I enjoyed this Q and thought I'd do a write-up.

The hard things on this Q for me were seeing the conclusion and understanding AC D.

The statement about development not negatively affecting the wildlife in the park is the conclusion, because it draws support from the following statements about #s on wildlife increasing and the Park's resources can support the current numbers. At first I thought this would just be a premise but after I read the paragraph I had to go back and see what the conclusion actually was.

The second sentence is a bit confusing, let's unpack it. We're talking about 2 surveys - the most recent surgery compared to one taken just before the development started. We should be asking "how far apart were these surveys taken?" The stim tells us a decade, so ten years. That's enough time to see a sizeable difference.

Next we see that theamount of wildlife has increased in those 10 years. Here is where your flaw detector should be going off!! The amount of wildlife has increased, but do we know that this means the Park's wildlife has not been negatively affected? Heck no. What if the development led to the death of all bears, and now without predators the bunny population is 20million? Or what if development led to every animal getting really sick, so now they don't kill each other, they just sit there in a catatonic state? Definitely a negative impact.

We're given 1 more premise that is not really important for getting the right answer. The parks current resources can support the current population. Ok? Will it support 1 more animal? Idk.

I've identified a flaw and now ready for ACs:

A. (Going bit by bit): ok, the recent survey and 10 years ago survey. This was the bunny flaw we identified. What if 9/10 species died due to the development? We're saying that's NOT the case. Still 10 species alive now, no fewer. Now we see the latest survey shows increased #s in each species. Bears, bunnies, etc all have increased populations. Good! This addresses a big flaw, and I like it. Def keep this answer. Turns out this is the correct AC.

B. If we took a snapshot of wildlife total numbers we need to know those numbers aren't skewed. B is showing it IS skewed - we took a snapshot at the peak time.

If this is how you read B you made the same mistake I did. "Diversity" is not the same as gross numbers. If this AC read "in addition to total number increase, diversity increased as well." This would add support to the argument that wildlife has not been negatively affected by the development.

The issue with B is it does indicate the snapshot is skewed - it was taken during summer when the numbers look best. Also make sure to note diversity isn't the same as gross numbers.

C. If animals are migrating in, then what can we conclude about the numbers of animals within the park? No idea!! The argument is using the total number of animals in the park increasing as a premise. Now that number is skewed by outside interference. What if 100% of animals within the park died, and 200% that number migrated in? Certainly we can't say the development had no negative impact.

D. This is a great subtle AC which makes it a little hard to see why is wrong. What does it mean that we can locate hard to find animals now that we couldn't in the past? It means in the past we could find 8/10 animals and now we're finding all 10/10. This weakens the support that the premise gives to the conclusion. What if population numbers didn't increase and you're just finding the last 2/10 animals?

E. Plant life - what about alien life? Did they find SpongeBob and Patrick? This is a throwaway AC because I don't care about plants - plants don't have a place in the argument we're given.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-71-section-3-question-25/

Hola all I'm Mark I got a 169 in October and had around 20 apps ready to fire away as soon as I got my test results back. I'd like to share my results so far as well as some waitlist management advice. I've been obsessing about getting off the waitlist and have done a ludicrous amount of research (research sounds better than obsession).

I am what the Dean of admissions at Yale called a "super soft" aka military veteran and my ugpa was 3.42 which is notably low for t14.

Accepted with scholarship: Uga, Emory, Notre Dame

Denied: Harvard, Chicago, Cornell, Berkeley

Waitlist: UCLA, Georgetown, Northwestern, Penn, Michigan

My top choice is Northwestern and I'm doing everything in my control to get off their waitlist. Ultimately it will come down to how their class looks after their first and second deposit deadlines and what they class needs in terms of student demographic composition, and what the school's/Dean's goals are for that class (based on interviews I've listened to from Deans admissions officers etc).

Here is my waitlist advice I've gleaned from Harvard and Yale Deans, Michigan ad com officers, Harvard as com person, Michigan person, + my personal interactions with adcom.

