So I've compiled a very thorough list of all of the LR problems that I've missed or struggled mightily with on previous PTs, and have gone over them again by doing them as if they were real LR sections - doing 26-27 problems at a time in 35 minutes. I'm still missing anywhere from 2-5 of them each "section." These are the problems I now see that I truly struggle with. I was wondering what's the best way to tackle these problems going forward?

I currently approach problems first by identifying the structure and conclusion of the argument if there is one, looking for key words and phrases (e.g. "some people"; "minimal risk"), and tricky/subtle changes in subject (e.g. premise discusses mammals but conclusion mentions marine reptiles).

When I compiled the list, I made sure to look for trends in the types of questions I was missing (necessary assumption, weaken, etc.) But how can I hone this strategy to the few problems I missed again? I feel like there are specific and various tricks employed within each question type.

Tips & advice welcome, thanks in advance.

Please link any below

Under question #2 in this section, JY uses the conditional indicator "If" to translate the sentence to the sufficient part instead of "Any" at the beginning of the sentence. Can someone explain why this is? If there are two conditional indicators from the same group listed in the sentence, which one are we supposed to use as sufficient and which one should we use for necessary?

7Sagers,

On Wednesday, August 23, at 9 p.m. ET, we’ll host a special personal statement workshop featuring 7Sage editors Amy Bonnaffons and Chris Schlegel.

Amy and Chris will be workshopping real first drafts submitted by 7Sage students a few weeks ago. This is your chance to see how a professional editor thinks about the revision process. And if that’s not enough to entice you…

At the end of the webinar, we’ll randomly select two attendees for a free round of editing with Chris or Amy!

You’ll find details about joining the webinar below. Farther down still, you’ll find the drafts that Amy and Chris chose. Read them yourself and think about how you would revise.

Webinar: Personal Statement Workshop

Wed, Aug 23, 2017 9:00 PM - 10:00 PM EDT Join by going to this link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/579343661

You can also dial in using your phone: United States: +1 (312) 757-3121

Access Code: 579-343-661 First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: https://care.citrixonline.com/g2m/getready

#---

Essay 1

Many people view Costco as a wonderland of gallon-sized jars of mayonnaise, industrial cans of vegetables, packages of toilet paper large enough to last the average family a year, and $1.50 ready-to-eat hot dog combos that haven’t increased in price for decades. But for me, Costco has been the backbone of my work experience, teaching me valuable skills and work ethic that could only be learned through hands-on experience. My stint at Costco began as a part-time college job to pay living expenses just in time for my first semester at Creighton University. My job at the big box retailer is one aspect of my life that has remained constant throughout my educational pursuits: from graduating college, to studying as a paralegal, to my journey to law school.

My acceptance to Creighton University brought me 1500 miles away from my hometown of Reno, Nevada to the mid-western town of Omaha, Nebraska where I was hired at Costco the week my first semester began. My weekdays were spent waking up before dawn for the 5am shift and leaving by 10am to spend the rest of the afternoon in lectures. I used the weekends to complete homework assignments and worked the late-night shift at Costco. My wages covered rent, food, and other living expenses allowing me to graduate with a de minimis amount of student loans.

Costco not only provided a means of financial support, but lead me to a great deal of self-discovery that ultimately brought me where I am today as I apply to Wake Forest University School of Law to start the next chapter in my educational career; I have learned I am highly organized, work best under pressure, have outstanding time management skills, and enjoy utilizing my strong language skills. Participation in leadership roles on and off the clock including safety committee representative, coordinator for the volunteer reading program, and Live Healthy program advocate for the warehouse promoted my personal growth. Like Creighton, Costco demanded that I give my best to the task at hand no matter how simple.

The rigorous course load of the Jesuit university not only shaped me academically, but also religiously, spiritually, and morally. The religion-based courses, including philosophy and morals and ethics, helped create the foundation for my analytic and research skills. Like many young college students, I did not have a definite academic or professional goal in mind upon beginning college studies and I took a plethora of classes in hopes of expanding my career possibilities. I do not regret the variety of courses that comprise my college transcript as I feel my diverse course load taught me perseverance to finish what I start and gave me a broad range of knowledge. It wasn't until my third year of college that I chose to pursue a degree in Spanish and Hispanic Studies to follow my passion for the language and culture. The major also suited my strength in writing that my professors had so often complimented. My time spent in the Hispanic community and in the classroom as I worked toward my major ignited my passion to study law as it left me wondering how I could help disadvantaged immigrants and minorities in a professional, legal capacity. It became clear to me that higher education could translate my passion into a career that would benefit the common good while satisfying my eagerness to gain knowledge.

