For anyone using Powerscore with 7sage:

In 7sage LR language, how would you classify/approach the LR Question type: "Justify the Conclusion" (this is Powerscore language). I am using both resources together.

Thanks!

What is the difference between making the premises less supportive of the conclusion and attacking the premises? Wouldn’t attacking the premises reduce the support that the conclusion receives?

We'll be starting with RC on Sunday and then continue LR on Tuesday.

Here's to hoping that with more practice we'll look at the test more like how Tormund looks at Brienne (rather than the other way around).

PT 67 w/experimental RC fr PT40 Sunday, July 23rd 12PM ET

Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/992713853

Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.

United States: +1 (571) 317-3122

Access Code: 992-713-853

If the link doesn't work, google Go To Meeting and enter the meeting access code

Requirements:

The That's So Ravenclaw study group is for 12 people who are committed to studying and improving their test performance for the September 2017 LSAT. Workshops and intensives to eliminate weaknesses will also be made available to the study group. Tuesday at 7pm is our additional study time to meet to go over other questions we didn't get to on Sunday. Comment below if you would like me to tag you for our meetings. This group will be going private in 3 weeks.

Tentative Schedule: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=00ppvvc0gp9hdvin7b0p3igdhg%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/New_York

In the Fool Proof Method for LG in the CC, step 6 tells us to write down all inferences from memory. What exactly does this mean in practice? For every game I'm not perfect at -- I take another clean copy, and go through the game and simply write down what I remember? Am I not reading the questions; just jotting down what I recall?

I just finished my first LG lesson with 7Sage and WOW. I've tried learning Logic Games under other programs and they were AWFUL. Then comes JY and his mastery for all things logic and it just clicks. I've become more confident in LG in the last hour than I have in the 2 months I spent studying other lessons. So now I'm just curious -how/when did JY start tutoring? Did he just realize he had a knack for teaching and the rest was history? He truly has a gift and I'm just thankful I'm learning the LSAT in the age of 7Sage.

Hello,

This is an NA question that I have been trying to grasp. It's REALLY hard.

I will explain how I can justify the to myself and I would be so grateful if anyone wants to chime in and add any additional analysis.

The stimulus -

CTX: There is frozen nitrogen, methane, and carbon monoxide on the surface of Pluto, which vaporize to make Pluto's atmosphere.

P: The proportion of each gas in Pluto's atmosphere results how readily the gas vaporizes.

C: Pluto's atmosphere is made of nitrogen, methane, and carbon monoxide gas, listed from greatest to lowest proportion.

The correct answer states that there is no frozen substance (let's call it X) on Pluto that vaporizes more readily than methane but less readily than carbon monoxide. In other words there is no gas X in the atmosphere of which there is more than methane and less than carbon monoxide. The negation would read like this: C > X > M , there is a fourth gas in the atmosphere and there is more carbon monoxide than methane (if I understand correctly).

I think my issue at first was that I did not read the conclusion to say there were only three gases in the atmosphere and no others; I suppose stating "the components are..." does imply that. So, if there was a fourth gas in the atmosphere, there are not three, as the conclusions claim. Moreover, with the CA negated, there would be more carbon monoxide than methane, which wrecks the argument. This seems to be an example of a really bare minimum NA, that makes you go "doi."

I chose (D), which states that nitrogen is only found in the atmosphere if it is also found as ice on the planet's surface. It's useless to the argument. Natm --> Nps ; /Nps --> /Natm. Neither of these statements reveal anything new or relevant about the situation.

Thanks in advance for any input!

One of the biggest issues I have is not reading the sentences in the stimuli carefully...

Do you have any suggestions to prevent such mistakes besides underlining?

Also, I found paraphrasing/re-wording what I just read in my own words before moving on to the next sentence is incredibly helpful to comprehend the RC passages. For those who have mastered LR, how do you read the stimuli? do you think paraphrasing would be helpful in LR as well or do you think such step is unnecessary in LR?

Thanks everyone! :)

I had to take a week off of the LSAT because of a work conference that kept me extremely busy.

I tried to return to it today with a PT.

The issue; I was incapable of doing it. LG that normally took me 5min took me 15. I would read easy LR stimulus and have to repeat it over and over and over, because I could not retain an ounce of information. I felt 0 confidence in any of my answer.

I normally score in the 167 range - if I had kept going I would have been lucky to break the 160's.

What's going on? It's kinda bothering me...

Apparently, LSAC has included chronographs as one of the other devices that are banned in the testing center. Does this mean that LSAT specific watches that indicate the time from 0 to 35 minutes are banned as well?

Thread title edited for clarity by admin

Hi,

I graduated from the UK with an upper-second class honours. I looked online and I think it translates to 3.4 / 4.00. My question is do law schools look at the converted GPA the same way they look at US graduates' GPAs? My dream school is Northwestern. with an LSAT score of 162-166 do I have a good chance of being admitted? all other things equal.

Thanks,

Math and I have never been close. Now with Lsat, I often come across questions that J.Y. marks as "high-school algebra" or "mathematical question in disguise" and almost always, I get them wrong.

It seems that I have to overcome my life-long battle with math. But, I think repetitively practicing these math questions aren't going to cut it. So, I want to ask those who has struggled and defeated these type of questions, what was your approach/strategy? Also, do you know any books/outside material that could supplement and improve my lack of mathematical reasoning skills?

Any advice will be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance :)

Heres the problem so Im getting all of the easy questions correct and some of the hard ones too but I really want to drill the really difficult questions so I know that I am actually improving, do you guys know where to find the harder LR questions to drill? Thank you so much!!!!!!!!

ok so i live in Yonkers, and im looking for people around the area to study with, keep eachother motivated and kill the test together, I mean i have my motivator @tringo335 that keeps me in check but im down for expanding my inner circle of lsatness.