Waitlist: do whatever the school asks in their waitlist email. Every 3-4 weeks and especially just after/before their deposit deadline write a letter of continued interest loci. You can print and handsign then upload as a PDF. Some schools don't care about loci format others may. In loci you can specify certain clinics, work programs, professors, courses that you're interested in. It really looks good if those are linked to a topic you expressed interest in in a PS or resume. Show how you love the city / want to live in the school's area. If you have a specific reason you like the school mention it. If it's your #1 pick and you would attend no matter what, say so. Be careful mentioning other competing offers - comes off as threat.

That's not exhaustive but it's a pretty good start. Best of luck!

I've been going over correlation causation and it's closely related cousin phenomenon hypothesis arguments and I realized a very important distinction. Phenomenon hypothesis (hereafter known as PH) deals with cause and effect whereas correlation causation deals with cause and effect over time. Here's why this is important:

Nicole Hopkins has a great webinar in the 7sage archives about weakening and strengthening arguments. She says we can strengthen arguments by showing more data that A->B, block an alternate explanation C->A&B, or block no relation between A and B. I'd like to additionally state that chronology can impact an argument as well. If we say A->B, staying that A did indeed come before B strengthens the argument. If B came before A how could A->B?

The important concept I realized was that in many PH questions the above methods don't cut it. In 70.1.6, 70.1.12, and 80LR1.23, we need to use a different approach: if cause, we want to see the effect. If no cause, no effect.

The arguments say "here's a phenomenon, here's my hypothesis." This is implying a casual relationship between A and B. But if I show the effect with no cause, what happens to the hypothesis? It's weakened. If I show your cause with it's effect, this strengths. Too, "no cause no effect" is a very subtle way of strengthening an argument.

Hi I'm almost pushing into the 170s and I'm trying to solidify my strategy for LR. Right now I read the question stem, read the stimulus and find the C, P's, and background info, then I translate the stim into my own words. After that I find the flaw and ask "What if...?" then I move into PoE looking for that pivotal wrong word that disqualifies an AC. At the end of all that I give myself a confidence score for each question.

My issue is this approach doesn't take into account the specific strategies per question type. I know you could say "just do it intuitively," I'd rather have a very concrete strategy for LR. Not remembering what to do under pressure is hard for me so this is what I've come up with and I'd love to know any feedback you have.

For labeling questions (argument part, MC): underline the conclusion, see where specifically support is flowing to and from

Argument questions: underline the conclusion in all of these, then follow specific strategy

Weaken / strengthen: no strategy!

Flaw: JY's 2 part test

NA: do MBT test and then the negation test

SA: see the structure of the argument, graph if needed

PSA: same as SA

Pmor: same as SA

MoR: understand what the author is doing, describe in my own words

Pfmor: see the flaw and get a strong understanding of what I'm looking for

point of agree/diagreement: do the chart where 1 person agrees / disagrees / no opinion

Premise set questions (MSS, MBT):

MSS: read the stim really, really well. Get a solid translation of my own of the stim, then move into ACs

MBT: if I can't do it in my head, graph

RRE: No real strategy. I generally try to find the point of tension and try to explain it, but I find these questions are just LSAC gauging how well your assumptions match their own (bit of cynicism here :D haha)

I'd love any links to good resources, recommendations, suggestions!!! Thanks in advance.

Our baby's due date was Monday the 18th, my test was scheduled for Wednesday the 20th. Now that the April test was cancelled I didn't know if I'd have to wait another half-year to take the test once I'd regained enough sleep to be functional after caring for our newborn girl. On top of this a lot more responsibility has fallen on me while my wife has been getting much needed 3rd trimester rest: this means taking care of our toddler, cooking and doing dishes, house chores, finances and working from home. Lastly, as an Army veteran I suffer from constant back pain and frequent neck spasms -- it's certainly not the worst situation, but it's not the best either. Yet through it all I remained uncharacteristically calm and drew positive comments from family members and friends on how I handled the situation! I owe how I handled the stress to 2 methods and hopefully this can help others stay calm and focused too.

The 2 methods that helped handle all the stress were meditation and having a written step by step strategy for not just the LSAT but also for when our baby comes. I bought the book "The mindful athlete" which talks about how to practice mindfulness. Learning how to meditate and meditating for 10 minutes twice a day helped me to chill out after a long day of work and helped me become calm when I felt stressed out. Without meditation I swear I would have snapped at my family and loved ones a TON, but taking a time out to regain composure proved an invaluable resource I'll be practicing probably for the rest of my life.