Years after obtaining my Bachelor of Arts degree, I continued to work at Costco in payroll and human resource administration in the Winston-Salem, North Carolina warehouse. My job at Costco brought my thinking back once again to law. I viewed my position in human resources as a microcosm to the legal system; the company's employee handbook and policies and procedures as the laws and I the attorney advocating the rights of the employees and interpreting policies. I was intrigued to learn about the state and federal laws and regulations that had shaped the company's policies, leave of absence administration, workers' compensation procedures, and other legal matters relating to personnel and employment. My interest in employment law while working at Costco encouraged me to begin a paralegal education that flourished into a career for which I ultimately left my full-time job at Costco.

I can still vividly recall the sweltering, August day that would determine my fate in the application pool of Costco. The day of my scheduled interview, I awoke to find my car totaled by a tornado; I hadn’t even unpacked my moving boxes. Without anyone to call for help, I headed out on the unfamiliar streets of my new town on my bicycle with a folded map in hand. By the time I was able to locate the building, I had arrived over two hours late. Notwithstanding my tardiness, the hiring manager viewed me as a dedicated candidate and hired me on-the-spot. The start of my career at Costco is much like my path to Wake Forest Law; I haven’t always been sure how I would arrive to my destination but I have remained determined and haven’t given up on my dream of law school despite the obstacles that have confronted me.

Essay 2

2016 marked a pivotal year in my life. This was my first direct encounter with the social injustice that plagues our world. Working as a police officer at the Statehouse, every day, several times a day, I would interact with all different walks of life, from the homeless to the governor. While I didn’t realize at the time, there is a stark contrast in the way police officers interact with individuals of majority and minority status.

The catalyst to realizing the true existence of social injustice took place on a cold winter night in December of 2015. Around 11pm the temperature was 10 degrees with the wind chill. Just as any other night I was making my nightly rounds checking high traffic areas along Broad Street, When I received a call of suspicious activity in the parking garage. I arrived several minutes later to a small group of people standing in the garage, simply trying to get out of the cold. I promptly got on the radio and asked what the issue was, to which she replied, “the black man in the blue coat and jeans looks suspicious.” Standing fairly close to him and his daughter, he heard the dispatcher’s reply. The look on his face was of shock; was he being targeted simply because he’s black? The man and his daughter were the only two African Americans in the group. At this point I felt I was there not for a wrong doing but because the color of a man’s skin. While we usually didn’t allow individuals to loiter in the garage, if it was cold we had some discretion. Trying to rectify the situation, I carried on a conversation with the man for several minutes, telling him he was more than welcome to stay as long as he needed to get warm. Before leaving, he introduced himself ad Michael and told me I was the only police officer in his entire life that treated him like a human being. This particularly hit me hard, what made the act of profiling and mistreatment amongst minorities so apparent? Just a few days earlier I worked at a protest of police profiling and brutality amongst minorities, in which the man was present. This man stood up for what he believed in and in particular what was right.

Two months later working day shift, we received a call that an individual that had been shot in the head and needs medical attention. Less than a half mile from Capital Law School, I arrived to the crime scene in shock, this man was no stranger, rather Marshawn was the leader of many of the protests and civil rights movements that had taken place just a few months prior. He was very passionate about equality, especially in regards to police relations among minorities. While some were in shock, the apparent suicide was taken rather lightly by many others, some of which were making jokes and ready to clock out. How could they be so heartless? This was a young man who later we would find out took his own life as a direct retaliation of police profiling. The injustice that he felt could have very well been brought on by one of us, or even myself, which was particularly hard to live with.

As time went on the impact of this man’s suicide only grew on me. I began to think of every instance in which I might have unintentionally engaged in profiling or been unfair based even marginally upon race. I would never stand for such an injustice. This man believed in his cause so much, that he gave his own life. While tragic, this lit a fire in my soul in terms of the many social injustices taking place. I changed my undergraduate major from criminal justice to sociology and began to thoroughly research current injustices and police profiling. This went against everything I have ever been believed, but growth only happens in a state of discomfort. Stagnation turned to chaos. Everything I had ever known was now being challenged. Things were no longer taken at face value. This combination of events, while seemingly meaningless to others, sparked an extreme passion for improving people’s lives. Becoming an attorney would enable me to bring attention to societal issues that are not being addressed, and to give a voice to people like Michael and Marshawn, who tend to be marginalized.

