Discussions

All posts

New post

547 posts in the last 30 days

Hi, can any LR guru help take a look at the two following LR questions?

PT29 1-18 PT2 2-24

Details:

PT29 1-18: Most of artists are less insightfull than those educated.

Correct Must Be True answer E : Some of artists are no less insightgul than those educated

PT2 2-24: Many planning committee members work in suburbs

Wrong Must Be True answer D : Some planning committee members do not work in the suburbs

Basically: PT29 1-18 is saying that "Most excludes All". However, PT2 2-24 is saying that "Some does not exclude All"

Which one shall I remember? I am just sooooooo confused!

Thank you guys!!!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-1-question-18/

1

I haven't heard anybody talking abt this, but I recently finished pt78 and found several questions in this pt to be kind of atypical of lsat questions. They seem to rely more heavily on you making some assumptions abt unstated things, sometimes to an extent I would usually consider very risky to do in LSAT tests. Does anybody feel that? Have you ever encountered a particular PT that runs counter to your experiences with LSAT?

1

Hello everyone! Ok so I enjoy drinking coffee however I noticed I crash hard when I'm coming down later in the day. I've tired drinking matcha tea however it's not as strong as coffee and I'm not able to focus as much. The problems I'm having with coffee is I believe it affects my sleep. I drink literally one cup at 9am and for some reason my mind is constantly racing. at night. In other words I'm not getting REM sleep. Does anyone else have problems with caffeine? I'm considering just quitting coffee cold turkey and only drinking matcha from now on. WHAT DO I DO?!?!?!?!?

1

Hey 7Sagers!

Update: After carefully considering feedback from several 7Sagers, we've decided to keep the pre-made problem sets available for the time being. You can find more information regarding this here: https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/34509/core-curriculum-update-pre-made-problem-sets

A few months ago we announced that we'll be replacing the pre-made problem sets in the Core Curriculum with an advanced drilling option! We're excited to announce that the old problem sets will be completely replaced by the drilling feature starting March 1st. This means that after February 28th, you will no longer be able to access the pre-made problem sets in the Core Curriculum.

I know this is a big change to the Core Curriculum we all know and love. However, we are doing this as part of our larger goal to make LSAT prep as simple and streamlined as possible. This feature is just one of the many ways we're working towards that. Instead of making a new post to announce this, I decided to simply edit this one because there are a ton of great questions and answers in the comments. I've picked out one of JY's comments from the initial post to include here. Hopefully his response answers some of the initial questions you might have about this change!

In the meantime, feel free to comment any questions you may have and review the initial announcement (included below). If your heart is set on doing the problem sets exactly as they are (I get it, change is tough), feel free to download them before February 28th so you can continue to use them.

We perceived two issues with the existing Problem Sets and replacing them with Drills is our attempt to remedy both.

The PSets are static sets of 5 questions in increasing order of difficulty and newness. For example, Flaw PSet #1 contains 5 of the easiest and oldest Flaw questions from PTs 1-35. Flaw PSet #23 contains the hardest and newest. As they are laid out in the CC, the expectation is that a student should just proceed through them one by one.

The issue with that is the typical student probably doesn't need to start with PSet #1 (too easy) and probably doesn't need to finish all the way to PSet #23 (time could be better spent elsewhere). This is inefficient. The Drill addresses this by giving the student the ability to set the difficulty themselves. A student can, based on how well they followed the lessons, set the difficulty to, say, medium, and see how they do. Based on the results of the Drill, they can quickly adjust the difficulty for the next Drill. (We're also working on auto adjusting as a new feature to be released.) Admittedly, this is also something that could be done with PSets: a student could jump into the middle of the PSets and work forward (if too easy) or backwards (if too hard). But that's very cumbersome and not everyone will know to do this. Drills will allow students to more efficiently hone in on what they need to practice.

The second issue is that PSets contain a disproportionate amount of older questions. Their questions are pulled from only PTs 1-35. The assumption was that the newer PTs should be saved for timed PTs. Two changes undermined that assumption. First, it's been 5 years since the PSets were created and many more new PTs have been released. Second, the modern LSAT only contains one scored LR section. The two changes together meant that we have many more newer LR questions that should not be in PTs. For example, PT 45 was originally released with two LR sections but the second LR section should not be in a modern PT. So what do we do with it? We pushed it into the Drilling pool of questions. We did this for all the LR sections we deemed to be "extra." This way, you still have a huge pool of modern PTs (with a rotation of LR, LG, and RC experimentals on the next feature release). You will also have a larger and newer (compared to PSets) pool of LR questions to Drill with. PT 76's second LR section is the newest section that we placed into the Drilling pool.

For those who are concerned about spoiling PTs, if you choose "Simulate Modern" and take PTs 45 and higher, there will be absolutely no overlap between PT LR and Drilling pool LR. In other words, you're guaranteed to have a fresh PT with a reliable PT score.

For those who are asking for the ability to self-select which sections should be in PTs v. Drilling pool, I think that's a good idea(?) but I can also see arguments against this. More choice is not always better. We're still debating this. At this moment there are no plans to create this feature but we may work it into a future release.

In short, we believe that Drills are a superior version of PSets.

If you’re familiar with our Core Curriculum, you’ll know that each core LR question type includes a number of pre-made problem sets related to that topic. As we continuously work towards improving our course, we’ve rolled out a new feature to replace these problem sets!

