i dont understand why this is E

Would one W on my transcript taint my applications - particularly for t-14 schools?

Listen and subscribe:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify

In this episode, Rahela sits down with 7Sage tutor and instructor Levi Grant to talk about his LSAT journey, starting with a 153 diagnostic and ending with a 177 final score. He shares what he learned along the way, the mistakes he made and fixed, and his best advice for current students.

I chose answer choice C because being the rock being submerged in water does not prove the conclusion that is falsifying the idea that life began in the ocean and did not exist on land until half a billion years ago.

Does anyone have an explanation for why C does support the conclusion and why D would be the answer for non-supporting? Thanks!

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

Hi everyone!

If you’re prepping for the April or June 2025 LSAT and looking for accountability, motivation, and a supportive study community, let’s connect! I’m starting a study group for test takers in the NJ/NYC area—whether you prefer to meet virtually, in-person, or a mix of both, we’ll figure out what works best for everyone.

The goal is to:

Stay accountable & consistent with studying

Share strategies, struggles, and wins

Create a judgment-free, motivating space to improve together

I saw groups in this area for people aged 25+, so I wanted to make this group for those who are younger (Early 20s)! If you're interested, drop a comment or DM me! Let’s do this together :)

If my plan is to "study" for 12ish hours a week, how is that broken down? Do I do 12 hrs of lessons? Or do I finish a section and then practice questions, live classes, or podcasts for that section? If I do the latter, how much time do I spend on each section, and how do I know when to move on?

Forgot to put this in the feedback forms, but can we, pretty please, keep office hour classes? I personally find it extremely useful to look at the always excellent questions others bring in, and moreover, we get to look some of more recent questions that understandably are left alone in other classes, which in my humble opinion, makes the fact it's a smaller class the perfect setting. Office hours: small but mighty, please reconsider removing them. Much appreciation (for everything)!

On the 2007 prep test, I was unable to arrive at the correct conclusion for RC#13. I was confident that my answer was right and I even got it wrong during blind review. Even now, I’m unsure that I’d be able to deduce this quickly on a test. When I get to the RC section and begin doing drills, how can I study for this type of question? Are all Art, InfAP and Co questions similar?

I can understand why (B) is correct - but not sure why (C) is wrong. I think I'm not understanding (C) correctly. What does it mean to "indicate the falsehood of the implications" of a hypothesis? Doesn't the author do so in the stimulus, by showing that predicting an invention according to the hypothesis necessarily entails inventing it (the implications), which would be self-contradictory? Is (C) wrong because self-contradiction ≠ falsehood? I'd really appreciate it if someone could give me an example of (C) since I'm not exactly sure I understand JY's example either.

Thanks in advance!

I genuinely did not understand the stimulus.

Hey all, I'm struggling to understand why AC A in PT 119, Section 1, Question 14, is incorrect. I've reviewed the video explanation, online forums, and comments, but the best explanation I could come up with is below. Help on understanding this would be much appreciated - I've thought through this for several days but am still confused. I've never been this stumped after reviewing a wrong RC answer.

Q14: I understand why AC C is correct but am still struggling to eliminate A, especially since A seemed supported by lines 37-40 "personal and cultural screens of silence and secretiveness that have enshrouded her past". Here are a few things that I believe discredit A as a viable answer choice:

Although this might be a subtle distinction, in this context "history" means a a factual record of historical facts, where Naomi "reconciles" history - in other words uncovers or accepts difficult truths about her personal history and the historical context in which she lived.

Heritage, as JY alludes to, refers to cultural or ancestral legacy, including cultural traditions.

In this case, being discouraged from exploring heritage is not supported(?). I would still argue that if AC A references history (not heritage) it might be supported by lines 37-40. Even with the distinction between history and heritage, I'm not fully convinced that A is not supported. These in-text lines refer to cultural secretiveness. Does this mean that Naomi was discouraged from seeking her heritage? Secretiveness of the past does seem to refer to a form of discouragement.

Hey 7sage community,

This post is going to be edited multiple times by myself over the next several days/weeks...

TLDR: Free Lsat RC tutoring and LSAT coaching. Ideal for students who are really early in their process of studying or what to revamp their approach/mentality. I am intentionally starting with RC because I want to challenge the myth (yes myth) that it is the toughest section to overcome. If that's what you think, then guess what, WTF are you going do in law school? Read below for more info!

Deadline for the Application: March 10th

Short Story / About Me:

First of all, if this is a violation of the 7sage discussion forum, admin please delete this. I have not been on this website in a long time and I understand 7sage now has a tutoring program.

A little bit about me - in my last semester of law school (Dalhousie University - Halifax - Canada) and my passion for the teaching the LSAT has not gotten away from me (https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/22608/giving-back-to-the-7sage-community-free-tutoring). Secondly, I am teacher by profession. Honestly, nothing made me more happier in law school then having one of my students get accepted into York University's law program (weird but it was the honest truth). I cannot believe I am about type this - > I think law school only increased my passion for the LSAT!

