I'm looking to find someone to study regularly with either online or in person for the June LSAT.

Shoot me a message on here!

I just worked through PT 44.4.20 and noticed the flaw traced to the lack of support between the premise and sub-conclusion. This is the first time I've encountered a question where the flaw hasn't been between the sub-conclusion and main conclusion. Is this common in other types of question, or does the LSAT usually focus on Sub-Conclusion to Main Conclusion flaws?

On my online status checker for TAMU Law, it says that my application is still "Under Review" but under "Decision Status" it says "no decision made". I've heard that this means that someone in admissions reviewed it and has decided that another faculty member needs to review it and has made no decision from there. Any thoughts?

In PT 77, Section 2, Questions 5 and 14 they both use the word "linked" in their arguments. When the LSAT uses the word "linked," does it only mean correlation?

Hi 7sagers,

I just recently solved the question referenced above, a MBT question with heavy conditional reasoning. I understand why TCR is what it is, but it took me WAY too long to solve this question. Even in hindsight/BR, I don't know how I could get through a question like this in 1:25.

I ordinarily feel comfortable with conditional reasoning - I can picture contrapositives mentally, can twist around unless statements without diagramming, solve some conditional stimuli without diagramming (though generally they don't have a ton of sufficient conditions), etc. Even some of conditional-heavy stimuli that have several statements/premises tend to link up in a linear fashion and can be pictured without diagramming.

I think that what threw me off in this question is that between the two conditionals in the stimulus, there are just a million sufficient conditions to keep track of!

Do you guys have any tips/shortcuts for cutting through a question like this relatively quickly?

TIA!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-2-question-09/

I've studied the valid/invalid arguments and though it's almost down, I sometimes still have mix-ups. I'm wondering if it's a good steadfast rule that, most and some only allow you to draw valid inferences if they occur first, then all the relationships following are "all" relationships?

ex. A some B ---> C

Is this a rule that works every time? If so, are there any other simplified one liners to help internalize?

Thanks all!

Hi guys, I am wondering if there is a study group in DC for September 2017.

I often read arguments in the Flawed Assumption stems in LR and find myself regarding them as things I hear often. I don't even mean to be all that nice in this observation.

I wish option E was literally always, "The argument has no flaws."

I guarantee that even if the LSAC issued a blanket statement saying that hypothetical option E was NEVER the correct answer, people who commonly use these hypothetical flawed techniques in day-to-day arguments would still pick E.

So I chose C, the conclusion is that the scientist said that kids need learn how to draw curves first then they can move on to angles. So my reasoning: I chose C because it explains a reason as to why they cant just jump into angles

a) were not talking about straight lines

b) theyre not answering the question as to why they need to learn first how to copy curves before they can draw angles. I

c) this is correct because its saying that they need to be able to discern what an angle is before they can move to angles so it gives us a reason why

d) this weakens the argument

e) this I don’t think will support the hypothesis because yes they have the ability to but CAN they do it, I have the ability to sing but can I actually sing, NO lol

So can someone walk me through why Im wrong? Thank you!

I'm currently in NYC (LES), just graduated, and determined to devote my entire summer to studying for the LSATs so I can take the upcoming September 2017 LSAT. I think it would be mutually helpful to BR with someone else!

I have a schedule set up to take every preptest between 36-80. I'm also in the September 2017 study group on Sundays at 7PM. I made my schedule to cater around that one. Please let me know if you're interested!

So I've nailed logic games, I've implemented a new strategy for LR where I pay more attention to structure and ive been doing better so far, but my RC is totally screwed up. A) a lot of the time I don't get to every question, and B) most of my mistakes are from Inference and Authors Perspective questions.

I make the right answer choices during BR but I just can't seem to time myself correctly.

Should I spend more time on timed RC which would lead to less time on LR and LG review? I don't plan on doing BR for RC , I feel like LR skills translate into skills needed for RC questions. But my timing is way off. I took PT 63 and got a 167 but I missed like 5-8 questions in total, and rushed RC making stupid mistakes just to get to the next question. I feel like I can't retain enough info to be able to make inferences ...I go back and skim portions of the passage to affirm my inferences. Should I rely more on skimming and going back during questions or nailing it after the first pass?

Anyone know where to buy PT February 1997 for less than $30 new/unmarked? I know it is the basis for ItemWise on LSAC's website, but I was hoping to use it as a full test.

I live in N. Oakland but am working in SF from 10-5 Mon-Fri. I am looking for anyone who like to meet up either in SF or Oakland to study together. I have been self studying since Feb and postponed from June to Sept bc my PT scores were not high enough. I think a study group will be very beneficial! Pls let me know if you're interested, I promise I don't bite.

Hey all,

I've been gradually improving on RC over the last 10 PTs (-6 to -8) to (-3 to -5) by spending more time upfront understanding the passage content/structure/emphasis and less time wastefully deliberating over answer choices. Generally, I feel pretty efficient about how much time I spend on each question based on the question type and its respective difficulty.

However, I notice that for harder meaning/synonym and author's attitude questions, I find myself spending a longer period of time debating answer choices (~1 min+) than I should be (~30 sec). For author's attitude questions, I circle key words that reflect the author's opinion as I read the passage and write an A next to the longer parts of the author's opinion. For meaning/synonym questions, my strategy is to replace the word in the stimulus at its respective location with the answer choices and see if it fits.

Usually, 2-3 of the answer choices can be easily eliminated, but when the remaining two answer choices have the correct type of tone (i.e. both positive/negative) and only differ in degree, I end up spending way too much time debating between the two by looking at the passage for textual evidence and eventually end up going with my gut. I know JY's advice for difficult RC questions is to cut your losses, go with you gut, and rack up points on easier questions, but I feel like there's a better way to approach these questions more confidently to minimize time spent and improve accuracy.

