Discussions

All posts

New post

485 posts in the last 30 days

For this question, I initially chose answer choice E because the background information really swept me up. My intuition told me that because the passage wrote about all of these other linguistic influences, the answer choice probably had something to do with that. However, upon BR, I ended up going with the correct answer choice A because the first sentence in the passage notes that the nature of English literature reflects... the English language. Thus it follows that the "origin of English," referring to the language, played a role in shaping English literature.

0

Hi All,

As I'm getting faster, and doing more drilling under target time conditions, I'm finding myself quickly picking what I believe to be the correct answer choice. 90% of the time this is correct (if I feel confident). However, in doing so, I am finding myself not spending any time considering the other choices and eliminating them appropriately -- sometimes, I'll skip entirely; other times, I'll let confirmation bias take over and dismiss the alternatives outright.

Any thoghts on how to stay disciplined here and not make careless errors by considering all answer choices (assuming the time to do so)?

0

Question Stem: Sufficient Assumption

Stimulus: Shoe factory employs more unskilled full time workers (W) than all other businesses in town combined.

If shoe factory closes, more than half of town RESIDENTS who are W will lose jobs.

See the shift between the W that are employed at the factory in the premise, and RESIDENTS in the conclusion? Look for an idea connecting these 2 ideas: workers at the factory and residency.

A. residency, no workers

B. workers, no residency

C. workers, no residency

D. everyone employed at the factory is a resident.

E. neither

D works because without it, we have no idea where the workers come from - what if they all live OUTSIDE Centerville? Then there is no way the conclusion is true. So D closes this one gap.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

0

hi everyone! context: i started 7sage in january and plan to take the june lsat. a few weeks ago, i graduated from core curriculum to taking PTs every week. i've been scoring in the lows 160s timed and mid-high 160s/low 170s BR. my goal is a low to mid 170.

does anyone have any tips for how they closed the gap from scoring in the 160s to the 170s? i feel concerned seeing that i only have about 2 months to do so. i'm also not sure how exactly to create a study plan from here besides reviewing my weaker areas and improving on timing.

i'd appreciate any advice/insights/tips from experience :") thanks so much.

0

Hello,

I'm confused on how to approach this weakening question. My understanding of the auto industry executive's argument:

The auto industry executive is rejecting the recent guidelines that are requiring the production of cars with higher fuel efficiency (C) because statistics show that cars after 1977 that were built smaller to be more fuel efficient had a higher incidence of accident related fatalities (P). As I understand it, the executive is making a poor correlation-causation argument between building cars smaller and the assumed increase of fatal accidents. I'm having trouble with how the AC's best weaken the argument.

I initially chose D, and was struggling to find a better AC during BR. I eliminated E and B right off that bat. That left A C D. I chose D because I thought if modern technology could make cars more fuel efficient WITHOUT having to alter the size of the car (the executive is linking smaller fuel efficient cars and fatalities), then it might weaken the argument. You eliminate the need for change in size, you eliminate one potential connection with accidents.

I'm struggling to see how AC C is correct. I noticed the change between big and small and left that AC at first. Can someone help explain how that is the correct AC. From my understanding, if large cars can have a better fuel efficiency from new technology based off recent guidelines, does that weaken the executive's argument that the guidelines would have to adopt previous standards that they (incorrectly?) linked with accidents and fatalities?

0

Aside from the study breakouts offered here on 7sage, is anyone interested to cram study for the upcoming April test? Zoom modality, maybe?

If a good set of people is available near the LA area and is willing and able to meet at some library or conference room (i.e. Law Library), that would be even more interactive and efficient.

0

Hello all, I have studied for about one month and I am scoring about a 140 and supposedly and I am wondering if I should take the June or August exam. I get almost every LG section correct however I see what is pulling me down is my RC and LR which I can only get around 8-10 questions right. I struggle to understand the answers choices so much I feel like I understand the conclusion and premises in majority of the LR section however I do not understand the answer choices at all at times. I use to prep with a physical RC and it helped me annotate and take side notes. However 7 sage does not offer a lecture nor an alternative way to practice with the new electronic version of the LSAT. So if their are any tips on how I can fix these flaws I would appreciate it.

0

I thought this question was rather difficult but there is no explanation video, so just dropping my thought process/notes here. Please feel free to share yours!

P says ok eventually all mental stuffs can be explained in neurological terms

Explain mental stuffs in neuro terms -> knowledge (neurons and function, interaction, delineation of psycho faculties).

A. It supports the physicalist actually by trying to prove they are right.

B. It does describe

C. Not really, it didn’t use the 2 interchangeably

D. Why do we care about the purpose of this

E. Hmh that’s true, it talks about knowledge (which there are 3 but it only touches on 2).

0

I'm still not clear on the contrapositive since there can never be a scenario where there is no table, according to the rules (Irene buys 4 items), whether the footstool or vanity is in or out. If this contrapositive is a true expression, is it not indicating that there IS a scenario where there is no table AND no footstool? Am I thinking about it wrong?

Contrapositives have always made sense and worked for me in many other questions, except this one. This is why I tried including a conjunction with the X (wood), because I was trying to figure out how to keep the existence of a table apart and separate from the existence of a table made from a particular wood (almost as if it were a 6th furniture option), but couldn't figure it out. I truly hope my question makes sense.

