(P.S., I know this is a long and dense post, but there's an opportunity at the bottom for anyone reading this to get paid, so hopefully that's an incentive to read this :P)

Hi guys! I wanted to get some feedback from you smart people on the LR question about brown dwarf stars.

We're asked for an assumption on which the argument depends, so this is a NA and the right answer should strongly undermine if not completely discredit the argument when negated.

The claim is that any star found with no lithium is not a coolest brown dwarf (CBD.)

The support is that all stars except for CBD are hot enough to "destroy lithium completely."

The right answer, A, is that "None of the CBDs have ever been hot enough to destroy lithium."

Formal logic wise, I get CBD ---> Not(Hot enough to destroy lithium)

Negating it, you get that not none (so, some) CBDs have ever been hot enough to destroy lithium.

I don't understand how this even undermines the conclusion, let alone discredits it as we would hope for in a NA. In fact, this sounds perfectly congruent with the argument. The support says that CBDs cannot destroy lithium /completely/, completely being a deliberate word choice that does not appear in the answer. If "completely" had no bearing on the meaning of the text, it wouldn't be included.

Therefore, our negated answer, suggesting that some CBDs have ever been able to destroy lithium in some capacity, does nothing to undermine the claim that a star found without lithium cannot be a CBD.

Maybe in being able to destroy lithium in some capacity, said stars are still not hot enough to destroy lithium content in full. Even if you need to make a small assumption jump for this question, I think the most reasonable assumption is that CBDs being able to destroy lithium by some means does not really even scathe the claim that it can't finish the job. This would be a stretch for a weaken question in my opinion, let alone a necessary assumption.

My other question on the matter regards the rules for dangling modifiers in LSAT texts. In this question, a sentence reads "All stars but the CBDs are hot enough to destroy lithium completely by converting it into helium.

I'm a bit confused about how a dangling modifier would apply here in the absence of context. Does the clause following "destroy lithium" imply that the dwarfs cannot destroy lithium in full, (the process by which happens to be by converting to helium,) or that they cannot accomplish the task exclusively by converting the lithium to helium (implying that in order to complete the task in full, CBDs must destroy it in some other way than converting to helium.)

As a native English speaker, I probably wouldn't even have second thoughts and assume it was the former option, if reading or hearing that sentence. However, as an LSAT student who is actively analyzing precision of language, I find myself confused. I feel like I've seen other situations on the LSAT where failure to consider the precision of language, instead using traditional colloquial interpretations, in fact leads you to the wrong answer. Why is it different in this case? (Assuming there isn't some grammar rule I'm not aware of, which I'd love to discover!)

I realize that there is a degree of "picking the best answer" with LSAT questions, and NAs in particular. With that in mind, I still felt that B was a better, albeit still lacking answer.

Negating B leaves us with the statement that it's not the case that most stars too cool to burn hydrogen (TCBH), (which concretely includes CBDs,) are too cool to destroy lithium completely. This still leaves open a wide range of possibilities for some (but less than 51%) TCHB stars to indeed be able to destroy lithium completely. If we know that this class of star may very well have members capable of destroying lithium completely, and that CBDs are a member of that class, we at least have a hint that maybe some CBDs can destroy lithium completely, undermining his support and damaging the argument consequently.

Do I like answer choice B? Definitely not. However, it matches the specific, important diction of the prompt ("destroys completely") whereas A does not, and it gives concrete reason, when negated, to suggest something that directly contradicts and soils the argument. A, when negated, simply refrains from counting out a possibility that would damage the argument, rather than in any way suggesting that the argument is in fact damaged. Knowing that some CBDs have ever been hot enough to destroy lithium at all leaves the possibility that they can destroy it all the way, which we would want to be the case for this answer to be right since that breaks the argument. But, it just as neutrally, it allows for the possibility that they still can't go all the way, which would leave the argument in tact and reaffirm the support from which the conclusion is derived.

TL;DR, I see A suggesting an ambiguity that reads neutrally: If negated, A only weakens the argument by indicating that the opportunity for the argument to be undermined exists, not that it likely does or does not.

B, when negated suggests an ambiguity that, while still concluding nothing, leans towards something that would hurt the argument. Obviously that's a fine distinction that the question doesn't even mean for you to consider, but I don't think it can be avoided if you read the text precisely, and reasonably interpret "destroy completely" and "destroy" as meaning different things. If they meant the same thing, they would say the same thing.

Lastly, any question I ever get wrong on LR is similar to the conundrum I have with this one. I overanalyze the question, but even when I recognize that I'm overanalyzing and need to read a little more simply, I cannot for the life of me figure out when it's appropriate to make which particular little assumptions. If I redid this question 1000 times, I'd think that the logic leap in choice B is more realistic than the choice B counterpart all 1000 times.

