set-up and notation habits? Specific practical advice would be wonderful :)

Thanks!

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-3-question-19/

Why is A incorrect? Is it because having the tallest peaks in the region doesn't mean it has the absolute tallest peaks?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-04/

I got this question right, but not perfectly clear why (D) is correct.

Could you elaborate the answer choice (D) - why is it a clear-cut answer?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-2-question-20/

B is the answer, and the only reason I did not choose it is because it required me to make an assumption that 1. Plankton are not fish (which would require some background knowledge of what plankton are), and 2 particles from the from the mud did not contain fish. Can someone explain this question to me from a different perspective please. Answer A is easy to come by if I knew I was allowed to make such assumptions.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-2-question-20/

Hello guys, this MBT question actually comes from the MBT course video. Most people have the question about the last sentence "even its critics acknowledge." I have read all the replies in order to understand why there is tremendous public support, but I still don't understand. When JY explains this sentence, he dropped a period before "for the project", I don't know whether he indicated that "for the project" is not a modifier of "would be not tremendous public support", but rather of "even its critics acknowledge". Could someone kindly explain this? The grammar here is really hard.

I'm working my way through the syllabus, and for some of the question types there are a lot of Problem Sets (10, 15, 17, etc). Should I hold off on some of these and use them for practice after PTing, or should I be doing them all now as a way to drill in the material?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-1-question-10/

I don't understand how this is not A?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-02/

Could anyone explain why the answer is C- All lawyers are cattle ranchers and not A- Some lawyers are cattle ranchers.

7Sagers,

I’m David, the editor who’s designing 7Sage’s new personal statement bundle. I'm looking for diversity statements, addenda, “why us?” essays and Yale 250-word essays that I can use in the course. Send your essays to info@davidbusis.com; I'll choose a few of each to edit for free so long as you let me post an anonymous version of the final product and the drafts. Note that I'm no longer offering free editing for personal statements.

I'll choose the essays on a rolling basis, so the sooner you send yours, the better chance you have of being picked. You'll hear a definite yes or no from me by July 25, but probably sooner.

Happy studying.

David

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-23/

I'm having trouble translating the "not until" statement. Until is "negate sufficient" but the "not" cancels the negation from the until rule so then it reads just like an if then. Is it ok for me to go ahead and memorize that when group 3 and 4 indicators are used this way in the beginning of a sentence they cancel each other and it reads like an if then?

PT57 BR Tonight at 8pm ET

I'm just gonna go ahead and assume that if you're joining us tonight, you've already taken PT57. And if you have, you know what this means.

And if you haven't, then you'll soon understand.

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

I need advice.

I started doing my PTs 4 weeks ago (have done10 PTs so far) - aiming for October.

So my concern is that my scores are fluctuating greatly. Last week I scored a 160 (BR 169) and this week I scored a disappointing 153 (BR 163).

This leads me to my question...

So I have seen improvements in the LG section (used to be - 7--10, now around -2 ~ -4) - of course it still needs work.

RC ... really depends.. sometimes it's -3 and some other times it's -6.

But my biggest problem is the LR section. Except for One PT where I had a 85% accuracy rate, I am consistently getting loads of questions wrong (- 20 ~ - 23, on bad days).

With 2 months to go, I decided to stop doing Prep tests for this week (maybe next week as well) to simply drill more LR questions.

I know that PT is an essential part of the learning curve and I want to do as much as I can before the exam, but I feel like I need to drill more. Instead of exhausting every Cambridge Drill questions, I am thinking about only doing the question types that I am struggling with for now.

Do you think it is better for me to drill more questions, in my current state, and start doing my PTs perhaps next week or the week after? Or should I simply do as much PTs as possible + BR? (I have gone through the core curriculum + the LSAT Trainer- LR )

With 9-10 weeks left, time is gold...

That being said I don't need a 170+... more like165+ or even 160 +

How long into your prep did you start to add time, and become strict with time? and how did you get good with timing besides practice?

My plan is to take every single PT(1-75) under timed conditions, BR every single questions on every single PT, designating notebooks to BR, meaning write out an explanation for every correct, and incorrect answer. With this, however, I will not be doing timed sections, rather my timed sections will be PT's. After every 5 PT's I was planning to create my own PT with the questions I got wrong from all 5 PT's, as well as games I did not score a -0 on. Do you guys think this is a good idea for studying, and perfecting my abilities to dominate this test? I know this sounds like a bit much, and the burn out is prob real, but I feel like to truly get a 180 you need to transfer all of your energy into this test, and this is what I am planning to do. I should mention my LSAT administration is in December.

The second thing I wanted to ask about is the SuperPrep by LSAC. Is it worth purchasing?

