The title says it all. Join us tonight to BR this fine PT. Only 2 more to go for the October BR cycle.

Add me on skype (nikkers625) to join.

.

Add me on Skype if you want to join ... Should be a rowdy bunch. Nikkers625

I want to share an update with those of you who had test center issues. I had filed a Test center complaint about JFK University center where test takers were seated too close to each other during the Oct test. This could be a huge distraction during the test. I heard from LSAC and they said they take Test Center complaints very seriously and look into all complaints confidentially.

So any of you who has a Test Center complaint about your test center or JFK University test center, do not hesitate to be on record about it so the issue is resolved at least for the future test takers. There is no downside to it. The complaint has to filed within a certain number of days.

Details:

http://www.lsac.org/jd/lsat/policies/test-center-problem-policies

I'm looking for anyone who is willing to help me out! However, it would be great to have a Skype Buddy who rocks at LR. I'm really good at games. I rarely miss a game question. So if you're good at LR and suck at games maybe we can help each other.

Thanks!

Hi!

I have written and revised and looked at my personal statement what seems like HUNDREDS OF TIMES.

I don't feel comfortable sharing it with those close to me, so I was hoping that maybe we could do a swap! I was going through the PS curriculum here on 7Sage and it advises to have multiple people review your PS.

Would anyone be interested in this?

If you are, I would be willing to read yours and give you feedback as well!! Please message me! I'm looking for 4-5 people so I can have many people review it!

Thanks :D

If you're willing to trade personal or diversity statements with other 7Sagers, please comment below. Once we have some interested parties, we can PM each other and offer constructive comments. Good luck to everyone preparing applications for this cycle!

P.S. I'm interested in swapping. PM me your statements!

This question is difficult because once you spot the flaw, it is hard to put it into words, which is why I missed it. I couldn't figure out how any of the answer choices paraphrased the flaw, so I had to pick an answer and move on. I don't really see how C is the flaw and how A is worse than C.

Bike riders don't follow the rules of the road, and this is a causal factor in 25% of traffic accidents involving bikes. The lack of bike saftey equipment is also a causal factor in 25% of those accidents. Thus, bikes are partly responsible for more than half of the traffic accidents involving bikes.

What I am looking for: I think the flaw is a math error. The conclusion says that 50+%, but we are given information about a causal factor being 25% and of those accidents a causal factor is 25%. Instead of additive, the relationship should be multiplicative. The conclusion should only talk about the percentage of bike accidents that included inadequate bike saftey equipment.

Answer A: This was the answer I chose, and I don't see how this doesn't adequately point out the flaw. Sure, you need to make an assumption that motorists are a factor in traffic accidents, but how is that not a reasonable assumption that the author overlooked? Additionally, since we conclude that 50+%, this is implying that less than 50% ("less than half") have some other cause. But, since we can't conclude anything about 50+%, this presumption is not justified. I don't see what is wrong with this one.

Answer B: No. We are to take the causal premises as truth.

Answer C: How is this the correct answer choice? Doesn't the conclusion say "at least partially responsible?" Thus, the argument DOES consider the possibility that more than one factor may contribute to a given accident? Additionally, the argument isn't talking about "all/given accidents;" it is limited to accidents involving bikes. How can the flaw be about "given" accidents?

Answer D: We don't need a source.

Answer E: Who cares about the severity of injury?

Hello,

If there is anyone on 7sage that has applied to American law schools as a Canadian student coming from a Canadian university could you please give any insight as to the process. I am mainly interested in the GPA calculations. My GPA calculated by OLSAS is ~3.92 but under LSAC it is around 3.54. Any insight is much appreciated!

Although I struggle with consistency identifying these arguments in complicated passages, I do tend to recognize them in easier forms. Hopefully this helps someone in need of a better understanding of this particular concept

Hey guys! So two of us were discussing this question on the BR call last night. I chose D, which is the correct answer, but I want confirmation for why E is wrong.

The question asks for a characteristic of "games that are intentionally commodified." The pertinent lines in the passage read: "By contrast, tax doctrine and policy counsel taxation of the sale of virtual items for real currency, and, in games that are intentionally commodified, even of in-world sales for virtual currency, regardless of whether the participant cashes out."

So we know we are looking for instances of in-world sales, or virtual to virtual, with perhaps the possibility of conversion into real money. With this we can eliminate A, which concerns real to virtual; B, which describes pure barter with no virtual currency component; and C, which does not directly address in-world trade.

I chose D because the first sentence of Passage B explains that a way in which some games encourage real-world trade in virtual items is by granting participants intellectual property rights in their creations. This aligns with the "intentional commodification" aspect.

