Hi I was just wondering if someone could clear this up for me, because this confusion cost me quite a few points on in-out games, by making me hesitate

Example rules:

(1) K (----) /M

(2) K ----> /M

(1) would be a bi-conditional (always apart never together) and (2) would be a typical not-both rule.

My confusion centers around what would happen if given the premise K is out ( /K )...

The second rule would be considered irrelevant (sufficient failed), and "M" is free to float (correct me on this if I'm wrong); but would the first rule get "triggered" (meaning M would be in) because its an always apart never together bi-conditional?OR would the bi-conditional also be considered irrelevant because the sufficient condition is also getting failed in (1)? I'm hoping somebody could explain the logic behind how/what happens. I mean in the explanation videos JY usually splits the master game board if provided with a rule like (1) where K is in and M is out on one, and vice versa on the other, so you never have to really deal with the situation I've presented, since its already represented.

I guess I'm just curious lol

7Sagers! Our very own Amy Bonnaffons (@amycbon) wrote a short story that's going to be on This American Life this weekend! Listen to it and be amazed! She is incredible.

Hi everyone!

I just purchased the LSAT Ultimate + Course and, although I am very excited and really willing to start, I am feeling a bit overwhelmed as the wealth of material to cover is quite vast. Do you have any suggestions as to where to start from and what to start with, please?

Any comments are really appreciated!

Thanks!

I’m taking the December LSAT and I’ve been scoring from 167-174 on my PTs. It’s a pretty wide range, so I’m hoping to get results that are more consistently in the 170s. What’s a realistic goal for improving my score in time for the LSAT? What should I be doing? I work full time, but I could take time off if that would make a difference in my score.

Does anyone know for sure? I wanted to take the March test so I would have more time to prepare without having overlapping time demands for Dec 2017 finals. I am a Junior, and if you are allowed three test takes that means I must take the Feb 2018 test, and have backups as June 2018 and Fall 2018 to send out law school applications in fall 2018.

I have neglected logic games for a while now thinking I was good to go and focused all my attention on LR (which btw I have seen hardly any improvement)...

Is there any way I can achieve -0 by December test?

Right now I am fool-proofing the CC LG problem sets.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

Hey 7sagers,

I have started to focus on doing individual untimed/timed sections and question type drilling to tackle Logical Reasoning.

I've saved PT 50~80+ for full time PT's and dedicated PT 1~49 for drilling (QT+ Sections). More specifically, I have designated PT 1~20 for question type drilling and PT 21~49 for section drills.

I'm wondering if this is similar to how you guys are drilling LR.

If possible, could you also share at which point (after how many section drills/QT drills) you started to see improvement in the section?

I'm unsure how many sections I should be doing per week to gain stamina and develop a sense to do well on LR.

any help is appreciated!

Thank you!

Hi 7sage fam,

I am just finishing up the core-curriculum; my question is, what's next? How did you guys most productively spend your time after the CC? Was it PT after PT? There doesn't seem to be any explicit instructions following the completion of the course, so I'm looking for advice there. Thanks in advance! Good luck everyone!

The new NA and SA questions in PT 70 onward are killing me. I thought I had a strong grasp of them since I did well on almost all of them from PTs 52 - 69. And now I feel super discouraged and feel as if I am not even good at them anymore...

Any advice?

I took the test in Sept. and I have been able to narrow down the parts of the test that I struggled on. I struggled on the necessary assumptions and the sufficient assumptions on both the practice and real test. I have gone through all of the videos and looked through multiple articles to try to figure out exactly what I am doing wrong and I can't figure it out. It is like when I follow along with JY, I understand perfectly, but when I am doing the questions myself, I never figure it out like he does. Can anyone offer any hints, or articles online that might clear up the situation for me? I would really appreciate it.

Just wondering, but can you go back after a section is done and fill in the bubble sheet (like if you leave the ones you didn't get to blank, and then when you have time say at the start of the next section to finish bubbling in the ones you are guessing on)?

Hi everyone,

I just took a PT and feel kind of mixed about it. I have improved dramatically on LG, it used to be my worst section and now it's my best. I got kind of what I expected on LR. On RC, I missed 16! On all the tests I have taken before this, the most I ever missed was 7, but normally only miss 4 or 5. Looking at the exam, I missed 7 questions from a single passage all because I made some wrong assumptions and did not read it thoroughly enough. I guess my question is, should I treat this section as a major concern now? Is there anything any of you have done to improve your RC score? I hadn't focused on RC at all really because I always assumed I had it down and now I am kind of shaken. My school is offering a practice LSAT tomorrow morning which I will be taking, should I wait and see if I do better while paying more attention to the RC section?

Thanks for your help, I rarely write on here but seeing all of your posts and seeing how dedicated everyone on this site is really inspires me.