Someone added me as a study buddy,today. When I tried to send a message using the button next to their name, I got the error "You must select at least one recipient", even though the user's username was in the "Recipients" field. I tried in both Chrome and IE, in case it was a browser problem. Any help would be appreciated.

When we are reading the stimulus and separating the conclusion, premise, and context, are we supposed to ignore the context/"some people's argument"/etc, and then just focus on the Premise and Conclusion?

For example, in NA questions, it seems that after determining which sentence in the context, we can just ignore it and focus on the relationship of support to answer the question.

Am I right on this?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-2-question-07/

I initially picked C, probably making some bogus quick logic about how the new bus routes would actually cost the city more and therefore it would not be cheaper to build on the outskirts of town. However, I realize that the answer is B, but still need some more clarification/confirmation in my head to see how that'd be it for sure.

The conclusion is that the Brownlea's post office must be replaced with a larger one. The premises are - the present one cannot be expanded, land near the present one in the city-center is more expensive, and since the acquiring of LAND is where the major cost of a new post office would come from, the outskirts of town is the best place to build it -- because land there must be way cheaper.

B would be the answer because it says that a parking lot would be required if it is built on the outskirts of town and a parking lot would not be required if it is built in the city-center. So, ONE WOULD NEED TO BUY/ACQUIRE MORE LAND (aka more costs) if one builds the post office in the outskirts vs. the city-center. So, building on the outskirts is not necessarily cheaper -- because of the "more" land argument/parking lot which wouldn't be needed if it was built in the city-center.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-2-question-17/

The correct answer choice is B: "[t]he argument relies on the testimony of experts whose expertise is not shown to be sufficiently broad to support THEIR general claim."

I think this choice would only be correct if the "THEIR," the "experts" I assume being the referent, is changed to "its," the argument being the referent, because it is the hospital executive who's making a claim beyond the scope of the testimony of these experts.

Thoughts?

Before I officially became a 7sage/trainer student, I dabbled around on a few other forums and found that many instructors suggest using a website called Speedo to increase reading speed. It is designed on the premise that the subconscious mind prohibits people from reaching their reading speed potential due to the subconscious "reading aloud" even when one is reading silently. Learning to ignore that inner voice allows u to take in what u physically see which can be four or more words at a time, rather than reading the one word at a time that you hear in your head. I tried it for a while and it seemed to work but later felt it was unnecessary. What do you guys think? Has anyone done this long term and reaped positive mind blowing results in RC?

I'm wondering if anyone has taken a philosophy course in logical reasoning. If you have, how did you find it? Did you feel it gave you a stronger foundation going into your LSAT prep, or is 7Sage (and any other prep material) sufficient for you? Was it different enough from the LSAT that it wasn't helpful? I ask because I'm considering such a course if it will strengthen my understanding of "lawgic."

I'm still feeling intimidated by the games, even after going through the lawgic lessons and the lessons on the various types of games. This course is offered at my university. Based on the description of the course, it addresses the kind of logic used in the games. It would be helpful to know if it will benefit my studying before I sign up.

(I apologize of this question came up already and has been buried by newer threads).

I know it takes a lot longer for LSAT than ppl think (at least a year indicated in the course) But the reality for me is I only have about 2 months between now and October test day. Wait, this is not the worst part yet actually, what's even more frightening is that I have NO fundamentals whatsoever. Completely new bee whose first language is not even English (Chinese)

Seems like I got two options here only:

1 Completely butcher the exam in October and die in shame.

2 Kill myself now before that shame comes

Which one you guys vote for?

Any advise much appreciated

Thank you

I feel like someone started a thread like this before, but it's hard to find old conversations even with the search bar. Anyways, I wanted to know for those who have full-time jobs, how many hours are you generally studying a week and specifically a day? I work from 9am-5pm but really wake up around 6am to get ready and then get to work. It is extremely rare for me to leave the office at 5pm, I usually get home by 6:30-7pm. Then when I come home I eat and usually have to do some work at home. By 9pm, I try to start studying but tend to fall asleep. So for those who have full-time jobs, how do you manage study time? I am retaking in October and feel guilty every day because I don't feel like I'm doing enough. Thanks in advance to everyone who provides feedback. :)

Thoughts on skipping ahead to do the long passages in Reading Comp?

I am curious how you guys approach RC passages.

For RC, some of my friends told me that they spend about 2 ~ 2.5 minutes skimming a passage and having a grasp on points made in each paragraph. Then, when approaching questions, they go back to a passage for questions whenever needed.

And for others, they said they spend around 3.5 ~ 4 minutes understanding a passage solidly (just like how we try to spend enough time on drawing a solid game board for LG). Then, when working on questions, they barely go look back the passage.

There are definitely pros and cons for both approaches, but I am still curious what you guys think about them and what kind of an approach you guys use for RC. Thank you!