User Avatar
8835
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free

Admissions profile

LSAT
Not provided
CAS GPA
Not provided
1L START YEAR
Not provided

Discussions

General · 1L at Osgoode
User Avatar
8835
Tuesday, Jan 21 2020

Do you find yourself using your LSAT skills a lot? If so, which ones? Congrats on finishing your first semester :)

1
General · A Tip on Beating Mid Section Stress
User Avatar
8835
Monday, Jan 20 2020

@57825 said:

Lucas, do you think this issue could be responsible for the difference between timed score and BR score?

For sure! Time constraints create a challenge to the test that is not present during BR; It is much easier solving questions with unlimited time to think and digest.

0

There is no worse feeling during a timed section than when you come across a difficult question, have trouble processing it, and feel like you should be able to answer it. You start to question why you can't do it, why your brain isn't working, thinking about the clock, and how you NEED to get this one correct and NEED to do so quickly. This stress can quickly compound and sometimes even render you staring blankly at the page wondering if you can ever do well on the LSAT.

This has happened to me many times during practice and unfortunately many times during real takes; it is not fun. So why does this happen? I think that we tend to take how we feel at the present point in time and assume that we will feel that way for the indefinite future. For example, when we come across a really tough question that we are not understanding, we tend to think that that feeling of difficulty and inadequacy will remain for the rest of the section, rest of our test, and ultimately the rest of our lives. This becomes a very scary prospect. When this is on our mind, it becomes nearly impossible to think objectively or rationally. The idea of hell is so scary because it involves the infinite feeling of suffering.

So, how do you prevent and effectively manage stress before it snowballs? First, know that it is going to be present. No matter how good you are at this test, there will always be very tough questions and ones which do not even come close to clicking at first. Stress and adversity are inevitable. I have found that the key is recognizing stress when it begins. Try to realize when your mind begins to feel uncomfortable and like a question has rendered you weak and powerless. Remind yourself that you have come across some adversity and that this is completely expected and normal. The difficulty that you are having now with this one question is not permanent and you can/will pop right back up for the next one. Move on to the next question with confidence and be ready to skip that one too if it does not click!

This takes practice, but try to recognize the stress/fear/doubt as soon as it arises, tell yourself you were expecting it, and that it will not shake you. When I am hit with stress during a timed section, I like to think "ahhhh there you are! I knew you were coming, but you will not trick me this time." During a timed section you will inevitably think that you can't or that your mojo isn't there, but I promise it usually is! In short, don't project how you feel in the present about a question onto the rest of the test!

16
LSAT · Looking for Mechanistic Way to Attack Math Questions
User Avatar
8835
Monday, Jan 20 2020

Lots of times process of elimination will be your best friend. For example, you may know that the argument in the stimulus makes a math error or requires an assumption regarding a proportion. If an answer choice has nothing to do with numbers, you can quickly eliminate it. You can let the remaining answer choices feed you rather than trying to work out the math on your own.

2
PrepTests ·
PT153.S3.Q17
User Avatar
8835
Sunday, Jan 12 2020

Sort of. We are looking to weaken this argument. To do so we want to cast doubt on the conclusion that high levels of lycopene are causing reduced risk of stroke (the premise being the correlation).

A gives us a route to do so. We are invited to wonder if maybe it is not the high lycopene levels themselves, but something else that the high lycopene people are doing that results in a lower risk of stroke. If A is true, then maybe these high lycopene people have high lycopene because they eat more fruits than others and maybe these fruits have properties which lower the risk for stroke.

You are completely right though: we are assuming that the high lycopene group became that way because they ate more fruits.

This piece of information puts a possible assumption that could be true on the table and creates doubt. If A is true, the argument now has a route to be flawed, although this route does require assumptions.

The stem asks us to find the answer choice which "most weakens" so we want to find the answer choice which creates the most doubt with the least assumptions. The other answer choices pretty much restate the correlation/data and tell us nothing about whether it is the high lycopene levels causing the decreased stroke risk. So while A does not give us a clear cut perfect path to deny the conclusion, it does give us a new possibility for an alternative explanation and that is all we need.

1

I want to quickly discuss a common type of causation argument that LSAC uses.

Here is an example:

Those who wear glasses are more likely than those who do not to have knee problems. To ensure good knee health, ditch the glasses.