Can someone explain how they approached this question and got to answer choice D? Thank you so much in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-4-question-01/

Hey everyone,

Can anyone explain the difference between the main point of a passage and a passage's purpose?

I understand that the passage's purpose answers the question "Why is the author writing this?" but to me, the answer to that question seems to be the main point.

For example, if a passage is about how new scientific research techniques have allowed us to definitively conclude that climate change is real, the answer to "why is the author writing this?" would be "to tell me how new scientific research techniques have allowed us to conclude that climate change is real." That would imply that main point and purpose are more or less the same, so I feel like I'm thinking about this wrong.

Thanks!!

Video: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-3-game-2/

Why isn't possible that Mannequin 1 and Mannequin 2 wear identical clothes?

The rule only says "Neither Mannequin wears all three color" and "Each mannequin wears a hat in a different color from the jacket it wears"

M1 : Hat: Red Jacket: Navy Skirt: Navy Tie: Red

M2 : Hat: Red Jacket: Navy Skirt: Navy

This is for assumption family questions (flaw, na, sa, psa)

I see the conclusion. I see the support. But even for the easiest questions (as in one of the 0-12ish), I still can't go into the answer choices with an idea of what the a/c should be. The passages usually look right, but I know it's not perfect and there's a missing link/connection, there is an assumption the author is making. I try to make a prediction, but I end up not finding one I am confident in and I move on to the a/c. Once I go through the a/c's I usually can get the right answer. But within that time, I am losing a lot of precious time that I know can be used to 1. finish the entire section (usually 5 that I don't finish) and then 2. not rushing the 15+ questions, which are usually the more complex ones. I know that another problem with this is my mind wanders a lot still, leading me to re-read a lot.

Other than just keep drilling and keep practicing, any strategies on predictions? Memory retention? Or is there something I wrote in this post that seems worrying? Please point it out.

Thanks!

i know of Josh and David's workshops every week....wondered if there are any others or any coming up- bootcamps and sorts for those of us labouring away for the Dec LSAT....

would do us much needed good :)

So I came across a discussion and someone mentioned that for weakening questions he/she uses this strategy from time to time: negate the conclusion and then find the answer choice that supports that conclusion.

I mean there's more probably to this so maybe someone can explain this a little bit better but I honestly can say this works.

It has helped me find the correct answer choice much easier for more harder weakening questions.

Thought I would share for some of those having trouble with weakening questions.

Has anyone else experienced this or used this strategy?

So the title of the discussion is gigantic but it summarizes it pretty accurately. I ask because during the 40's and 50's PTs, I was essentially scanning them just to get a sense of what to expect and whether I had to focus perhaps on a specific point of view or paragraph and I would also make a mark on sentences that are asked. For these PTs, I would get -1/-4 consistently and now that I am with the 60s and 70s PTs, the RC is just destroying me. Sometimes I do what I mentioned above with some success and sometimes I don't. Just wanted to get a sense of what people do here, especially of course if you are super successful with the RC passages. Maybe it all boils down to the RC passages becoming more and more difficult over the years, I don't know! Thanks!

I'm a bit confused with the wording in the right answer choice-

This is how I worked on this question, please let me know if there is a different way for getting this question right -

1980 (A) GDP = 10,000

1980 ( EEC) GDP = 5000

1990 (A) GDP =11,000

1990 (EEC) GDP = 5000

OR

1990 (A) GDP= 10,000

1990 (EEC) GDP= 4000

I chose D through POC but still a bit unclear on the math!

Thanks in advance

Hi everyone. I am planning to take the LSAT on December 2nd, but am scoring in the high 150s. My goal is 170, but I understand that is difficult given the time crunch. What should I do? I have been studying fundamentals for around 3 months, but I am seeing little improvement and I am starting to freak out. Should I keep studying and hope to get a 160, should I postpone it to June and start everything over, or should I just give up on law school and start studying for the GRE (I know that's very dramatic). My anxiety is through the roof. This test is so difficult and I just want it to be over with. What advice do you have?

I'm just curious how long it took others for their blind review scores and actual scores to match. Thanks!

Hi everyone,

I am wondering what type of skipping strategies you all use. Also, what are some common question types that you skip when pressed for time?

Thanks!

Hi all,

In the explanation for this game board (https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/inout-game-2-game-board-setup/?ss_completed_lesson=17878), JY uses group 3 logical operator, unless, to translate the lawgic. I thought that he would use group 4, cannot. How do we know which logical operator to use when there are two in the sentence?

Working on some apps last night, and realized that lsac shows my application fees for numerous schools (Columbia, NYU, Penn too name a few) as waived, even though I haven't received paper or electronic mail notification!? Curious if this is common and legit, or an lsac glitch. If its real, dope, i just saved 400 bucks as i plan to blanket the top 14 with applocations!