Hey guys, I know most of you aren't in NYC. But, for those of you who are, we want to let you know that we're having an open bar event in the evening. Drinks on us.

Hopefully, this gives you something to look forward to. Whether you'll be in the mood to celebrate, commiserate, or cry, the important thing is for us to do it together!

More details to come!

Hi everyone, I'm new to the forum.

So I recently watched the "Foolproof Method" video for LGs and it seemed to me, that the 10 copies were supposed to be done back to back until memory kicked in for all inferences? I'm concerned with memorizing the answers and subconsciously not utilizing any inferences. In that case, should I, perhaps, wait 24 hours+ in between repeating the same Logic Game?

Thanks for the input, guys.

I have heard before that for except without until you are supposed to negate the necessary condition and the sufficient condition and turn it into the contra-positive. I often find this difficult and/ or confusing and I was wondering if there was a simpler way to do it. Examples would be appreciated :)

Hey guys, I was going over my old PT's and I still cannot get a full understanding of this question.

The stim basically says:

"if violation of explicit rules are routinely left unpunished, chaos results. Therefore, we ought never to allow any explicit rules to go unpunished."

Well, this is a typical

A->B

/B

-----

/A argument structure.

I can see that the author assumes that we do not want chaos, but I don't think LSAC is that crazy to think that it is a flaw.

The answer choice hints at us that the actual flaw of this stim is that there is a flawed jump from "routinely" to to "never," but I don't see how this works.

Any thoughts?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-1-question-22/

Of course you are. You're about to take an important test. It's not the most important test though. That one you'll take in October (or December or next February). :)

I'm kidding! Most likely, this is the last LSAT you'll ever take. I'm just trying to say that for something as important as this, there are second chances. That's definitely not true for most important things, so you should feel good knowing that.

For most of you, you already know what you'll get on this June LSAT. Take your past three recent (i.e., 59-68) properly administered LSAT prep tests and average your score. You'll get plus or minus 3 points of your average. I suppose one assumption is that on Monday somewhere between the third or fourth announcement of "5 minutes remaining" you do not suffer a small heart attack... Anyway, ask yourself, will you accept your average as your official LSAT score?

If not, further ask yourself if you are willing to study more. Be honest and realistic. This test is crushingly difficult to study for. You know this. If you are masochistic enough to call yourself determined, then great, we will be determined right here with you.

If so, then congratulations. You are as prepared as you can be and there is nothing standing between you and that score. You've seen everything they'll throw at you, every attack, every ambush, every evasive maneuver. You've amply demonstrated your ability to respond. Monday will not be new day and the June LSAT will not be a new LSAT. LSAT 69 will be just like LSAT 65 and LSAT 64. People just like you took those LSATs and they're in law school now.

For Monday, this is the only thing I want you to remember: keep moving.

You will encounter curve breaker questions. Every LSAT has a couple. Every student who has ever taken the LSAT before you encountered them. You will too. I'm telling you this now, so you'll be prepared. Skip the curve breaker questions if they are too difficult. Don't let a couple questions break your rhythm.

Just keep moving. You got this.

P.S. If you're in NYC, come have a drink on us Monday evening!

http://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/56/nyc-open-bar-post-june-lsat-monday-evening

Help! I can't wrap my head around this one AT ALL. I'm not even sure what the conclusion is.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-3-question-24/

I have been doing a good amount of practicing with logic games this past week or so and I been noticing that grouping games with more than two groups have been giving me a lot of trouble. Is there any way to approach them without having to resort to creating a sub-diagram for each question?

For the logic games where the question asks you to replace a rule with another rule to maintain the same effect on the game...

I know that you can't replace it with a new rule that allows for a possibility that the old rules would not allow (wouldn't be the same effect). But, is it also true that you can't have a new rule that is a subset of the old rules? As in, the old rules allow for more possibilities than the new rule. That wouldn't be the same effect either, right? So you would have to find the same set of possibilities?

If that makes any sense..

When I am taking my practice tests I often come across questions (in LR sections, specifically) where I am certain that 3 of the answers are wrong, but am unable to clearly distinguish between the other two. For time's sake I usually put the answer that seems best and move on. Somehow, at a percentage that seems mathematically impossible for a 50/50 scenario, I miss almost every one of these questions. Is there any tricks, or specific things to look for in order determine the better of two decent answers?

If anyone wants to review PT 68 with me tomorrow (Friday) over google hangout/skype. private message me and we can get started. Logical reasoning, both sections.

Over the past year I know that some people have mentioned seeing grouping games with elements reused. I know this isn't a recent trend (many of the older games have multiple groups 3+ with each group getting at least one or up to 3 items).

However, the game type I am referring to is your standard in out game (2 groups only) but just because one element is in the "in" column, it doesn't necessarily mean it can't be in the "out" column. Nowhere in the scenario does it say that "each element will be used exactly once." Basically, the elements can be "reused." Also, the number of elements aren't limited to just 3, but range from 5-7.

Some ppl have told me that the test put a twist by splitting the elements into 2 subgroups (i.e., women vs. men)... and adding in a weird rule (i.e., chairperson in group 1 can't be in group 2)...

