@"Alan Cheuk"

YAY to collapsing lessons! Foot in the door phenomenon, I hope it's a real thing...

Regarding the questions for there are not yet explanations for, in the new test sets, I know we have the option to click discuss, which opens up the option to start a blank new discussion on it... but if the video could open up to a separate page, so we can discuss the question below the video? In its current state, we have to open up a new discussion, then cite to the test/question # (and depending on how motivated we are, type out the question again) but it would be nice if we could post our questions/observations/thoughts right on the same page below the displayed question?

I don't know if this interferes with new LSAC licensing requirements.. but thought it was worth asking anyways?

PT53 BR Tonight at 8pm ET

It's your favorite day of the week.

Note on all groups

PT71 BR Tonight at 8:30pm ET

Guys, I am so sad to miss this one. Gotta pick some folks up at the airport. Make me less sad by enjoying PT71 BR in my absence. @jengibre will be there to kick it off. And several others will be there too. So you should be one of them.

Remember the kittens ...

Note on all groups

PT73 BR Tonight at 8pm ET

Well, well, well. About 2 months out and we're gonna BR us some PT73. Needless to say ...

NOTE: We are meeting at 8pm ET tonight. Not 8:30. Latecomers welcome! Gotta give the East Coast folks a break.

Note on all groups

I know. You're thinking about skipping out on BR groups this week. It's summer, you're having "fun," and October seems so far away. Well, it's not. Don't skip BR groups this week.

Listen to the GIF!

Note: Weekday (Weds/Fri) calls now starting at 8PM ET. We haven't had many West Coasters with schedule restraints on recently and would like to give the East Coasters a break (since we've been on until nearly midnight for them recently).

Please also note: Saturday calls still start at 8PM ET!

Wednesday, August 5th at 8PM ET: PT59

Last PT in the 50's!

(s)Friday, August 7th at 8PM ET: PT74

Frighteningly recent test.(/s) rescheduled for next Friday.

LSATurday, August 8th at 8PM ET: PT60

Did you ever imagine having this much fun on a Saturday night??!

Note on all groups

All groups now meeting at 7pm ET. Folks with schedule restraints—please just join when you can. You won't miss much. Any serious objections, please PM me. Schedules can be changed but only if you let me know!!

Questions about upcoming weeks' schedules? Look at this. http://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/3490/october-15-group-br-calendar-now-available

BR Groups, Week of August 19th: Weds (PT63), Sat (PT64)

I'm out 'til the end of August. But I'm an anomaly. Lots of LSATers goin' STRONG. Are YOU??!

So, join in for some BR this week.

Wednesday, August 19th at 7PM ET: PT63

You know what to do.

LSATurday, August 22nd at 7PM ET: PT64

Only 6 more LSATurdays to go!!

Note on all groups

All groups now meeting at 7pm ET. Folks with schedule restraints—please just join when you can. You won't miss much. Any serious objections, please PM me. Schedules can be changed but only if you let me know!!

Questions about upcoming weeks' schedules? Look at this. http://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/3490/october-15-group-br-calendar-now-available

BR Groups, Week of August 26th: Weds (PT65), Sat (PT66)

.... Oh, hi there! Yes I'm still on vacation. But you're not. So BR like crazy!

Wednesday, August 26th at 7PM ET: PT65

A BR session in the hand ...

LSATurday, August 29th at 7PM ET: PT66

Is worth two in the mind.

Or something like that.

Note on all groups

While Ive been working through BRing Reading Comp passages in the past week, Ive been using outside explanations to help me understand where my gap in reasoning lies. While I think it might help in the long run, its inevitably extremely difficult to remember the logical reasoning behind every single question. That being said, would I be better off figuring out the logical reasoning on my own or continuing to use outside explanations for right/wrong answers? My concern is whether I am cheating the process by possibly not fully thinking it through on my own. Any tips will be helpful! Thanks!

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!

YO PEOPLE

Quick post

Wanna BR tonight? PT69 at 7pm ET

Well I won't be there. But I think some others will. SO. Add me on Skype (nikkers625) and let me know if you want to join in. I might be able to pop in at the beginning just in case it's all newbies on the call. And then I will abandon you and you will just have to get therapy for that later.

The video explanation was a bit murky here. I'm not so sure why the answer choice is C. I have a good theory on why people likely mistakenly pick C even though it is the right a/c. There are some issues I have with it.

1. its trying to say that if the number of science and engineering students in university programs has increased in the last 5 years then that is somehow proof or strengthening the idea of there being no shortage of scientist and engineers. This is a problematic shift, it requires us to assume they stay in that program, graduate it, AND work in that field. There is no evidence that these people have even graduated never mind ward off an IMMINENT and CATASTROPHIC shortage. Imminent means about to happen, how can people who entered university 3 years ago and are not even employed ward off and IMMINENT shortage? we don't even know when in the last 5 years this increase happened. We just know generally

2. It is also using a raw number to address a question about a total proportion. In otherwords, the correct answer choice here, C, is a percents and numbers FLAW! It would be like saying ok you have a shortage of 90% of workers. C is saying but you have a significant increase in the NUMBER of science grads, so what, you went from 10,000 to 50,000, that doesn't ward of the IMMINENT AND CATASTROPHIC shortage of 400,000 science grads needed. This matters because shortage means proportion it is a ratio not a raw number. It is the amount of jobs to job seeker ratio. You cannot solve this question with a total number.

3. I try to see how C could at least be right, but I have a real problem with it. I suspect most people don't recognize it as a ratio issue and just say yeah more students ----> more grads -----> -more job seekers ----->avert shortage and therefore Strengthen conclusion. There is a problem at literally everyone of these jumps but the worse one is you can have a significant increase of students, grads, job seekers, and still not avert an IMMINENT and catastrophic shortage. Maybe I am just not seeing where he is trying to strengthen correctly.