We take a correlation and make a recommendation, seems pretty innocuous- maybe this is sound advice.

No! This advice is rooted in making an assumption. This assumption is a really bad reasoning error. It is assuming that wearing glasses is what causes knees to have problems. That is why the advice to stop wearing glasses to prevent knee damage is given. Notice how the argument never comes out and says "Glasses cause Knee problems", that would be too easy. The implicit assumption that the argument makes is inferring causation from correlation.

As we know, when A is correlated with B, there are 4 possibilities :

  • A causes B

  • B causes A

  • 3rd common cause

  • No relationship

    • For our advice to ditch the glasses to work, we would need A to cause B, or, in other words, glasses to cause knee problems. If it really is the case that knee problems cause people to wear glasses (B causes A), then just stopping wearing glasses will do nothing, the advice would be terrible. Similarly, if genetics causes both knee problems and glasses and that is why we have our correlation, then taking glasses off will do nothing. In short, the only way our advice works is if glasses really do cause knee problems. We cannot say this is the case just based on the existence of a correlation, there are 3 other possibilities which are equally likely.

    Boiled down to variables the argument goes like this:

    **A is correlated with B

    If you desire B, just do A.

    or

    If you want to prevent B, don't to A**

    Well, for this advice to make sense, we must assume that A causes B and we cannot do that based on a correlation.

    These questions are sometimes tricky because they make intuitive sense. They will really try to make the advice sound good, despite making a correlation causation error. Here is one last example:

    People with a lot of sugar in their diets tend to get disease XYZ more often than those who do not. To lower your risk of XYZ, cut out sugar from your diet.

    Well, we know sugar is bad for health, so this does not seem bad at all. BUT, this argument commits the error of taking a correlation and jumping to the conclusion that sugar is what is causing XYZ. This is done implicitly (hence to title of the post) and is not ok for the reasons discussed above!

    PT 78 S3 Q21 (https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-78-section-3-question-21/) is a good example of this form and disguises the flaw with an argument that seems to make sense.

    Hope this was helpful!

    6
    General · Comparison of these particular law schools: Seton Hall, Brooklyn, Cardozo - Yeshiva, St. John's
    User Avatar
    8835
    Wednesday, Jan 08 2020

    This tool may be useful to you: https://www.lstreports.com/compare/

    It pulls employment data from the ABA reports and lets you see the outcomes of graduates.

    1
    General · Consistently scoring at ~166 - Feeling like a failure
    User Avatar
    8835
    Tuesday, Jan 07 2020

    What is your blind review process like? Also, what is your BR score?

    3
    PrepTests ·
    PT143.S3.Q13
    User Avatar
    8835
    Sunday, Dec 29 2019

    D is telling us that most TAs earn a stipend beyond just tuition. Our conclusion is that the sole purpose is to fund education. D is consistent with the conclusion because 1. Maybe they earn a just a tiny bit beyond tuition, yet the sole purpose of the stipend being awarded for their services is to fund education. 2. There are factors other than tuition that go into funding education. Maybe the amount above just tuition is to cover books or other tangential education costs.

    So just because most TAs earn a stipend that is beyond tuition does not mean the sole purpose of the position is not to fund their education.

    2
    General · Help--Score Dropped by 5
    User Avatar
    8835
    Thursday, Dec 19 2019

    There is data to pretty confidently conclude that no law school averages and they all consider the highest score. This has to do with their incentive to maintain the highest possible LSAT medians to achieve a high US News ranking.

    Here is some more information regarding this: https://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/do-law-schools-average-lsat-scores-or-use-the-high-score/

    0
    User Avatar
    •

    Thursday, Nov 28 2019

    8835

    A Note on "Most Helps to Justify"

    Many of us dive into PSA mode as soon as our eyes scan the words "Most Helps to Justify". That is, hunting for the answer choice stating: If premise then conclusion. This is efficient and works a large majority of the time, however, I have noticed that recent tests have thrown a wrinkle into this strategy. The trick lies in the wording of the stem.

    For example, the full stem looks like: "Which of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in the argument?"