Having a written strategy took a lot of the guesswork out of what to do when my wife actually starts labor (contractions can start even 3-4 weeks before real labor contractions do). I wrote down exactly what to do, who to call, what to load into the car; this allowed my mind to be free of that responsibility. Same for the LSAT. I used Mike Ross and Josh's timing strategy which helped me make an exhaustive strategy to execute for every question type during rounds 1 and 2 of each section and I practiced this. There was nothing that took me by surprise on Flex day and despite being nervous I feel like I executed my strategy to a T. I feel like I really was able to beat demonstrate my aptitude and limit the negative effects of nerves substantially.

Having a strategy and knowing what to do as well as practicing mindfulness helped me overcome what may be one of the most stressful times in my life. I am fortunate to have even taken the test at all - I didn't have neck spasms during the test and our baby girl practiced social distancing and didn't come yet (lol). Even if she had come I was mentally prepared to take the test in Sept and Oct and viewed this circumstance positively, not negatively. The inducement date is tomorrow the 22nd if the girl doesn't come today and if I get a 170 or above we'll make her middle name my numerical test score :D haha just kidding. We're naming her Flex ;) All the best!

howdy all, I wanted to let people know how this admissions cycle has gone for me with hopes of shedding some light for others. It's been a very wonky cycle so far. I sent in 18 applications just after Oct 23, right after I got the results for my 169. I applied to all t14 + UCLA, UGA, Emory, and Notre Dame. I was expecting with my "super" soft of being a veteran + being a splitter at a lot of schools or at least hitting their median LSAT that I'd be a shoe in (haha it's actually "shoo in") at a lot of schools, but this has not been the case.

Here are the results of this weird cycle:

Georgetown - waitlist

Notre Dame - accepted

UGA - accepted

Harvard - denied

Cornell - denied

U Penn - waitlist

Waiting still from 12 schools.

Huh? Waitlisted at #7 Penn and denied at #13 Cornell? Then waitlisted at #14 Georgetown?? Here's a link to a very helpful and anxiety-lowering video from Spivey Consulting on youtube she basically explains what's going on and it helped me to manage my stress better.

I hope this info helps some of you, I wanted to be open about my application stats and my results, hopefully other ppl will benefit from this.

Hi all, for those who are veterans I got some good news from a UGA assistant dean of admissions yesterday (5/14/2020). He said that for veterans who are admitted all of them received at least some additional funds for going to UGA. Right now the GI Bill covers full tuition at UGA Law (currently tuition is about $19k a year), then many schools offer the Yellow Ribbon scholarship for veterans on top of that. I'm not sure if the dean of admissions I spoke with was referring exclusively to the YR scholarship but he did say every veteran that was accepted at UGA gets money in the pocket.

Hope this is helpful!

Hi, I've been hitting the mid-high 160's and I'm finding my core weakness is not understanding what the ACs are saying. This means the AC is using hard referential phrasing, or weird grammar like using embedded clauses without commas / run-on sentences, or the wording is just ambiguous.

I'm trying to parse the sentence piece by piece in my BR, but does anyone have any help for this issue?

My solutions so far are: parse word by word / phrase by phrase in BR, reduce the AC down to subject verb object. This is still really hard and I miss a lot of questions just because I don't know what the AC is trying to tell me. Thanks!

The questions I miss on LG are almost never the hard questions or even sub questions. I average -0 to -3, but when I miss questions, they are almost always due to a careless mistake. For instance I am checking 82.2.1, a very easy "140" MBT inference question that I missed. I could slap myself for missing this, but this is typical of the kind of mistake I'll make.

This is the most frustrating thing ever. I know I feel a little nervous doing timed sections and I can rush, where I read too quickly and work too fast. Even since grade school making careless errors in math has always been my downfall.

Please for the love of god someone offer good advice on how to stop making careless errors in LG? This doesn't happen nearly as much in LR and RC.

Hey would anyone like to exchange PS and DS essays? I'm looking for feedback please. If so let me know!!

