Anyone know when we can sign up for time slot?

I started keeping a wrong answer journal which has been helpful! But im struggling a lot with the organization. I get overwhelmed by the sheer amount of stuff on my spreadsheet. Any recommendations for format or how to keep it from getting too chaotic.

If you finished core curriculum and are currently working through the pt’s with blind review, at what point can you just interrupt that process with drilling on specific weak areas?

Lg is still my weakest, and so after already doing the foolproof method on all the lg core curriculum, I was thinking I’d look through and try to do most of the types of games I’m weakest at based on the keyword 7sage groups them in. As long as I leave fresh full time pt’s to test and br with, that’s an ok approach right? I just worry because it diverges from the lesson plan. But lg is supposed to be the easiest to improve and so I feel I would get more of a return on investment putting most of my energy into that at this point

would love some help on this! I've realized I am able to get 100% accuracy when I do LG sections untimed but when I do timed I usually miss about 5-7 (more often than not on the last game) and this especially happens when there is a misc game thrown into the loop.

I foolproof everyday but i was wondering if anyone has gone through something similar and how they improved it.

I recently took PT 83 and added time and a half and got a 160. It seems like I am starting to get the concepts down, but how can I get faster to be able to achieve that in normal time? I am getting better at LG but struggle with completing it. Same with RC.

Hello,

I'm looking for someone that might over all be in the SB county area( Rancho and/or Victorville) that would like to meet up and study in person? I'm averaging about a 145-150 right now so someone that might be around that study level or higher would be awesome.

Hi,

I have a question about how Lawgic is drawn out for LSAT 21 Section 2 Question 12 December 1996 test.

The line in the logical reasoning stimulus goes as, “Unless these techniques are implemented, erosion of productive topsoil cannot be controlled.”

JY Ping translated it into Lawgic as /I(implement) -> /C(controlled), or C -> I

However, my understanding is that the sentence should be re-written as, “Erosion of productive topsoil cannot be controlled unless these techniques are implemented.”

This line can be translated into /C -> /I since “unless” is a negate sufficient and “cannot” is negate necessary. Thus, C is negated due to “unless”, and I is negated due to “cannot.”

What am I doing wrong here?

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

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-2-question-12/

Hello Sagers,

I have been perfecting logic games but the interesting thing that I am seeing is that on certain games my timing varies on how fast or slow I finish the game but my accuracy is there with going -0. Obviously getting the correct answers is most important. However, should I focus at all on the timing?

#help

Dear all,

I have a hard time to be fully convinced of why AC B is a necessary assumption.

I'm mostly disturbed by the phrase "most commonly grown". I would have interpreted the modifier "commonly grown" as the non-new potato strains, and then B would obviously be the correct answer (since, if the non-new strains could have produced the same yields as 20 years ago, it would wreck the argument). But isn't "most commonly grown" a modifier which indicate a subset of those non-new potato strains? If so, the negation of that assumption could still be compatible with the argument (e.g. if this subset comprised 55% of the potatoes 20 years ago, that is 55 million tons, then even if it did reach the 55 million tons the argument would still hold).

Thanks!

What days and times are available to take the LSAT? All I see on the website is it says starting August 14th. I would be interested in taking it closer to August 21st in the afternoon.

Hey I'm back again with a dumb observation about one of these questions that I think is frustrating.

In this case we're talking about the fuel requirements for a space ship going to Mars (or its moon, Phobos).

The question premise states that the mission is manned, which, if you assume that all manned flights mandate return trips, leads you to the correct answer, E. This is not explicitly stated - it's a required assumption to arrive at this answer choice.

Now lets talk about answer choice D - the SHORTEST distance between Mars and is less than half the distance between Earth and Mars. There is one thing I can logically infer from this choice:

Now it's possible that the moon has a stationary orbit and is always further away from Earth than Mars, however, if I assume that orbits Mars, then it necessarily will reach a point where it is closer to Earth than Mars is. Or perhaps it does have a stationary orbit, and it is always closer to the Earth than Mars. Doesn't matter. All other considerations being equal, this would mean that reaching Phobos at it's closest point could possibly be closer than Mars at it's closest point.

