7Sage's drill-builder only lets you see the answers to questions after you finish the drill. We're thinking of letting you choose whether to see the answers at the end (as in the current setup) or to see the answers—and possibly an explanation—after each question of the drill.

I'd love to hear from you in the comments about whether, when, and how often you might choose to see answers after each question.

I got this wrong initially by marking down A but the correct answer is E. This stimulus tells us a few things

It can be hard to tell whether adults can be held morally responsible for the treatment they receive because its hard to know if that is on their control or not.

Sometimes people's actions are the inevitable consequences of the treatment they received when they were an infant (and since infants can't control anything they can't be morally responsible for receiving that treatment).

What absolutely MUST be true here?

A. an infant's actions are not on the chopping block here + never is really strong language

B. maybe this is true but it feels really tangential

C. this concept of partial responsibility does not exist anywhere in the stimulus we are operating in a binary universe

D. we know that the statement (people cannot be morally responsible for things they can't control and the inevitable consequences of things they can't control) is true but this offers a false contraposition of that statement (suff - neck confusion)

E. If everyone sometimes performs acts for which they are not morally responsible, that means that no-one should be held morally responsible for every act one performs.

Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

help can someone please explain why H isn't in 2 for this question?

Admin Note: Edited title. For LG questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# (G#) - brief description of question."

Is the LR section harder to improve on or RC? I do great on the games, not so much on either of those. I have 5 weeks before I take my 2nd LSAT test and need to bring my score up by at least 7 points....please any tried and true methods that would really help someone in a pinch or is it still just practice practice practice?

Reading the stimulus, I thought there was the following logical gap in Anita's claim:

having a quandary about newsworthiness(the premise) and the guidance being inadequate(the conclusion).

So I picked (D) since I thought it meant the contrapositive of my pre-phrase. However, is (D) wrong because of "ethical dilemmas" since the stimulus refers to quandary specifically related to newsworthiness?

Also, is (E) wrong because of making a "professional decision"?

Then, why is (A) the correct answer?

I am post-CC right now and so far I've only done Pt 36 along with some timed sections. Regarding timed sections, would it make sense to superscore each section as a practice test and input the data into analytics? I'm quite confused on this front because I would like to boost the analytics data to see my weak areas. Additionally, how often would most recommend completing these sections throughout, the week, as I don't want to burn through too many pts too soon?

Is the main conclusion for main conclusion questions always explicitly stated in the stimulus? I was wondering if there was ever a case where the main conclusion turned out not to be in the stimulus but an answer choice that happened to be supported by all the premises in the stimulus. Or would this be a MSS thing instead?

Thanks.

Any tips to increase speed on LR. I get up to question 19-20 with around 2-4 wrong but the last 5 I tend to have an average of 5 minutes to complete. Should I attack it in a different way maybe going with the lsat 5 Questions first then solving the rest any tips would be great!

I just want to make sure I’m thinking about this right. I did a game where one rule said if H is in, G is not. And another rule said if J is not in, S is in. So when diagramming, if the slash is through the right variable (necessary condition) it’s always true that both can be out but both can’t be in. If the slash is through the left (sufficient condition) it’s always true that both can be in but both can’t be out (at least one must be in). Right? I tend to make reversal mistakes so I’m trying to make sure I fully understand.

I'm planning to take the August 2024 test and using the new testing feature on 7Sage. I am trying to make sure the tests I take in the future are untouched by drilling. But I'm confused whether material from beyond 36 is being used. I did some drilling earlier and it looks like there are some tests after 36 that have been used. Thanks for your help in advance.

I thought that drills only pull from PT1-35 but I see them pulling from the PT70s and PT80s for the LR drills. How do I avoid this as to not compromise all of the prep tests? I want to save some where I haven't seen any of the questions to use for prep as well.

Hello! New here and aiming for the June 2024 test. I am following the curriculum based on that date and so far it has only asked me to take one practice test. Is the idea to take the rest after I am done with the material?

Hi all,

I'm struggling a little with understanding how some of the conditional indicators (if, when, etc.) imply the exclusion of other conditions.

For example, the below makes sense to me:

If you are in New York, then you are in the United States.

Maybe because the content is familiar? Of course not being in the United States means you're not in New York, so /USA -> /NY

But, in the following example question:

A teacher earns respect if she fosters a love of learning.

Must we assume that if means if and only if, in this case meaning the only way she can earn respect is by fostering a love of learning? Couldn't she be a Nobel Prize winner that does not foster a love of learning, but is still respected?

Hey, I'm a second time LSAT test taker. I just started studying again this week (Tuesday) and have been consistently studying for 2-3 hours a day up until this point. I am trying to build up my endurance so I can eventually study for long hours and I have been taking it slow to avoid burnout. I looked at my study schedule and I am about 19 hours behind on my schedule for Monday (which already has me starting an entirely new plan for the week). It is currently 8:00 PM where I live and I don't think I can crank out 19 hours of studying until Monday without major burnout. I really don't want to fall behind on my study schedule, but I also need to be able to sleep and function.

What should I do?

Edit: For context, I plan on re-taking in April but I'm flexible and could take it in June.

I am looking for someone who has been studying for the LSAT in the mid-160's and who is enrolled in Live Classes and is a fairly regular attendee and by regular I mean at least one session a day. I am looking for someone to talk to during class and by talk I mean exchanging specific questions about what the instructor is covering because I have noticed many times, questions and comments being lost in the chat, and they are never addressed so I hope this will help you as much as it helps me. if anything, it will help us to keep focus at least. and I mostly want to try to answer your questions so I won't be messaging you questions. the only exception will be during office hours because for those I leave once I have my question answered. And there aren't any obligations with this commitment; if for any reason we try this out and it doesn't work we don't have to have a formal discussion about stopping, we could just stop. During live classes, my name in the zoom will always be Ashley.

