I'm using MacOS 13.3.1 in the most up to date version of Safari, and the user interface is not loading properly for my practice sets and Syllabus. I can select answer choices and read all of the questions, but none of the tools are displaying at the top and nor are the Home/Next buttons at the bottom displaying. I've also tried Chrome with no luck. Any suggestions? Thanks.

the syllabus is basically a list so the green checkmarks for progress are gone ..the problem set icons are all gone- no time, no highlight features, or elimination buttons visible...can't practice like this

For some reason the button icons on the problem sets, and the website as a whole, keep disappearing. Arrows, checkmarks, stars, they all keep vanishing. I've tried refreshing the website, closing and reopening my browser, and restarting my computer, and yet the problem persists. Is this a site-wide issue or is it simply unique to me? What can I do to fix it?

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).

Just want to share my thoughts and notes:

This formula right here: independence -> progress doesn’t warrant that more independence = more progress, so E is incorrect.

Cultures -> needs independence to replace dependence (natives replace outside imposition) -> progress.

A. anticipated answer choice

B. Staff and students are digging too deep, we’re only looking at cultures as a whole

C. Tailor is too details, not needed

D. Must is g2 so Advance -> prevent outsiders, not really align with the lawgic above.

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

I just started studying for the LSAT. It has been a week now. I am in the logical reasoning section of the study plan. I watch the videos and get to the drills and miss most of the questions then get frustrated, annoyed, and all the above. What is a way to combat this? I quickly get discouraged and want to give up thinking that this is not for me. What does everyone suggest?

Hi all! I am reviewing PT86.S1.Q21. I understand why we can get rid of answer choices a,c and e as well as the general flaw in the argument being that the spread of organic farming is only a problem for having enough food if all farmers switch to organic farming. However, I am having trouble with what differentiates answers b and d. I know it has something to do with the logical meaning of some and all, and their opposites not some and not all. The explanation video for this question leaves it up to us to think about at the end, but I'm hitting a wall so all help appreciated! Thanks!

I sent in my fee waiver approval form at the end of April to avoid any disruptions (i'm taking june) and it hasn't been applied to my account. Does anyone know if the 7sage team is working today? I was planning on taking a practice test today but can't access anything :(

Maybe i'll be able to get a refund if i purchase it for the month so I don't have to miss out on a day of studying?

I am taking the November LSAT and wanted to form a study group for that time frame if anyone is interested. I'm located in LA or AV area. We can even meet on zoom if that works.

When it comes to strengthening causal reasoning, I understand that offering other instances where a cause leads to an effect (cause -> effect) will act to strengthen an argument. In addition, I have read that offering instances where there is no cause there is no effect (no cause -> no effect) acts to strengthen arguments as well. One particular question that shows this logic is PT 66 Section 4 Question 12.

Is it true that (no cause -> no effect) acts to strengthen? I've tried to look into this and have come up with various answers.

I have not seen MP questions that begin with a question at the beginning before this one. I got it incorrect since I put B thinking the conclusion came after the word "Certainly" I am not sure how to get to the conclusion in this stimilus.

So last night when I was in bed I randomly thought of a statement and tried to decipher whether or not it could be translated into logic in a traditional LR question.

The statement is: Excessive yelling and/or screeching tends to deteriorate vocal cords.

Could one translate this as (EY/ES-> DVC)?

I'm wondering if the word "tends" works as a sufficiency indicator or if it's more like a way to introduce an implied (probably flawed) correlation, though not definitely sufficient to bring about the condition discussed.

I think the statement itself would likely serve as a conclusion in any or most questions and it seems like it'd fit better as a flawed reasoning or parallel flaw statement. I have trouble thinking of premises that would lead to an arguer in an LR question coming to a conclusion that uses the word "tends" rather than some stronger indicator unless "tends" really is a sufficiency indicator.

Would love to hear thoughts from others!

What LGs, preferably in/out games, are good for practicing embedded conditional statements and dealing with them when they pop up?

I'm currently both involved in a court case and attempting to apply to law school. My parents have told me to ask my attorney to write me a letter of recommendation, but I've said that I think this would be really weird. After all, I'm paying her, so why would the law school trust her objectivity?

BUT, when my attorney heard I'd taken the LSAT, she got REALLY excited and happy. She told me that the comments and feedback I've given on a certain document were "third-year associate level," and is thrilled that I'm planning to try for law school. So it would be really awesome if it wouldn't be weird to ask her for a recommendation, since she's both a well-respected attorney at one of the top law firms in our city, but genuinely gung-ho about my potential.

I'm 95% sure that everyone will tell me this is a terrible faux pas, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

Can someone please explain this to me: “‘or’ does not, in and of itself, exclude the possibility of ‘both.’ Thus, if a rule states, ‘F or G will be assigned to Y,’ it is entirely possible that both F and G can be assigned to Y.”

How???

If some clouds are black and it's humid, then it will rain.

I have it notated as follows:

C(-s-)B + H -> R

My question is - can you even take a contrapositive of this statement?

And if so, is it the following:

/R -> /H or C->/B

In other words:

If it is not raining, then it means either it is not humid or all clouds are not black...

Am i correct in thinking this?

Hey guys, please comment below if you are interested in joining a study group for LR, esp. those aiming for 165-170+. This group will do, discuss, and review hard LR questions 3 times a week virtually.

I know that sufficient assumption questions essentially have a formula you can go by in order to reach the answer. Are there any other questions that I should approach in the same way? Sufficient assumption questions do seem easily approachable/easily mastered by using a formula so I wanted to ask if there are any other question types like this!

Hello,

I am a little confused on why answer choice A is the correct answer.

Hello! Is anyone studying for the June test? I'm looking for a study group or accountability partner. Let me know and we can discuss schedule and how to hold each other accountable and Zoom or in-person meet up to go over materials.

Why is the answer C and not A?

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"

E.g. PT37.S1.Q12 - Political scientist: Efforts to create a more egalitarian

I am looking for study buddy located in Ohio. If not zoom works too

Anyone in Nashville or in the South Vicinity that would like to meet on zoom or facetime for studying?

I put B but am confused to why the answer is A

Can anyone explain why PTJ07 is titled so differently from other LSAT titles? Is there a difference from other PrepTests?