Reflecting back on my law school life (loool....I should write about this in another blog), I think the best way I can give back to my law schools Weldon Tradition (google it) is to alleviate access to justice by getting more people from marginalized communities into law. I really believe this is the best way of dealing with "injustice" in the justice system.

The LSAT - I cannot stress this enough - is a great exam for developing your skills to be a great law student and lawyer. Only if I knew this, or thought of the exam differently before hand (I actually did - but I decided to have a kid LOL and that destroyed my law school timeline). TBH - I am going to restart studying for the LSAT post April and want to take my final LSAT probably next year...don't know why but I really want to ink down 170+ on my LSAT transcript. Its always been a weird passion of mine and I do not want to let this dream go (I know I am weird).

To get my free RC tutoring & LSAT coaching - DM me with the following (the more detail - the more it will help you!)

My goal is to create a group of three students - to teach you how to read RC (perhaps 7 to 8 sessions it may take) and then create a new group of three students, and continue this process. Also during this journey I want to coach you on your general LSAT journey.

.....

Stay tuned for my next LSAT post: The LSAT mentality!

P.S. I am not sure if other alum feel this way, but writing posts while being in law school about the LSAT is weirdly therapeutical LOL.

Hi! I took my diagnostic yesterday and I am hoping to take the August LSAT. I finished the Arguments section, and I am wondering what the practice test timeline should be? When should I take my first PT after my diagnostic? I know 7sage says to not take more than 1-2 PTs a week, but when should you begin taking them regularly?

n/a

I saw a comment on this question that stated: but & and are logical equivalents. Is this true?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-2-question-10/

Wrong Answer (D) and Right Answer (E). I can't seem to reach the understanding on how E is relevant, e.g. doesn't contain information introduced in the passage on whether or not zebra mussels can transform hazardous waste and why they would be considered hazardous waste. I chose (D) because out of all the answers it seemed like the closest to being supported, as it mentions one of the 'redeeming qualities' of zebra mussels.

If you don't know what the title of this post means, I've got good news! This change won't affect you at all. It will only make your life on 7Sage a bit simpler.

If you use our Admissions site, heads up! We're folding the Admissions Site into the LSAT site, and for the time being, there's a new way to navigate to the Admissions Course.

https://www.loom.com/share/168a73b68f124c00b49f8d3ee4d200d9

Quick links:

I am going to take the September LSAT and I am looking to have someone who can hold me and who I can hold accountable to study every single day until then.

I got 4 out of 5 right in this drill but got this particular questions drastically wrong. I selected B and on blind review selected C. I never felt E was correct during the drill or blind review. I do not know what I am not seeing on this particular question. I do not understand why C is incorrect. If 40% in the first group reported awaking paralyzed with a strange presence in the room, wouldn't it be correct to say 60% had not? Or is C wrong, because it only mentioned "strange presence" and excluded "paralyzed" as part of the answer? #help

On the lessons with video, I have been watching the video only. The text underneath seems like the same exact content, only with different wording. Am I missing out on anything if on the video lessons I only watch the videos?

I chose D but the right answer was B. Looking back at it, now it makes sense.

I'm one of the 35% people that chose (B) and still am not fully convinced that (E) is better. To compare the two ACs, I'll list all potential objections/flaws they each have for them to work:

(B) says, salt is not the only dietary factors associated with high blood pressure. It takes for granted that the people in the question actually were consuming these other foods, and the intake of such foods in combination needs to be significant enough, not only to offset the effects of their high salt intake, but also to bring their blood pressure down to very low.

(E) says, some people have abnormally low blood pressure and they have heightened cravings for salt to maintain a blood pressure that's not too low. It assumes without justification that these people are in fact the people talked about in the stimulus, and their high salt intake was in fact the result of their heightened cravings.

I'll admit that (B) makes a lot of unwarranted assumptions. But the "cravings" in (E) really trips me up because I think the assumption of "heightened cravings for salt" implying "high salt intake" is the exact kind of bad assumptions that LSAT usually punishes us for making. My only justification for choosing (E) over (B) is that it makes fewer assumptions. Can someone please help me out on this one? This question is bothering me so much and I don't know what I need to do differently to avoid similar mistakes in the future. Any help is hugely appreciated!

Can someone explain the percents/proportion relationship that makes B the right answer? I am having a hard time understanding it. #help

For the correct answer choice, why does it matter if the trees used are or old or new since the answer is talking about the harm caused by the products they will be turned into? This is the reason I did not choose it #help

Hi everyone! I am looking for a study/accountability buddy scoring in the 160s and aiming for the 90th percentile. I am personally aiming to retake in August. Preferably PST. Message me if you're interested!