Discussions

All posts

New post

584 posts in the last 30 days

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

Need someone to keep me accountable for the next two months. Want a study partner to just study in silence with. We don't necessarily need to be studying the same things, but it would help to have similar goals/workloads to keep each other motivated. I have taken the LSAT twice in 2022 and scored a 167 in November. I have stopped studying for a couple months now and hope to pick things up to get a mid 170. I am currently in school but is generally free all days except Tuesday and Thursdays, and I aim to devote ~50 hours a week to study. Add me on discord xtt#8183 if interested!

0

Hi all,

I have decided to retake and reapply after being waitlisted at my top choices. My Question is: I got a 166 on the LSAT. Is there anyway to update that on my 7sage account, or would I need to take another PrepTest to get my current to get a tailored "what I need to work on".

Not sure if that makes any sense but I appreciate your insight.

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

Hello everyone! I’ve been improving on my reading ability on the RC section and have been absorbing and understanding the information much better in my drills. I find that my problem are the harder questions. Like I understand the passage well but the complex questions throw me off. Idk if that makes sense but does anyone have any tips on how to counter this?

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

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

I have a diagramming problem. I can fly through a complex question stem without diagraming, particularly on parallel reasoning and other LR questions but some harder former questions require diagramming and I can diagram for the live of me. Any tips on the cc?

0

I want to try using tougher non-lsat passages to create questions. Each member will be assigned a question type to create with the same passage. Only message if you are serious and willing to commit, as this will require a group chat and a virtual meet-up to discuss approaches. If you can't turn your camera on to engage, and can't commit to meeting times, don't message. Personally I average -5 and this group will be more effective if the average gaps are very wide. From explaining answer choices to approaches, and sharing different way to tackle question stems, diverse averages will actually work best. Planning to sit for June but will reconsider if I'm not ready

0

PT16.S3.12 – Retina Scanners

This argument deals with retina scanners, machines that scan the blood vessel patterns in people’s eyes and stores these patterns, such that the scanners can recognized previously scanned patterns. The author furthermore posits that no two eyes have identical blood pattern vessels in their retinas, which seems to suggest that any given person has at least two such patterns, one for the left eye and one for the right one. The author then infers the conclusion that “[a] retina scanner can therefore be used successfully to determine for any person whether it has ever scanned a retina of that person before.”

We are supposed to identify a necessary assumption for this argument, i.e. an assumption that must be true for the conclusion to follow from the premises. Under timed conditions, I chose (B), which posits that everyone’s left and right eyes have identical patterns. I took this to be necessary for the conclusion to follow, due to conclusion’s scope (the conclusion is about “for any PERSON who ever had a retina scanned,” not about “for any given RETINA that ever has been scanned”). However, (B) seems to be false, for at least two reasons: (1) (B) goes against the information we get in the stimulus, where we are explicitly told that no two retinas have identical patterns. (2) (B) does not seem necessary for the rest of the claim that the conclusion seeks to establish (“Retina scanners allow you to answer the question, has one of the this person’s retinas ever been scanned?”). To make (B) a necessary condition, the conclusion would have to say something like “Even if you only scanned one of this person’s two retinas beforehand but not the other, retina scanners allow you to determine whether either of this person’s retinas has ever been scanned before.” However, (B) is not necessary for the way the conclusion is actually stated; the conclusion never says that the evidence to consider for any given person is a scan of only one of their retinas, as opposed to two.

The right answer choice (A) avoids this mistake by blocking another possible objection: What if people’s retina patterns change over time? Wouldn’t this make it impossible to recognize past scans later on, contrary to the argument’s conclusion suggests? (A) blocks this possible objection by establishing: Even if people get e.g. eye sicknesses, the patterns in their retinas remain unchanged over time.

0

The reason why the restorers want to make an exception for De Volterra is that De Volterra removed ALL layers of paint in the sections of the paintings where he made his addition before he made these additional. This suggests: De Volterra removed not only those layers of paint that people other than Michelangelo had added but also parts of Michelangelo's works themselves. This in turn means: If De Volterra's additions were removed as well, Michelangelo's underlying painting would not be revealed. Instead, there would just be a blank piece of wall, as De Volterra already removed those sections of Michelangelo's work that were there originally.

Making an exception for De Volterra thus arguably makes sense, because even an addition made by a painter other than Michelangelo would seem better than just have a blank piece of wall in the middle of Michelangelo's painting.

0

How come when looking online at certain LSAT prep websites, some sites appear to incorrectly state that there are 5 sections on the LSAT including 2 logical reasoning sections and 1 unscored section? I thought that even the old version of the LSAT only had 4 sections as well, but the difference was that the double section was predetermined to be logical reasoning and now the double section differs depending on the test you take. I’ve never heard of there being an LSAT with 4 scored sections and 1 unscored… This fifth section is also not listed as the writing prompt as that is listed separately from the unscored section on these sites.

0

Can someone explain the reasoning behind the correct answer

Admin note: For the community to better assist you, please include PrepTest number, section number and question number in the following format:"PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question"

0

I learned a subtle but crucial characteristic of necessary assumptions today, and am excited to share it with you:

Be careful when dismissing a Necessary Assumption answer on the basis of it appearing to be irrelevant to the argument in the stimulus. "Relevance" is more the domain of Sufficient Assumptions. With Necessary Assumptions, the correct answer is relevant in a structural sense, which might not jump out at you without a careful read.

In the rattlesnake question, I saw "food" and dismissed it too soon. I picked A, even though I felt uneasy about it. It felt too obvious. Perhaps a good question to ask of the answer in the NA context is not 'what does it say' but 'what does it do'.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-2-question-22/

0

Correct: D

Incorrect: E

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-08/

Explanation: "D" makes it where we can't say that the effects go away with age. By saying that the 2nd and 3rd studies were flawed, we can take away the conclusion that is based on those results. "E" doesn't specify how many children slept with nightlights and weren't nearsighted. "E" could have 5 children that were nearsighted and slept with nightlights along with 95 children that slept with nightlights and were not nearsighted. Because we don't know if the other children were nearsighted even though they didn't sleep with nightlights, or slept with nightlights and weren't nearsighted, or not nearsighted and didn't sleep with nightlights, we can't form a conclusion on partial results. It just talks about several older children that were nearsighted and slept with nightlights. That's not enough say that nearsightedness caused by nightlights goes away with age.

0

Correct: A

Incorrect: C

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-09/

"C" is incorrect because the male population could've stayed the same and the decline of the female population made it equal to the male population. "A" is correct because "proportional" gives relation to the whole population. It is saying that the decline of the female population is a decline in the total population. This takes it from being 2/3 of just females to 2/3 of the species.

0

I got this question wrong both before and after BR and the explanations did not help but I finally think I understand it so I wanted to help anyone still confused like I was!

Here is how I logically mapped it out (I,F, and U mean inviting, functional, unobtrusive)

I & F → U

Contrapositive: Not U → not I or not F

This is the rule which the stimulus says modern architects violate. To violate this rule it would be that it is NOT the case that (I & F → U)

In other words, in order to violate this rule, there must be some case in which there is I and F, but not U

This is where I got caught up, as I was thinking that they had only mentioned that the buildings were not functional, but had not mentioned if they were inviting- but that doesn't matter. For the rule to be violated, it HAS to be the case (MUST BE TRUE) that there is some case with I, F, and NOT U. The other details are unimportant, as the correct answer just focuses on one aspect of the conditions that must be met for this rule to be violated.

Let me know if anyone has another explanation that makes more sense, or if my reasoning is wrong at any point!

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

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

Confirm action

Are you sure?