I haven't taken very many full prep tests yet, but so far I'm noticing in my trends that I am overall improving in LG and RC, but my LR gets worse when I'm working in newer PT's (tests in the 60s and maybe 50s also). It's really frustrating because as I'm doing the questions, I feel ok about them. But then during BR I'm seeing how many I got wrong and it's not usually any particular question type or any one reason I'm getting it wrong. I'm a little all over the board. I don't seem to have this problem with earlier tests though (30s and 40s). Any insight to the evolution of the LR questions? Have they just gotten harder? More sneaky answers? It's so frustrating to see my score actually going down over time because I'm bombing those so hard! Argh.

Hey all,

So, I'm taking on 7sage's trial course before making the full plunge with you guys, but something stuck out to me... J.Y. recommends that we study for at least a year before being fully ready for an LSAT attempt.

Nowadays, that "3 attempts every 2 years" policy is gone, so now we can take and re-take without issue. But, he has a good point.

My question is: Do we need to spend a whole other year relearning everything from scratch if we're coming from a competing service like Powerscore? Or is it more realistic to cut it down a bit since I have some of the core basics and experiences down?

I graduate next year and I want to do the best in the LSATs, so if I prepare(not fully commit to it but still understand) the LSATs does anyone think it would be beneficial?

Questions like these are tougher for me to find guidance when I am stuck since there are not videos or explanations for them. So can anyone please help me understand why C was the answer and not D.

Hi all,

I'm looking for someone who's interested in blind reviewing LR and RC questions in the Washington, DC area. I've come to realize the importance of reviewing questions with others as it really exposes neglected presumptions and enables you to get out of the echo chamber that is your head and look at questions from a unique and original point of view.

I'm preparing for the September/ December take but don't think it matters where you are in your studies. To get the most out of this though I'd imagine you'd be in PT mode. Where you're currently scoring also makes little difference. Although I'm by Foggy Bottom, I'd be willing to travel a reasonable distance to meet.

I'm aiming to take the test between December and June 2018 so won't be applying until end of next year most likely. I have a few work trips coming up next month to cities where schools I am interested in are located. Is it too early to do a school visit since I'll be in town? I was once told not to visit a school until you've completed your LSAT and you're ready to apply. Is this a rule or am I just overthinking? I'd love to visit any school I'm interested in in order to make an informed decision and many are in cities that are far from where I live. If I have an opportunity for a free trip from my company, I'd like to take advantage of it.

Do you answer every question by the 25 minute mark? Or do you skip some?

How do you pick which questions to re-do in your extra time (obviously if you haven't skipped any questions)? How do you know which ones you made mistakes in? Do you gauge importance based on your confidence level?

So about a month out from the September test and I'm feeling....okay. There is one kind of questions that really bothers me though. Flaw. People always tell me that "in repetition you'll eventually get them" and that they repeat. Well I'm like 20 PT's in at least and they still look pretty foreign to me. It's specifically the flaw questions with abstract answer choices.

"Presents only evidence whose relevancy to the issue raised by the opponents has not been established."

Presents stuff that is not relevant?

Okay but the amount of time it takes me to translate each AC out, and then to figure out what is going on, is far to great. Even then I still choose wrong a great deal of the time.

One method that has not worked for me is the Trainer. That book is very vague. 1+2 =/=3 doesn't help me, my mind doesn't see it as such.

How do you handle flaw questions?

I am 32 and have a associates in Automation/Robotics. I am currently going back to school for my Electrical Engineering degree, and i am planning on then going through to Law School. I know this is as far from one and other than one can get but it is something that i have been thinking about for a while but have not had the financial means to do so. I am about 24 months out from my degree and i would like to start LSAT prep. I haven't taken a diagnostic test but have looked at a few questions in LG and LR, i might have been able to answer 30% or so, which worried me, because i see everyone else with 145-155 diagnostics scores and i feel i would be far from that. It's crazy to me to read everyone testing in the high 150's/160's.... its a bit intimidating. I haven't taken a class in 10 years or so and the questions really pointed out how many cobwebs are in my head (At least i hope they are cobwebs, and not that i am just not cut out for the LSAT.) I'm sure this forum gets this a lot, but i am simply wondering what you guys think i should do as far as prep?

