I need advice on how I should go about studying. I plan on taking the June LSAT and am starting studying now. I have three other materials outside of 7Sage that I will be using too, and I want to study 18 hours each week. How should I get through everything I can and set up a study schedule? I tried going through the syllabus, but this will take a really long time. My weakest suit is the logic games, then logical reasoning, then reading comprehension. Should I start with lessons on logic games even though the syllabus has these near the end?

I'm super torn about whether or not to delay a cycle or to take the February LSAT (I signed up for both January and February.) If I would take the February, my plant would be to push really hard for a month and apply this cycle. I know it probably sounds dumb but I would rather start law school at 26 than 27 and for some reason I have a hard time getting that age/timing thing out of my head! I originally took the LSAT in November of 2020, then decided to delay until THIS cycle after getting a 147. I definitely studied and have improved a lot (scoring in the 150's) but with my BR score in the 170's I know that I can do better with more time. Does anyone else feel a weird sense of embarrassment about delaying twice or have any experience doing so? I also have a fear about applying so many years after graduating college when my job is not in the legal field. This test has really become such a psychological test for me as much as a logical one lol.

Hey Everyone,

I've been stuck between deciding the best approach for the CC. I am spending several hours a day on it and feel like I am not progressing. Initially, I was doing everything in order -- including all the problem sets. It's starting to feel counter productive: Each problem set takes me about 30min to an hour (this includes taking it timed, BR, and watching explanation on the questions I am not 100% confident with).Considering some question types have 10+ problem sets, after 2 or 3 days of working on the same question type I just get demotivated because I don't feel like I am really progressing in the material. Am I doing this all wrong?? Should I only solve a few and come back to them as I start focusing on the PTs or taking timed sections? Or should I be patient and get through everything in the CC?

How are you doing the CC...

Thanks in advance

I used Loophole + my own method to make the LR formulaic as much as i could atleast. This method will help with NA, weakness, and strengthening questions for most part. other questions are i think much easier

P1: Infection with vaccine is coincidence

Conclusion: Vaccine is not of any concern

Loophole "what if" method apply leading to negated conclusion to show it can be of concern

"What if" x can be of a concern

What if infection with vaccine has worse outcome then it is of concern.

NA would be: infection with vaccine is same outcome/severity

Weakness: Worse severity

Strengthening: same or lesser severity

What if basically doing it this way helps you pick up the gap to play with. LMK if anyone has any questions. Feel free to put in your inputs thanks!.

Hi,

I have started the 7Sage Core Curriculum back in June and completed it at the end of December. It took me a while to finish the CC because I created a wrong answer journal for all LR and RC questions. Also, as JY has instructed, I practiced all LG questions in the CC until I can get every question correct with the given amount of time. I took the practice test #1 a week ago. My timed score came out as 148 and blind review score came out as 162. Here is the breakdown:

RC -6

LG -19

LR -9

LR -15

I definitely know that I can improve, but I am just wondering how everyone scored on their first timed test. Considering that I have scored 162 on the blind review, I strongly believe I can get the blind review score up until 175+.

Please share how your first practice test experience was.

The last couple sentences of the passage say that there are a couple constraints to the method, but then the MP question says nothing about the constraints only about how the method is good? Im confused.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-3-passage-2-questions/

Hey everyone, I am new to 7sage and I am just wondering if the problem sets in the core curriculum should be done all at once. I have been trying to find out if I should save them or knock them all off at once. I am only two weeks into my study but I am getting a little bored with the problem sets. I think it is because I did study for a few months a few years ago so I think maybe I know the fundamentals and should keep the problem sets for when I am confused. Or if I find out I have a problem with a question type later on. I was hoping someone could tell me what they do.

Hello good people,

I've been receiving lots of PMs here and on reddit asking more details about the things I posted. Now that the shock has worn off, I'm going to take the time to give back and share some of the things I considered 'game-changers' in my prep. Hopefully it will help you too!

