Hope this helps others:

#1. Weakening (Except)

○ I assumed that the correct answer choice (which would need to be the one that did not

weaken the argument) needed to be one that strengthened the argument. In reality,

something that is neutral suffices as something that does not weaken

#2. Flaw

○ I failed to realize that words like (to) promote, elevate, develop, forward, advance, stimulate,

assist, foster, boost, catalyze, nurture and encourage are NOT synonyms for sufficient nor

necessary.

○ Instead of choosing the answer choice that attacks the argument, I chose the answer choice that

merely validated the opposing argument. Just because an argument is true that does not mean its

opposite is false.

○ I failed to realize that the correct answer choice was subtle which lead me to choose the best

incorrect answer choice since it appeared to say what the correct answer choice is saying.

#3. Main Conclusion

○ I chose the context and/or intro statement instead of the conclusion

#4. NA

○ I skimmed the stimulus

○ I did not choose the correct answer because it was a pretty strong statement which the correct NA

answer choice usually is not. Sometimes the NA is strong.

○ I did not see how the correct answer choice helped to connect everything up. Focused way too much

on looking for those ACs that when negated, destroy the argument. I did this at the expense of

looking for those ACs that when negated burn down the bridge formed by the correct AC.

○ I failed to correctly identify what the implication would be if the assumption inherent in the

correct answer choice was reversed.

○ I failed to focus on the conclusion and instead mistakenly focused on the premise/support that is

integral to the conclusion

○ I assumed that the correct answer choice would need to, when negated, be able to destroy the

argument but it merely needs to make the argument irrelevant.

#5. Parallel Flaw

○ I failed to ensure that all of the elements of the flawed argument I chose amongst the answer

choices aligned with all of the elements of the stimulus' flawed argument including modifiers such

as "safely" or "obviously conclude" versus "must conclude".

○ Sometimes does not mean some

#6. Strengthening

○ Only appears to be strong but does nothing to strengthen the argument

So I have an online program from Power Score, and one from 7 Sage...I've mostly been focusing on 7sage, but did some drilling from the Power Score workbooks today on weaken questions, and I bombed the question set. I only drilled weaken games, and got -10 (out of a total 30 questions). I looked at which prep tests the questions were from, and it was tests 19-29... are the questions different from those tests? They definitely read weirder.

I'm a bit worried because weakening questions are my strongest question types in LR, and I'm kinda freaked out I did that poorly.

Thoughts?

Anyone live in southern Connecticut and would want to set up a study group for the December 2017 LSAT evenings and weekends??

Hi all-- I have been studying for the LSAT for over a year (starting June 2016). I took the exam this past June and had hoped/expected it to be my last take. As often happens, I wasn't happy with my score and I am planning to re-take the exam in Sept.

The unfortunate thing is that I have taken almost every single practice test. The only ones I have completely untouched are A B and C (and maybe one other). Thus, I am re-taking the PTs, starting with the oldest ones that I have taken (9-10 months old at the oldest). I do think there is value in that-- but what I am curious about is how much? Unless it is in my subconscious, I remember barely anything from the exams I took the longest ago. However, I am inclined to think that my score on the re-take is not "reliable" in the sense that I have seen the material before, even though the jump in some cases from first take to second take has been 20+ points.

This makes it difficult to gauge if my score is going up or not. I figure the only way to see where my score/average is now is how I do on the untouched exams. What do others think?

Is there anyone in the area of Clemson/Greenville currently studying for the September LSAT who would want to form a study group? I was thinking we could pick a few PTs to take individually and then BR together, but am definitely willing to study in whichever way the group thinks is best!

Hey all,

What's really tripping me up is that this question stem is written in the passive voice. The stem saying "could have remained unchanged in force and focus IF which one of the following had been advanced as a counterexample in place of the word 'absentee'" makes me believe that the original explanation wouldn't have to be amended if it weren't for the counter example of "absentee" being used. So I was trying to find a counter example that talked about an individual performing the action unilaterally, while not needing the explanation that resolves the impasse which is what I thought the question stem was asking me to do.

If the question stem was "the reasoning could remain unchanged in force and focus if which one of the following words is used in place of the word 'absentee'" rather than the goddamn passive voice, then it really would be much easier.

Can someone clear up my confusion? Am I just crazy???

Paging JY

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-4-question-22/

Hey! I will be taking the test in December and I'm looking for someone to BR with. If you live in the DC area and are interested, let me know!

Hey does anyone have any experience at this testing center? I can't find any reviews. Thanks in advance!

Hey everyone!

I'm looking for a study buddy and accountability partner for the LSAT living in the NY area.

I can meet weekly on Sundays in person and during the week via Skype or Google Hangout. I live in Nassau County, but I'd be comfortable traveling to Suffolk, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Statem Island, the Bronx or Westchester.

Anyone interested??? You can send me a PM.

Hello Fellow 7Sagers,

I am interested to see what your overall thoughts are of the PT. I am even more interested to see what your thoughts are regarding the logical reasoning sections. Thank you.

