http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-2-question-06/

I know this is early on in the section, but it's very tricky. None of the explanations I find online are satisfying.

For justify principle questions, the premises should connect with the conclusion, and this doesn't happen here.

First, a discussion of the stimulus:

Premise: The styling of characters in Quirks is not problematic because the film is funny, and that is necessary for a comedy.

Conclusion: The criticism of Quirks is misguided.

I would prephrase if a film is successful within their genre, actions that lead to that film's success as part of that genre is not warranted. (something along those lines)

The correct answer is as follows: D. "Films are successful if they succeed within their genre"

"if they succeed within their genre" = the film is funny, that is the most important thing for comedy

"films are successful" = ?

How can we conclude that "films are successful" = "criticism is misguided"? To me, that is still a big gap, that is not justified from the principle.

I don't think I have ever encountered a difficult LR sections as PT73. Please help!

We currently have two in total. Message me if interested!

Greetings, 7Sagers!

On Tuesday, January 14 at 8pm ET, join 7Sage admissions consultants Taj McCoy and Dr. Sam Riley for another panel discussion with law school admissions deans from across the country. For this conversation, hear from representatives of Boston College, Catholic University, Howard University, Loyola University Chicago, Loyola Los Angeles, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, as they weigh in on the state of admissions in January, first waves of admissions offers, application rollover from early decision, and initial scholarship offers. The audience will be able to submit questions on this topic throughout the session via the Q&A widget.

*Note: The session will be recorded and will be posted to our podcast after it's edited for sound quality.

Register: https://7sage.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZEpd-6hqT0jHd3MVnlY3jKRjowne8HcEISr

Have a safe and happy winter break!

Does anyone have a good way to explain flaw/descriptive weakening questions and how to approach them? I am still confused after reviewing all the lessons and doing the practice problems. I always fail to identify the flaw made in the argument and end up getting the wrong answer. It just seems like there are many ways to point out the flaw and there are diff types of flaws, so can anyone share some tips on how you identify them/what helps you to understand the flaw in the argument?? thank you!

I am just now attempting to lock into 7Sage, so where do I begin? I have done test prep before but the specific test prep didn't work well for me. I am a bit overwhelmed about 7Sage's study schedule it created me because I have no idea where the drilling and the full practice test come into the study schedule. For context, I am a full time college student who is heavily involved in extracurricular as well. Any help or mock study schedules would be so helpful!

i was all the way through the old core curriculum when the new version of 7sage came out with all the new prep tests. i have been testing from pt 36 all the way up to pt 61 using the old format but now i want to take pt62-pt94 using the new preptests. however, it doesnt look like the new preptests work that way. would it be okay for me to just continue taking 3 sections of pt 62-94, while adding on an old section for each preptests myself? i like doing the prep tests sequentially, like 62, 63, 64 , 65 etc. i also like how jy ping adds commentary every 4 or 5 prep tests using students live takes and i dont want to lose that.

for someone who has been prep testing sequentially all the way since pt 36, how can i continue to do this while also adding in a 4th section in the most realistic way possible? thank you

I hit a wall early in my prep. I logged every wrong answer religiously in the notes section. But after a month, I realized I wasn't learning; I was just hoarding my failures in a list I never wanted to look at again.

I was spending hours managing data when I should have been fixing the underlying logic flaws and rewiring my old ways of thinking. I realized that re-reading the same question wasn't helping—I was just remembering the answer, not learning the rule.

The inefficiency was driving me crazy. About 70% of my journal was stuff I had already learned from, but it was buried in with the difficult concepts I still needed to work on. I was wasting an hour a day reviewing a massive wall of text just to find the few questions that actually mattered.

I eventually built a tool to fix the workflow. It filters out what I already know and uses AI to verify I actually know the pattern of the difficult ones by generating new variations. If I got it right, it schedules review for longer. If I get it wrong, it shortens the review period so I can focus on the questions that trip me up most. I went from a 157 to a 173 in a few months, and I really think it's because I used this as a "hyper efficient" wrong answer journal to find the signal in the noise.

Does anyone else have a good system for "pruning" their wrong answer journal? Or do you just let the list grow forever, or skip out on using it entirely?

I can't say enough how revelatory the Blind Review method is. Personally, I think this methodology itself was worth what I paid for the Testmasters course. I feel a pang of despondency having hammered through so many questions through that course without any constructive and pertinent thought. Hopefully, most of you have not had the displeasure of going through the same mistake!

Happy studying! :)

I was trying to send out transcripts and have received an error. Anyone else have the same issues?

