Hello all. This is from the trees game in prep test B. When applying the rules for embedded conditionals from the core curriculum, I come up with the following:

/Y → (L↔/O) = /Y and L ↔/O This could also be read as: /Y and O ↔/L

Contrapositive: O↔/L or Y Is this correct? It doesn't seem to make sense in the context of the game.

However, in the explanation of the game, the contrapositive is treated as a forever together biconditional

(L ↔ O) → Y or (/L↔/O) → Y

What am I missing here?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-b-section-2-game-2/

Free will is not applicable in determining responsibility for all situations (its not a one size fit all equation).

We hold criminals responsible bc they cause damage out of free will.

We do not hold drivers (driving while heart attack and cause damage) responsible, even though the heart attack could be prevented from diet (free will).

A. Itself is not a conclusion

BC. Not “Should”

D. Not true

E. Maybe, saying that we do not apply free will equally to all situations (i.e both criminals and drivers under heart attack both stem from free will but they have different outcome).

I am running low on time before I am going to take my LSAT. Is the RC portion of the curriculum worth going through after finishing LR and LG? Or would it be more beneficial to start PT'ing instead? I have about 1 month to go before my LSAT test date and I just started working through LG.

I plan on practicing (drilling) LR sections every week to stay on top of that and keep practicing while going through the LG course (which is way shorter than the LR course oh my gosh). When I did my diagnostic PT, it stood out to me that a lot of RC questions are similar to, if not the same as, certain LR questions. So, I guess my question is: is there anything super noteworthy that comes out of the RC portion? Or will drilling LR questions suffice?

Hi - anyone else experiencing this?

When I'm trying to add a class onto my Google calendar using the link from the class session's page, it does take me to my Gcalendar, but it adds the entire 7Sage class calendar to mine. It subscribes me to the 7Sage class calendar so that they all appear, unless I deselect the 7Sage calendar. There's no way for me to pick and choose the class I want, which is the way it used to work for me.

Hello everyone! I took the baseline PrepTest in the beginning of the course, but haven’t yet taken another one to gauge my progress. I’m about 20% through the LR course- how often should I be taking the PrepTests?

Hello everyone! I am new to 7Sage. I am writing because I work a full-time job from 8:15am to 4:30pm. I have to wake up a 4am which kills me. I take the train to work every day and i get home at around 7pm. I am tired from work, and I do not have time to do anything but get my clothes ready and go to sleep. Do you think the studying for the LSAT just on the weekends would help. My goal score is a 167. During the week I just do not have time and I suffer from migraines and sleep apnea. I need some advice. I plan to take the November LSAT. What do you all suggest?

So when I was in 8th grade I was suspended for vaping (I know). There was no arrest or anything criminal accompanying this, and it was in middle school. . . would this be appropriate to report with an addenda? When I read some of the questions, they say ANY academic or disciplinary records from ANY school (which to me, means K-College). That language would suggest I need to report this, would it not?

I watched the first dozen lessons on reading comprehension and already I've improved. I would typically miss 3-4 questions in a batch of 7-8, and now I'm only missing 1/8, albeit, the most difficult question of the passage. So far, I'm very impressed with the lessons on here. Super helpful!

I have been reading and hearing a lot that there are patterns to this. Can someone explain to me what that means? I can see how it relates to LG but confused on the patterns for LR.

I started my journey about a year ago, with about a 140 diagnostic. Went to 148, then 150, now 155 on the last April test. My average for the last 10 practice tests I had taken was from 158 - 163. After the 150 test, I made some serious shifts in my mindset, study habits, overall approach to review and drill etc. I was starting to feel so good, intuitive, confident. I seriously thought I was ready.

I need a 160 on the August test - 5 more points - it truly will be my last try for personal reasons I don't want to get into on here.This is 3 months worth. Is this doable?

If so, how? Drill each section for now, review? Or practice tests and then analytics from there and review? 76 75 84 85 91 69 is the ones I have left that I haven't taken or were taken long ago. Is it okay to retake tests already taken and see the comparative improvement? In terms of material, how do I use it to my advantage?

I feel so lost, confused, and this shook my confidence down by a lot. Figuring out technology for 30 min and starting late, starting at a much later time than most of my past tests, and during the third section feeling my brain already fall asleep - these are the factors that come to mind, if that is of any value. I don't mean to sound self - defeatist and I'm aware that my situation isn't necessarily unique, but I truly do feel disappointed and so low after seeing this. I really think I can do better, I'm just feeling down and confused and lost as to how I can specifically execute that.