Hi all I find I have some difficulty on numbers related LR questions, there was a MBT question on pt 89 dealing with average numbers of students in night classes and an easier question on pt 80.1.2 (flaw question) where it's a numerator denominator trap.

I remember someone saying "you have to know 2 of 3 things to make a valid inference, you have to know at least 2/3 of the numerator, denominator, or the %." Am I remembering this correctly?

Also does anyone have any tips from figuring these numbers questions out easily? Thanks!

Has there ever been a weakening or strengthening correct answer choice which uses the word some or many? If so which pt section and question?

I just got finished with 81.3.16 about financial incentives to conserve energy. The trap AC would have been perfect if we changed "some" to most or all, and I know this happens frequently. I was a bit shocked at the correct AC, however, and am now curious enough to see if some/many are essentially instant disqualifiers.

Hi I'd like to meet with someone scoring around same as me (about 170-171) to study together. My schedule is pretty limited I have 7-8am EDT, sometimes 10-11am and some nights around 730pm.

The areas I'm working on are RC, flaw questions, NA, and testing with confidence.

Please DM if interested :)

Hi I'd like to know how people got better at RC, both in reading skills and getting a better score. Thanks!

I chose AC C and didn't even know I was wrong until I did heavy review on the right AC D.

C. I initially thought "Yes the author would agree it is a predominant strength for the Mexican American writers to not be tied down by a literary establishment. It would follow reasonably that without the need to be accountable to a larger establishment the writers are more free to experiment."

The part where this is wrong is the 2nd half - "So are free to experiment..." Where is the support from the passage that the author believes the writers are more free to experiment in ways Mexican writers can't? There isn't any. In fact, where is the support that Mexican writers can't experiment??? This was an assumption I made - that if you are tied to a literary establishment, you won't be able to experiment. But in fact no such reference is made. All we know is that Mexican writing tends to be characterized by longer writing, more "cosmopolitanism," and more theoretical content. We don't know that Mexican writers are discouraged from being experimental.

My takeaways - 1. Where is "experimenting" mentioned? It's not, this should be a red flag if the AC mentions a theme / content that's not found in the passage. 2. It is a big assumption that to be tied to a literary establishment, even if the author thinks this is a bad thing, may not mean you're less able to experiment. What if in fact the establishment has been encouraging experimentation relentlessly to Mexican authors?

D. I was put off by "regional" writers; I didn't think the author believed Mexican American writers were regional at all! But this doesn't matter!!! We could exclude the Mexican American writers completely and the author would still have to agree with this AC.

The Mexico city literary establishment = "this community." They believe "regional" writing (dismissive tone) is "parochial" again a negative tone word. So in Mexico "this community" writes in a certain way and has control for who is successful and who isn't. If someone is writing "regional" and "parochial" content, is this going to win the award for best book in Mexico? No, because the establishment who runs the show doesn't value the regional and parochial content. They value something else.

Hey all, I've been waitlisted at NU and I feel it'll be a really good fit for me. I'm a non-traditional student with a family, military veteran, excited about NU's clinic and class offerings and I want to do as much as I can to get off their waitlist. Any advice?

Hi all the purpose of this post is twofold: to teach everything I know about phenomenon hypothesis (PH) and correlation causation (CC) argument types, as well as to be a knowledge check where other people can correct me and make sure my understanding is solid. I'll start with PH, then go through CC, and then I'll show how both argument types are very similar.

In PH arguments, we have something that happens in the real world, then we offer an explanation of why that thing is the way it is. For instance, I see a bunch of seals barking. Then I see fishermen riding their boats in the harbor. I say, "It must be that seals bark whenever they see fishermen." My phenomenon is "seals bark" and my hypothesis is "they bark when they see fishermen." In lawgic, the SC would be "See fishermen" -> and the NC would be "Bark."

