#help

I answered this question correctly but approached the stimulus differently than J.Y. I interpreted the part that says “who receive unsolicited advice from someone whose advantage would be served if that advice is taken” to be a description of the kind of “people” the stimulus is referring to. Therefore, I teased out the logic in this way:

People (who receive unsolicited advice from someone whose advantage would be served if that advice is taken)

Interest NOT coincide → Regard advice with Skepticism

so

NOT IC → SK

Therefore, I approached the answer choices in this way:

A – Even if the interest of H and F do not coincide, the stimulus does not suggest a rejection;

B – Perfectly resembled my interpretation since S and R “NOT IC” then R should not reject the least expensive models. So, he must be skeptical about S’s advice;

C – In this case M and Y interest coincided so it did not trigger my conditional;

D – In this case S and R interest coincided so it did not trigger my conditional;

E – Even if we can infer that M and J interest did not coincide because M wanted to purchase a more expensive fish while J wanted to sell her a cheaper one, in no way we can conclude that M should follow J’s recommendation, so “NOT SK”.

What do you think?

Thank you in advance to whoever is going to answer.

Best,

Marco

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-4-question-19/

Lines 7 and 8 are freezing my comprehension, relegate, periphery and antecedents. Any suggestions. The author lost me.

When I get lost, it's hard for me to determine if the big picture of the passage is positive, negative or neutral, agree or disagree.

Please help. Thank you.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-1-passage-4-passage/

Please help

Is the reasoning flaw in the stimulus that it concludes what makes something not censorship from the sufficient condition for censorship?

If A or B, then Censorship exists.

From this, we cannot conclude that censorship does not exist.

Similarly, in (D),

If A, then heroic.

From this, we cannot conclude what's not heroic. A is a sufficient condition for being heroic, not its necessary condition. If it were the necessary condition, we have a way of concluing that something is NOT heroic. Is this all there is to see in this question?

Hi! I managed to get a 172 on the January LSAT, despite not being in the best mental state. I'm retaking in June and aiming for 99th percentile. Anyways, I just started anti-depressant medication a few weeks ago, and am worried that it might be giving me brain fog/lack of motivation and focus. I feel pretty much the same, maybe just in a bit more of a positive mood. My last PT was a 177 (with medication), but it was also an older test. Has anyone had experience with medications affecting their score? I don't want to be in a situation where it affects my ability to focus on the test, and I end up with a lower score in June....

Hello all,

I'm looking to see if anyone wants to collaborate with me to study via zoom or in person, mainly to keep each other accountable, but also to bounce questions off each other sometimes. I'm currently scoring around 154-157 range and am I aiming to get to 165+ . I typically study after work around 5 o clock but I can be flexible.

Hello, looking for a zoom study group to do co-working. I am not interested in doing review or going over answers, just co-working at a set time in the evening (EST). I work 9-5PM and workout early mornings. Hoping a co-working space will keep me accountable! Shoot me a message if interested.

I couldn't see how the term "normal" was used differently between the two speakers? Would someone be able to clarify how to focus on that? I completely brushed over that.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-40-section-1-question-10/

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/

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!

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?

I'm going through the curriculum right now and I'm up to LR pseudo-sufficient questions. There were some lessons in which I felt sort of weak on (for example weakening questions), though I feel compelled to just keep going as I want to finish the curriculum in the allotted time I originally planned in my study schedule. How often should old lessons be reviewed? Should I drill down those lessons before going on? Or should I just keep going, finish the curriculum and then go back and review old lessons?

Specific reference questions ("the author mentions X primarily in order to..." and so forth) are the only RC question type I really have not mastered at all and they come up in almost every PT. If anyone has any resources that would be great.

I started out with a diagnostic score of 153 and have been scoring 168-172 for the last 5 practice tests, and my main struggle is consistently LR sections. I have begun doing flashcards with the logical indicators to drill which group they go with, but want to gain a lot more confidence with arguments and logical relationships. Does anyone have tips they have used to better comprehend logical arguments and practice to become more confident in these sections? Thanks!!

Episode #65 is here!

https://soundcloud.com/user-737824810/65-7sager-brandon

Subscribe to our podcast:

iTunes (Apple Podcasts) | Google Podcasts | SoundCloud

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

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."

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!

deleted

Hi,

Based on all the discussion online, this question seems to be very infamous, so anybody who can help me here would be a genius.

I was stuck between A and E here-- they both looked so good, so I ended up sticking with E (the wrong answer) because E had slightly more accurate terminology (I thought that maybe "environmental consequences" in A may not be the same thing as "environmental degradation" as stated in the stimulus and E). A ended up being the right answer (not surprised there), but how is E wrong?!?

My prephrase here was that: "Thus, the electric car will not result in an abatement of environmental degradation caused by auto emissions"

E looked right to me because abatement (according to the dictionary) seems to mean the same thing as "net reduction". As a result, E looked like a perfect answer almost word for word.

Can anybody explain why E here is completely wrong?

Thanks!

Best regards

Is it appropriate to direct message a partner at a big law firm on LinkedIn for an informational interview? Or should I stick to associates?

Hello,

This question took me a while to understand why A was not the answer. Anson concludes that Dr. Ladlow isn't a responsible psychologist. The question stem asks: "Anson bases his conclusion about Dr. Ladlow based on which of the following?"

A ) If anything, the attack on his character would be the conclusion, not the support for the conclusion. Furthermore, from what I understand a personal attack would be more along the lines of: "Dr. Ladlow smokes cigarettes; we shouldn't believe anything he says"; not a professional criticism.

B ) Is correct because it takes the general principle within the stimulus of that responsible psychologists need to consider the potential of evidence that could refute their own findings, which Dr. Ladlow fails to do. Thus by failing to adhere to a general principle, Anson states that Dr. Ladlow's incorrect.

C ) There's no ambiguous term within this stimulus.

D ) Anson doesn't dispute Dr. Ladlow's facts (i.e. that the Dr.'s theory about rats isn't correct, its just that Anson adds to the notion that he must also consider the possibly that it might NOT be correct)

E ) Anson doesn't reject the Dr.'s theoretical explanation.

Hey everyone, so I wrote my first ever LSAT in November and I am pretty happy with my score. My first diagnostic was a 141 and now on the November Flex Exam I scored a 163. What I was hoping for some opinions on is my next move from here. Currently, I am signed up for the January flex exam (I signed up immediately after writing the November exam in a somewhat state of panic lol). I am happy with my score as it lands me in a good spot with the schools I have applied to (I am a Canadian student), and my GPA for my last 20 is also pretty good (3.695/4.0). I am torn on whether I should keep going with the January flex or withdraw. My average scores for my prep tests leading up to the exam ranged from the mid to high 150's to mid 160's, which is why I feel happy with my performance on exam day and feeling a little uneasy about whether I will be able to improve upon my initial score of 163.

Let me know what you guys think, I don't have many resources or people to draw from so I am interested in what the 7sage community has to say!

Thanks :)

The lsac website says tbd - week of the 14th. Can you assume you will be testing on Saturday the 14th or Sunday the 15th? When will the official date come out?

Any Tips on getting better at LR. I'm not doing so great on this section of the test and need help. This section is keeping me from my target score.

Hi,

So I can see why C is definitely a better answer choice than all the rest. However, I find myself confused by the fact that I am not sure how we can tell that the author thinks that doctrine of precedent is a "useful tool" here. Can anyone #help me with this?

Thanks!

Best regards

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-3-passage-2-questions/