Why is my syllabus all of a sudden marking literally everything (even lessons I haven't done yet) with black checkmarks?! It stopped keeping my place in the lessons, and when I click "continue" it goes straight back to PT question and answer. Ugh!

Has anyone noticed that the Syllabus looks different? The stars aren't yellow anymore, and it's hard to tell which lessons I have already done because all the check marks look the same. Is this something on my end or is anyone else noticing this? Please help! I forgot which lesson is next

My 7sage account is about to expire, and before it does I wanted to give a huge thank you to JY and the team. You can't argue with a 17 point jump from my first ever PT to the Feb. LSAT, in just about two months. For those of you just starting, just keep going.. it gets better. Just be sure to do everything that JY says :) Good luck to all!

Hi guys, sorry about the title..I did the question several days ago..so I forget it comes from which PT..As soon as I find out i will change the discussion title.

Studies of the reliability of eyewitness identifications show little correlation between the accuracy of a witness's account and the confidence the witness has in the account. Certain factors can increase or undermine a witness's confidence without altering the accuracy of the identification. Therefore, police officers are advised to disallow suspect lineups in which witnesses can hear one another identifying suspects.

Which one of the following is a principle underlying the advice given to police officers?

(A) The confidence people have in what they remember having seen is affected by their awareness of what other people claim to have seen.

(B) Unless an eyewitness is confronted with more than one suspect at a time, the accuracy of his or her statements cannot be trusted.

(C) If several eyewitnesses all identify the same suspect in a lineup, it is more likely that the suspect committed the crime than if only one eyewitness identifies the suspect.

(D) Police officers are more interested in the confidene witnesses have when testifying than in the accuracy of that testimony.

(E) The accuracy of an eyewitness account is doubtful if the eyewitness contradicts what other eyewitnesses claim to have seen.

Hi, I am looking for some insightful advice. I am currently applying to law school and I have taken the LSAT twice now, but unfortunately have gotten the same score both times. This is a multi-part question, but is very important to what I do for the next three months. 1). Is there any benefit to retaking? 2). Has anyone been in a similar situation and maybe redesigned the way that they've studied and achieved a much better result? I feel that I need to dedicate myself more completely than before, but with all honesty I feel that does not mean much unless I have a better approach.

Any advice or helpful hints would be much appreciated!

Whenever she considers voting in an election to select one candidate for a position and there is at least one issue important to her, Kay uses the following principle in choosing which course of action to take: it is acceptable for me to vote for a candidate whose opinions differ from mine on at least one issue important to me whenever I disagree with each of the other candidates on even more such issues; it is otherwise unacceptable to vote for that candidate. In the upcoming mayoral election, the three candidates are Legrand, Medina, and Norton. There is only one issue important to Kay, and only Medina shares her opinion on that issue.

According to the principle stated in the passage, in the upcoming mayoral election

(A) it is acceptable for Kay to vote for either Medina or Legrand, but it is unacceptable for her to vote for Norton

(B) the only unacceptable courses of action are for Kay to vote for Norton and for her to vote for Legrand

(C) it is unacceptable for Kay to vote for any of the candidates

(D) the only unacceptable course of action is for Kay to vote for Medina

(E) it is acceptable for Kay to vote for any of the candidates

Does the 'and only Medina shares her opinion on that issue' means Medina agree with Kay?

Many of us took the test today.

I have no idea how I did, I'm simply incapable of judging myself the way I usually can after doing a PT.

So, how do you all think you did?

If anyone needs help figuring out which section was experimental, I'd be happy to help.

It's an article about 2 schools of economics. I don't understand Q15 which answer is A. I chose B.

A. The environment's ability to yield raw material is limited.

B.Natural resources are an external constraint on economics.

Isn't that A can be interpreted as that natural resources is limited, and that's what Line 20-22 says (steady-state economists' view) and Line 30-35 saying "that natural resources, if depleted, can be replaced by'' shows that the neoclassical economists also believed that natural resources is LIMITED (although it could be replaced by other resources)?

And I don't see why B is wrong. Although the passage doesn't explicitly say that the steady-state economics hold this conception (or hold the conceptions like external/internal constraints.)

Can anyone explain this?

Many thanks!

Hey guys, you might have noticed that it's been a while since I've responded to comments. Sorry. I must have kept many of you waiting.

I'm withdrawing from responding to comments, broadly speaking. There are a two reasons for this.

First I'd like to focus on making videos which is an incredibly time consuming thing to do.

Second, I'd like to encourage you, our community, to help each other out. I realized that going forward, in the long run, if I keep responding to comments, I would be in effect encouraging the community to always specifically ask for my response, my help, which has the unintended effect of discouraging other students from responding. That's not good for building a community where we are both teachers and students.

I am still reading the comments. If there's enough confusion, I will clarify. But, you guys are smart and very nice to each other (thank you) so I don't anticipate many problems that you cannot resolve among yourselves.

You might have noticed that our commenting system has improved. First, recent comments show up directly on your command center, after you log in. Second, we've added the "Like" feature so now you can vote up helpful comments.

Hey everyone

I'm planning on retaking the LSAT in June after getting a 165 in February. I could do Skype if that works for you, and my schedule is wide open. Please let me know if you're interested!