I am looking for someone who would like to study together who lives in Los Angeles. Maybe once a week? I am prepping for the December 2nd test. It will be my first time. My diagnostic June 2007 score was 162, however, I feel like that was partly luck, as I guessed on quite a few questions. I would say my areas of strength are well rounded but speed is my greatest weakness. I think explaining what you know to someone is the best way to improve. I am going with the 3 month 7sage package after I finish the free trial. Let me know if anyone is interested. Thanks!

Hi guys! I wanted to get some feedback on this RC question.

The prompt asks for the main idea and the right answer is that 'the views of ecologists and economic growth advocates have only recently become polarized.'

To me, that phrase implies that the passage is about recency. It implies that the passage is primarily dedicated towards explaining a long history of no polarization that has but little time ago turned into a polarized dichotomy.

I agree that the passage accomplishes this, but to me, this accomplishment was used as a template for the author rather than his/her explicit, or even primary purpose.

I detected notes of author view, such as in line 11 when he describes the recent polarization as "sad." On top of that, the way the author describes both sides seems to indicate that he favors the previous attitudes towards the issue, consistent with what Marsh and the Enlightenment thinkers believe. I almost got a sense of sarcasm in how he described the implications of Clements' equilibrium model. The author claims that the model became a "mystique," environmental interference was "taboo," wilderness was "adored." These descriptions made me believe that the author saw followers of this mentality to be radical, cult-like, trendy, and perhaps a form of the "tree-hugger" stereotype.

Back to the first paragraph, the final sentence talks about how the "sad effects" make it "difficult for industry to respond to impact analyses that demand action." This came across as having sympathy for contemporary industries, being pinned down in this polarized climate where (as we would later read) before they could act in harmony with environmentalists and have productive conversations based in compromise and understanding.

With all of that in mind, I was very quick to eliminate D, an answer choice with no reflection of the author's argument/bias, and way too much (in fact, pretty much 100%) emphasis on the mere fact that such a change is recent. Who cares if it's recent? You didn't need to give your opinion and write four paragraphs only to tell us that this polarization is recent. You could easily switch the dates mentioned in the passage, and the meaning would barely change. It would just be polarized ----> not polarized instead of not polarized ----> polarized.

I picked E because I thought it captured the author's sentiment and reflected an idea that the entire passage built to establish. A lot of the passage's content contributes to that idea, while only a few small distinctions affirm that the change happened to be recent.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-4-passage-3-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-4-passage-3-questions/

Hi there,

Is every RC passage from PTs 1-35 used in the curriculum's problem sets? I am trying to get every bit of RC practice I can, and would love to know if anyone knows of certain passages in particular that weren't pulled for the curriculum. I've done the problem sets twice over and am looking for unused material (I've also already done every RC passage since 35 already).

Hi all,

I came across this game in a practice test (# unknown) recently. I am wondering how best to approach it. I am especially interested in understanding how to diagram this game. Thanks in advance!

Two friends, Rachel and Teresa, own a dog walking business. During a particular week, on Monday through Friday, they walk three dogs--a Newfoundland, and Otterhound, and a Poodle--in accordance with the following conditions:

-Each dog is walked exactly once by each friend and no dog is walked twice in one day.

-Rachel walks the Newfoundland at some time in the week before she walks the Poodle.

-Rachel walks the Poodle earlier in the week than Teresa does.

-Teresa walks the Otterhound earlier in the week than Rachel does.

-Rachel walks the Newfoundland on the day immediately before the day or the day immediately after the day on which Teresa walks the Newfoundland.

-Rachel walks no dogs on Wednesday.

I would be applying to law schools in Australia as an international student. Can someone tell me:

(i) What is the average LSAT score range for the three law schools?

(ii) Do I need an LSAT score as high as I normally would in the US?

(iii) Are international students evaluated at par with other candidates or is there a different criterion?

Thanks in advance!

Flaw Question-- calling all folks who are a beast at LR:) HELP?

I understand that the answer is C but I want to make sure that I'm breaking down the argument correctly:

*Best way to understand --> Direct Empathy (that's what some psychologists claim, and we're supposing they're right)

*/Direct Empathy ("since it's impossible to gain a direct and complete grasp of another person's motivations" aka Direct Empathy-- I believe this is what the author takes as the truth)

THUS, no way at all to understand (already problem here, it should have been THUS, "no best way to understand" rather than "no way at all to understand")

But that's not even the main conclusion...

*Understand ("One can understand other people"-- again, this is what the author takes as the truth)

THUS, the psychologists' claim is wrong-- it's wrong to state that (best way to understand --> Direct Empathy)

The problem is that the author cannot state that the psychologists' claim is wrong because the author's evidence is flawed--- assumes there's no way when the psychologists are only talking about best way.

However, I'd like to go deeper into this question and modify it-- what if the author correctly said it was "best way to understand" as opposed to "no way at all to understand"-- would the argument be valid then??

