If you're willing to trade personal or diversity statements with other 7Sagers, please comment below. Once we have some interested parties, we can PM each other and offer constructive comments. Good luck to everyone preparing applications for this cycle!

P.S. I'm interested in swapping. PM me your statements!

Listen and subscribe:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify

Unlock the secret to acing both Logical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension! Many test-takers treat these as separate challenges, but the truth is, they're deeply connected. On this episode, we explore why the biggest hurdle in LR often isn't the logic itself, but actually understanding what you read. Plus, we'll show you how to see RC passages as extended LR questions. Ready to transform your approach? Listen in!

Anybody in the area that wants to do some last min studying for this February lsat

I see sections such as "kick it up" and "math" under the drill builder. Possibly a bug but curious to know if this means something for the future.

Hi I have a question for Kevin and JY. I just saw this and I wanted to ask how 7sage is adjusting

Hey hey - is there anyone in the Boston area who needs an accountability partner/study buddy? I'm currently in the Upper 140s/150 range and would be happy to connect.

What videos in the syllabus help with learning how to approach and ultimately overcome tuff Inference Q's?

Who’s going to the Handling People talk?

Wednesday, October 14th at 8PM ET: PT62

Note:

(P1) According to dinosaur fossils, dinosaurs had an oxygen isotope ratio in their bones that suggests that their CORES had roughly the same temperature as their LIMBS.

(P2) Today, cold-blooded animals have much warmer CORES than LIMBS.

(MC) Therefore, dinosaurs were probably warm-blooded.

Weaken

This argument assumes, among other things, that warm-blooded animals, unlike cold-blooded animals, do NOT have much warmer CORES than LIMBS, or some other temperature distribution that deviates even more from the dinosaurs'. To anticipate the right answer, I thus was expecting a weaking option targeting this assumption.

(A) Unlike cold-blooded animals, warm-blooded animals only have SLIGHTLY warmer CORES than LIMBS. This goes in the direction of my pre-phrase but is not very strong. Crucially, it remains more likely that dinosaurs were warm-blooded than that they were cold-blooded, just as the author claims. So this answer choice does not seem to actually weaken, even though it gets at the assumption that the author makes, and that I had identified as the weak point of their argument.

(B) Dinosaur fossils don't actually allow you to do the temperature inference described in (P1). This answer is very unusual in that it attacks a premise rather than the reasoning in the argument. Nevertheless, this answer choice definitely weakens, since it takes away the data about dinosaurs that the author presupposes. Keep this answer choice around but be vigilant; see if a less premise-focused answer choice is available.

(C) About oxygen generally. Does not seem to pertain to the argument.

(D) Body temperatures in small and large animals other than dinosaurs. Does not seem to connect directly to the argument; especially since the stimulus does not identify dinosaurs as either small or large.

(E) Warm-blooded animals are more active and use more oxygen than cold-blooded animals. This again does not seem to relate directly to the argument under consideration.

(C), (D), and (E) turn out to be largely unrelated to the argument in the stimulus, and (A) does not seem to weaken the inference made by the author. This leaves (B) as the only remaining answer choice, and thus (B) must be right.

Nevertheless, (B) feels very much uncomfortable and is unusual. (B) just straight up contradicts information that we get in the stimulus, rather than attacking the author's reasoning. It also seems unusual to have this sort of unexpected answer choice so early in the section; just expecting straightforward questions in (Q1)-(Q10) is too naive.

I originally chose (A) because I got too focused on my anticipation of how the right answer could look like, and thus I neglected (B). Nevertheless, a more careful examination of what (A) and (B) are actually saying would have allowed me to get this question right. I need to stay alert to the details of individual answers and compare them against each other; a more thorough examination between (A) and (B) would have allowed me to see that (A) does not in fact weaken and that (B)'s unusual character does not prevent it from being the right answer here. Read answer choices carefully, compare them against each other, and choose the one that has the fewest problems.

Proctors: The two main proctors were Eckerd College students, both with good energy. The proctor running the test did a great job of keeping things going, answering questions and handling things.