This inference assumes nothing outside of what is stated in the question - it's an inference based on the fact that there is a non-zero difference between the distance of Earth-Mars and the distance from Earth-Phobos.

The correct answer requires an assumption - that the manned expedition requires a return trip. If we don't make this assumption, this answer resolves the discrepancy in no way.

I realize that answer choice D does not provide objectively solid resolution to the discrepancy in the passage. In fact, the language seems to indicate that it does NOT resolve the discrepancy because it explicitly states that the distance between Phobos and Mars is less than half the distance between Earth and Mars, but the trip to Mars requires twice as much fuel than the trip to Phobos.

My argument is this: We don't know what other considerations affect fuel consumption. We don't know if the manned mission is coming back to Earth. What I do know, is that I can logically infer that a greater distance traveled will lead to greater fuel consumption. The only way this is possible is if answer choice D is true - that there is a non-zero distance between Phobos and Mars.

It seems unlikely that this question would appear on a modern LSAT - it's possible that one-way manned missions to Mars were simply outside of the realm of possibility when this question was written. Today that is not true. In fact, it is very possible that the first manned mission to Mars is one-way, but who knows - it's irrelevant in the context of the LSAT which is what makes this question so infuriating. At the end of the day, I'm not concerned with whether or not I get this question right, but rather whether my reasoning is sound. Overall, my argument is that this is just a bad question, with unsound answer choices - I wouldn't actually argue that they should change the correct answer to D as that would seem to be an unfair question due to the sheer weakness of the inference in resolving the discrepancy in the stimulus.

I guess my question is would this question exist on an LSAT written today, and could this objection get it thrown out? I don't think E can be considered a correct answer unless they were to both eliminate choice D and replace it with an answer choice that in no way speaks to the distance between Phobos and Mars. Maybe I've been doing to much LR practice and I'm just losing my mind.

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Hi, I am looking for a study partner to meet two or three times a week (virtual or in person) to break down the material. I’ve been studying for a month averaging 140.

I got hit by a car while riding my bike. I’m good but my left arm had some severe trauma and needed two surgeries. I’m going to have some difficulties writing and I want to stick with the June test: I’ve been consistently PTing 170s and feel confident. Will LSAC accept a late accommodations request? If this even something warranting accommodations. Otherwise I might just suck it up buttercup.

I'm currently using the Modern video player and the 2.4x and 3x speed playback options that were previously available are now gone.

Im currently in the high 160s looking to break into the 170s. Doing it in a group as whole seems to be the right way forward so shoot me a message if you are interested.

Hello Everyone! I am studying for the lsat and want to find a dedicated group of people who are willing to meeting once or twice a week on Zoom, keep each other motivated, and help each other. Anyone interested?

Hey all, I graduated college 6 years ago, and looking to change my career by going to law school. To be frank, I am actually going to the career that I had always wanted to (i.e. to be a lawyer). But since finishing college (Brown), life has taken a different turn.

It would be great to meet other people like me. I disliked all sorts of standardized test when I was young, so it's still a challenge for me to study for the LSAT. haha! But I am excited.

I look forward to meeting you all.

Hey guys, Im having a lot of trouble with Logical Reasoning so I got the loophole and powerscore book to read. Im following the 7Sage syllabus and Im in the middle of the Validity and Must Be True sections. However, I want to read these books first and then finish the 7sage LR. Do you guys think it would be ok if I skip down to Logic Games while I read these books? Im not really sure if Im going to be missing information from LR that I need in LG. Thanks everyone!

Like the title suggests, one of my big weaknesses is the tendency to galaxy brain ACs - it leads me to change my answer (usually the right choice) to a wrong one. I always manage to convince myself that the answer I chose instinctively is incorrect, and I do get a couple of questions right after I go back for a second attempt.

How do I avoid this going forward?