Hey everyone

I'm planning on retaking the LSAT in June after getting a 165 on the awful, awful February test. I'd really like to find a study buddy/buddies if at all possible. My schedule is really flexible.

Im not sure what happaened I was viewing them just fine the other day

I am very confused with a specific relationship between universal quantifiers and existential quantifiers. This confusion becomes annoying in Assumption Questions. Please help! So, basically this is it:

1. "A-->C + A -->B"

2. "A-->C + A -most->B"

3. "A-->C + A some B"

For each of three given premises, we can conclude the same "B some C" relationship. Though the first part is the same "A-->C", the second part is different. I thought that this difference is understandable, because "A-->B" implies "A-most->B" and "A some B". So, we should have the same conclusion for "B some C". But the problem often arises.

For example, PT 24, LR2, Section 3, Question 19. Sufficient Assumption.

"Every student who walks to school goes home for lunch. It follows that some students who have part-time jobs do not walk to school."

The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

Premise: Walks to schools-->Goes home for lunch.

Conclusion: Part-time jobs (some) Do not walk to school.

Take the contrapositive of the premise, we have "Do not go home for Lunch--> Do not walk to School"

Now, it becomes clear that he Sufficient Assumption to bridge the gap could be:

1. "Do not go home for lunch (some) Part-time jobs". This is the correct answer choice (d).

(d). Some students who do not go home for lunch have part-time jobs.

2. Do not go home for lunch -most-> Part-time jobs.

3. Do not go home for lunch --> Part-time jobs. (conditional)

If we take the contrapositive of 3, we have "No part-time jobs-->Go home for lunch". The contrapostive is logically equivalent to the original. Now, "No part-time jobs-->Go home for lunch" implies

"No part-time jobs -most-> Go home for lunch." and also implies

"No part-time jobs (some) go home for lunch." (This is exactly what the wrong answer choice A says.)

(a). some students who do not have part-time jobs go home for lunch.

Please help me clear this confusion. Is there anything I misunderstood? I really appreciate your help.

My first timed practice test was last summer - 142

First test was October 2013 - 155

Second test was February 2014 - 160

Thanks for all the help 7sage.

This is for the June 2014 LSAT. If interested please email: jason.campana@hotmail.com

Thanks :)

Jason

Anybody out there?

Seeking a study buddy in the Cincy area, plan on taking the lsat in June.

Anyone studying in the Atlanta area (I live in Duluth, NE of Atlanta) want to get a group together?? I'm aiming for the JUNE LSAT!

Does anyone know if the autumn LSAT has been changed from October to September? I was just on LSAC and these were the options that came up:

June 2014

September 2014 - not yet available

December 2014 - not yet available

February 2015 - not yet available

Thanks!

"Nearly every", "Almost All", "Close to none", "Almost none"

What are the exact definitions of these phrases?

Does "Nearly every" and "Almost All" = "most"?

Would "Close to none/zero" and "Almost none" = "some"?

Hey guys! Unsure of how to approach this question or why (A) is wrong. Help? :)

Hola! Happy Friday! Hope everyone is staying safe and warm in our little rain weather ;) If anyone is in the Orange County area and would like a study buddy let me know! I am prepping for June 2014 LSAT!

I am very confused with a specific relationship between universal quantifiers and existential quantifiers. This confusion becomes annoying in Assumption Questions. Please help! So, basically this is it:

1. "A-->C + A -->B"

2. "A-->C + A -most->B"

3. "A-->C + A some B"

For each of three given premises, we can conclude the same "B some C" relationship. Though the first part is the same "A-->C", the second part is different. I thought that this difference is understandable, because "A-->B" implies "A-most->B" and "A some B". So, we should have the same conclusion for "B some C". But the problem often arises.

For example, PT 24, LR2, Section 3, Question 19. Sufficient Assumption.

"Every student who walks to school goes home for lunch. It follows that some students who have part-time jobs do not walk to school."

The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

Premise: Walks to schools-->Goes home for lunch.

Conclusion: Part-time jobs (some) Do not walk to school.

Take the contrapositive of the premise, we have "Do not go home for Lunch--> Do not walk to School"

Now, it becomes clear that he Sufficient Assumption to bridge the gap could be:

1. "Do not go home for lunch (some) Part-time jobs". This is the correct answer choice (d).

(d). Some students who do not go home for lunch have part-time jobs.

2. Do not go home for lunch -most-> Part-time jobs.

3. Do not go home for lunch --> Part-time jobs. (conditional)

If we take the contrapositive of 3, we have "No part-time jobs-->Go home for lunch". The contrapostive is logically equivalent to the original. Now, "No part-time jobs-->Go home for lunch" implies

"No part-time jobs -most-> Go home for lunch." and also implies

"No part-time jobs (some) go home for lunch." (This is exactly what the wrong answer choice A says.)

(a). some students who do not have part-time jobs go home for lunch.

Please help me clear this confusion. Is there anything I misunderstood? I really appreciate your help.

Looking to have a long-term committed study partner to meet once a week for June '14 test.

Discussing PTs and strategies can provide the benefit of two minds over one; also open to discussing any other sticking points.

I'll be retaking and have invested quite some time on this test by now. Shoot me a message if interested in giving this a try. Best!

Just now starting my LSAT Prep. E-mail me if you are serious about trying to get a high score.