    Let's break this down. We are going to be given an argument: Premise + Conclusion. The answer choices will provide us 5 principles. We are to assume each one is valid or true. It is our job to identify the answer choice or principle which would most help to justify the reasoning. By reasoning it is meant how the premise supports the conclusion. In other words, we need a principle that most helps the premise be considered good evidence to reach the conclusion.

    I bolded the word "most" twice because it means that we need the best answer choice in relative terms. An answer choice which creates or comes close to creating a valid argument is great, but, it is not necessary! An answer choice which lightly strengthens and requires less assumptions than all other answer choices also fits the task required of us by the stem.

    Interestingly enough, when LSAC uses the "Most Helps to Justify" stem, the credited answer choice usually makes the argument close to validity. That is why the stem is commonly classified by 7sage analytics as a PSA question.

    But remember, the wording of the stem does not necessitate reaching near validity. All we need is an answer choice that most helps the argument get closer to validity.

    On the past few tests I have noticed that there will be a "Most Helps to Justify" stem whose credited answer choice is not the traditional "if premise then conclusion". Instead, it lightly strengthens the argument, while the other answer choices are irrelevant. Because the answer choices did not match my pre phrase, I panicked. Consequently, I eliminated all answer choices and had to skip the question. But, if I kept in mind that "Most Helps to Justify" does not require near validity, I would have been fine and saved lots of time and stress!

    Takeaway/TLDR; "Most Helps to Justify" is a PSA question 95% of the time, but, the wording of the stem does not rule out that these types of questions are just light strengthening questions, which is the case the other 5% of the time. Be flexible and do not panic if your "If premise then conclusion" pre phrase is not found.

    16
    LSAT · Cookie Cutter Argument Form: Phenomenon Hypothesis
    User Avatar
    8835
    Tuesday, Nov 19 2019

    @changrichard94444 said:

    Hey! I’ve been waiting for your next post haha. My eyes are always peeled.

    More trap answers include:

    What people think, feel, believe, wish, want, their intentions, etc.

    Wrong group - like if the stimulus is discussing pink ducks, and the AC is talking about blue ducks. It can be very subtle.

    The other X, another X, is better than/greater/faster etc.

    A little off topic, but what is your approach on 58-4-23? This is also a strengthen question, where a corroborating dataset just doesn’t cut it. I think I was a little traumatized from the question.

    Thanks for your kind words! I posted a detailed explanation in the comments section. That question is pretty tough, but cracks right open if you focus on the argument!

    0
    PrepTests ·
    PT130.S4.Q23
    User Avatar
    8835
    Tuesday, Nov 19 2019

    This is a great question because it showcases the importance of focusing on the actual argument.

    Set up/Observed Phenomenon

    1. -Eight large craters run in a straight line.

    2. -Some have undergone high pressure shocks.

    3. -These shocks are characteristic and possibly due to meteorite slamming into earth. They also could be caused by extreme volcanic events.

    4. The linearity makes it unlikely that some were caused by meteorites while others were caused by volcanoes. Note: This is like a not both rule. It does not preclude the possibility of neither being the cause.

    Argument:

    Craters are different ages

    ————

    Caused by volcanoes, not meteorites

    Our structure is pretty simple: Do the craters being different ages give good reason to believe that it is not the meteorites and really the volcanoes causing them?

    So our argument takes the fact that the craters have different ages to mean that it is not meteorites but volcanoes. The conclusion has 2 parts: knocking out meteorites and favoring volcanoes. Both have assumptions for us to strengthen.

    Our assumption for knocking out meteorites is that the craters being created at different times, means that it is not meteorites. So we need to say:

    If meteorites caused crater—>Created at same time.

    For volcanoes, we assume that 1. meteorites are knocked out and 2. extreme volcanic events plausibility could have caused these specific craters, given that they have different ages.

    The author is sort of creating a dichotomy; implying that it is definitely either volcanoes or meteorites.

    Put simply, we need craters being different ages to have some bearing on determining their cause.

    A- Pay attention to our argument! We are trying to say that because the craters have different ages, they are from volcanoes and not meteorites. So what if volcanoes are capable of creating craters all the same age. What about our differently aged craters? How were they made?

    B- Ahhh perfect! This tells us that there is no way 8 craters of different ages could form a straight line if formed from a meteorite. Take your time to dissect the grammar on this AC, it is super tricky. This means our premise, that they are different ages and in a straight line, is great reason to believe that the craters are not from a meteorite .

