Discussions

All posts

New post

500 posts in the last 30 days

Just something I've been doing a lot lately that I think might help some ppl out.

I commute every day to work, so I leave in the morning and my dad drops me off at the train station and then I ride the train to work. (it really freaking sucks spending 2 hrs 45 min a day commuting!!!)

Using my smartphone, I usually read articles related to tech or science on the train, and as I read I try ask myself questions like "what was the author's purpose in mentioning _______" or "what function does the word _________ serve in this sense" as I go through each article. When you're reading try to do the fool proof method JY talked about where you ingrain the main point of each paragraph in your mind. Then, at the end of the article, ask yourself MSS and inference type questions. Be creative!

I find most of these articles through news.google.com and search for new science, tech, or world news type articles.

I am sure that most of these articles are not of the caliber presented on the LSAT but just reinforcing the methodology used to go through a LSAT passage is VERY helpful.

When I first started studying for RC I found it tough to get through so much material but now I am relieved when I turn the page to the next section and see a passage. Hopefully you will also like the RC section more if you read some articles. The general knowledge you gain might even be helpful on the test!

I remember some people asking what sort of magazines they can read that might help them. Using something like google news is really simple and if you have a smartphone or a tablet and internet access you can build your RC skills on the go!

4

Hi All!!

I am working my way through the Logic Reasoning lessons (I just finished up the first "strengthening" problem sets).

I keep finding myself reading the stimulus more than once OR I read the same sentence more than once to ensure I understand the sentence.

Any tips on how make it through the stimulus the first time without having to re-read?

Time is everything on the LSAT!!! Any tips or words of encouragement will be much appreciated!

Thanks much! Happy studying =)

0

To clarify regarding the Blind Review Method. As you take a timed section/test, what have you, you're going through picking the right answers and eliminating the wrong ones. Sometimes you cant cross out a an answer 100% (or near) during the timed conditions. BR stipulates that ONLY after you're done time-testing MUST you go back through and find concrete reasons (100%) for the wrong and the right answer choices, correct? After doing such, if you are able to come up with 100% certainty for correct and incorrect answer choices, and you end up getting the question right, you do not need to watch the video, right? When i'm going through a test or section i naturally cross off wrong answers; however, on the ones i do not get to do this (or near) due to timed conditions (the ones where i pick best answer and move on) - if i can after, on the BR, find reasons for the correct and incorrect answer choices then i should feel "good" for that question, correct? Essentially, it is not about being able to mark off w/ near 100% during the timed condition, just on BR, right? I love the BR. I feel it has contributed GREATLY to my improvement. However, I don't want to waste time watching explanations if I really am probably alright with being able to eliminate w/ "100%" under BR even though not always under timed conditions. It might be more prudent to progress. Thanks for any clarification

Jake

1

Hi guys,

Just wanted to gather some opinions from you all about how you are preparing for the newer logic games. As many have noticed the games have changed after the mid PT 50s to late 50s, and it seems there are more "randomized hybrid" games that now appear on each PT. I had been practicing with the Fool Proof method for all logic games before what I consider to be the modern LSAT (PTs 53+), but I was stumped on the newer logic games when I first encountered them. I suspect the skills I've garnered from the older games should help me in the newer ones, but honestly, at the moment I see the older games as wasted effort if the newer games continue to be so different and continuously changing.

I suspect this is LSAC's response to ever more clever test prep companies and their formulaic strategies. Any thoughts would be appreciated, thanks.

Regards,

Eric

1

So I'm about half way through my three months of training with 7 sage and the only PT I've taken is the first diagnostic one. Should I be taking full length tests at this point or should I be supplementing my studies with timed sections (I didn't get a lot of problem sets from 7 sage so the sections would be from preptests). I know that realistically I may only have time/energy for sections until I finish the lessons (two jobs and grad school) and if I do full length I may not be as thorough in blind review. That being said, if doing so would be worth it, I'd like to know.

Thanks!

1

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-37-section-2-question-12/

This is a MBT question.

I translated the stimulus into:

Prepare good meal-->good food-->good soil-->good farming--->good cultural values

A.The creation of...

E. When food is bad...

I am having trouble with Answer choice E. I translated E into the contrapositive of bad farming--->bad soil--->bad food..It seems pretty correct to me unless food is bad is not the conclusion.

0

Please first take a look at two really tough question PT53 sec1 Q16 and PT55-S1-Q21

For PT55-S1-Q21, it seems to be most supported question, but actually it turns out to be sufficient assumption question, which the correct answer build up the gap between "many people took certain action" and "everyone ought to take action".

For PT53 sec1 Q16, I think if LSAC change the question type to necessary assumption this one will become way easier. But instead of asking assumption, they just throw Must Be True question in front of you. That makes this question much harder.

For most of inference and most supported question, there is no argument. So we can just draw the conclusion or reference based on the stimulus. But for some special inference and most supported question, there did exist an argument, sometimes with terrible flaw or gap, and then the question require you to draw the inference, then the right answer choice about this type of inference about should be the choice that build up the gap.

This type of question is really tough cause it is counter-intuition and against our judgement about the question type. They turn inference question to be assumption question.