Are there any tutors who would be particularly well suited to help me with this very specific challenge? It's frustrating because I literally have no clue what I need to change in order to get these questions write. I'm a native English speaker, born and raised in the midwest United States, and so I don't know what other factors could be causing me to be so clueless when it comes to figuring out which little logic leap/assumption is the right one. If I'm not overlooking some other caveat to this problem, how can the LSAT justify the correct answer if there isn't a concrete reason why their leap is more valid than mine.

If anyone thinks they would be able to help me remedy this conclusion, I'd be more than happy to pay for your time. I'll take help any way I can get it, so don't hesitate to take my money even if you're not a tutor and are a fellow student! Thanks guys :)

At first, it was quite easy for me to identify and correctly label conditional statements. But, now that I am nearly 60% through with the CC (currently working with flaw questions) and questions are no longer in the "identify" phase, but, rather, have increased into the difficult world of description and analyzation ... I find myself getting tripped up with the direction of my statements (confusing necessity for sufficient, and vice versa). I realize that I need to now slow down my progression with the CC until I am able to really drill this concept in my head. Any suggestions/advice/tips/examples (preferably harder examples) would be greatly appreciated!

(Or point me to that resource that does explain it)

I recently purchased the Starter package, almost exclusively for the LG fool-proof method. I am debating a refund though, bc I am not able to see or understand how the benefits come from this method (NOT at all saying it doesn't work, I realize 2 weeks is not enough time to reap the benefits- but that is why I'm inquiring here!).

Everytime JY says to repeat the game + inferences from memory, my mind goes all mushy, bc I don't see how that will help me (THAT much) on test day? I know the games are all pretty similar in structure, etc. (Have been studying for over a year and a half, probably have done abt 3/4 of the games that exist), but I feel like I would benefit from drilling into my mind how each inference came to be, vs. just writing an rule down bc I literally remembered writing it down the last time I did it? JY explicitly says to do straight from memory and NOT based on remembering how each rule kicked in to create that inference. (Seems similar, for ex., to learning the word "lackadaisical" bc my Ex's band name is Lackadaisical, & he is a really lazy person, instead of learning what the actual word means)

I guess I am getting pretty frustrated with the course too bc JY fails to explain this--the "How"--in his videos (at least as far as I've gotten so far. If it's in a certain lesson, pls let me know!!). Also, he doesn't address how to do the LG Questions, either. Do I choose those answers from memory, too ?? Do I read each word in the question stem?? (Same thing with the game set-up, do I read each word there, too, As if it was test day??)

I've just heard so many great things about his videos, strategy, & explanations, and I guess I just had a very different expectation. I would seriously seriously appreciate it if someone could help me out. Would love to get to ~2/3 wrong on LG as so many people here have mentioned here, but my frustration / confusion with the method is really keeping me from being motivated enough to continue with it.

Thanks for listening / reading !!

Are the MP questions in PT1-35 representative of the MP questions on the newer tests? I know how to find the conclusion and main point, but for some reason I do not seem to get all of them right even though I should when I am drilling. I have done the corresponding problem sets and went over the CC covering MP and how to identify conclusions for the second time.. and I have gotten them all correct so I don't know what's going on.

HELP!

Hello. I have some trouble in nailing this question.

(C) How could this strengthen the conclusion? The conclusion is about a causation between oval orbits and close encounter with other planets. But this answer choice is correlation; that is, it says that where planets are orbiting a distant star more than one planet are found near the star. I have learned that generally a mere correlation does not strengthen a causation.

(B) why is this answer choice wrong?

Thanks

After giving the ultimate + package a shot, I just don't think I can justify 750 bucks. I'm trying to canvel.my subscription, but having a hard time getting an answer from @"Dillon A. Wright" Everybody else feel free to ignore this post :)

What are some games that you have used for the fool proof method? I'm making a fool proof "binder" of questions and was wondering what games are best for each type. What games did y'all fool proof with?

Let me preface this by saying, I am a minority. The purpose of this is in reference to an article I read a couple days ago regarding affirmative action in higher education admissions (not trying to ruffle any political feathers...but if you want to read the article, I attached the link at the bottom).

As a minority, is it true that admission officers prefer certain sub-sects of minorities over others? For example, do they prefer Filipino applicants over Chinese applicants, or Mexican-Americans over Cuban-Americans (as referenced in the article)? And in the case of Asian minorities (hint: I'm Asian), does it help to specify what type of Asian you are, if it will indeed be preferred by the school?

From what I've been reading, it basically doesn't give you any advantage to say that you're simply Asian, but I'm wondering if it actually does help if you specify what type of Asian. Anyone have any experience with this?

Article: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450088/sessions-investigates-racial-discrimination-affirmative-action-college-admission

After being notified of your testing accommodation- Did you start practicing with your new time? I am interested in learning about how people with an accommodated time accounted for this during their prep before the LSAT.