What is the best way to prepare for this type of game? I recall seeing this type of game just once (PT25-S3-G1), but its a very straight fwd grouping game with a twist in which there must be at least one member shared...

Wow, I did everything on this question and got sucked into answer choice E but had no idea to interpret the word "that" the way JY explained it. Are there others words that indicate "and" or sufficiency that are worth knowing?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-19/

When I finish the "Sufficient Assumption & Pseudo Sufficient Assumption Questions" section, have I finished the Logical Reasoning lessons? In other words, are the topics covered in the previous lessons the only topics in the syllabus that will help me in the LR section of the LSAT?

Anybody knows any tricks or tips to ace the games section?

How I read the stimulus was: say we let Q be the statement "create virtuous people"

Glen: I believe Q is most important because P (an alternative) is not desirable

Sara: But Q is more dangerous than P

I can't seem to get past why answer choice C is wrong. Glen's closing sentence states he endorses law's primary role to create virtuous citizens implying there is negligible danger in making Q the most important. On the other hand Sara counters by saying this is more dangerous than being overprotective of individual rights, thereby implying she believes there is an inherent danger in the government deciding what constitutes virtuous behavior. Wouldn't this point be something they directly disagree about?

So E summarizes Glen's argument, but Sara simply disagrees by stating Q is more dangerous than an alternative and seems to imply Q may not be the most important. But I feel that the level of interpolation to go from Sara's argument (Q being more dangerous) to Sara believing Q is not the most important is the same as that for C.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-56-section-2-question-17/

I registered for June LSAT (Jun.23) in Asia and it's the last day (May 29) to change my test date today.

I am not prepared at this moment but I still want to give it a shot if I work out something 20 days later..so I haven't change my test date yet.

Is that any other disadvantages except losing money if I withdraw after today? I wonder if there will be a note of "absent" in my track and I lose one chance to take the exam within 2 yrs (Because of the policy of taking no more than 3 exams within 2 yrs)

Thanks!

Feel like everytime I re-start my engine for PT after reviewing & resting even just for 3-4 days I got rusty..like terribly..

How much time you guys put in between your PTs? I know rest is critical to keep a clear head but too much interval time doesn't seem to work..

An Eagle's Eye for Detail is needed for this one.

I understood the question.

Study people easily angered--> more likely to have permanent high blood pressure--> More likely to get Heart Disease

Conclusion: Heart Disease can result from psychological factors (Anger)

I see E and look at it, and think it says "Psychological factors" cause both anger and high blood pressure. I then, think to myself, well, that wouldn't weaken the argument because that'd essentially cement the conclusion that "Psychological factors" caused heart disease.

Then, I looked at E again, it said "PHYSiological" which are different from "PSYchological" factors.

To summarize, have an eagle's eye for detail.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-1-question-22/

I've been trying just about every browser on Kindle Fire but it appears that I can't get the videos to load. Any suggestions (other than buying an iPad)?

I read in several places that retaking PTs is recommended. I'm wondering what are the merits of this? How should we treat the second run through differently? Perhaps we should go through the test as fast as we can to test our gut instincts rather than carefully thinking through each one?

Hi, general question about strategy here. I can manage to solve almost every game in practice, but my problem is doing it fast enough to complete an entire section.

I think I have the understanding down; I suspect the problem is being too thorough (ex.double checking each answer on a CBT question, drawing all the possibilities when I don't need to).

Does anybody have tips/habits on how to go faster?

I find it is difficult to do the entire prep test in time. I have trouble circling questions I'm not sure on. I also find myself not reading LR Q stem first before stimulus (wasting time). HELP!!! How do I go about blind reviewing the test with not many circled questions? I know the process via videos, but should I redo the whole test under non-timed conditions? Also, I skipped a whole RC section and about 1/2 a LG section. So I don't even know what I don't know on that stuff. I want to improve LG and RC more than they currently are AND I HAVE TO focus on skipping high difficulty LR questions QUICKLY. Any advice on how I can use my time more effectively 1) to study & 2) to get through sections quicker... I would like to spend my last 5 minutes in LR marking answers and trying the 3-4 problems I skipped corrected and "FEELING GOOD" versus racing through the last 4 problems and marking answers like a SAW victim with time running out...

I heard a bit back that the new tests give all takers 2 pages for each LG & I just confirmed it. Yay for more space to diagram! Just thought I would throw that out there in case it's news to some. Keep studying hard everyone! :)

Would it be possible to get some advice on this question? I'm lacking a way to do this problem methodically and quickly.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-40-section-3-question-26/

I am in a bit of a quandary and open to any thoughts. I was scheduled for the June 10th and wanted to schedule for October - for whatever reason I was unable to change the date and I am now stuck for the June 10 which I am not ready for. That leaves me with the following possibilities and I am trying to assess the implications of each.

1. Withdraw - I lose the money on the fee but so be it, at least I haven't wasted one of the few exams were allowed to take

2. Take the exam and cancel the result just to get the experience of trying the exam - question, can we see a result before we cancel?

3. Take it just for the experience and do not worry about it, rebook the 2nd in October?

I have till a few days before June 10 to decide, any thoughts welcome. I have studied a lot but just do not feel ready and still had a lot of material to still go through.