There are a lot of ways to strengthen PH and CC arguments and I'll explain them here: 1. A->B, 2. block B->A, 3. block C->A&B, 4. block "no relation," 5. block bad chronology, and 6. show "good consequences." 7. No cause no effect

A->B really just means "If see fishermen -> bark." This works with PH and CC arguments. How can I show that seals really do bark when they see fishermen? Show more data. a trend of more data. I don't want to see 1 more case of seals barking when they see fishermen, I want to see a lengthy trend of seals barking many times over a long period of time. I have seen at least 2-3 times where the LSAC will use a trap answer where the "strengthening" answer choice just throws in 1 more example of the hypothesis working. "You say seals bark when they see fishermen, well Joe saw a seal barking when fishermen were present." I want to see "over the last 5 years, there's an 85% chance that seals will bark whenever they see fishermen." I don't want a single corroborating example (although this does strengthen the hypothesis very, very, very slightly), I want to see a trend.

Block B->A. Let's say my argument is "When the sun shines, then my trees grow." To show that B actually causes A is a little weird in this case, but it would go like this: "My trees growing actually cause the sun to shine." If the latter case were true, then my argument that "sun shine -> trees grow" would be ruined! The causality would be flipped the other way around. The B->A style works really well for CC arguments where I'm trying to show that A is causing B; to show B->A, or block B->A can weaken / strengthen the argument.

For example - "When the sun shines, -> trees grow." To strengthen this argument I can block B->A. "It's also not the case that trees growing causes the sun to shine." I'm eliminating the possibility that my causality isn't flipped. To go back to seals, I would block the case that barking (NC) actually is the explanation for the seals to somehow be seeing fishermen (SC). "It's not the case that barking allows the seals to see fishermen."

Block C->A&B = block an alternate explanation.

What if it's the case that shrimp actually cause the seals to bark and the fishermen to appear? In that case my phenomenon hypothesis argument would be ruined. It's not the case that seeing fishermen causes seals to bark. It's something else.

I want to block this alternate explanation: "It's not the case that shrimp cause fishermen to appear and that shrimp cause seals to bark."

In a correlation causation argument, let's say "hearing about earthquakes in the news causes people to dream about earthquakes." But what if everyone was watching a movie about earthquakes, and this movie caused the dreams? We would want to strengthen our argument by blocking an answer choice that says "A recently released movie about earthquakes is known to cause people to dream about earthquakes." We can eliminate the possibility of an alternate explanation, and this strengthens our argument that actually hearing about earthquakes in the news caused dreams.

No relation / 5. bad chronology

Bad chronology goes hand in hand with "No relation" so I'll group them here. "If I study -> get 180." What if I see an independent study that says "studying has been shown to have no effect on your test results."? That would show "no relation."

Likewise, what if I said "Bob studied then he got a 180. Therefore, studying gives you a 180." Then I say "Bob started studying AFTER he got a 180." This shows bad chronology - the effect actually occurred before the alleged cause! Block this to strengthen.

Good consequences

If the phenomenon hypothesis argument is true, I want to show good consequences. If my hypothesis is true, what would happen? Let's say my hypothesis is "If seals see fishermen -> then they bark." Good consequences AC would say "Fishermen have increased in the bay 500% in the last month. Since then, sales of earplugs have increased 1000%." Fishermen are in the bay a lot more, which means seals are barking, and people don't want to listen to that so they buy earplugs.

Another example is "The city is increasing the speed limit by 30mph. Therefore there will be more car wrecks." A good consequences answer choice would say "There have been more speeding tickets since the speed limit increased."

If we take our hypothesis to be true, then make a reasonable assumption of what could happen if the hypothesis were true, we get a "good consequences" answer choice that strengthens the argument.

No cause no effect

Let's take the argument "It's sunny. Therefore my ice cream will melt." If S -> M.

If I show that there's no sun, and indeed my ice cream is not melting, this is good! I strengthen my argument.

However, if I show "Cause with no effect," or "Effect with no cause," these WEAKEN the argument. It's sunny, but my ice cream isn't melting. Or "my ice cream is melting, but it's not sunny!" These weaken.

Same as title - got my score for may flex but not the score breakdowns yet

Hi I'd like to just exchange essays and receive feedback for my DS and perhaps an addendum as well. I'll be happy to read and review a PS / DS / addendum if someone would be willing to provide feedback on mine! Please let me know if you're interested.