Any thoughts? comments?

0

Sorry for noobish question but was this feature removed?

I had asked a bunch of questions and gotten responses from both JY and other students. I'm trying to find one of these and I'm not sure how to do so.

Please help me out. Thanks.

0

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-4-question-07/

This question asks us to identify a flaw.

Attorney: I ask you to find Mr.Smith guilty of assaulting Mr.Jackson. Regrettably, there were no eyewitness to the crime but Mr.Smith has a violent character: Ms.Lopez testified earlier that Mr.Smith, shouting loudly, had threaten her. Smith never refuted this testimony.

Ms.Lopez testy smith threatening her+Smith not refuting--->Smith has violent character----> he assaults jackson.

Three obvious flaws:

1. smith didn't refute doesn't mean he indeed threat ms.lopez. 2. even if smith did, threatening ms.lopez doesn't necessarily make smith a violent character- it could be a one-time thing. 3. even if smith is violent character, it doesn't mean smith is violent all the times and thus assault mr.jackson.

Answer choices:

A. Aggressive behavior is not a sure indicator of a violent character

C. Since smith never disproved the claim that he threatened ms.lopez, he did in fact threaten her

E.Having a violent character is not necessarily associated with commission of violent crimes

All three seem reasonable to me. Which one to choose?

0

Are you getting ready to take the upcoming October/December LSAT? Enter to win one of two free LSAT Complete Courses or Upgrades! This contest is open to everyone including current 7Sagers.

If you’re already enrolled in a course and win, you get a free upgrade to the next higher course. If you already have LSAT Ultimate, then you win the coveted Mystery Prize.

There are two ways to win. There is one prize awarded by random draw, and one prize awarded for collecting the most entries.

This contest ends at 11pm ET, August 24th.

Pro-tip: You can get unlimited entries! You get +18 entries for following the simple steps, +1 entry for every person that clicks on one of your links, and +5 (!) entries for everyone who enters the contest using your custom link.

Enter here

0

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-3-question-25/

This question asks us to parallel argument.

J presents a either or situation in which both outcomes are undesirable. T in turn shows J that if customers are environmental responsible, that no business' market share will decrease thus making first option more desirable.

I can see why A is the correct answer: J again presents either or situation both with terrible outcomes and T provides an condition that makes one of them better. What I would like to clarify is why B is incorrect. Is it because T provides solutions that incorporates both options?

Admin note: Please do not post full questions.

0

Hello anybody,

I just recently started studying for R.C. In LR, I found "identifying" question stems extremely helpful. It helped me tunnel mind for what I was looking for thus allowing me to eliminate incorrect answer choices more quickly. I am wondering if doing this is possible for R.C.? Are there groups of words that are sufficient for identifying all the different types of questions in the R.C. section? Thanks in advance for any future input.

Jake

0

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-32-section-1-question-20/

This question asks which of following answer choice will strength the conclusion EXCEPT.

The conclusion is that the current map used to show where different types of garden plants will flourish is more useful than the older map.

b is irrelevant because modern station can be over 60 years old as long as the data gathered from them are not 60-year-old!

However I cannot see how does D supports the conclusion? It is assuming the more and better weather data you have, the more likely you can get accurate weather pattern to predict the growth patterns?

0

Hi,

Used both firefox and chrome and same issue on both.

The alternate video player works for the first time I open the page, but if I click outside the page (which makes it close) and reload the video by clicking the link for alternate video, it won't show up. A blank popup appears instead.

Am I doing something wrong? I hate using youtube because it loads slowly compared to the alternative player.

0

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-31-section-2-question-21/

This is a parallel flaw question.

Original flaw logic structure:

P1: Bank deposited credited on the same date if it is before 3 pm

P2: Alicia knows the deposit before 3 pm

C: Alicia knows the the bank deposit is dated on the same date

To simplify:

P1: A leads to B

P2: someone knows A

C: someone also knows B

Flaw: need a sufficient assumption to cover that gap, someone also knows that A leads to B.

Answer choices:

C. G knows he will be promoted, because G will be promoted if H resigns and G knows H resigns.

(Perfect. It is unclear if G knows he will be promoted if H resigns)

E. P wants to become a social worker. It is well-known social workers are poorly paid thus Pat apparently want to be poorly paid.

(It is unclear if P knows being a social worker will lead to poorly paid)

Or is it because it is asking for similar logic structure, there is a difference between "know" and "want".

0

Okay i'm not really sure what to title my concern but unlike LG which I can do a few times and understand 100% wth I was doing wrong, I am having trouble doing something like that for LR.

When I go over the right answers by watching the video for the PT I can see what I did wrong. I try to "redo" the question by trying to convince myself why the wrong answers are wrong.

However I'm still making like 5-10 mistakes in LR per PT.

6

This is a pseudo-sufficient assumption question.

P:All leaders in major parities oppose the bill

C:The bill will most likely fail to pass.

Target answer to connect no support with fail to pass.

Answer Choice Analysis:

A. Most bills that have not been supported by even one leader of a major party have not been passed into law

E. Most bills that have been passed into law are supported by at least one leader of a major party.

Isn't E the contrapositive of A?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-2-question-21/

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?