Hi friends,

Wondering if anyone else is having a similar problem: I was scoring -0 or -1 in RC on the older tests, but in the 60s and 70s, I'm trending towards -4 or -5. I'm sort of depending on ace-ing RC to keep my score within my target range. Does anyone have any tips for what to look for in the newer RC sections, or else how to practice not falling for the subtle differences? I'm currently planning on writing in September.

Thanks a million!

Here's a funny story that illustrates a ridiculous usage of correlation (or really, coincidence in this case) proves causation:

http://www.india.com/buzz/this-indian-is-responsible-for-jeff-bezos-slip-in-worlds-richest-person-list-amazon-users-hilarious-post-is-the-best-thing-you-will-see-today-2361411/

From a fun video!

See if you can summarize the content from the video, low/high res, RC style. Try to use the words "phenomenon" and "hypothesis".

Hi All,

I've made an observation regarding Main Point questions on some of the most recent RC passages (70s primarily). I was reading a post on the Manhattan Prep LSAT forum, where another poster verified my suspicion. I want to share my observation with you below in the hope that it will help someone approach Main Point questions in the future.

Historically, the LSAT writers have favored answer choices that encompass the main point of the passage and whatever subsidiary point was made in the passage. The correct answer choices have been broad, inclusive statements and certain incorrect answer choices were incorrect because they were “too narrow” or did not encompass one of the subsidiary points while another answer choice did. In recent tests, however, the LSAT writers have started to exploit our conditioning to this type of strategy. They will add a broad answer choice with unwarranted strong language (subtle strong language, like “most” or “prominent”) or with incorrect time frames (like “recently” or “historically”) that encompasses both the main point and the subsidiary point. They are trying to utilize the fact that we have been conditioned to look for “more complete” answer choices and hope that we will overlook the subtle characteristics that ultimately make the answer choice incorrect. The correct answer choice ends up being something more direct, narrow, and only concerned with the author’s overall takeaway rather than any “exceptions” or “sub-points” he/she gets into. (See PT73.S1.Q16- answer choice D & PT74.S3.Q9- answer choice E for examples)

With one month until the September test, I know keeping this in mind will help me be more aware of these types of strategies the LSAT writers have been utilizing. Has anyone else noticed this as well?

Hey, guys! I would like any advice you guys can give on splitting boards. I seem to always spend too much time trying to split and it's not really needed or I don't spend enough time trying to split and I could've saved time. I tend to always end up brute forcing too much or using previous game boards from previous questions to answer questions but I know that's not always going to work for me. LG is my best section so I've kinda dismissed it but I'm not always -0 so I'm looking for pointers. Can you guys provide any hints on when to split and what to split on (meaning a specific rule like a not both rule or something)?

Hi,

I had a breakthrough in my scores in logic games by employing POE for CBT Qs and looking for MBT/CNBT and moving on once I find MBT/CNBT in MBT/CNBT Qs. In particular, I think the perspective of trying to eliminate CNBT ACs (=wrong ACs) in CBT Qs really made the whole process easier and more efficient. (This is what Mike Kim suggests in the Trainer)

But sometimes when the right answer of a CBT Q is (A) or (B), or when the ACs are designed in a way that makes it harder to see if each AC is CNBT (whether it's because of the AC is really wordy or because CNBT ACs don't immediately jump out like they do in other Qs), eliminating 4 CNBT ACs seems counterintuitive.

So at this point, I am a bit puzzled in terms of my Q type strategy for logic games. While it's incredibly helpful that I actively, consciously look for CNBT ACs to eliminate in CBT Qs, elimination is inefficient in some CBTs. Does anyone have any advice for me?

Hi,

Amongst all sections, LG is probably my weakest. It takes me way too much time.

Which is a better way to go through the CC ( I started with LG about a week ago)

Doing the questions and PS's of each question type and fool proofing until you get everything before moving on the next question type. ( I find, my inferences are usually correct but i take up too much time and end up getting questions wrong once i realise how much time has gone by- Watching Jy's explanations help, but my techniques are mostly the same)

Doing the Questions and PS's of all question types in the CC, watching the explanations simultaneously and fool proofing everything together in the end.

I'd love as much advise as i can get on how to go about LR since some questions are taking me upto 20 min and it's really stressing me out.

