Hi! I really need help improving on LR, I cannot get below -8, which I get consistently. My test is in August. Please message me!

Is this a correlation-causation argument because it assumes that the increase in high school dropouts is the only thing that is causing the increase in recruitment among 18 year olds? And why would the author draw such a conclusion?

And I know there's an explanation vid for this, but why is A incorrect? If the conclusion had said "solely dependent" on high school dropouts, would A weaken?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-3-question-11/

Hi

I am still on LR on the CC, but I am having a difficult time with four-star and five-star questions on the problem sets on the CC. I usually get three to four questions wrong per the four-star and five-star difficulty level problem set. I was just wondering how many of these four-star and five-star questions are on the actual LR section of the PT. Also, is it normal to get three to four questions of four-star and five-star questions wrong on the problem set during the LR section of the CC?

My golf coach always advised me not to see the game of golf as a war but rather a game. However, that is golf. Is it appropriate to conceive this LSAT journey as an act of going on an all-out war against the LSAT? How do you see yourself against this test, whether we want to call it a behemoth, beast, monster, etc. I am sure this test isn't just a piece of cake despite the fact that it is still just a bunch of papers stapled together.

Hi, does anyone know the rules on using scratch paper for the LSAT? Is there a limit? Can we only use it for some sections and not others? Thanks.

For #2, we can affirm from the first paragraph that MLK was influenced by at least one work from a transcendentalist, namely MLK was influenced by David Thoreau's essay "Civil Disobedience"; the correct answer choice says as much and yet the correct answer for #7 states MLK was not at all affected by transcendentalist thought. But you can't be influenced by a transcendentalist essay (and presumably by the ideas in said essay) and then turn around and say you actually weren't impacted by transcendentalist thought. And both were talking about civil disobedience too. Isn't that a contradiction in the passage/video explanation? I was under the impression that MLK was influenced by transcendentalists, just not as much as writers previously thought.

As for answer choice C, are morality and ethics the same thing on the LSAT?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-11-section-3-passage-1-questions/

I am working through drilling RC sections and PT11 S3 Q15 has me stumped.

The question asks for the assumption which the argument relies on, which means that the assumption shouldn't be stated.

I narrowed the choices down to (A) and (C).

I ultimately chose (A) because I found (C) explicitly stated in the passage (See lines 6-10 + 15-18, line 6-10 states that the only way for species growth in the manner that occurred in the deep sea mud is for there to not have been significant changes in climate, and then starting at line 15 he states that the amazon didn't have significant changes in climate. )

I don't see how a question can ask for an assumption the argument relies on, which I read as a Necessary Assumption then have the answer be a premise stated, not assumed.

Can someone help me bridge the gap here? I am clearly missing something.

#Help

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-11-section-3-passage-3-questions/

Hi guys! If there’s any UVA law alums or current students who would be willing to talk to me about the school then please PM me!

So this particular question has about 8 years worth of comments and about as much time's worth of confusion regarding why D weakens the argument because it seems to be attacking a premise, namely the one stating that these painters have to eat sea animals on the way from Norway to these caves. My question is just how is D not just going after the premise of the argument? I thought we weren't supposed to do that but the vid explanation just accepts D as is.

The only observation I could make is that the premise isn't stating that the cave painters actually did eat animals, but that if they did make the journey from Norway to these islands, then they did have to eat sea animals. But even this principle or conditional is still a premise, so I'm still stuck. And the way the stimulus is written seems to confirm that the painters did make this journey.

As for the argument, I thought the stimulus was concluding that the rock paintings couldn't be a reflection of the painters' current diets because they didn't have sea animals (at last, none that were "unambiguously depicted") and they had to eat sea animals during the journey from N to those islands and my goal was to find answer choices that provided possible scenarios where the paintings did reflect current diets even if they didn't have sea animals on them.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-1-question-20/

Hello! I have been studying since January using 7sage and took the June LSAT and received a 162 (162-168 range on PT's). I have not studied since, and am currently enrolled for the August but thinking of pushing back to October. I finally realized and recognized that I need to pay for outside help to reach my goal score of 168-170 after having anxiety about reaching out for help. I would love to discuss a strategy with a tutor and set out a schedule for the next few months, so please message me if you want a new student! (looking for 1/2x a week).

(Side note, not sure this is the best way to get a tutor off of 7sage, but everyone on JY's podcast seemed to do it this way so thought I would give it a shot. 7sage should build in "looking for tutor" as one of the posting categories!)

Thanks everyone and happy studying!

Hey 7 Sage Community!

The course has been very helpful and I started from a 143, on my first diagnostic to the early 160s (180-163) range. I'm starting to hit a slump where I don't really know how to progress as of a week ago. Does anyone have any overarching strategies they've used to break through their slump periods? I'm hoping to get out of this slump, even if it's by one point. Testing Date: August 2021.

Thanks!

Need help on this easy one. Stuck between C and E. Do not know why this is considered an easy one haha

Thanks 7Sage.

Hey guys - Does anyone have any general tips for Inference (author's perspective) or any inference on RC? It seems to be my weakest point and really wanted some tips on this.

here's a poem that i've found to be relatable to the pattern of studying for the LSAT, answer choices, strategies, etc. It's okay to miss questions--don't be so harsh on yourself, go for the balance: understand the mistake you made or what in the question tripped you up, and see it as a learning opportunity--you'll never make that mistake again!