Today I'm going to share a conceptual framework for analyzing arguments. I believe this helped me limit LR mistakes and go -1/-2 sometimes -0 consistently. How? it helped me get the question types below correct most of the time, and it saved me time I would have otherwise wasted deliberating between wrong ACs and still got them wrong anyway––time I used to get to the other questions I would've otherwise never got to.

It is particularly useful for STRENGTHEN/WEAKEN/NECESSARY ASSUMPTION/SUFFICIENT ASSUMPTION questions (all the fun ones!)

Here is it:

Traditionally on 7sage, we look at arguments from the 'vertical' model:

A––>B

A

–––

B

As I progressed on my prep journey, I started to also look at arguments as such:

1 + 1 = 2

(Math? what the hell?!?!) stay with me!

As we know, arguments are PREMISES ––> CONCLUSION.

The mistake we commonly make however, is to attack the premises or the conclusion. That's what we do in day to day conversations. These are the type of LSAT errors that are so frustrating because you know they're wrong, but you're stuck between 2 ACs and you decided to go with the one that 'seemed right' but deep down, you knew something was off.

So, let's look at it again.

1 + 1 = 2

When you are asked to analyze an argument, you NEVER attack the 1s or the 2. Those are the premises and conclusion.

Rather, you attack the = sign. That is the support

In LR, i'm constantly telling myself, "BE SENSITIVE TO THE SUPPORT [STRUCTURE]" so I stay disciplined and stick to what the question type demands of me by addressing the = accordingly.

Let's run through the types:

WEAKEN

Task: you pick an AC that weakens the support [the = sign]

Approach: So you look for an AC that adds a -1

1 + 1 (-1) =/= 2

Great! you just weakened the argument!

STRENGTHEN

Task: you pick an AC that strengthens the support [the = sign] In other words, you further affirm the equation-relationship or block premises that undermine the 'equation'

Approach: You look for an AC that blocks a potential weakener, a (-1), or you look for an AC that further affirms the relationship like a (+1)

1 + 1 (+1) = 2 (or more––so it affirms this relationship)

or you see that -1? yeah that's not applicable like -(-1) which is: 1

Great! you just strengthened the argument!

NECESSARY ASSUMPTION

Task: you pick an AC that the equation (=) NEEDS to remain 1 + 1 = 2.

Approach: Find an AC that enables the equation to hold. How? by blocking competing premises that would subtract from your premises (1+1) and destroy equation's ability to = 2

These are similar to how you do STRENGTHEN, and it's something the Ellen's LOOPHOLE really made clear to me

If I made an argument like:

"X washing machines are better than Y washing machines, because X washing machines dissolve soap detergent faster than Y washing machines"

A loophole would be something like: "wait, what if the rate at which washing machines dissolve soap doesn't matter in evaluating the quality of a washing machine?"

a NECESSARY ASSUMPTION blocks this by saying: it's not the case that (the rate at which washing machines dissolve soap doesn't matter in evaluating the quality of a washing machine) OR it matters.

Back to our equation:

"what if -1?"

and you negate it so: -(-1). which is 1. so the equation remains protected.

But hold on! what about the negation test? simple. If you applied a NEGATION to your AC, the -(-1) or just 1, what do you get? a -1

which is: 1 + 1 (-1) =/= 2 which destroys the argument

Great! you just found the NECESSARY ASSUMPTION!

SUFFICIENT ASSUMPTION

Task: you pick an AC that ensures the equation (=) works

Approach: You look for an AC that is sufficient to make the premises = conclusion

Say you are given

1 ____ = 2

You need a: (+ 1) so 1 +1 = 2

Great! you just found the SUFFICIENT ASSUMPTION

Notice how we NEVER consider poking holes in the premises (1s) or the conclusion (2). Rather we ALWAYS address the SUPPORT (=)

Why so abstract? because if you can see pass the details and understand what you are being asked to do on a simple abstract level, you can sift through the often confusingly-worded ACs and find the right AC confidently and quickly.