Any feedback or comments are appreciated. Thank you!

I'm curious as to why there seems to be such a clearly delineated set of camps on the LSAT.

There is team LG - Who think LG are the best thing on earth. This is where we can consistently go -0 in 28min and feel confident in our answers. We pray we get LG as our experimental section because we love them so much. LR makes us cringe a bit, we might be okay at it, but we sure could use some improvement.

Then there is team LR - LR just comes naturally to them. Typically going -2 or less a section they blow through LR. Finishing early with time to review. They love everything about LR, no question type really throws them for a loop and they always feel confident in their answers. LG make them cringe a bit, they can get through the games but never with confidence and miss a fair chunk of points here.

I've been around these forms, Reddit and a couple of others and it seems people typically fall into one of these two camps. Very envious of the other.

I am team LG - the games come naturally to me, I love them and they are easy. LR on the other hand....how do you people do it?!

Which team are you?

Why do you think this is?

Someone please please tell me this is just an anomaly and that everything is going to be okay lol (seriously freaking out here)

I scored a 157 today on PT #69, my lowest score since the second week of May (when I started studying).

When I started studying I was consistently in the low 160s and now I have been consistently scoring in the mid 160s for the past month or so, and so I feel a bit blindsided by this score, especially because I felt confident about the LR sections and I got 16/25 on one and 20/25 on the other. I kind of knew I messed up on the LG section as I ran out of time (which hasn't happened in months). I feel like it may be because I've been super tired this week and I wrote the test after an 8 hour work shift, but it'd be nice to hear some reassurance!

Also, if this happened to you, any advice on where to go from here?

I am weak at disagree questions. I tend to miss these ones about 50% of the time. I find this weird because when it is agreement I ace it. Does anyone have a strategy for these kinds of questions other than making a Y/N chart to the side? How do you engage with the stimulus, what are you looking for in the AC, how can you tell what specifically they are disagreeing over?

I have an issue with B. The stimulus stated that an equal number of painters, sculptures and photographers entered, how then, can we conclude that the increased price had any impact on which art gets exhibited? since the overall submissions were equal for all three types of artists we cannot say that more painters and sculptors might have submitted works if their fee was lower.

Are we to assume that only rich but bad artists submitted photos and sculptors whilst, good photographers poor or rich can afford the $25 fee? nevertheless, and equal number submitted and they all met the traditional criteria and were all exhibited as result of.

this question confuses me.

Hi all. So I took pt 43 and got a 172 yesterday. Today I did blind review, and was up to a 176. Idk if it's technically blind review , I just took the test and redid it with more time and finished maybe around 4 hours along my start of the sopranos lol.

Now, I want to see which answers I switched over correctly and incorrectly and break them down into question type and practice those sections with some questions.

Is there anything you guys think I could do better here or is my process okay? And I'm really pleased with the 172 since it was my first actual PT since the June lsat and I'm doing a lot more untimed questions by section type and I think it's paying off. I'm aiming a PT a week whereas before I did like 4 PTs a week (very stupid as I've learned). but idk, I got in the 170s a couple times pting but didn't break 160 on the actual test. I basically did much lower than my PT average and I treated this studying like a full time job. Still do for September? So idk maybe I'm missing something and it was those beers all along. Jk. /rant

Thanks

Hey guys I have been stuck inbetween 156-158 for the past 2-3 weeks and need some advice about how to proceed with my studying and ultimately achieve my goal of a 160. I began the 7sage curriculum at the beginning of June and scored a 140 on the diagnostic. After the first month I made significant gains getting into the low 150s and then into the range I'm currently stuck in. I find that I struggle the most with LR particularly (SA/NA/descriptive weakening/flaw type) questions and for most of my wrong answer choices i always narrow it down to two answers (one of which is usually correct) but happen to choose the wrong one. In addition, with blind review I have reached160, however during the PT's I make some silly errors simply because I feel pressured due to the timer. So what Im wondering is if it would be more beneficial going over past exams and drilling questions i got wrong and fully understand what led me to the wrong answer and how to identify the correct answer or continue taking PT's? Because from now until Sept 16, 2017 when i write the exam all i have left are practice exams but i feel like I'm wasting my time because I scored almost the same on literally every PT in the past two and a half weeks and because I'm on PT52 of 72 for the package I've bought and my schedule created by 7sage requires i take at least 4 a week, which gives me no time to review. In other words, will it cost me on the actual exam if I don't take all these PTs?

Sort of irrelevant but I did book a one week trip next week to take my mind off things and relax, and i was wondering what sort of studying/review/PTs i should do there and how much time i should still allocate for LSAT prep. Finally, for the 5th section on the exam (essay) should i be practicing this and actually doing some from PTs, or since it doesn't account for my grade not worry about it.

