Discussions

All posts

New post

182 posts in the last 30 days

I picked the right answer. But I wanna extract as much as possible from this question.

I noticed a nuance in the question stem "an element of". But how this is different from the ordinary question stem which simply ask what the author's attitude is best expressed?

I feel the correct answer would still be credit nicely even tho the question stem has no "an element of". But, given the sneakiness of the test maker, I believe there is something I missed.

Any insights? Thanks for your time.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-1-passage-2-questions/

0

Do we blind review every section? So basically review all of our circled questions, maybe even re-read the reading comp passages at a slower pace to confirm answer choices etc.? We basically can review the whole test at a slow untimed pace? THEN check our answers?

Also for full length PT's do you blind review the same day you took it or the day after? What do you think is more useful? Obviously when I am doing section drilling I will BR immediately after.

Any advice would be awesome! Thanks!!!!!

0

Having a question about context and details!

While reading third paragraph of this last paragraph, the part "glorification"~ made me make a narrative that nationalists may have exaggerated achievements and there could be questions regarding this point.

Looking into Q22 (C)

Most historians- should be specifically "US" historians

Make the histories of the nations about which they wrote seem more glorious than they actually were

I thought it's correct as glorification could be interpreted as exaggeration. Thus, making it more glorious than they actually were.

Does "glorify" exclude the meaning of exaggeration?

As a non-native speaker, some words are confusing...

Any tips for improving context interpretation is also welcomed:)

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-61-section-1-passage-4-questions/

0

I am not sure if this question is even necessary but I'd like to know what people think.

I am taking the LSAT one more time next week (January). I expect about a 152-154. This would be an improvement from a previous try of a 146 (I took this test in a difficult environment). I secured a hotel room for this exam so I am confident now.

My LSAC GPA is a 3.66. I am not targeting the highest schools but I want to attend this Fall.

I enrolled in a ABA Paralegal Certificate program last year in January because I am interested in it as well as wanting more exposure to law and if law school would be something I wanted to pursue. Within a few short weeks, I knew this was what I wanted. It's been in my mind for many years but I never felt ready to pull the trigger until a few years of work post-college. Anyways... the question...

If I scored a 152 for example, would I be able to write an addendum. The reason I ask is because I began my studies right after the first semester (the program is basically two - 15 credit/5 classes per semesters). Obviously during my studies for the LSAT, I was also doing the full time course work. I completed the certificate last month.

Could I write an addendum for a slightly lower LSAT score due to the conflict of juggling both? I have a solid undergraduate GPA of 3.66 and received a 4.0 GPA for the paralegal certificate. (10 classes, all A grades).

I ask this because honestly, the LSAT is not my strongest attribute, however in a more real world setting involving actual cases, legal research, documentation, case briefs, memorandums, etc I clearly excelled. It was not easy to balance the full course load, the assignments and projects, with the studying overall - though I did it!, but is this a worthy addendum? I believe it is but idk. I know I have a solid foundation with legal information already but idk how addendums work.

Sorry for the long "sob" story but I really would appreciate any advice. I have uploaded the transcript of the certificate classes to the CAS system as well already. Thank you in advance!

0

Hi guys! So I spent the summer working through the 7Sage lesson prep and now am at the stage where I just drill PT's and review them. BUT I am a junior in college who is majoring in Finance and a minor in Econ aka a lot of course load. I also am in a frat and want to join an extra finance club but any suggestions on time management? I am thinking about definitely taking a test every friday and reviewing it sat/sunday. Then taking another test on like monday but taking the tuesday-thursday to review it (i.e. in between my classes and when I have a spare hour) granted there will be weeks that I can't get both tests in can I just get advice from anyone else who has had success balancing work/school with LSAT studying? BTW I am taking the LSAT in February of 2014. Any advice would help!!

0

I’m currently working through the MSS drills in the main curriculum. I’ve been taking my time make sure my accuracy is good, but when should I be concerned about getting the target time? I’m so worried about waisting questions. Is it okay to take 2+ minutes per question while drilling or do I need to pick up the pace?

0

I previously chose B and got it wrong. I now see why A is the correct answer.

The question stated "People would not follow a leader if they felt there was nothing they could gain by following that leader. Therefore, even those leaders who are incompetent or evil bring some good to their followers."

In lawgic, this translates to "If they felt there was nothing they could gain by following that leader, people would not follow a leader. Therefore, even those leaders who are incompetent or evil bring some good to their followers."

Nothing to Gain (/GA) --> Not Follow a Leader (/FL). So /GA-->/FL. The contrapositive of this is FL-->GA. (If you follow a leader, then you have something to gain).

Following Incompetent or Evil Leader (FIEL) --> Bring Some Good (BG). So FIEL-->BSG

  • FL-->GA

  • FIEL-->BSG

    • A most closely matches this.

    (Expound upon theories) EUO-->BT (Believe are True)

    (Any theory expounded) ATE-->GOT (Grain of Truth)

    B talks about worst circumstances and then vicious people. But A sticks with the subject of theories being expounded upon, and the stimulus talks about following leaders.

    Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

    0

    Hi 7sagers,

    I'm looking for a tutor after what I believe was a poor performance on Jan LSAT, my fourth. Previous best was a 160 in November and I was targeting a 162-3 this time around. I'm expecting under 160, definitely frustrating. Worked really hard, was doing 4 game sections plus some RC and LR every day, but I did a few PTs the week before the test and struggled. Went into the test a little unconfident.

    It's been about 8 months of full-time studying and something needs to change. Effort is there but results aren't coming.

    RC: Around -7 every time. The 2-passage RC passages suck up a lot of my time when I'm not getting the fine differences.

    LR: Consistently around a -5 to -8.

    LG: Around a -3 or -4 but I had poor timing on Jan LSAT, couldn't adequately attack 4th game.

    My budget isn't crazy high but it's something, so DM me with your price regardless!

    Thank you!

    0

    I normally score pretty well on my lsat, however like a lot of people I did horribly on the lg. my question is if I score for the sake of arguing that I score 146 , but in December I score 166, what are my chances of getting into a good school?

    0

    7Sage Website Gods,

    I love being able to take the PT1-35 LG sections timed and then easily check answers after BRing them by clicking on Resources > Logic Game Explanations.

    I would love to be able to do the same thing as I work on LR sections from those same tests. I have the questions already, but to find answers, I have to "score" a PT for the relevant test, then find the question explanation links, then afterwards delete the "scored" PT from my history so it doesn't throw off my analytics.

    Any chance you could add a page that would only be visible based on your membership level, and that is formatted like the LG Explanations page, but for LR questions?

    If such a resource already exists, or there is an easier way than my current solution, and I just haven't found it, could you point me in the right direction?

    Many thanks,

    -Joe

    0

    I used Loophole + my own method to make the LR formulaic as much as i could atleast. This method will help with NA, weakness, and strengthening questions for most part. other questions are i think much easier

    P1: Infection with vaccine is coincidence

    Conclusion: Vaccine is not of any concern

    Loophole "what if" method apply leading to negated conclusion to show it can be of concern

    "What if" x can be of a concern

    What if infection with vaccine has worse outcome then it is of concern.

    NA would be: infection with vaccine is same outcome/severity

    Weakness: Worse severity

    Strengthening: same or lesser severity

    What if basically doing it this way helps you pick up the gap to play with. LMK if anyone has any questions. Feel free to put in your inputs thanks!.

    0

    Confirm action

    Are you sure?