Also, are you starting to see how all LR questions are really just similar versions of each other? it's how you can easily turn a weakening question into strengthen, into an NA, or flaw, easily.

I hope this was helpful!

Feel free to PM me if needed!

The Real Mike Ross

Hi all, weird question here. My partner is currently deciding between med schools, and I'm planning on applying to law school this fall wherever she ends up. I get some input in this process, thankfully, and so I'm wondering how I should be thinking about this given that the set of schools I apply to will be very limited. Would it be worth it to choose somewhere that the admissions predictor gives me an 80% chance of getting into? 90%? Curious how others would approach this since it's a slightly stressful situation on my end (and the nature of med school/residency means it'll be a while before it's realistic for me to apply again).

I find that I can overwhelm myself, when there is no reason to be overwhelmed, for questions dealing with a lot of different variables. They typically manifest in: studies consisting of numbers/percentages, rising/lowering of levels (usually these appear physiologically), etc.

For instance, I took PT 89 and completely overwhelmed myself on 89.S4.Q23 (strengthening question about turmeric). In BR I was kicking myself because, had I stayed calm, organized and kept track of all the variables...I could have gotten it right!

Do you have a different method of approach for stimuli where you feel there's 'a lot' going on?

I'm really curious to know some of y'all's process. Mike Kim talks about prioritizing the right information, not necessarily ALL of the information in an LR stimulus. Do you typically approach the answer choices with the premise and conclusion in your own words?

Would love to know your thoughts!

I found this one very tricky.

As for AC A, I think I understand that AC A meets the target by introducing a third party, stress, that could be responsible for causing both snoring and smoking. However, I am wondering that what if stress indeed causes both snoring and smoking, and at the same time, smoking causes snoring. A third party cannot exclude the possibility that smoking doesn't cause snoring.

As for AC D, I understand that it indeed doesn't infer any hard causation. But I think it is a quite soft one. The more cases are, the better chance that smoking causes snoring. I think in scientific research, it is indeed has such inference?

Could someone help me with this confusion? Thank you!

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

Hello! I have been running a LSAT accountability group for the last couple of months and we are looking for new members. We have a weekly accountability email thread, where we write our study goals for the week, and we meet every Friday at 3 pm PST on Zoom to discuss our goals, the application process, and best practices, and do a few practice questions. Our group has been all women, and we would love to include more POC, LGBTQIA, and non-binary folks as well.

If you are interested, please reply in the thread and fill out this google form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Crjcu0fyqqjHSvogSkNM9fLawYunJEtqAkIhYS1xnkI/edit

Hi everyone,

I am new to the 7sage community and I am new to discussion posts. Everyone here sounds really encouraging so I decided to write on this forum and see what happens lol. Anyways have taken a cold diagnostic twice and have scored to my demise 141 both times. So many other forums are saying that it is impossible to raise it to a 170+ and now I feel like I already failed before I even started. Just for context, I am going to attempt to apply early to law schools in fall 2022, therefore I would hope to take the LSAT in about 6 months give or take. I just would like to hear some of you all's success stories and how much you were able to raise your scores to help make me feel motivated and focused again.

Please help

Episode #64 is here!

https://soundcloud.com/user-737824810/64-timing-and-pacing-on-the-lsat

Subscribe to our podcast:

iTunes (Apple Podcasts) | Google Podcasts | SoundCloud

Has anyone blown a whole study day fool proofing one LG? Disheartening, especially because I've been at this for a couple of years.

I got confused by one of the rules of this game.

The rule: if an issue has either finance or technology it must go in slot 1 confused me. i took this as if there is a technology/finance it must go in 1 and you can't have the other one because it wouldn't be able to go in slot 1. How do you know that you could have both in?

Thank you!

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

Hi does anyone want to start up a zoom study group for the Jan 2022 lsat?