*Best way to understand --> Direct Empathy (that's what some psychologists claim, and we're supposing they're right)

*/Direct Empathy ("since it's impossible to gain a direct and complete grasp of another person's motivations" aka Direct Empathy-- I believe this is what the author takes as the truth)

THUS, there's no best way to understand

*Best way to understand (my modified premise-- "But there is a best way to understand people")

THUS, the psychologists' claim is wrong-- it's wrong to state that (best way to understand -> Direct Empathy)

In this case, is the argument's conclusion valid? It's TRUE that the psychologists' claim is wrong because ultimately what we have is... we know it's true that /Direct Empathy & there is best way to understand ... so we can't validly get to "Best way to understand --> Direct Empathy"

(Am I thinking correctly? lol)

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-2-question-11/

I need some insight. I Took the LSAT dec 16 and was not nearly prepped. I decided to retake and have been studying hard since april or so.

Im at a strange phase in my studying where i am scoring around and sometimes above my potential but iv only taken 7 tests. Ive done multitudes of timed sections and drilling.i feel very confident, but my brain is starting to get toasted from studying.

I am signed up for september. And until this week i was planning on postponing till December. But now i kinda wanna take it.

My concerns are as follows. I have foolproofed 1-40 games. I also proofed the games i have taken in PTs. But i still havent seen alot of games. I also havent really touched the 60s and only took PT 78,70,71,72,60,61,65.

So i have alot of material i am not exposed to..

Averaging a 170, havent gotten above a 174 yet.

What do you guys think? should i postpone?, or take it with a slight chance of a cancellation?

Hello,

When answering principle questions, we want an answer that obviously doesn't violate the stimulusm, and conforms most to the text.

Is too general an answer choice bad? And in using certain words (specifically the medical advance question in the PT 40s) , can we assume that two words can mean different things or that one word can be more inclusive and cast a wider net than the way it is used in the stimulus?

So one question said that medical tests are advancing so that we can detect diseases early, but most of these diseases aren't curable yet by medicine. Then it raises an ethical dilemma.

Now the answer choice I put is "the more we learn, the more you realize how little we know".

The correct answer choice was "advances in medicine can raise ethical concerns".

If we assume that advances in medical technology/tests constitutes an advance in medicine then I understand it. But it states that we can't cure them using current medicines so can we really say medicine advanced?

It was too uncertain to me so I went with the wrong answer, the more general one. Or maybe there is another mistake in what I chose.

Thanks and GL studying !

Hey 7Sage,

12 days until the Sept exam, WOOT! I am seeking advice on what PTs to do in the next two weeks. I have already done nearly

all the exams. My only completely untouched exams are old exams -- 39 and 44. Maybe also 10 and 13. Thus, I don't think I should focus on those in the next two weeks, although they are new to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think I want to look at the newest PTs again, since they're nuanced compared to older tests. I have done 70-72 and 75-80 once each. I figure I will do 3 more before the 16th. Should I do 78-80? Does it matter? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Did anyone find a more simpler way to tackle game 4 in this pt?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-2-game-4/

Are we supposed to assume that these chemicals are initially "harmless" or that the dilution process caused them to become harmless? There is nothing in the passage discussing whether or not the chemicals are harmless.

No other answer choice makes sense, but Answer choice A requires some form of assumption to be made.

some insight please.

Hi guys,

I would love to organize a "proctored PT" in the DC area. We can choose a location, day and time, and take a PT together. Everyone can bring their own PT so we don't have to worry about choosing one that is new for everyone.

I am taking the test at American University of Law. They usually have some open classrooms. We could do it there! Or at a library in DC.

Let me know who is up for this! I am thinking maybe this Tuesday but the day and time is flexible !

Unfortunately, I find myself frequently narrowing down RC answers to two choices, then picking the wrong one*. This is especially the case with MAIN POINT questions (although I have no problem identifying conclusions in LR stimuli).

While I know the common types of incorrect ACs (out of scope, too narrow, unsupported, etc.), that knowledge doesn't seem to be helping me, especially in a time crunch.

I've also come across seemingly conflicting information in my study materials* concerning main point questions: some say it has to encompass all the main points of the paragraphs (or else it's too narrow), while others say it should just focus on the main conclusion and any subsidiary conclusions shouldn't be mentioned (or else it's too broad). Which is correct?

It's hard to find the right answer when I'm unsure exactly what it needs to include (or exclude).

ANY help is greatly appreciated, especially that which I can apply within the next couple days (if possible).

Thank you!!!

Background:

**(I've just been studying on my own with the help of some misc. prep books and free online materials [ya girl is broke], but need some additional help.)

I'm taking today off. I've been studying around 9 hours a day for a while. I think I'm going to turn on some pod casts and clean my place while I play with my little dog. Hope all my fellow LSAT warriors are doing great! I'm not one to participate too much on the threads however I have absorbed a lot of advice from all of you all. Thank you.

Also, if there are any veterans in the DFW area that could use a good paying job which allows you to study at work send me a pm.

Good luck everyone!

From my understanding, RC seems to be subjective. I'm still unsure on which approach to use as all of them give me similar results.

How do you all approach RC? Suppose you have a passage in front of you. Do you refer back to the passage? How long do you usually spend on reading the passage? Do you notate at all? What were your RC scores when you first started and what are they now?

Thanks!