Hi everyone! Because a student of mine is taking the January test and he won't be working on the lsat anymore, I'm looking for one more student now. If you're interested in working with me, please send me a message. Remember to tell me your RC score range, PTs that you have done, your weakness, the time you plan to take the test. Thanks!

Hi everyone! I’m Cindy. I would like to have a student and offer free tutoring on RC. Sami is my tutor and I’ve been working with her for nine months. I learned how to read actively, break down and evaluate the arguments on RC and I have made huge improvement (I was scoring -10+ before, I didn’t understand most of the things I read in RC). I am not a native speaker but the reading skills that I learned has helped me deal with the difficulty most of the time when I don’t understand the meaning of some words. Now I score around -5 on RC. I realized that the best way to improve my skills more quickly might be teaching it. This can be beneficial for both of us since we both get to improve. AND IT’S FREE!!! I am looking for someone who is currently scoring around -8 or more on RC and would like to work with me. It would be one hour per week. Please contact me if you’re interested. :)

I'm in GMT+8. It’s +14 hours ahead of CST. But we can definitely make this work.

Is there anyone that works full-time and is going to go to law school part-time? I am teacher at a high school and am considering it, I am not sure how I would be able to do it though. Is anybody going to do this? If so, just curious what job do you have and how do you plan on juggling the two? It looks like the part-time evening programs run from 6-9 and only on weekdays, which means I would be working 8-4:30 (4:30 being the earliest I could leave). I go back and forth on whether or not this is feasible and if I should attempt it, any advice?

LR Question Referring To: PT#J07 S#3 Q#17 (Exercising muscles in one back...)

Hey all! Hope all is well, I just have a question about how to properly analyze conditionals in Premises, Sub-Conclusions, and Conclusions? Right now I noticed that my understanding has been pretty lacking and I am not sure if I am steering myself in the right direction or not. If someone could perhaps correct my reasoning or approach that would be very much appreciated.

Premises

Proper Alignment ----> Muscles Opposite Sides Pull Equally

Sub Conclusion

Maintaining a Healthy Back ----> Balanced Muscle Development

Conclusion

Maintaining a Healthy Back ---> Exercise Muscles on Opposite Sides Equally

So upon reading @Sami wonderful explanation here (https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/9561/pt-june-2007-s3-q17-when-excercising-the-muscles) I saw that she identified a gap between the PA and MHB. While I was pouring over the relationship between the two I, perhaps falsely assumed, that Maintaining a Healthy Back ---> Proper Alignment because after considering the Negation of it being Maintaining a Healthy Back and /Proper Alignment I reasoned that Proper Alignment was a Necessary component for Maintaining a Healthy Back...

...and while I am writing this I feel like I am making assumption upon assumption :X because right this very second I am considering whether there are varying degrees of Proper Alignment, what the hell is even this Proper Alignment, what defines Proper Alignment, would 1% of a Improper Alignment be prevent ones back from being thrown into the category of Proper Alignment?! Anyways,

because should /Proper Alignment be the case it seems hard pressed for me to say that one could claim that they are Maintaining a Healthy Back. So upon reasoning or screwing myself over I saw that because Maintaining a Healthy Back ---> Proper Alignment I could connect up the Conditional in the Premises to the Sub Conclusion to get

Premises

Conclusion

So from the Premises I inferred that Muscles Opposite Sides Pull Equally and Balanced Muscle Development because they were both now connected to Maintaining a Healthy Back. So I guess with that I just equated the two ideas (I am honestly not even sure if you can do that...) and just went off looking for something that would connect either Muscles Opposite Sides Pull Equally or Balanced Muscle Development to Exercise Muscles on Opposite Sides Equally because it seemed to be the only gap remaining.

So then I read @Sami explanation again and under her explanation for Answer Choice: A she says...

" we know that there is a relationship between balanced muscle developed and proper alignment of back, but does the stimulus say that having a balanced muscle development is sufficient/enough to guarantee the proper back alignment? No, its says its needed but does not guarantee that it would lead to a proper back alignment. Other things can also despite having a balanced muscle development could lead someone not to have the proper alignment of back."

And now I am even more lost because I fail to see how the Stimulus says that Balanced Muscle Development is Necessary for Proper Alignment. It seems like all the Premises is doing is just explaining with the conditional (Proper Alignment ----> Muscles Opposite Sides Pull Equally) why the conditional in the Sub Conclusion is the case being (Maintaining a Healthy Back ----> Balanced Muscle Development). If we take what is contained in the Premises to be true and only question the support then wouldn't the already established connection Sami mentioned, Proper Alignment --> Balanced Muscle Development, already connect the Premises to the Sub-Conclusion because it would just be...

Premises

Maintaining a Healthy Back ---> Proper Alignment ----> Muscles Opposite Sides Pull Equally

Conclusion

Maintaining a Healthy Back ---> Exercise Muscles on Opposite Sides Equally

because if we accept the Premises as true cant we chain up the other conditions associated with it which would basically mean that the first gap mentioned by Sami being between Proper Alignment and Maintaining a Healthy Back is essentially nonexistent?

My apologies for the long post I am just concerned with how I feel like I arrived at the correct answer with some fucking bizarre reasoning that I cant even fully comprehend. Any help or clarification would be very much appreciated! Thanks again. I need a damn drink.

When I try to make my own problem sets, it used to let me know which questions I did before and how many times. This function does not show up for me anymore and I am unable to filter by clean or already taken.

