Hi, I noticed that I am unable to see the difficulty level on the logic games I had done on PT. Is there a way I can figure out the difficulty levels?

Anybody else having trouble with the formatting of the website right now?

I've been going to school full time (summer semesters included) for the past 3 years and I'll be graduating from undergrad this fall, all while working full time as an office manager, and now a paralegal. My GPA is 3.9. I took the April LSAT and got a 148, 10 points lower than my PT average. I'm planning to take again in June and aiming for high 150s minimum. When I apply to law schools, will my background benefit me in regard to acceptance?

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?

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!

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 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

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/

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!

PT5 S1 Q09

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

What is the difference in process & identification between these two question types? I feel like in parallel method you identify the flaw as a means of finding its match - so i dont really see how they are different. Can someone help me understand?

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!

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.

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.

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 is someone able to walk me through this LR question? In general, I struggle with sufficient assumption (SA) and pseudo-SA questions (even though I know JY calls them freebies), so I would love to have general tips for getting these right as well as the one pertaining to PTB S4 Q4 (the one that talks about political self-determination). Thank you so so so much in advance!

Study group, pm if interested!!

I opted into the new "beta syllabus" and now I can't access anything other than logical reasoning. Even the contact button isn't working so this discussion page is my only option. This was my only evening to study this week and now it's completely fucked. What the hell?

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

Greetings, 7Sagers!

We're thrilled to announce a series of free live classes designed to support you throughout your law school journey!

Each week, we're offering a selection of engaging classes that all our users, including our free users, can attend.

Here's the lineup for this week's classes. To participate, simply visit our events page at https://classic.7sage.com/events/, locate the specific event you're interested in, and click the blue button to join!

This week's offerings:

Friday, May 5th at 5pm ET - Study Plan Workshop

Tuesday, May 9th at 11:45am ET - LSAT 101

Wednesday, May 10th at 8pm ET - Logical Reasoning with 7Sage

Thursday, May 11th at 8pm ET - LSAT 101

Friday, May 12th at 5pm ET - Study Plan Workshop

If you have any inquiries, please don't hesitate to leave a comment below. We look forward to seeing you there!

I need help deciding on a school! My deadline to accept (provisionally or firmly) uOttawa is tomorrow, but if I accept there, my acceptance from Osgoode will be cancelled. I'm not sure what to do. I know Osgoode is ranked much higher, but I'm nervous about living there. My career ambitions are to go into the government/human rights/non-profit/humanitarian/international development sector(s), and I simply don't know what to do. Maybe I could transfer schools if I end up not liking it? I'm so nervous! I have also yet to hear back from UBC or McGill, and I have a deferral from UVIC. Please help (in a gentle way, I'm quite fragile at the moment lol).

Edit:

I wanted to add that I would love to make community in law school as I went to a small commuter school in undergrad. I also want to consider the school's abroad program and opportunities for growth. Prestige isn't necessarily the most important thing but I would love to make kind friends and have a lot of opportunities within the subject areas that I want to pursue.

I am struggling to understand how this answer is supported by the stimulus. To run through my thoughts:

A: irrelevant, there is nothing about clams in the passage

B: irrelevant, we are not discussing the mussels spreading to the Mississippi or the effects on the pear industry

C: we don't have any information about removing the mussels from the areas they clog

D: This is the one I picked though I went back and forth between D and E. I picked D because it seemed to be the most related to the stimulus. The stimulus talks about how the mussels clog the intake pipes at the beginning and then transitions to talking about how bags of mussels suspended in discharge streams help clean water. I assumed without proof that the algae would just clog intake pipes as well.

E: This one seems like a logical conclusion, but I didn't think there was enough direct support in the stimulus to justify this conclusion. It seems like quite a jump to me to assume that the mussels will need to be discarded as hazardous waste.

Any advice or help on making the assumptions that need to be made in MSS problems? #help

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question" Also, please do not post the entire question and answer choices for the LSAC question, this is copyrighted content and is against the Forum Rules

Potatoes -> has solanine (poisonous in large quantities) -most-> solanine in the skin.

Domestic potatoes -> has small quantities (so not poisonous)

Wild potatoes -> poisonous level of solanine (must be in large number).

So peeled wild potatoes =safe= unpeeled domestic tomatoes

What to warrant that the wild potatoes fall within this MOST group where the solanine stays in the skin?

A. So the amount of solanine in the skin of wild potatoes is more than the skin of domesticated potatoes. So peeling the skin of wild potatoes wouldn’t make it safer to eat than domesticated potatoes? Not at least as safe as

B. So removing this means removing the poisonous part.

C. So the peeled wild potato has the same amount of solanine as an unpeeled domesticated potato. Yes, as safe as.

D. Why does this matter.

E. Size doesn’t matter, its the quantity of solanine.

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