@theLSATdreamer said:

Fordham NY Public Library: 310 Kingsbridge Road Saturday August 5, 2017 9:30 a.m. try doing PT 62 before then.

Hey everyone,

So i've decided I do not want to wait anymore, and attend law school starting 2018.

How will admissions look at an applicant who has taken the LSAT 3 times? Does that put one at a disadvantage?

Any response is much appreciated!

Hey All-

I'm looking for a good warmup to start using before PTs that can hopefully serve as a warmup through test day. Does anyone out there have a pretest warmup exercise that they're happy with? I was thinking about doing a logic game and maybe one of J.Y.'s LR problem sets, but I'd love to hear what works for everyone else.

Thanks!

So i have taken my second PT since foolproofing and i have seen major improvement. But i still seem to be struggling with parrallel flaw, some flaw qs, and NA. I have rewatched the cc on them and read the LSAT trainer on them. Was wondering what the general concensus is on taking the older tests, say 7-20, and locating all the specific question types above and just doing one after another with an extensive BR/ review of each?

Obviously, I am asking this on the 7 sage forum, and so many people will be biased when answering- particularly those who work with/for 7 sage. However, when answering, please keep your biases to a minimum. I'm wondering if the type of package we purchase influences our LSAT score, and if so, to what degree?

Hey everyone,

My LSAT analytics are showing me that my Parallel Flaw and Parallel Reasoning questions are of the highest priority. I've made some strong improvements in these two question types, but want to continue getting better at them. I'm hoping someone could shed some light on their approach to these questions. I will lay down my basic approach to them, and perhaps someone could tell me whether my approach needs work.

Parallel Flaw

For these question types I want to find the AC with the most similar flaw. Argument structure is not SO much as important (but still a consideration) as the flaw itself. So first, I check to see if I can diagram the argument in pure Lawgic. If I can do that and find a similar glaring flaw in the AC - BOOM - done. If the question doesn't translate well into logic, I try to use 'pseudo-logic' diagramming - much like the questions you encounter in PF section of the CC. If that doesn't work, I then try to to just understand and vocalize the flaw as a whole. Is the argument moving from relative evidence to absolute, is it confusing sufficient with necessary, etc etc?

These 3 approaches is essentially how I attack PF questions. What I find is however, that I'm usually unable to diagram the questions in pure Lawgic, so I either 'psuedo-diagram' or I try to vocalize the flaw. Is this a good tactic?

Parallel Reasoning

For these question types we want to find the AC with the same reasoning structure! First I try to see if the stimulus lends itself neatly into Lawgic. If that doesn't work, I attempt to use 'pseudo-logic' terms to better understand the parts of the argument and how they relate (structure). Finally, if that doesn't work, I try to vocalize the way in which the argument moves from premises to conclusion and find a similar conclusion. I find this question type easier because I can turn to the conclusion and eliminate answer choices which do not have similar conclusions.

SO, do you think my approach is good? Can I make improvements? If so, how?

Thanks, and good luck!

I went to pre-order this and it says the release date will be first week of Oct. Seriously not releasing this before the Sept exam??? Does anyone know why they would do this (besides the obvious money factor buying the other tests individually)?

I just came across the circular subway game from PT18 S1 G3. I was wondering if there are any other games similar to this one that I can practice? Anything that makes use of a circle would be very useful.

Hello All,

I just started the 7Sage course cause I'm hoping to obtain a better approach towards logical reasoning and reading comprehension. I started with Powerscore and I've read the Logical Reasoning and Games bibles from cover to cover. I've already taken the June 2007 diagnostic before. Should I take it again with 7 Sage's approach or just put in the answers from when I first took the exam? Also, with two months to go till the September exam, is it ok to just skip over to sections that I need immediate help on or start everything from the beginning?

Do you focus on finding the flaw in the argument and then matching that to an AC? Like any other flaw q, just instead of naming it you find another example of that? Or do you focus on the argument structure?

Thr biggest time sink questions for myself are the parallel questions and if i have to go through the same method for parallel flaw, i dont see how i will have enough time

So I think i'm confused at how these are different. I completely understand the definitions of valid and invalid arguments. I'm just confused at how you would be able to distinguish these two things on the LSAT. Does the question stem typically tell you it wants "invalid" or "valid" or will you just have to make a decision based off the stimulus?

Hi everyone! I'm relatively new to 7Sage and have a question about blind review. When you go through it, do you use the same copy of the test that you did your PT on, or a blank copy? And also, does anyone use highlighters or write anything down (i.e. your thought process), or do you just go through it as you would a timed section just without a time restraint?

Under my previous study plan, I was reviewing my PTs on the same copy and highlighting somewhat excessively. I feel like this maybe wasn't the best approach.

Thanks so much and happy studying :)

Last public post. I'm lazy and I don't like making new posts every week. Also, going private. If you don't show up and give us a compelling reason to think you'll be a strong contributor, unfortunately the train is departing.

###Test Details:

PT: 65

Experimental Section: LR1 From PT59

Please submit questions you wish to review here : https://zach191.typeform.com/to/ws9awQ

Date: Sunday, July 23rd

Time: 7:00pm Eastern / 6:00pm Central / 4:00pm Pacific

For our full PT schedule please see the following link : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NqvbW4p83dpFmihrUOeWf6Dx8ETo25rLE1q1nPzOrpg/edit?usp=sharing

Notes:

###GoToMeeting Details:

September '17 Sunday Study Group

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/410064813

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States: +1 (872) 240-3311

Access Code: 410-064-813

First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: https://care.citrixonline.com/g2m/getready