We’re almost finished compiling the application requirements of every ranked ABA-approved law school: https://coda.io/d/Canonical-7Sage-Law-School-List_daa7untIi1o/2020-App-Requirements_sumP8#2020-Law-School-Requirements_tu7bq

These are taken word-for-word from the schools’ LSAC applications. They’re a handy way to check requirements before you submit. Just type the name of your school in the search box:

This document also notes which schools interview, and it collects accounts of interviews from last cycle:

Finally, it has information about medians, acceptance rates, yields, scholarship awards, and more:

If you prefer a different format, we've also written out the requirements for T40 schools:

We hope it’s useful. Good luck!

Trying to create problem sets from specific PTs I’ve taken in the past and cannot filter by PT. I can do so for LG and RC

Through my 7sage account I have access to PTs 36-58; I have taken PTs 36-43. I am also taking the November & January LSAT. For my last 6 PTs I have been consistently scoring between 165-168 (diagnostic 153) and BRing always above 170.

I started to get worried about the differences between the old and new LSATs so took PT 77 and scored just below my usual range (163) but not so much that it alarmed me. I honestly did not notice a major difference in the test - RC felt the same, LG was -1 and LR was where my score dipped but not too bad (during that hour the library was overrun with screaming 6 graders so that may be partially responsible for my dip in score).

I am wondering if there are any success stories from people who only practiced from PTs up to 58 - I really do not want to spend more money on all of the latest PTs but also it is a small price to pay for LSAT success.

I have access to some newer PTs but cannot BR them as they are with a different online course so this additional factor pushes me to want to use them as a diagnostic not a study tool.

I was scoring an average of 167, 169. I got three scores above170 in the last month. Now I just scored a 162 and before that I had a 165. I'm taking the November test. To anyone who has experience with underperformance-- why do you think you underperformed? What do you think helped or made it worse?

I can’t see the number of times I drilled specific problems and logic games anymore as of today.

I haven’t toggled any settings nor reset any data. Is there a way to restore this information?

Hi guys! I'm trying to make the jump from 167 to 170. My BR score right now is 177. I missed 16 on PT 68 and missed 18 on 71. What is your advise? I'm planning to take the LSAT this November. I'm aiming for the top 14, so I don't know if 167 would still be a decent score. I really do want to break into the 170s if possible though. I'm studying full time so please give me your tips

PT68 S1 2019-10-30 1 week ago RC -4 -3

PT68 S2 2019-10-30 1 week ago LR -4 -1

PT68 S3 2019-10-30 1 week ago LR -5 -1

PT68 S4 2019-10-30 1 week ago LG -3 -1

PT71 S1 2019-11-07 6 mins ago LR -5 -3

PT71 S2 2019-11-07 6 mins ago LG -1 -0

PT71 S3 2019-11-07 6 mins ago LR -6 -2

PT71 S4 2019-11-07 6 mins ago RC -6 -1

what should I be doing in the last week/ final days before the test??

I don't want to burn myself out, but I do want to keep making progress.

! or 2 PTs? or is that too many??

Hey,

Planning on taking an exam in either February or March... looking for a study buddy who wants to score mid 160+.

DM and we will go from there.

Thanks

Are there any technical issues with the QB? It won’t allow me to select the difficulty of the question without unselecting the type of question.

Hi all,

A couple questions about the digital test:

(1) I've noticed that 7Sage's digital PTs differ slightly from the three digital PTs that LSAC has made available. Most notably is the option to collapse answer choices on 7Sage's PTs, an option not available on LSAC's PTs.

An LSAC representative told me that the format of the digital PTs that LSAC has made public is exactly like what we can expect to see on the test. I was hoping to confirm that here.

(2) Does there seem to be any consensus regarding the whole stylus-vs.-fingers question for ease of navigating the test? I’m not interested for highlighting or for using any other features, but rather just for scrolling RC passages and selecting answer choices.

Thanks for any thoughts, folks!

Say I got 90%+ of a test correct on LR and RC, but did badly on LG. Can I reset LG without deleting all the information with my original score?

I find it difficult to take answers off the PDF and have to cross out wrong choices on paper, however, I don't want to delete my test score and original attempt info.

Is there a way to do this? Or is there a way to only delete one section answers?

Hey everyone, just have a general quesiton regarding the fool proof method of logic games. Should I be also answering the quesitons when i fool proof games or just stick with set-up, inferences etc? I seem to find that by repeated game 5 or above the answers just seem to be too easy because i have basically memorized them at that point. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks everyone!

My current plan would be to graduate from Bowen as it has low tuition and practice in Arkansas. So is this a case where I don’t necessarily have to go to higher tier schools?

I plan to apply for law school next year or the year after. If my school uploads my final undergraduate transcript now, will it be okay to leave it until I apply?

I also have not paid for CAS yet. Can I upload the transcript(and recommendations) before I pay? Will it remain in the system for the next two years? Thanks.

It's normally split into three tasks under each test, and now I cant find the videos? I have ultimate?

Im trying to look for answers to the LR questions from PT 9. Before the digital change, you could enter it manually or find them. Now, its forcing me to take the test digital first

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

I just had dinner with the Admissions director of my local law school (social friend) and she said the logic games are going to be shortly dropped from the LSAT? What is this? I stop lurking for 2 months and now they have plans to change the darn test??

Is this option still available for visually impaired?

Hey guys,

I need a lot more practice on necessary assumption. I wen through all the video but still doesn't feel comfortable :/ where do you guys go to find more questions to practice?

Hey all,

took the October lsat and waiting on baited breath.

I'm having some transcript confusion and was wondering what you all thought.

I spent the first 3 years of undergrad at an unaccredited institution with a 4.0 GPA

I then transferred to an Accredited college (who accepted those credits but without GPA) and will be granted a bachelors by the end of this year. The issue is I just started at the accredited place and don't have any transcripts from them yet.

Basically I'm wondering if I just send LSAC the credits from my first college (the unaccredited one) will they count that as a real GPA.

Thanks 🙏