You’ll notice that above each problem set, there is now a ‘Drill’ option. https://imgur.com/8VszND7

Unlike the pre-made problem sets, the Drills will enable you to, well, drill each question type as much, or as little, as you’d like. You can also configure the difficulty to exactly what level you’re looking to practice at. It's basically a better version of the problem sets.

If you’d like to test out this drill feature, you don’t have to wait! The drilling option is already available for each LR question type in the Core Curriculum.

MC

MSS

MBT

Weak

Streng

SA and PSA

Princ

NA

AP

Flaw

MoR

Para

PF

PAI

RRE

13

I found out today, by accident, that PT 26 S1 Game 2 and PT 81 S4 Game 2 are the exact same game. They have different settings (sending letters vs dance performances), but the letters used for the pieces and the rules are the exact same. I only found this out because I had randomly done PT 26 S1 game 2 as a warmup LG before taking PT 81 today. They did ask some different questions about the games in the two tests, though they share 2 question stems in common. Are there any other games people have noticed that are duplicates?

Hope someone else will find this oddity as interesting as I did.

4

I have noticed a pattern for a while where I often am down to two answer choices in LR and whenever this happens I typically choose the wrong answer choice (AC). Yesterday on Prep Test 82 I got 4 questions wrong in one LR section and 5 in the other. In the section with 5 wrong, every single question I got wrong I had narrowed it down to 2 ACs and had chosen the wrong answer. Either I am the world's worst guesser or I am falling into some trap I am unaware of.

These are also the only questions in the section where I had not crossed out all of the incorrect answers. I very rarely cross out the correct answer but I am not always able to see which one is correct. I had also flagged all of the questions I got wrong on the one section and most of them on the other LR section so I am aware of the questions I am struggling with as I'm taking the test.

If I could get my LR down to -1/2 I would be ecstatic because my LG was only -1 yesterday due to a dumb sorting mistake I made, otherwise it would have been perfect. RC is always hit or miss for me.

Does anyone have any advice for choosing the right answer when it's down to two choices? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

0

Is there any harm to submitting an extra reference letter to schools if many of them only require 2? I have 2 LORs already, one of which is very strong, but the my 3rd referee is someone who I have also interracted with on a more personal level. My only worry is schools may not read all letters and will not review the letter that carries more weight to it.

0

Calling all international students or students currently studying abroad!

I am a student from the United States studying abroad in Morocco and I've been frustrated because most study groups meet at times which would be impossible for me to participate in. So, I thought I would try to form my own group. We would probably only be able to meet a few times since I'll be taking the October LSAT on the 18th, however I still think it could be really beneficial. We could use Zoom and meet any time from 7-11pm GMT+1 time. Please let me know if you or anyone you know is interested!

0

Hello everyone. So for context, I’m not looking to go to a T14 so a 160 is pretty much what I need to get into my picks for law schools. Even a 161/162 would be amazing for me. Unfortunately, I can’t seem to crack this magic number. I usually score in the high 150s with few outliers but have never made it past 159 despite always scoring in the 160s upon BR and in the very high 160s nearing 170 as of more recently.

I’ll admit I don’t have LG down to -0. I’ll usually score around -5 or -8 due to timing but then get -0 on BR. LR and RC is where the gamble comes in. I’ll always either do like -6 or -7 on RC but then -10 on LR or I’ll go -6 on LR but -11 on RC. LG is about the same every single PT. The most frustrating part for me is my inconsistency on LR. Like I could do a drill on just weakening questions and do well but then on my most recent PT, 3 out of the 9 questions I got wrong were all weakening questions. It’s seriously frustrating knowing that had I gotten those 3 weakening questions correct my score would have gone from a 159 to a 162. 🥲

No matter what I do I can’t seem to crack that magical 160 (maybe not so magical for others lol). With only days left until my October LSAT, should I just fully focus on LG at this point to hopefully get it below -5?

13

I originally started out LR by just drilling here and there and not paying too much attention to it until recently. I have been reading books, watching the videos about logic, and drilling a lot but I seem to be getting nowhere. It almost feels as if I understood it more knowing less about it. All of the different question types and how to solve them are getting jumbled when I take timed sections now. It also seems as if I need an entirely different approach for every single different question type. I am in need of ANY help or pointers to guide me in the way of properly studying for LR. (For reference, my PT is usually -12 and BR is -8ish, but now that I am only doing LR, performance has dropped a bit). Thanks in advance

1

Unfortunately, I will be taking the October test at 3am. I'm currently studying throughout the day and then also throughout the night. I'm only going until 3am or 4am right now, but am planning on taking it later the closer I get to test date. But it's damn hard to be functional this late so I'm trying to see if anyone wants to form a group to do some studying together to help keep each other awake. Maybe we can do some sets and go over them together? I'm located in KST. Shoot me a DM or leave a comment if you're interested!

1

Hi everyone, I was approved for +50% time today and just wanted to ask about some strategies to best leverage this extra time.

I was already not horrible in terms of pacing, but I was missing questions bc I was misreading/ rushing questions etc.

My intital impression of the best way to leverage this extra time would be to literally blind review during the actual exam; finish the section in ~35 minutes and then go back and review the answers I’m not 100% confident with. This is also a godsend for diagraming during LG, though I haven’t started studying LG. Same with RC my impression is that I should use the time to read the passages more critically, etc.

If anyone has any additional general of section-specific advice, I’d greatly appreciate it!

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?