Any specific study guidance (moving forward in my particular situation), words of wisdom, and genuine advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for whoever chooses to respond.

Also, here are my analytics from my last 10 practice tests on here:

LR: -5.7 average

LG: -7 average

RC: - 7 average.

I don't understand how I got a 155 on test day and missed that many more points, like I'm truly so confused.

I just wanted input from someone who may be in the same situation as mine.

I took the April exam and registered for the June on already. Whether you are in the same situation or not, would one

be kidding themselves if your goal is to gain 8-13 points with the studying that can happen in the time gap between now and the June exam?

Would you hold taking the June exam and postpone it (as well as your law school journey)?

Hello! Would anyone be down to take LR drills and review them together over Zoom?

"A is good if it satisfies B." How would you guys translate this? B --> A? or A--> B?

I feel like without translating it as A-->B, it's impossible to get the right answer.

Admin note: edited title

Just took a PT and my pre-blind review score was almost full 10 points below my average. (Post BR was still around 4 points below by usual pre-BR average)

As I was taking this PT I could tell that I was really struggling to focus but I powered through because I want to make sure that, even if I am not at my best on test day, I am preparing for that. This has really stressed me out though- I'm scared that on the real day I will have another bad day like this and get a bad score, despite all of my hard work. I've been studying for over a year at this point and I've had some drops in score but never to this extent (I mean- this was lower than my diagnostic over a year ago!)

Needless to say, this has really shaken me. Any advice as for what to do next would be greatly appreciated.

Hi! If anyone in Seoul is studying for the LSAT, I have lightly used LR Drilling books that I don't need anymore. I can also hand over other materials for free. Please DM me!

So I have an LSAT date for June 9th. I studied for a month prior to this on my own but ofc I am not ready. I signed up for this 2 days ago and I realize how I am getting improved and I love it. Should I cancel the test and study ton and take in October? I know I am not going to be ready but I was thinking since the year cycle is ending might as well go and see what it feels like, and then I will have three more options again since the cycle reopens in July, but I know I will not be ready for it. So cancel or not? If I do it today, I will get partial refund at least.

Here was my original notes:

this argument feels wrong ... like... it tells us that land life began NOT 0.5 billion years ago but probably like 1.2 billion years ago (implying this) due to some rocks with carbon 14... and these carbon 14 CAN be made from plants taking stuff from the atmosphere blah blah, which obviously implies (plants are living things presumably on land, unless answer choices talk about some underwater plant taking atmosphere??) there was life on land 1.2 billion years ago.

Find the choice that does NOT strengthen.

(a) finding fossils that are dated more than 0.5billion years old does help the conclusion that land did somehow begin 0.5 billion years ago.

(b) has a statement about how it was extremely difficult for life to begin in olden time oceans... This seems to strengthen, because our conclusion is trying to REFUTE the fact of life beginning in the ocean. However, just because life would be difficult back in the ancient days, doesn't mean it can't/wouldn't happen?... I don't see how this would strengthen the premise which states, namely: "oh my gosh, we found these rocks with carbon 14, and we know carbon 14 can be from plants, and these plants were 1.2 billion whatever, therefore land existed during that time"

But then again, I can't ELIMINATE this answer choice YET. I will read on, and if the remaining options, suck I'll pick this.

(c) basically tells us that this rock had the possibility that 1) it had contact with water and 2) that it also had parts that did NOT have water

I initially thought this was weird. Like why would this matter? But then if you think about it... the premises never talked about the origin of the carbon 14 of rocks. We just know that its there. The carbon could have came from like fish or something in the water. The premise only talked about plants, but it doesn't eliminate the chance of other things. So this statement strengthens.

(d) the answer choice says that the carbon 14 on rocks came not from plants but from soil and stuff. This directly supports my above point.

(e) if uranium testing shows that the rocks are ACTUALLY 1.2 billion and not some ERRONEOUS number then we are good.

Upon reviewing... reading my explanation for (d) is funny because its the SHORTEST most COP-OUT explanation known in existence.