I just noticed that logically follows are listed under MBT questions. I've been approaching these questions as if I'm supposed to decipher what the speaker would be most likely to say, as opposed to what must be true...

My question is: are logically follows really just MBT questions?

Hey folks,

I'm holding office hours again because it was fun last time (https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/28551/impromptu-office-hours-whos-on-their-grind-today-done) and I just got another late cancellation. While I could just take a half day and be happy, I'm not going to because I'm the kind of person who tutors the LSAT for a living (weird doesn't even begin to describe it). And this time, the schedule shift even came early enough that I can actually give ~15 hours of notice! Yay. Maybe next time, it'll be a full day in advance.

Anyway, I will hold open court from 4pm-6pm at least (the time and length of the original lesson I had planned). After that, we'll see how long I feel like sticking around/when I get hungry enough to wander off in search of dinner. As with last time, I might be fiddling with some random stuff or get distracted occasionally, but I'm happy to talk shop while doing it.

[Done!]

And, since last time I realized that nobody probably knows who I am or why anyone would care, I'll paste my tutor directory description here for reference:

"After graduating from Columbia Law in 2010, I've taught the LSAT both alongside and in parallel with JY as my full time employment and passion. JY and I gave LSAT seminars together up and down the east coast with PreProBono for a while, and I was around when 7Sage was just a figment of JY's imagination. I'm still the only person beside JY himself who's ever had an official instructional video up on the site. In addition to my private tutoring work, I'm PreProBono's senior instructor, a featured instructor for 7Sage, and run the LSAT department for a small test prep boutique in New York City as their lead tutor.

I've worked with students from all across the United States and also internationally, from a diverse set of countries including China, Korea, Qatar, France, Brazil, Canada, Turkey, and the Netherlands. My tutoring achievements include a 136-to-172 score jump, sending students to Harvard in 7 of my 9 years of tutoring (including one year where I sent three students to Harvard and four to NYU in the same cycle), and having students of mine attend every T14 except Stanford (because they're picky) and UVA (a lot of acceptances, but sadly no matriculations), many with substantial scholarships.

While I'm not egotistical enough to say I've seen it all, I know the LSAT inside and out and I'm confident I can help you out no matter what your situation is."

Of course, there's a perfectly reasonable argument to be made that you still shouldn't listen to me. I do swear quite a bit, after all (so if you have sensitive sensibilities, this might not be your jam). But I suppose the only way you'll find out for sure is to listen for yourself.

Hope to see some of you there!

Looking for a study buddy to meet up once a week to review wrong answers.

Hey guys, I'm waitlisted in my top school and I wanted to know how many others may be in the same situation. What's your coping strategy? Are you studying to improve your score for the following year (if you don't get in)? Are you getting your financials in place (just in case you do)? Are you call bombing admissions to see what movement (if any) is happening and/or your index score? Or, are you normal and doing yoga.

Hello all, I have been studying for the LSAT since last summer, and am currently PTing in the low 160s and looking to bump that to at least the mid-160s for June. I would love to work together one-on-one at least once per week to go over PTs or sections to crystalize my understanding and hopefully help you do the same. I have a pretty good process, but in my experience, going over BR with a partner is incredibly helpful. If interested, please PM me. Thanks in advance and happy studying!

What type of flaw is this?

Dean: The mathematics department at our university has said that it should be given the sole responsibility for teaching the course Social Sciences.

Correct Answer choice B:

"purports to refute a view by showing that one possible reason for that view is insufficient"

Wording is a bit hard for me to understand. What type of flaw is this?

edit:

I got rid of C, D, E and chose A between A & B:

"presumes, without providing justification, that expertise in a subject does not enable one to teach that subject well"

I think the key deduction I should have made was that for A, the stimulus/argument does not talk about a subject being taught "well". So this should have clicked for me as a flaw that is out of scope.

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description of question]"

I deleted the rest of the stim because it is against our Forum Rules to post LSAT question verbatim on the Forum

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-3-question-25/