Hey guys,

I'm new to the analytics on 7sage.

If I input one section and press "save & continue," wishing to input the other sections at a later stage, will this affect my overall analytics? For example, I just entered section 1 for PT 48. As I BR the next sections, I will go back in and enter the rest. However, my current score says 21.8% correct, and a score of 128 (if I remember correctly).

I am assuming this will change once more information has been entered and my real average will then be reflected, right? Just hoping this won't affect my scores once I have entered more PT's.

Is there a better way to do this?

-deleted-

I know these seem fairly straight forward. But its my weakest question type. Any tips, or approaches?

Hey guys!

So I have been struggling with RC, however I was wondering if you guys read the passage first or make notes while reading? I don't know why but I find a hard time trying to read and write at the same time. I would say I am a pretty fast reader and always have been.. but I find it hard to understand the passages when I stop to make notes. Should I make notes after reading the entire passage first or after every paragraph? What has worked for you guys?

RC I would say is my worst section, but I believe I can improve the most on this section since I can usually understand the material pretty well regardless of what the passage is discussing.

Hi All,

I've seen many explanations regarding this infamous Han purple question--none of which have addressed my specific confusion:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-1-question-17/

I chose the correct answer A during my timed take, but hesitantly changed it to E during BR. I'm still confused and I'd love for someone to read my reasoning and give me some guidance as to where I am going wrong.

CTX: How the ancient Chinese of the Qin and Han dynasties synthesized Han purple has confused scientists.

P1: A common type of white glass and Han purple were produced with the same chemical ingredients.

P2: Both were produced by similar processes involving high heat and lead.

C: Han purple was probably discovered by accident during glass production.

One thing I noticed was the how the premises give us similarities regarding how white glass and Han purple were produced, but then the conclusion randomly brings up how Han purple was discovered. My thoughts were that the correct answer will probably have something to do with this. Either that, or the wrong answers would exploit this subtle distinction.

Another thing I noticed was that, except for the contextual information about Han purple confusing scientists, every piece of information that was given in the stimulus equally applies to both the white glass and Han purple. All we know is that they both have the same properties--we don't know if one was better than the other or that one was more prevalent. So the conclusion could also very well be that "White glass was probably discovered by accident during Han purple production." We have the same exact support for that conclusion as we do the conclusion we are given. So I figured the correct answer choice could assist with this by creating some sort of supporting distinction.

A- I originally chose this because I did not initially notice the produced/discovered distinction in the stimulus. Upon BR, I noticed it and figured that A was wrong because where Han purple was produced does not seem play into how it was discovered. Something can be discovered intentionally in the middle of a forest (anywhere really), but then the following production of that thing can be in a factory once it had been improved and commercialized. To me, production and discovery are two clearly distinctive events. Also, this just contributes to the similarities between white glass and Han purple. There is no distinguishing effects of this answer choice, so, like I pointed above, the conclusion could still just as reasonable be: "White glass was probably discovered by accident during Han purple production."

(B, C, and D were easy for me to eliminate. For anyone interested in seeing my reasoning for these answer choices, feel free to ask!).

E- I never loved E, especially since it ambiguously used the term "more" without telling us how much more (1% more or 80% more?). I also didn't love that E qualifies the artifacts as "surviving artifacts." I initially figured that, the fact that white glass was more prevalent in surviving artifacts could be because 1) it was more easily preserved or 2) it was more commonly used. Then I realized that if it was more commonly used, this answer choice could be introducing the possibility that white glass was used longer than Han purple was. I thought that that was what they were trying to get us to see? That white glass was produced and discovered first and that is why there is more of it than Han purple? If that was the case, then I guess it supports the conclusion. It weakly supports it, but it presents us with a new possibility that would render the conclusion more likely. Also, this does point out the supporting distinction between white glass and Han purple that would lead us to the conclusion we are given rather than the alternative conclusion: "White glass was probably discovered by accident during Han purple production."

Between A and E, I do not like either of them. I really struggled between both of these answers, but I finally concluded that A requires us to assume that discovery and the following production process are the same event. To me, that's equivalent to saying that the birth of a child and the child's following life events are the same event. They just are not. E also wasn't a great answer. I recognize the steps and assumptions needed to choose E. But given the remaining 4, I figured (and still consider) it to be the best option because it at least slightly introduced a possibility for the conclusion to be true.

Help! Thanks in advance!