    C- Ok…. No independent evidence either way. How does this help our argument? Do not say it weakens. Lack of evidence is not evidence of falsity.

    D- How does this help our volcanoe mechanism? It does not. Like C, it does not prevent the volcanoes theory from working because lack of evidence does not imply falsity, but, it certainly does not help.

    E- Ok…. but look at our argument. We are saying that because the craters have a different ages that it is not from meteorites. So the assumption we are making is that

    meteorite causing craters——>/occurring at different times

    E tells us that a single shower has never created exactly 8 impact craters. Cool. Our craters are different ages, presumably NOT from a single shower. So we do not care what a single shower can or cannot do.

    3

    I am back to discuss another cookie cutter argument form. Here is the link to the cost benefit argument structure that I posted about previously: https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/21220

    This one is known as Phenomenon Hypothesis. In this argument form, an observation about the world is made, followed by a proposed explanation. This post will discuss some common answer choice types LSAC uses to effect the strength of a hypothesis in explaining a phenomenon or observed occurrence.

    1. Affirm/Deny Mechanism

    Tells us exactly how the hypothesis would explain the phenomenon.

    For example, if I say: there is a correlation between white blood cells and strong immune systems, therefore white blood cells cause strong immune systems.

    A mechanism would be explaining a plausible way for white blood cells to improve immune systems. Like: white blood cells contain disease fighting chemicals that kill all bad bacteria. So this information strengthens our hypothesis by providing a plausible mechanism.

    To deny the mechanism or weaken, we would show that white blood cells have nothing to do with the immune system.

    2. Corroborating Data Set

    This is when we bring in a new data set which corroborates or jives with the notion that our hypothesis explains our phenomenon.

    For example, if I say: bees left a part of Florida that was experiencing a heat wave, so it probably was the heat which drove them out.

    A corroborating data set could show that a heat wave happened recently in Nevada and the bees left as soon as it began. This corroborates our hypothesis and makes it stronger by showing that we introduced the purported cause and got the intended effect, right away. This does not make our hypothesis have to be true, but it does make it more plausible or strengthen it.

    3. Competing Data Set

    The opposite of a corroborating data set. So, a new set of info that makes our hypothesis a less attractive means of explaining the phenomenon.

    To stick with the bee example, we could show that another state experienced a heat wave and the bees stayed put. This would show that we have our purported cause without the effect. This does not kill the argument entirely, but it does weaken or make it slightly less plausible.

    4. Consequences

    Science operates on eliminating hypotheses. We determine what would be necessary if a hypothesis were true. Such that:

    Hypotheses true——> Consequences True

    Next, we test those consequences. If they are not true, the hypotheses is not true. If they are true, our hypotheses does not need to be true but it lives to fight another day. We then find more additional consequences that would be true and test those. The hypothesis that survives this consequence testing is deemed best and closest to truth, until proven otherwise.

    Example:

    There was a UFO sighted over Nevada, close to Area 51, it must be aliens.

    A consequence of this hypothesis being true would be that aliens exist, are able to travel, or can build things. If we find out any of these are untrue, the hypothesis is no longer possible.

    This form is sort of like a Necessary Assumption for science.

    5. Block/Introduce Alternative

    This answer choice would either build up or break down a competing hypothesis.

    In our Alien example, we could say that the US military was conducting weapons testing during the time the UFO was reported and in close proximity to the sighting.

    This being true would explain the observed phenomenon without our hypothesis needing to be true. It also is more plausible than our hypothesis. So, our argument would be weakened.

    To block out such an alternative, we would just say that the US military was on holiday the day of the sighting and conducted 0 activity in Nevada. Ruling out an alternative hypothesis, helps make our hypothesis slightly more likely.

    6. Temporal Affirmation

    If a hypothesis is going to explain a phenomenon, it needs to make sense time wise.

    For example:

    On Monday, it rained and the highway had 35 car accidents. Normally, there are only 10 accidents per day. I hypothesize the rain created poor driving conditions and thus more accidents.

    For this to work, we need the additional accidents to have happened after the rain. To strengthen the hypothesis, we say that the day was average at first and the accidents piled up after the rain

    To weaken this, we show that there were already 32 accidents that day, before the rain.