4. So which a/c would I have chosen? Probably D? Why, it is the only question who addresses the issue in the argument and thus has the POTENTIAL to strengthen. If certain science fields have an oversupply and others have a shortage. That indicates 2 thins. 1) For the oversupply field clearly there is no imminent and catastrophic shortage, supporting the conclusion. 2) For the shortage field there is also no imminent and catastrophic shortage, it is a shortage but its not described as imminent or catastrophic, so it indeed also supports the conclusion.

All groups now meeting at 7pm ET. Folks with schedule restraints—please just join when you can. You won't miss much. Any serious objections, please PM me. Schedules can be changed but only if you let me know!!

Questions about upcoming weeks' schedules? Look at this. http://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/3490/october-15-group-br-calendar-now-available

BR Groups, Week of September 15th: THURSDAY (PT72), Sat (PT73)

Ok. Ok. Ok. You still with me? ARE YOU STILL WITH ME, FUTURE SAGES???

Of course you are.

THURSDAY (NOTE DAY CHANGE, this week only), September 17th at 7PM ET: PT72

Join @pujals and Matt N. for this evening of delights.

LSATurday, September 19th at 7PM ET: PT73

Second to last LSATurday. *tear*

Note on all groups

For question 19 of section 3 on the october 2008 test, the stimulus reads: "Bureaucrat: The primary, constant goal of an ideal bureaucracy is to define and classify all possible problems and set out regulations regarding each eventuality. Also, an ideal bureaucracy provides an appeal procedure for any complaint. If a complaint reveals an unanticipated problem, the regulations are expanded to cover the new issue, and for this reason an ideal bureaucracy will have an ever-expanding system of regulations."

Answer choice A reads "An ideal bureaucracy will provide an appeal procedure for complaints even after it has defined and classified all possible problems and set out regulations regarding each eventuality."

In negating this answer choice, I believe that the clause "even after it has defined..." all the way to the end remains constant in both the answer choice and its negation. If this is the case, how does it not break the conclusion of the argument that "an ideal bureaucracy will have an ever-expanding system of regulations."?

The title says it all. Join us tonight to BR this fine PT. Only 2 more to go for the October BR cycle.

Add me on skype (nikkers625) to join.

.

Hey guys...I'm taking the October 3rd LSAT and wondering if you had any advice on some of the heavy hitting areas I should focus on over the next two weeks - maybe areas where you saw the most improvement? I work full time (much more than 40 hours a week, ha!) so putting in 8 hour study days just isn't realistic. I usually average 3-4 hours but am having a hard time right now narrowing down what to focus on. I'm doing practice testing but scores are staying pretty stagnant.

Not shooting for the Ivy's here - but definitely want a decent score.

Any help you could offer would be much appreciated!!!

Add me on Skype if you want to join ... Should be a rowdy bunch. Nikkers625

Sitting for the October exam this weekend but will be retaking in December. Looking for a few people to study and blind review together in person or via Skype. A little about where I'm at, drilled all LR and LG from1-38. Took PT 39-45 and 55-60 averaging around 167-172.

ive been studying lsat for a year already (approximately 1-2 hrs a day). My initial pt score is 153, and after 3-4 months I got around 160. However the score just doesn't go up anymore. I about to take the test on dec. 6th so I have literally 2 months left. My target in dec is 165+. Is that reasonable?

I just purchased this course 5 days ago and I found this course really useful but, I've already wasted all the pts (40-75). So I don't know how to follow the schedule of this course in a smarter way in this case.

I quit my job few days ago so now I have 8 hrs ago (!!!)

Anybody who got similar experience or anybody who has any idea about what should I do now?

I want to share an update with those of you who had test center issues. I had filed a Test center complaint about JFK University center where test takers were seated too close to each other during the Oct test. This could be a huge distraction during the test. I heard from LSAC and they said they take Test Center complaints very seriously and look into all complaints confidentially.

So any of you who has a Test Center complaint about your test center or JFK University test center, do not hesitate to be on record about it so the issue is resolved at least for the future test takers. There is no downside to it. The complaint has to filed within a certain number of days.

Details:

http://www.lsac.org/jd/lsat/policies/test-center-problem-policies

I'm looking for anyone who is willing to help me out! However, it would be great to have a Skype Buddy who rocks at LR. I'm really good at games. I rarely miss a game question. So if you're good at LR and suck at games maybe we can help each other.

Thanks!

Hi!

I have written and revised and looked at my personal statement what seems like HUNDREDS OF TIMES.

I don't feel comfortable sharing it with those close to me, so I was hoping that maybe we could do a swap! I was going through the PS curriculum here on 7Sage and it advises to have multiple people review your PS.

Would anyone be interested in this?

If you are, I would be willing to read yours and give you feedback as well!! Please message me! I'm looking for 4-5 people so I can have many people review it!

Thanks :D

Who’s going to the Handling People talk?

Wednesday, October 14th at 8PM ET: PT62

Note:

I don't see how D seriously undermines the hypothesis. How do we know anything about the death of diatoms? For this answer to work, you have to assume that Antarctic diatoms die near Antarctica (why can't they move or float away, or the death shells float away?) Lastly, don't you have to assume that the sediment left by the death shells would be indicative of a population increase? Aren't life and death two totally different ideas?. How are we supposed to know that these are OK assumptions?

Take for instance A (just for the sake of argument, I understand that A is incorrect). I think A would work if you assume diatoms of today are similar to diatoms during the ice age. You would also need to assume that the "unusually large amounts of ferrous material" that does not exist today would not promote a further increase in their population today. How are these assumptions less reasonable than the ones needed for D to be correct?