But why is E wrong? It's talking about virtual to virtual, and I don't think it would be a stretch to assume that you could convert one of these currencies into real money. Currency conversion is, in a strict sense, a "sale," so converting one virtual currency into another would be an in-world sale. Is it because the passages never talk about different types or trade between virtual currency and as such this is new information? Or because the word "exchange" in answer choice E alludes to a barter rather than a sale?

I would appreciate anyone's help on this!

Double post, ignore.

Is anyone interested in checking out my personal statement and giving some critiques/advice? It is still in fairly roughish form, but I'm having internal conflict about what to change/improve/take out etc.

Good luck to some on Saturday!!

I just withdrew from the upcoming test and I decided to apply next cycle (I did not hit my target score and decided to fold). I'm looking to work with and interact with LSAT go-getters and ultimately improve with one another. I'm also looking to construct a study plan with someone's experienced insight. I can provide all the necessary details of my lsat adventures to someone that extends a hand.

For the Saturday writers: Stay strong! Stay focused! You got this! Believe in yourself!

Hey all, Congrats to those that finally conquered the LSAT this past Saturday. As an Lsatter that plans to take the exam in June Reading Comp quickly went from my strongest section to my weakest since I began my prep and I was wondering if there were any books that anyone on here recommends for Reading Comp. I have the Powerscore trilogy but the RC book is not as acclaimed. I plan on watching @nicole.hopkins webinar for reading comp for any tips I may find. For people that ultimately did well on RC, was there a source you used for help or was it one of those things that came after practice?(I've also read The Trainer, LG Bible and I am half way through the LR Bible while drilling after each chapter and reviewing afterwards atm btw).

I get why (E) is the answer here, there's a flaw between the premise and sub-conclusion. Just because a majority are unaware doesn't necessarily mean they disprove of the attempt.

But I'm having a tough time eliminating (D). If we just isolate the sub-conlusion (premise) and main conclusion we get: Since a majority of them obviously disapprove of THE attempt, graduate students at this university should not unionize. Ok, so they disapprove of THIS attempt, but isn't there the possibility that they may want to unionize for other reasons, which is what (D) says? Or maybe I'm just reading this wrong. Any help woulf be greatly appreciated!

Just in case you need another prediction

https://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8359&p=21376#p21376

I am taking the Feb 2016 test and looking for friends to study with!! Let me know if your in the area.

Febbers! We’re less than 6 weeks away! Come to Group BR tonight!

Wednesday, Dec 30th at 8PM ET: PT66

Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/548459389

IF YOU DON’T CLICK THIS LINK YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE BR GROUP

NOTE: Great News! Starting now we’ll be using GoToMeeting for all of our BR group needs.

Be sure to click the link of the conversation you’re attending and announce in the comments that you’re planning on attending.

February Test Takers Schedule: http://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/5520/february-test-takers-group-br-schedule-very-tentative

Fine Print (NOTE: you all want to be lawyers; reading fine print is what lawyers do, so READ IT!)

BR GROUP NOTES:

Anyone from Miami, FL prepping for Feb 2016 that wants to blind review/study in person?

Is there a good method or trick to eliminate all possible worlds for distributions? I just completed a game and couldn't figure out if I exhausted all possible distributions or not. I usually guess for the most part.

thanks.

Firstly, thank you thank you thank you 7Sage! I scored above my expectations and even beat my PT average which I was already happy with. This was my first time taking the LSAT so I busted my back with 7Sage every day for 8 months and it was worth it. So everyone dragging their feet through this preparation process, keep going and don't give up. You're with the best.

Secondly, does anyone know when LSAC officially releases scores? I've been getting emails from schools I've applied to saying they're still waiting on LSAC to release December scores before they can review, even though I got my score back last night.

I hit the 25th percentile of LSAT but am in the 75th percentile of UGPA. What would be an appropriate reach up from my 25th% LSAT to apply? Ex 155 and 3.75. How many points up should I reach for in the 25th % LSAT schools?

If anyone have spare time, I would really appreciate feedbacks on my personal statement. If you are interested, send me a private message, thanks!

Admin edit: please don't post your email address unless you love a spam sandwich!

I'm caught in this trap where I try to spend as many possible hours as I can reviewing and studying PTs but I think not having a definite boundary has been detrimental. I'm more likely to be fatigued and the quality of my studying drops since I spread my time out so generally. I think I could focus a lot more by dedicating some amount of time to coordinate myself, but I don't know what would be enough. Maybe I think that 8 hours is necessary for example but it turns out I could do everything in 4 or 5. I know this is different from person to person, but I'd like to hear different kinds of approaches. Is there something you've found that works for you?