How do you guys approach these question types?

Proctors:

Friendly enough, spoke clearly and answered questions clearly.

Facilities:

The Test was downtown Grand Rapids, address clearly marked, easy to find from directions on Western's website.

What kind of room:

They split us by last name into 4 medium sized lecture halls on two different floors. Air conditioned, felt roughly 68 degrees, comfortable the whole time.

How many in the room:

35-40

Desks:

Continuous table with a space skipped between each test taker. More than adequate space for test booklet, answer sheet and gear. Chairs were adjustable and comfortable, more than satisfactory. Clearly visible clocks on either side of the room, Large enough to see hands and numbers easily.

Left-handed accommodation:

Yes

Noise levels:

Nothing from outside the room. I never noticed traffic, construction, train sounds, or anything like that. Just pencil scratching and occasional cough or sniffle.

Parking:

There's a free public parking ramp next door, which I only realized afterward Next building south on Commerce! :( Otherwise there is minimal metered parking on the street.

Time elapsed from arrival to test:

Check-in was at 12:30, I was in my car at about 5:45 So about 5 hours. Took a long time to get everyone check in and start the test, but once we started the proctors didn't waste any time.

Irregularities or mishaps:

NA

Other comments:

Would you take the test here again?

Certainly, planning to come September unless my score is shockingly high, haha

Date[s] of Exam[s]:

June 12, 2017

Are there in study groups in Washington DC area for LSAT in September 2017?

Anyone in Montréal this summer looking for a study group?

I am going to take the GRE instead of the LSAT and am looking for a study buddy this summer, if anybody is also trying that strategy. I do Skype pretty well.

I had a few questions dealing with addendas that I was hoping to get input on. A few weeks ago I did tune in for the webinar on addendas and learned alot about content for each topic, so my questions deal nothing with content or length.

My main question is this: how many addendas should you provide? I want to add a diversity statement for sure, but for example, if I felt that I needed to address a shortcoming in my application or LSAT score that will be beneficial to my application and not be redundant, can I have two?

Also, how do I format them?

Should I use a simple title in bold letters? Should I use fancier format options or keep it simple? Font? Size? Anything related to addendas are foreign to me, sorry if these questions seem pointless. Also! For personal statement essays do I add a title or just jump into the essay right off the bat?

Hi All! I was wondering if anyone had any advice on taking the LSAT in a foreign country. I'm born and raised in the states but have recently moved to Spain and as a result, plan to take the September LSAT here in Pamplona (about 5-6 hours from where I live). I was wondering if anyone has ever taken an LSAT in a foreign country and if you have any advice or tips or anecdotal evidence! Thanks in advance :)

Hello, 7Sagers!

I'm a bit puzzled with this NA question and wanted to get your input on the matter.

This question states that medical schools are teaching curative medicine and preventative medicine at a 10:1 ratio respectively. It goes on to state that despite this, the use of preventative techniques lowers medical costs significantly.

The claim is that if medical school's have the goal of making medicine lower in cost, they aren't spending enough time teaching preventative medicine.

The correct necessary assumption is purportedly that the amount of time needed to teach preventative medicine thoroughly is greater than one hour for every ten currently being spent on the curative counterparts.

Now, a negation test should confirm this answer, but from my perspective, it does not. Negating the statement results in the time to teach preventative medicine thoroughly being equal or less than one hour for every 10 spent on curative. Now, I assume that at this point the LSAT wants you to assume that because the ratio now favors preventative being taught thoroughly, the argument falls apart because they're no longer spending insufficient time.

But who's to say that the ratio of time spent has anything to do with the actual time spent? The argument has to do with the actual time spent. In fact, we could only be sure that there isn't an insufficiency if we know for sure that the med schools are meeting or exceeding the total amount of hours needed for thorough teaching of curative medicine.

So what if we have a 10:Less-Than-One thoroughness need ratio ? Maybe the schools are teaching 1000 hours of Curative and 100 hours of Preventative, when students actually need 10,000 hours of Curative and 200 hours of Preventative to be thoroughly taught each respectively. (This would give us a 50:1 ratio of time needed for curative vs preventative thoroughness, congruent with the negation of the right answer, but still leaving the argument perfectly in tact.)

If the argument can easily be correct without the designated answer being negated, why can we call it a necessary assumption for the argument? The argument can be just fine without it being true.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-32-section-4-question-19/

Can someone please help me with this question. Been sitting on it for 2 hrs

So i saw someone else with this idea for CC, i hope he/she doesnt mind that i am borrowing the idea.

I am currently in my PT/ intensive phase. I have already finished the CC and foolproofed games 1-35.

If anyone is interested in picking LR and RC sections from 7-50s to intensively review and speak out the underlying principles, i would love to listen and exchange ideas.

I find that, when it comes to this test everyone has strengths and things they can bring to the table, i would love to hear and try to employ yours and reciprocate if i can.

I will be studying full time come the end of this week. Comment and PM if your interested in a phone call or chat

I've been experiencing a lot of technical issues with the question bank. Regardless of how many questions I choose, only half will actually load. It's also not possible for me to choose multiple question types in LR.I tried google chrome, firefox, and safari.

Is anyone else having issues as well?

I'm interesting in either forming or joining (preferably the latter) a study group for people who are both trying to get as high a score as possible and located in the Orange County, CA area. My target score is 175 and I've most recently tested in the 168-172 range. I'm planning on taking the Sept and Dec tests. I've been enrolled in the ultimate course for roughly 9 months and cancelled last December's test. Let me know if you are interested!