0

On this question I initially answered correctly, but then during BR changed to the wrong answer. I am beginning to understand why C is correct, but I still feel like I am not even 100% sure what the stimulus itself is actually saying.

Here is the stimulus:

The energy an animal must expend to move uphill is proportional to its body weight, whereas the animal's energy output available to perform this task is proportional to its surface area. This is the reason that small animals, such as squirrels, can run up a tree trunk almost as fast as they can move on level ground, whereas large animals tend to slow down when they are moving uphill.

What's throwing me off is that I don't understand how "energy output available to perform this task" differs from "energy an animal must expend." I was also a little confused by the jump from talking about energy to speed (saying that this is why squirrels can run up a trunk at the same speed)- am I meant to interpret that as saying that it uses the same amount of energy? If so, is that in relation to energy output available or the amount that must be expended and how would I know that?

Thanks for any help in advance!

0

I'm reviewing RRE LR questions. I came across PrepTest February 1997 Section 1 Question 23 (the one about the professor's travel plans) in a drill. Even after blind review, I got it wrong. I know the right answer, but I don't know why it's right or why the other ones are wrong. Can someone explain it to me? I'm not sure where to even start with this one.

Admin note: Edited title. Please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description of question]"

0

Hey everyone

I am looking for an Active LSAT Discord Server. I am prepping to take the LSAT June 2023. I am also looking for partners to study with preferably once a week. I am a non traditional student who works full time but my schedule is different everyday so I have some flexibility. This will not be my first time taking the LSAT. Looking to score in the 165 range!

0

Title says it all.

I have a hard time blind reviewing. I am currently working through the CC and whenever I finish a lesson I focus on drilling questions from that lesson; Isolated questions. Questions from pt 37-159. Approx. 20 questions in two days with 3-5 questions of the previous lessons.

So, after completing these drills, I just check the answers. Most of the time I am down to two answers and initially choose the right answer, but second guess myself and choose the wrong answer.

I look at the question that I got wrong and what the correct answer was and I just think to myself, "Damn, I knew it, I had it chosen at first but went with the other answer" or "I knew it.. I should have chosen that answer" without choosing it the first time.

So, should I blind review my drills of specific questions, or should I wait to blind review full pts after I finish the CC and I'm doing all the question types rather than the current lesson plus previous lessons.

Also, I feel like I'm not really getting anything out of BR. I will just watch the video and explanation and be like ok that makes sense, but still make the same errors.

For example, I'm on SA questions. I would do about 20 SA questions with an additional 20 - 25 questions of MBT, STR, Weaken, MSS, MC. I would do all the easiest questions, move onto easier, and so on. Every few weeks or so I would combine them all and do a 20-25 question drill of all the types I've been practicing with a wide range level of difficulties.

0

I answered (C): I thought this would be right because it was the statement that was most backed up by what is in the stimulus.

The right answer is (E):I was battling between C and E, but I didn't pick E because it seemed like a statement although true, the stimulus was not supporting it directly.

Can someone explain why E is correct and why C is wrong? I feel like I am overthinking this.

Admin note: Edited title and post; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]." Also, please review the Forum rules "Do not post LSAT questions", the title format helps others reference the PT and question. Thanks!

0

Hi! I am currently at a 156 average for the LSAT and I have the following questions regarding each seciton:

For logic games it is time, when I blind review I get it all correct but I really struggle in doing it all in the allotted time. I assume the best way to practice is by just doing it over and over again to get down on time? Does that make sense or has anyone else suffered the same issue and figured out a better way to do logic games quicker?

For Logical Reasoning I kind of struggle on just a random few ones each time -- So for those of you have increased LR what is the most effective way you find with studying for LR? Like should I just do all of the lessons or for time purposes are there one's you recommend over others? Should I do a bunch of practice? How many a day? Any advice would be so appreciated!!

And last for reading comprehension I am weirdly just so bad at these. I read everyday for my major so it really makes me sad that this is where I perform worst so really any advice on books or lessons or practice methods that most helped you I would really appreciate!!

Thank you so much in advance.

0

i read recently an article by the ABA that indicated that lawyers on average score very high on surveys in positive traits like analytical reasoning and abstract reasoning, but very poorly on sociability and , notably, "resilience" which apparently is a trait meaning how well someone "rolls with the punches"...."lets things go" etc. just general agreeableness i guess you could say

have you noticed any negative personality changes in yourself as a result of lsat study? i love studying for the lsat. on balance, im happy with the way the geometry of my thinking has been reshaped by the test. but ive also definitely become a more cynical person. ive become more circumspect of the motives of others, and ive become much more critical toward things people say. the change in this person climate of mine has produced new weather patterns of occasional annoyance, irritation, and downpours of negativity. i find it interesting honestly. ive read all the positive ways the test has changed people , but talk to me about some of the negative ways? thank you

https://www.legal500.com/gc-magazine/feature/all-in-the-mind/

above is the article. its an interesting read. i originally read it on the ABA site a while back.

0

Hello,

I'm looking for a study buddy for the upcoming June test and looking to apply to few schools in New York that will accept the June test for this fall semester. Willing to meet online or in person if you're located in NYC. Need someone who can hold each other accountable and able to teach each other and go over the drills/sections/PTs. Let me know if interested and we can set something up!

0

Bonjour!

Long shot BUT:

I am currently living in Paris and would like someone (or even a group) to study with. If anyone else happens to be in Paris at the moment message me here and we can figure out a time and place to meet!

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?