"Balance is everything, is the only

way to hold on.

I've weighed the alternatives, the hold

as harbor: It isn't safe

to let go. But consider the hover,

choices made, the moment

between later and too late.

Hesitation is later, regret

too late. You can't keep turning

and turning, or expecting

to return. This earth

is not a wheel, it is a rock

that erodes, mountain by mountain.

And I have been too soft,

like sandstone, but there is a point

where I stand without a story,

immutable and moved, solid

as a breath in winter air.

I have seen my death and I know

it is my neighbor, my brother,

my keeper. In my life

I am going to keep trying

for the balance,

remembering the risks and the value

of extremes, and that experience

teaches the length of allowable lean;

that it is easier — and wiser —

to balance a stone as if on one toe

though it weigh a hundred pounds

than to push it back against the curve

of its own world."

Does anyone notice that on newer PTs, there have been more instances of themselves comparing answer choices in LR and asking which is the better one? (Especially with strengthen/weaken questions.) This is just something I've noticed myself doing more often on the newer PTs, whereas in the older ones, once in a while there might be a question that makes me do that, but most of the time the wrong answers have a very definitive reason as to why they're wrong.

Would love to know if this is actually a trend with how the LSAT is changing.

Hey guys - wanted to ask a quick question for those that struggle with anxiety on tests and anxiety in general.

Thanks so much.

Episode 47 is here!

https://soundcloud.com/user-737824810/47-7sager-jimmy-147-to-173-lsat

Subscribe to our podcast:

iTunes (Apple Podcasts) | Google Podcasts | SoundCloud

@"Quick Silver"

In arguments, we're supposed to take premises as facts and question the conclusions. But intermediate conclusions are both used as premises (to support the main conclusion) and as conclusions in and of themselves (albeit subsidiary ones).

So how would you treat them if you were trying to evaluate the validity of an argument? Is is acceptable to attack or challenge a sub-conclusion? Assume we have a weaken question-- would we ever see an instance of a correct answer attacking the causality of a sub-conclusion?

I took a test on Lawhub, is there a way to transfer it to 7sage?

Hello folks,

I have a question about improving my LG score. I consistently get around -1 on my BR for logic games but somehow I always get 3-5 questions wrong on the actual test. Getting a good BR score does not seem to be translating into a better actual score. Does anyone have any tips for this?

Thank you!

Would you minor in Japanese and aim to become a trilingual and guarantee all As from each class? Or just take some extra social science classes to broaden your perspective in law (or polish up my writing skill as I am not really a native English speaker)

I am a South Korean born international student, but Japanese to me is like guaranteed As. All 5 unit classes. No sweat.

My Major is Cognitive Science!

Hi! I am looking for a few folks in the Cambridge, Massachusetts area to study together in person for the August test. I am currently travelling but will be back in the area on July 27th. I am usually free after 5pm, some weekday mornings/afternoons, and weekends. I usually study at the Harvard coop bookstore, cafes in the area or yards on Harvard's campus. This year has been difficult for many people for a variety of reasons and I have had my personal struggles. I love online study groups, but I think I need more accountability/support in the last two weeks. If you're taking the test and would like to work together, please let me know! I am currently scoring within the 168-173 score range, with RC being my weakest section, but I am happy to work on other sections as well!

Hi! My timing got messed up (my fault) on a practice test, and I knew I did really bad on it so I just skipped two sections. Is there a way I can delete this from my analytics / stats like you can for problem sets?

Why does C weaken the argument if the low-income individuals aren't taxpayers? Isn't the city councilor's proposal to raise bus fares only meant to help taxpayers?

Edit: Answer choice C says "all" councilors believe that low-income people should be able to take advantage of buses. Since it says "all" of them believe that, does that mean the portion of councilors who think city taxes should be used to primarily benefit taxpayers believe that as well? Is that why C weakens?

And I thought the argument made sense at first because it looked as if it would force commuters, or non-taxpayers, to pay their fare share instead of having them continue to rely on the tax-payer funded bus fares, but the more I read it, the less the city councilor's proposal makes sense. How would raising bus fares for everyone in the city help taxpayers? Wouldn't that mean taxpayers would end up having to pay more? Was the city councillor who proposed this measure thinking that only commuters, or non-taxpayers, would have to pay for the increase in bus fares?

I'm looking to nail down my RC score, I just took a full timed section and went -8 on the whole thing. I don't feel it was my best performance (I was tired and my dog started barking midway through lol).

Anyways, I feel I could use some accountability here and am interested to see if there is anyone scoring within the same range (I feel like I usually score between -7 to -4) who would be interested in a weekly zoom session where we briefly discuss the passage and then go through BR together to pound out some reasoning and challenge each others POV's! Ideally I'm looking to form a group with no more than two others as I want to make the zoom calls pretty efficient. :)

I'm in Canada (EST) an I'd be hoping to meet one day a week in the morning/afternoon - just not evenings! I'll be taking the October exam and I'm currently working with RC in the 30s.