Episode #80 is here!

https://soundcloud.com/user-737824810/80-jy-and-chris-nguyen-discuss-five-lr-questions-from-preptest-90-section4

Want to learn more about our LSAT Tutoring Program? Schedule a free consultation with this link: https://calendly.com/7sage-consult/7sage-tutoring-free-consult?utm_source=DF

Subscribe to our podcast:

iTunes (Apple Podcasts) | Google Podcasts | SoundCloud

Does anyone have a PDF of the little thought bubbles that are shown at the beginning of lessons sometimes? it would really help me to see big picture breakdown. If anyone has this or has made it, please let me know!

Hey guys! This is probably a pretty obvious question, but I'm just confirming something. I took the LSAT for the first time last September and completed a writing sample for it, as it shows on my LSAC account. I am taking the test again next week, and on the LSAC website listed above my previous writing sample it says that for this upcoming LSAT, I need to complete the writing sample "as soon as possible." To my knowledge, we only need to have one writing sample on file, so I don't need to complete this one as well, right? I'm just confirming so I don't have any issues next week. Thanks! :D

Are we supposed to assume that these chemicals are initially "harmless" or that the dilution process caused them to become harmless? There is nothing in the passage discussing whether or not the chemicals are harmless.

No other answer choice makes sense, but Answer choice A requires some form of assumption to be made.

some insight please.

Hi all! I am looking for an evening hour (after 5pm MST) or weekend (Sat. and Sun.) study partner(s) for the January LSAT. Please message me if you are serious about consistently studying within those parameters and I will invite you to a discord server!

Are the sub game boards necessary for this last game?

Thanks!

Looking for Study Buddy in Dallas, Texas

Been finding Net Effect Questions to be a challenge. Anyone have tips on how to identify these questions. and then how they approach them. Cost-Benefit Net Effect questions are pretty straight forward its the more nuanced net effect question types that give me more of a challenge at the moment

This is by far my worse section. I'm currently scoring a 161and missing like 10 questions on RC. Any tips to lower that to at least - 6.

I’ve been studying for the LSAT exam for a little over two years and I’ve made no progress on the logical reasoning. I always get half right and half wrong, consistently, and most of the time I always get down to two answer choices and most of the time I always choose the wrong answer choice. Before anyone says that I ought to approach this with a memory based effort, my mentality is that I would rather approach it with a critical thinking based effort, because that’s what this exam is measuring. I would rather not shoot myself in the foot all because I decided to memorize each grain of sand on the beach and their names and their elements and their relatives and their language style and their blah blah blah. I just want to learn how to do this exam based on the advice I was already given by some lawyer types, who seem well established, who all said some general advice and were adamant that I should approach it with a critical thinking based effort rather than a memory based effort. So is there at all a tip or method or trick or magic whatever that allows me to look at the question, look at the passage, then look to the answer choices and then somehow go a little bit further in helping me select the correct answer choice?

Hi I'm looking for a study buddy maybe someone that goes to Florida Atlantic University. I'm good at games and reading comprehension just need help with lr. If your struggling with games or the reading comp I can help you and vice versa. If interested just inbox me thanks.

Unfortunately, I find myself frequently narrowing down RC answers to two choices, then picking the wrong one*. This is especially the case with MAIN POINT questions (although I have no problem identifying conclusions in LR stimuli).

While I know the common types of incorrect ACs (out of scope, too narrow, unsupported, etc.), that knowledge doesn't seem to be helping me, especially in a time crunch.

I've also come across seemingly conflicting information in my study materials* concerning main point questions: some say it has to encompass all the main points of the paragraphs (or else it's too narrow), while others say it should just focus on the main conclusion and any subsidiary conclusions shouldn't be mentioned (or else it's too broad). Which is correct?

It's hard to find the right answer when I'm unsure exactly what it needs to include (or exclude).

ANY help is greatly appreciated, especially that which I can apply within the next couple days (if possible).

Thank you!!!

Background:

**(I've just been studying on my own with the help of some misc. prep books and free online materials [ya girl is broke], but need some additional help.)

Hey ! I live in Pembroke Pines, but study at FIU South Campus. I can meet anywhere in between. I would love to have someone to study with! Please let me know!

My email is michiarmen@Hotmail.com

Good afternoon fellow 7Sagers,

I see a lot of study buddy partnerships and groups being formed in many areas, so I am starting one in the San Fernando Valley! I just recently lost my study buddy whose moving overseas, and it'd be great to study the LSAT together! I have a lot of material including the Powerscore books and all the printed practice materials from Blueprint. I am aiming for a 170+, with my current preptest scores ranging from high 150s to mid 160s. Let me know here if you're interested!

Best regards,

Isaac

Feb Test Takers

Friday, Dec 19th at 8PM ET: PT61

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/sdiINq0J9AwI

Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

Note:

Split screen support would be really helpful for tablet users.

My eyes are getting too much exercise from reading 1/32 inches letters on my goodnotes.