Hi, I'm going to be writing a diversity statement and in addition to some extensive googling, I wanted to know if anyone here has had success writing DS's or has some sage, or 7sage (bad joke) advice for writing a good DS. I've also looked at the admissions site here on 7sage for some pointers and they have been helpful.

Just looking for peoples' input and specific advice. Thanks!

Hey all, I came across this great pdf from Yale when I was trying to see if a curfew violation needed to be reported in a character and fitness violation. https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/department/cdo/document/50_state_survey_-bar_exams_and_mental_health-_fall_2017.pdf

This link contains a lot of the questions asked on the state bar ethics exams and is a good baseline to see what will be asked when we have to take the bar.

If a sentence gives an explanation, does this mean the sentence offers support? I've run into this issue twice on argument part questions. 70.1.17 was one, the other was on another test.

As an example I've made a simple argument:

Conclusion: Global warming is real.

Premise 1: Global temperatures are rising.

Explanation of premise1: Global temperatures rising means that a global phenomenon, like global warming, must be occurring.

I've tried to make an argument where you have a clear conclusion, a supporting premise, then a sentence that gives more information on the premise. Does that explaining sentence give support to anything? Is an explanation the same as support?

What is the difference between LR questions in the 70's and 80's compared to earlier PTs?

For example, is it that recent LR questions hinge on really subtle interpretations of words, like conflating "method" and "reason" and these two words are spaced far apart in the paragraph? Is it picking up on really subtle flaws? Did the old tests just test your basic understanding of logic and not really test your ability to hunt for subtlety?

I ask because I did really well in PT 60, then did 5x worse in a pt from the 80s. This is pretty consistent too for LR. Why?

Hi, over the past year or so I've constantly been updating my blind review template based on what instruction from tutors and mentors, from the 7Sage CC, from The Loophole, from all-star sages and also based on what I find benefits me most when I BR a question.

If you have any questions or suggestions I'd love to hear them! Hope this benefits you.

PT, Q, Q type:

The best way to do these questions is:

Motto for Q type:

Translation Drill (after looking at the stim once, process the information and repeat it in abbreviated form here.):

Conclusion Premises Background info:

Referential phrasing:

Cookie Cutter logical layout (Method of Reasoning and structure):

Flaw:

My Prediction / prephrase:

Blind Review (BR) and Answer Choices (ACs) - why is the AC right? Why wrong?

Test writer review (TWR) – Why is this AC on the test in the first place? What is the trap set for this wrong AC? Who are they trying to fool?

Seek mastery

A.

TWR.

B.

TWR.

C.

TWR.

D.

TWR.

E.

TWR.

Teach a parallel question:

Takeaways:

Hi, in a former post I mentioned I did receive accommodations for the LSAT. A lot of people had questions and I hope to address some of those here by explaining my process for requesting.

To give some background, I'm an Army veteran with years of back and neck issues as well as an anxiety disorder stemming from on the job stuff as well as ADHD. When taking the test I would have panic attacks where I'd stop breathing, often I'd have neck spasms and have to stop what I was doing, and I'd just have a hard time staying focused. After the Nov 2019 test I decided to apply for accommodations.

The LSAC was super helpful and courteous. I had to make sure I had official diagnoses for each condition, I filled out the 3 forms for requesting accommodations from LSAC, and I had a doctor verify that each condition actually existed and I wasn't lying. There seemed to be some lack of clarity when I spoke with LSAC reps on who qualified as a "doctor," sometimes a social worker qualified and other times a medical doctor was required. In the end I had a PhD psychologist sign off on mine.

The LSAC was extremely courteous and kind through the whole process and very responsive. They worked with me to ensure I was able to "demonstrate my full aptitude" for the test, something that's written pretty clearly in the accommodations application. When I took the Flex I felt everything had been done so that my limiting conditions had been minimized to a very acceptable degree.

Caveat: The accommodations were NOT a silver bullet!!! This is so important to emphasize. First, your 2.5 hour test becomes a 5 hour test. This is a huge difference!!

Lastly, additional time isn't going to compensate for lack of knowledge or lack or timing strategies. @"Cant Get Right" mentioned in a webinar of his that some of his students' scores went down after being granted additional time.

Hope this helped!