Like now, I'm re-reading, and I feel stupid . If these carbon 14 thingies didn't come from plants (a living thing) but came from soil (obviously not living)... wouldn't it weaken my argument? Because this would show that rocks with carbon didn't come from living things, but from a non-living thing.

I think what happened was I said "like my above point" (pointing at the fish and stuff), but somehow was totally engrossed in the origins of the carbon 14 as opposed to whether the "origins" had any LIFE in them.

I just bought this course today.

The question I have, therefore, is... JY tells us that we use blind review to improve and ensure you don't make the same mistakes in the future.

I'm just confused about what exactly I'm supposed to be taking away from this analysis. It feels like I just merely "misread" or "focused on the wrong detail"

These ^ feel like stuff that I can't just "take away" and apply to other problems?

I got this question correct but have no idea why C is the correct answer. Can someone explain?

Admin note: edited title

This necessary assumption question discusses the treatment of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) with a newly developed drug. CFS is associated with three different symptoms, and we don’t know if these symptoms are the effects of only one virus or of multiple different ones. Tests of the new drug indicate that this drug lessens the severity of all three CFS symptoms. The stimulus takes this to provide evidence to the effect that CFS probably is caused by one single virus, not by multiple different ones.

Pre-phrase / anticipation: We need an assumption to the effect of ‘If a single treatment lessens all of a given syndrome’s symptoms, then it is more likely for this syndrome to be caused by a single virus than by multiple ones.’

The pertinent answer choices are (B) and (D). (B) states: “It is more likely that the new drug counteracts one virus than that it counteracts several viruses.” This matches the consequent in the anticipated assumption but leaves out its antecedent. (B) thus does not make the argument valid and would fall short of being a sufficient assumption. But is (B) necessary? If negated, (B) would indicate that it would be equally likely or even more likely that the new drug affected several viruses. This is not at all what the author is trying to argue and thus would seem to rob their conclusion of any support.

(D) states: “Most syndromes that are characterized by related symptoms are each caused by a single viral infection.” This in itself might be right, and arguably (D) would be a good strengthen answer choice. (D) gets at the conclusion and points out parallel cases where similar correlations have been observed as well. A number of things seem off though: (1) Do we know that the alleviated symptoms in fact are ‘related,’ as this answer choice suggests? We certainly know that they all are effects of one or more causes, but does that also render these effects related to one another? (2) The conclusion in the stimulus takes the results of the experiments with the new drug to provide evidence to the effect that CFS has a single cause, but (D) does not contain a connection to these experiments. Instead, (D) is just making a general claim that arguably strengthens the conclusion in isolation but that does not also connect it to the other parts of the argument.

As an NA answer choice, (B) thus seems better than (D). (B) is essentially saying: In probabilistic terms, the new drug’s acting on three different effects indicates that these three effects likely have a single cause rather than three different ones. By contrast, had the drug only affected two of CFS’s three symptoms, it would have been likely that there are at least two causes for CFS, one virus that triggers two of its symptoms and another virus that triggers the third one. (B) is thus hinting at a sort of appeal to simplicity behind the author's reasoning. The author seems to assume: If two different hypotheses about the causal relationships behind a given correlation are possible, the simpler hypothesis is more likely correct.

I just finished going through my main point and most strongly supported lessons, and still feel like I dont have a complete grasp on either of them, and that while I understand how to eventually get to the answer, I am not consistent with it and struggle BIG TIME with timing.

I am getting a bit discouraged as I feel it should make sense before I move on..

I was wondering if I should have it all figured out by now after completing these units and not move on until they make sense? Or if they are just a preview of information, and as I continue to progress through the lessons, they will make more sense with time?

Thank you so much for any help in advance!

Can someone please explain why C is right? What is the type of theft? #help

PT5 S1 Q09

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

I had this question right initially but doubted myself and switched the answer during the blind review.

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.

This is long overdue. But before signing off completely, I wanted to express my gratitude to 7sage and this community. I've seen people make posts like these and wondered, when it would be my turn. 7sage has been a huge part of my LSAT journey and as a result of this, I saw a 12 point increase on my score. I've been admitted into 6+ law schools and I can finally say I'm done with the LSAT. For a moment I didn't think it would be possible, but 7sage made studying a lot more fun and this community made it a lot more easier than expected. With that being said, I'm excited to began Law school in the fall.

Thank you for everything 7sage and this community.