I just got a 159 on the international June test

My diagnostic was 163. I had been PTing around 173. I am careful with checking bubbling and have not misbubbled in the past. I remember making sure the bubbles lined up with question numbers as I took the exam. I walked out of the test feeling reasonably good.

I did test with a 2B pencil, not a normal #2 pencil, because in the country where I took the exam, I couldn't find any normal #2 pencils. I don't know if this might've messed something up? Or something else?

I just don't get it. Even on my worst test days, I never scored in the 50s. Ever.

Should I pay $100 to handscore, even though that $100 will make money quite tight for me (but not as tight as doing the test all over again)? Or should I accept that this happened and move on and take the test next year (can't take it again this year because I can't afford to and I don't have the study time available at this point)?

Hi all,

I'm an international, first gen, low income, URM, KJD candidate who applied during this cycle. Long story short: There is hope if you have a lower LSAT.

I started studying for the LSAT at exactly this time last year. I sat in June and got a 161. It was an okay starting score but I knew I could push for more. I sat again in August and, despite testing at a consistent 168, the test screwed me and I got a 160. This was devastating because I had worked so hard only to recieve a lower score the second time round. I had been toying with the idea of cancelling the score but ended up choosing not to: Mistake. I didn't submit an addendum because there was nothing to say - the test sucked.

Exhausted, over worked, and demotivated, I felt like my chances were shot especially because I had my heart set on a T14. I enrolled at Georgetown Law this morning. (Yes, technically GULC is not a T14 but a) they're on the rise and b) I did also get acceptances from several T14s like UVA but chose GULC for personal reasons).

On paper, it looked impossible but through some miracle, these top schools looked at more than just my score. Sure, they all claim to be holistic but use my experience as a reason to believe that they are telling the truth.

Sitting here one year later, right as my subscription is about to expire, I wanted to let you know that you can do it, no matter what your score looks like on paper.

This is my last time taking the LSAT (for various reasons, no retaking is not an option). I took a break from studying in December because I felt so burnt out.

I've been doing problem sets and reviewing some material to refresh my studying and feel like somehow I've gotten much worse? I took a PT today (the last one I am planning on taking before the real deal so I don't freak out) and...well...I'm freaking out. I took a PT today and scored lower than what I've been scoring ..I don't know what's going wrong or how to fix it in such a short amount of time. This January test is a make-it-or-break it for my career. Spiralling downwards FAST. Any tips? #Help

Hi everyone, I hope your New Year is off to a great start.

I am looking for a study partner for all three sections who is currently trying to break the 166+ range (which is where I scored this past November) and wants to go on to 170+ this year. I want a partner who is interested in dissecting the stimulus and not just looking at the answer choices; I want someone who is willing to talk through everything and will consistently answer their phone and messages and be honest and straightforward about what they want. I am breaking even on all three sections (-5) and am looking for help and to help. Instead of solely doing questions based on PT, I'd like to try to approach things by category (strengthening, weakening, miscellaneous games, etc) but I'm willing to adjust if needed. And if you are interested, please let me know what you scored on your test admin date or what your recent PT's are. My LG is solid and I am happy to try it out live: if you pick out a game, I could probably do it and explain it...but my RC has been stagnant for MONTHS and I'd like to improve on that and help you as well.

I am taking the January LSAT for the second time, I already have a score on record. However, I'm planning to submit my applications in late January, and scores won't be released until February 2nd. Should I write an addendum to ask that my application not be evaluated until the new score is released?

Thanks!

I am about 50 hours into the coursework and have only done the diagnostic exam.

With my schedule, I have done this 50 hours over the span of about 6 weeks.

I am really struggling with my current section (end of Valid Arguments) and am wondering if I should go back and hit some old quizzes to make sure the basics are fresh in my mind. Or does it make more sense to continue through the course, and then go back? I don't want to spend too much time going back and reviewing materials and slowing myself down on the rest of the course.

Also, how often are you doing practice exams during the course, if any?