Facilities: Auditorium of science building. Five rows of tiered seats/tables with enough room for about 25 students seated every other seat. Fortunately, we had fewer than 25, since the rest of the seats were cut-out desks that look really small.

Left-handed accommodation: Tables are perfect for lefties. They did have left-handed cut-out desk if necessary.

Noise levels: Quiet.

Parking: Ample parking in front of building, with a gravel parking lot not too far away.

Time elapsed from arrival to test: We were to arrive by 8:30. I was the second person to check in. No line or anything. I'd say about two-thirds of us arrived by 8:24. By 8:45, we were filling out forms and even with a handful of minor questions and a request to turn on more lights (which they did), the test started around 9 a.m.

Irregularities or mishaps: None

Other comments: All but about 6 test takers were female and I feared this could be a problem in the four-stall ladies room, but there was never any line, so we had ample time there (that was a big concern of mine!). Also time to hang out in the lobby and eat, drink and take a breather before going back in.

Would you take the test here again? Yes. Was very low key and stress free.

Date[s] of Exam[s]: 2/10/18****

I want to share an update with those of you who had test center issues. I had filed a Test center complaint about JFK University center where test takers were seated too close to each other during the Oct test. This could be a huge distraction during the test. I heard from LSAC and they said they take Test Center complaints very seriously and look into all complaints confidentially.

So any of you who has a Test Center complaint about your test center or JFK University test center, do not hesitate to be on record about it so the issue is resolved at least for the future test takers. There is no downside to it. The complaint has to filed within a certain number of days.

Details:

http://www.lsac.org/jd/lsat/policies/test-center-problem-policies

I plan on taking the LSAT in April. I'm a very visual person. Does anyone have a good study guide/outline to follow?

Can anyone please explain the pattern of reasoning that would make the answer C?

Rewords the conclusion

fgfsdg

Let me first say that I was granted 50% extra time for the LSAT so I'm still getting used to the difference. My last test was a 165 with 23/26 LR, 23/25 LR, 16/23 LG, 21/27 RC. I feel really confident about LR for the most part but 3 of the questions I missed were strengthening questions so I'll definitely drill those. I actually misread one of the logic games that was stacked traits and totally bombed it with 2/7 for that game but I'll also drill those to make sure I don't make that mistake again and if I would've understood the game I'm fairly confident I would've gone 20-21/23 in that LG section. HOWEVER, the RC is screwing me up big time. It is SO difficult for me to get any type of improvement in RC. I am so stuck and not sure where to go even with accommodations I am absolutely unsure how to approach RC passages sometimes. Should I just drill them like any other game? How about Reviewing the RC? I see tangible improvement in everything but RC I feel like.

Edit: I also should note that its mainly Humanities and Social Sciences passages that I feel especially challenging.

Hi everyone,

I was wondering if anyone knew of some legal studies or law related masters programs/certificate programs off the top of their heads? Since I'm writing the LSAT in June now and won't be able have my score added to my applications for this year, I'm looking for something to do during the year instead of just waiting around for my acceptances to come. I've got a really great resume with some awesome extracurriculars and work experience already. I would highly prefer for the program to be in a distance studies format (online)! Any suggestions would be more than appreciated.

So far all I've come up with is this: http://www.extension.harvard.edu/degrees-programs/master-liberal-arts/fields-concentration/legal-studies

On the old 7Sage, when looking over the question summary it would highlight which parts are the premises and what the conclusion is. Will this feature be added to the new site in the future? Or does it exist on here in the summary and I'm just missing it?

hey all,

i know for LR, the usual benchmark is spend 1 minute per question (for 15 in 15, 25 in 25). And If you're at 1 minute and still can't get it, just skip it.

for RC, what's the benchmark in terms of how much time to spend on a question?

For RC, I've heard of ppl view this by thinking of "processes" (read all AC, reread question stem, go back to passage, and if still can't get it, then skip). They focus on "processes" instead of time.