Hi y'all! After 2.5 months of studying, I took the November 2023 LSAT and scored 15 points lower than what I want my dream score to be for my law school applications. I have taken a bit of a break in studying since, and decided this weekend I am getting back into the swing of things, so I am posting this for accountability. I knew then, and know now, that I personally needed more time to get the score I wanted and properly study for this test. However, I am now stressing what is the best date for me to sign up for. I know I want to give myself until at LEAST the June test date- I work full time and balancing work, working out, studying, and generally surviving can be tricky. However, I know June is also the last date that will have Logic Games - it is my favorite section of the LSAT, but from the few diagnostics I have taken, I am not particularly good (read: quick) at solving them for the timing of the LSAT.

With all of this, I am not sure if I should still be aiming to take the LSAT in June or if I should give myself even more time beyond that. I am really anxious and eager to submit my applications once my LSAT score is where I want it, and I am dreading the idea of applying in 2026, so I really want to make this upcoming year my year. In addition, I want to submit my applications as early as possible for the 2025 cycle so I can get that out of the way.

tldr I am feeling lost on how to structure my studying this month, and I don't know if Logic Games are worth my time at all. Any study tips, encouragement, advice, feedback would be greatly appreciated. Seeking out motivation and accountability so that all of us can succeed in 2025 and beyond!

Hi, I see how AC C is correct, but I do not see how AC A could not also be correct? Could someone please explain by AC A is incorrect. Thanks!

Is there any way to do notes on questions after blind review of a PT? The only option I see right now is that we can only do notes during blind review.

I'm currently scoring: 164-170

📆 My planned test date: August 2024

🔑 My goals for this group are: to hold each other accountable and to hear other perspectives

🔍 We'll focus on: Reading Comprehension and Logical Reasoning

📚 When we'll meet and what we'll do: Meet either in-person or virtually or a mix of both

✅ How to join: Leave a comment below! :)

hi y'all, I am taking the jan test and just wanted to see what y'all think. I feel very confident on LG, it is my strongest section. I miss between 2-5 questions at the most. For LR and RC, I do miss around 10-12 for each section :( would this give me a decent score?

Hello,

I was interested in hearing your thoughts about how relevant older PTs i.e 60s-70s are for the Jan LSAT? I feel they are pretty different in terms of LR question types!

I have almost completed redoing PTs in the 90s/80s but I feel like my familiarity with them is helping me increase my score. How should I practice more relevant content?

Thank you

Wanted to take one more PT this week before i take the jan lsat? Should i just take most recently released one?

There is no explanation for this question on 7sage, so I'll just post a discussion that includes my reasoning on how I got this wrong in timed conditions and later right in BR. If anyone finds it useful, great!

P: The evidence for this explosion is that 45 of the 70 active opera companies were founded in the last 30 years.

C: There has been an explosion of public interest in opera over the last three decades.

<><><><><>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

The author makes this assumption.

The fact that 45 opera companies were founded = an explosion of public interest in opera.

Now, the conclusion seems a lot weaker right? If you could give an alternate explanation to why these new opera companies were founded that contradicts the idea that there has been an explosion of public interest in opera, then that weakens the conclusion, which in a NA question means it is right.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

AC B.- If denied, this weakens the argument which is correct. What if the 45 opera companies that opened did so because some other opera companies shut down? Then that shows that there has not been necessarily an explosion of public interest, but rather a replacement of opera companies in the same market.

AC D.- The premise and conclusion still stand as they have nothing to do with average audience.

AC E.- This does not have to be true for the argument to stand on its own. It could still be the case that not all 45 of the opera companies that opened. The explosion of public interest could have still happened as at least some of these opera companies opened because of an explosion in public interest for opera.

There is no explanation for this question on 7sage, so I'll just post a discussion that includes my reasoning on how I got this wrong in timed conditions and later right in BR. If anyone finds it useful, great!

RRE question.

In jurisdictions where the use of headlights is optional when visibility is good, drivers who use headlights at all times are less likely to be involved in a collision than those drivers who use headlights only when visibility is poor.

Record shows that making use of headlights mandatory does nothing to reduce the overall number of collisions.

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Why is it that drivers who use headlights at all times are less likely to be involved in a collision than those that only use it when visibility is poor? If in any case, the record shows that making it mandatory does not reduce the number of collisions.

Sometimes repeating the stimulus in a question form that directly addresses what the gap is between the 2 statements is what helps reach the link the gap of what is missing. It is also important to do this in a confusing stimulus because you do not want to lose sight of what you are trying to reconcile.

It is also good to prephrase (try to picture the flaw in a question before moving into the ACs). In this case, because maybe what causes the collision is not necessarily the headlights and perhaps there is another factor that plays a role, and the headlights are just correlated with this.

<><><><><><><><>

AC C: I picked it but I switched to E on timed conditions (wrong decision). C sounds kind of irrelevant but in reality, it directly addresses the question stated above. Why is it that there is a difference between the drivers who use headlights at all times and those who do not? Because the former are more careful, which might explain why they get into less collisions.

AC E: This sounds good at first, but it fails to reconcile the statements. It just gives a reason to maybe why the jurisdiction implemented the law. It does not explain why those drivers that use headlights at all are less likely to be involved in a collision than those who use it when is poor.

Questions or games(75.3 for example) that require you to manipulate a complete sequencing chain really slow me down. Does anybody have any tips or know of any games so I can drill them?.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-75-section-4-game-3/