    7. Irrelevant

    Most Answer choices you see on phenomenon hypotheses questions will have nothing to do with how the hypothesis explains the phenomenon.

    Always ask yourself: Does this piece of information have any bearing on how the hypothesis explains the observed phenomenon?

    For our Alien example, some irrelevant answer choices might look like:

    Aliens are more intelligent than Lizards.

    Human beings do not have sophisticated enough means to communicate with Aliens

    The UFO was sighted by 3 people with doctorate degrees

    A similar sighting happened in Nebraska, in 1984.

    These things are all great, but they do not address whether or not the object was in fact Aliens!

    This list is not meant to be exhaustive and I am sure there are many other ways to strengthen or weaken such arguments. Feel free to share any others below :)

    42
    General · Are LSAT-India PTs similar to US-based LSAC PTs?
    User Avatar
    8835
    Thursday, Nov 14 2019

    A few of them contain sections with only 4 answer choices. Those ones are unrepresentative for obvious reasons, but, I found the other ones to be useful. LR requires you to analyze arguments in a similar manner, LG forms are the same with some expected twists, and RC was RC.

    Difficulty is subjective. I found them to be between 90-95% as difficult. LR felt like it was missing a "curve breaker" 5 star question that I would need to spend hours blind reviewing.

    So, I would say they are great to work with, especially for pacing. If they are truly easier, then they can be used to practice being aggressive and honing in on answering easy questions quickly and confidently.

    1
    General · 140s to174!!! Thank you 7sage!
    User Avatar
    8835
    Thursday, Oct 31 2019

    So proud of you, bro! You earned this!

    4
    General · Random question: Are the info on reading comp passages true?
    User Avatar
    8835
    Saturday, Oct 26 2019

    They mostly come from journal articles and other real sources. Each PT has an acknowledgements section which cites their source.

    1
    PrepTests ·
    PT148.S1.Q8
    User Avatar
    8835
    Monday, Oct 21 2019

    I disagree with you. The stem asks us which answer choice most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy. We are not asked to resolve the whole thing, we just need an answer choice that most helps to solve the paradox.

    First, let's discuss what the paradox or discrepancy is:

    In order to evolve small Abalones must spend less energy avoiding predators and foraging, leaving more time for mating competition. When otters are introduced and abundant, Abalones are able to evolve. This appears paradoxical because otters are known to be predators of A, so, we would expect A to be spending more energy avoiding them.

    To solve this paradox we just need to show why abalones could evolve despite there being more otters being in the area.

    A- If Otters and abalones compete for the same foods, our paradox remains and arguably deepens. We still do not know how abalones are able to evolve despite the increased presence of otters.

    B- The total amount of large abalone species is of no interest to us. Our paradox remains; why could abalones evolve with more otters present?

    C- Ahhhh, so, otters prey on abalones competitors for food and make it easier for abalones to get food. So they can spend less energy foraging and now have more energy to spend competing for mates. This shows how abalones evolved despite more otters being around, the otters benefited them.

    D- Who cares how rapidly they reproduce? How are they able to evolve despite more otters?

    E- Ok.... but..... how did the small abalone evolve with more otters?

    The only AC that addresses our paradox is C. It tells us how otters made it easier for small abalones to spend less energy foraging and have more energy for competing for mates. Sure, it is not perfect since we still don't know if they were able to spend less energy avoiding otters. But we can maybe make the small assumption that otters had a focus of not just small abalones (also their competitor) so the energy gain from less foraging was able to outweigh the energy loss from avoiding more predators, freeing up more energy for mate competition.

    Thus, C most resolves the paradox. The other ACs do not come close to addressing the paradox.

    4
    General · 7Sage ↔ 36 points ⬆️
    User Avatar
    8835
    Wednesday, Oct 16 2019

    @sarterlsu990 said:

    @8835

    Hey thanks for all the info man, they're very helpful and congrats on your improvements as well! You've been very heldpful on the CC comment sections.