The challenge, though, is there are some RC questions (like the REALLY LONG analogy questions that take up half a page where the question stem is a a paragraph long and each answer choice is a paragraph long), where just reading the question stem and all the AC's takes like 3 minutes.

Should I just skip these REALLY long RC questions, or just dive in them and spend 3 minutes on them?

Any advice or suggestions appreciated. Thank you!

Please note that the information below will change to reflect the information we get! Contribute if you can via the official September 2017 LSAT discussion (linked at the bottom of this thread) without going into too much detail. If you think something is wrong or should be added, please post in the thread and let me know.

Real Sections:

LG:

-Types of Food/Specials in Different Restaurants

-Students/Assignments

-Investigators/Suspects

-Films/Theatres

RC:

-Forests/Deforestation and Plantations

-Judges/Opinions

-Native American Language/Radio

-Directive/General Theories (Marx/Freud)

LR:

-Cars Sold to Junkyards for Parts

-Moose/Deer

-Jazz

-Crows Divebombing/Masks

-Raven Feeding Experiment

-Cuttlefish

-Acme Automotive

-Cost of Energy Use/Two Towns

-Perimeter Lights/Vandalism

-Nuts/Calories/Weight

-Disease X/Protein/Heart Disease

-Computer/Basic Skills

-Shakespeare Play

-Morally Right/Wrong Criteria/Revealing a Secret

-Gold Artifacts and Mines/China

-Beads Used as Currency

-Homophones

-Tarantula

-Pet Owner's Allergies

Experimental Sections:

LG:

-Violins/Instruments

-People/Cities

-Foresters

RC:

-Astronomy

-WWI Activist

-Louvre

-Pyramids

-Quantum Theory

LR:

Art Critic/Opera

UNCONFIRMED:

If you can confirm that these are real / experimental, please do so by PMing me or posting in the main thread.

LG:

LR:

This thread is closed for discussion. Official post Sept. LSAT discussion stickied!

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

*The kind of question this is:* Weaken

*CTX:* Local agricultural official gave fruit growers of District 10 a new pesticide that they applied for three years to their pear orchards in place of the pesticides they had used before.

*Premise(s):* during the three years, the proportion of pears lost to insects was significantly less than it had been during the previous three years period.

*Conclusion:* based on the results, the official concluded that the new pesticide was more effective than the old pesticide, at least in the short term. In limiting the loss of certain fruit to insects.

*What I am looking for:* Just looking for answer choices that weaken the argument. Maybe an alternative explanation as to why the pears lost to insects were significantly less than it had been during the previous three years period.

*Answer A:* Yes, this is the right answer. This is irrelevant and does not weaken the argument. There were less fruit being produced because the number of mature trees has declined of the past 8 years. Who cares. The argument is talking about the “proportion of pears lost to insects.” So, it doesn’t matter how many pears we started with, it’s how many of those that were lost to insects with the new pesticide.

*Answer B:* Not the right answer. This weakens the argument. Insect abatement programs were used in the last 5 years, and were successful. That explains why the pears lost to insects were significantly less than it had been during the previous three years period.

*Answer C:* Not the right answer. Over the past 5 years, the birds that prey on the insects that feed on the pears have spent more time in the district 10 region. Weakens.

*Answer D:* Not the right answer. Insects in district 10 that infest pear trees are water breeders, and access to water for them is shrinking. This means the insects did not get to the pear trees. Weakens.

*Answer E:* Not the right answer. It is saying the old pesticide is still in effect after it has stopped being used, so it may not be the new pesticide that is credited with eliminating many pear eating insects. Weakens.

Hi all,

Do any of you have a list of all the strange games?

.

Hello 7Sagers,

I am currently working on weaken questions and I am having a hard time understanding the task. I understand that I am supposed to focus on the conclusion, but find the gap between the premises and conclusion ( with the ac) that will weaken the argument. However, it is hard for me to do this accurately because i feel its too much in my head and i get confused. What are some strategies you all use to stop yourselves from getting confused. Do you focus only on weakening the conclusion or something else? Can i think of weakening questions in another way?