I know I asked a lot of questions but I'd appreciate some advice/feedback.

Thanks!

Hey 7Sage,

We're offering a special deal on résumés through the end of August: an UNLIMITED edit for $399.

Our in-house résumé specialist Micah Bateman will take the lead on most of these, but the other 7Sage editors—including me—may jump in too.

Not-So-Fine Print

How to Buy this Thing

Unless your hope is a full-ride (do they give those anywhere?), how do you plan on paying for law school? Outside of taking a cue from Kim K's surrogate and getting paid $100K to grow a celebrity's baby in my stomach, I'm not sure how else to afford this other than dreaded loans. :-(

I have been studying for the LSAT for 4 months now and have been consistently getting 156-157, and have been working my way to 160. I took a PT on Sunday only to get a 152... and I am feeling extremely discouraged because of it. Any tips to help remove myself from this mindset?

Hey 7sagers,

I think it's time for me to ask for some LORS. I understand that most law schools require academic, but what does this actually mean? I have had mainly sessional professors and I did not have a lot of contact with them. I have four professors in mind right now.

One is a professor who I have had a close relationship with, however I did not receive in an A in the class. I am not sure if it is a good idea to ask her.

As for another professor, I have had him teach me one class but he did say that he would love to give me a reference letter. Nonetheless, I went to his officer hours, and I've met him outside of class for dinner with other students as well.

Recently, I took only one class and I did receive an A from the professor and he does know who I am but I did not have a lot of contact with him as he did not really respond to any student's emails. He didn't even attend office hours. Though, I do believe he would give me a good reference letter since he did like me as a student in his class. I did exceptionally well in the class.

Lastly, this professor taught me two classes where she was my TA for one class, and a professor for my other class. She knows me fairly well, however I have not had any contact with her ever since my last class (which was a semester or two ago). The class I had with her was super interactive so she does know me pretty well. Plus I did really well in her class!

Basically, I have done pretty well in their classes but I am not sure how to approach these professors and what LORS are really looking for. I have always been a student that sits in class, engages in the class, and gets A's but I haven't had A LOT of contact with my professors. I am basically a student who aims to do exceptionally well in classes but I didn't have a close relationship with my professors.. which I probably should have now that I am applying for law school.

Not sure how I should email them and what I should include in my email that I am sending to them.

Also, is it recommended to email the same reference letter across schools since some of them ask for only two whereas some ask for 3?

Sorry in my advance if I made this confusing to understand. Just a little stressed since applications are coming up!

I retook the RC from the June exam yesterday, and still missed 5 (on the actual exam I missed 7, wrecking my score). I've got to say, I am very confused about some of these questions, even upon review and under untimed conditions. Fair to say it's one of the hardest RC sections of all time? I had 2 RC sections on test day, and the experimental one was SO MUCH EASIER.

Is anyone who took the June exam willing to go back and forth about some of these questions?

As I'm currently fool proofing the games, I've been noticing that my neck is killing me. I'm guessing it's because my head is down and I'm focused and most likely a tense. If it gets bad enough, the pain literally will run down my arms. I've always struggled with back issues but it's always been centered in my low back. It surely does not help that I sit at a desk all day for work as well. Any suggestions from others with the same issue? Thanks!

Anyone have LR question stem flashcards?

So my last few PT's have been 168, 170, 173.

Obviously the random noise is evident here - days I felt good, days I felt bad etc.

My question is for those of you who went in with similar scores on test day, what were your methods to prevent the dreaded 3-4 point drop from PT to actual score. Obviously there is no 100% answer, but did you do anything to keep yourself calm and focused? What did you do to prevent yourself from slipping?

Did you do any sort of warm-up problems?

So I didn't do so well on this game because I played the children multiple times because it didn't say that they had to be played exactly once, so should we assume that they need to be played at least once unless stated otherwise? Thank you!!!

Here is a short story:

A man was walking through a circus. As the man walked passed the elephants, he stopped in confusion. The elephants were being held in place by a small rope tied to one back leg. No chains or cages. It was fairly obvious that the elephants could, at any time, break away from their bonds but for some reason, they did not.

He saw a trainer nearby and asked why these animals just stood there and made no attempt to get away. "Well," said the trainer, "when they are very young and much smaller, we used the same size rope to tie them, and, at that age, it's enough to hold them. As they grow up, they are conditioned to believe they cannot break away. They believe that this rope can still hold them - so they never try to break free."

The man was amazed. These animals could at any time break free from their bonds but because they believed they couldn't, they were stuck right where they were. Like the elephants, how many of us go through life hanging onto a belief that we cannot do something, simply because we failed at it before?

Failure is part of learning; we should never give up the struggle in life.

Never give up on your dreams.

The LSAT is your rope - keep pulling, eventually it'll snap.