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.

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.

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

Thanks so much.

Hello everyone. So I’m taking the October 2021 test. I’m through with the core curriculum and I’m currently on practice test 42. I just tested a 162 (BR 170) w extra time, (trying to master the concepts first, then chip away at the time.) My goal is the mid at 160's under normal conditions. My senior undergrad semester starts in mid August so I won’t be able to devote as much time to studying like I am during this summer. I'm an older student with a very heavy and difficult-to-average-up GPA. Getting a 4.0 this semester is critical to getting my overall GPA where I want it. My question is this. It usually takes me 2 to 3 days to move on from one test to the next, after taking it, BRing, watching explanations and taking notes (bc I really try not to rush and take each stage seriously.) Anyway, if I maintain that, there’s no feasible way that I’m going to get through all the remaining PTs by October. But I’m not sure if just going in order and ending on PT 60 or something by the time the October test rolls around is a good idea. There will be dozens and dozens and years worth of tests that I will leave undone. Should I skip around? Take every other 3rd of 4th test? Focus on the most recent ones like the last 20-30? Anyone’s advice as to how to approach this would be greatly appreciated.

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!

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/

what is the best practice in between PTs? for example, I am planning on taking 2 tests per week till the august test but I work full time so i don’t have the capability of doing BR in one day (takes me around 2 days to do BR). If I’m just taking tests (and not scoring where I want) + doing BR in between is it enough? Should I try one test a week and drill the second half of the week? Any suggestion would be great! Thank you

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?

Hi all!,

I just started the 7sage course after doing 3 months of book study/lsat demon live courses. I feel like with the demon I never really got the fundamentals and ended up being 6 points off my goal score for the June LSAT and will be taking the August LSAT (and October if needed). I was wondering what strategy I should take? I am currently bouncing between LR-LG-RC day by day. So I started the LR section of the course, now I am on the introduction of Logic Games for example. With so little time to August is this a good strategy? Note I work full time and do about 2-3 hours a day.

I am really loving the course and completely regret not doing this, I feel like I didn't really learn anything with the Demon.

Thanks all!

My expected flaw for this question was : what if CEO are not representative of top management? Top management can include (CFO, VP, director etc...)

I found many of the answer choices are quite attractive. I was between D and E... I chose E because it match my prephrase. Two questions in short: Why is E wrong and why is D right?

I am not satisfied with the answer Manhattan forum provides, the reason they said this is not a unrepresentative sample is "I will not give you a standard poll or survey and expect you personally to decide that based on your subjective opinion of what constitutes a representative sample that the poll or survey is flawed"....

So polls can never be unrepresentative??

As my question for D: "CEO's claims are reflected in actual practice", how did they go from the popular belief is unfounded to presuming CEO's claims are reflected in actual practice??

Can someone explain why C isn't right

We know that she had to work hard on finding these docs because of how exceptional it is. So why can't we say it's scant

Admin Note: Edited title. Please user the format "PT#.S#.Q# (P#) - brief description of stimulus"

How is E correct? It appears to be supporting the conclusion not weakening it. My understanding of the argument's Conclusion is that it's telling environmentalists to relax because nature is going to adjust itself to the rising levels of the atmosphere.

E (if I'm understanding correctly) states that the Earth's natural adjustment process, which happens over the course of a million years, allows for the atmosphere to successfully cope with large short term variances in the carbon level.

How is this weakening? I leaned toward C initially because if carbon was just one piece of the atmospheric "blanket", then nature fixing just carbon wouldn't be enough to prevent the environment from getting dangerously hot.

Hi, I am scoring in the mid 150s at the moment and am writing in October. Anyone from Vancouver looking for a study group?

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!

I was wondering if there is any statistic or if anyone can speak from personal experience regarding the number of questions wrong a high scorer gets in regard to logical reasoning. I understand that it can depend from person to person and that you can make up for a low logical reasoning score by getting less mistakes in the other sections. However, in average I believe that there is a certain range of logical reasoning mistakes that high scorers make!

Thank you!

I didn't think there was a good answer...

Why is D correct? and what kind of flaw is this?

"Faden presumes, without providing justification, that the evidence for a claim has not been undermined unless that evidence has been proven false"

but I thought we are not allow to go after the truth of premise?

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

What is your strategy for determining when and when not to translate into logic while answering a Sufficient Assumption question?

Do you prefer to read the stimulus through and then translate to logic? Or do you prefer to translate into logic as you read through the stimulus?

The former is easier for me but it takes up too much time compared to the latter, which makes me loose my understanding of the stimulus.

I need a more time efficient method to deploy for this q-stem category.

Any suggestions, tips or practice habits/methods would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks]!!

#HELP

Hi, I just wrapped up blind review for a section and the only question that I got wrong and then BR correctly has a (?) next to its pin. What does this mean? I haven't spotted this in any of my other problem sets.

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.

Could anyone explain this to me? I'm a little lost. Thanks!

I am wondering how to format my double major. I majored in criminal justice and psychology and ideally want to list both individual major GPAs along with my overall GPA, but am not sure how to format it. Criminal justice (3.97), psych (4.00), overall (3.86).

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?

This might be a really dumb question but I'm really confused. Since August is 4 sections - are they all scored, or only 3? And if so, then its out of 75 and not 101 (roughly), but how do we get our score? Should I be doing "simulate flex" or just keep doing all 4?

Thanks!