7Sage and Trainer LG Techniques

Pacifico

I mostly bought the Trainer for some new perspectives on LR, and considered skipping the LG portions all together since I have been doing really well with 7Sage's style and was worried that learning another would mess me up. I ended up starting the LG sections in the Trainer and have actually found them to be a pretty good complement to the methodologies of 7Sage so far. For example, the use of shapes and vertical lists of the elements are two things that I found off putting at first but after working with them a bit I definitely see the value there.

So my question is, for any of the 7Sage/Trainer devotees, what did you like best about each methodology and what have you picked from each to forge your own approach. Do any of @nicole.hopkins , @emli1000 , @blah170blah or anyone else have some insights on this that they would like to share? Thanks in advance!

DumbHollywoodActor

I've become very fond of LSAT trainer's shapes for categories. I knocked out a PT 50 LG game last week thanks to that gem.

blah170blah

I didn't actually use anything other than blueprint for LG and had been scoring consistently -0/-1 (though we'll see if that trend holds true.. Curse you PT 75)!

I used the Trainer as a refresher to fill in any gaps in knowledge left by 7sage or Manhattan (particularly true for LR). I will say the holistic/big tree approach to RC from the trainer really helped my score improve in the RC section. For me, the Trainer helped me ideologically where it got me teally thinking about what the LSAT is testing as opposed to teaching me any tangible methodology.

nicole.hopkins

Trainer: Shapes. @DumbHollywoodActor was/is a rockstar, as he has indicated. I enjoy introducing people to Mike Kim's method because while it blew my mind at first, I am *so* grateful that I stuck with it.

7sage: Trigger notation for in/out games. JY does this in a few videos—see this one (PT 58 Game 4). Changed my lyfe ...