    I read through some of the articles and you're right, it sounds like they really just care about your highest score since that's what they are gonna use to report. However, it did say one highest score is better than, say, 2 or 3? And we might wanna explain the second/third take in an addendum? (Btw, I will not take it third time no matter what I scored on second take, if I decided to retake at all) as you know I'm already leaning towards just be done with it, it's good enough for my situation, and if I have to explain a second take in an addendum, I'm not so sure if that's better way than just a 169 one time.. what do you think? And how's the application process for ya so far?

    Thanks man! Yeah, it does seem like the consensus is that 170 with 1 take may be preferable to 170 with 4 takes. However, the final number is really the most important part. Admissions officers are people too and understand that we are trying to get the highest score we can. From what i have gathered scouring Reddit, schools understand 2 or 3 takes without much explanation; people have a belief that they can do better and they act on it.

    So you should for sure go for another take, if you truly think you can do better. There is no downside and lots of upside when it comes to scholarship funds.

    Beyond maybe 4 takes, it seems like you need to contextualize it for school; let them know why you are taking it so many times, how you are taking measures to improve, what you have learned etc.

    This has been fun for me with 7 takes, lol! I plan on sending an ED application to Berkeley, will keep you posted for sure!

    2
    General · 7Sage ↔ 36 points ⬆️
    User Avatar
    8835
    Tuesday, Oct 15 2019

    Welcome to club 169! Proud of you bro! I have always enjoyed your explanations over the years. Congrats on a job well done! In terms of the retake, schools are ranked by US News based partially on their LSAT medians (https://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/articles/law-schools-methodology). These rankings mean a lot more than they should and schools have every incentive to keep their medians as high as they can because of this. Schools want and only really care about your highest score, because that is what they report. Here are some articles explaining this more: https://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/how-many-test-takes-is-too-many-for-law-school/

    https://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/do-law-schools-average-lsat-scores-or-use-the-high-score/

    14
    PrepTests ·
    PT121.S1.Q10
    User Avatar
    8835
    Friday, Oct 11 2019

    1 year later and I still got hung up on B. Here is an amended interpretation:

    -Admin states that it is the increased salaries and increased need based aid creating higher tuition

    -Salaries small part of budget

    -No significant increase in need based scholarship awards

    ------------------------------------------------------

    Reasons offered by Admin are BS

    A- Does not matter how much scholarships overall went up. We already know that that need based scholarships did not increase significantly. The 5% figure does not make that existing premise any more or less likely to lead to our conclusion.

    B- This is tricky because we do not know the profit margins of the university or budget to tuition ratio. So if there is a 5% increase in salaries which is a small proportion of expenditures , maybe they have to compensate by adjusting tuition 6%. So this shows that salaries and tuition both went up around the same amount. This is not great evidence to show that salaries are not to blame for the tuition increase.

    C- This is telling us why salaries are increasing and why there is greater demand for need based aid but are they why tuition is rising? That is what we care about and this information does not provide us an answer either way.

    D- Shows 3 things that increased MORE than salary and tuition so maybe these things are driving the tuition hike. This almost provides an alternative explanation, making the administrations explanation less likely/believable.

    E- We care about what caused tuition to rise. This is talking about collection rates of tuition. We want to know what drove the sticker price up, not if the university can collect fees ahead of time!

    1
    General · Afternoon Test Routine
    User Avatar
    8835
    Friday, Sep 20 2019

    @8835 said:

    Hi everyone,

    For those of you who are taking afternoon tests instead of morning tests, what is your test day routine like? Since the test "starts" at 12:30 pm (mine actually started closer to 2:30pm), how do you use the time between waking up and the test?

    I scheduled my test a few hours away from my house. This gave me time to kill by driving and not thinking about the test too much. I did the drive and checked out the test center a week before, so I felt really confident just getting in the car and going. May or may not be feasible or desirable for most, but I figured I would add a data point.

    0
    LSAT · Cookie Cutter Argument Form: Cost Benefit
    User Avatar
    8835
    Tuesday, Sep 17 2019

    @sl6001605 said:

    Thank you for posting this!

    Do you happen to have a list of cookie cutter questions where you debrief them like this? Or know where I can find a good/comprehensive one?

    Hey, I do plan on making some more of these posts. I will also try to find a format where I can compile all of them, like a master guide!

    @rbreville506 said:

    What PT did you find this on?

    I made this particular example up, but, I do think the LSAT has brought up the Dirt Devil before.

    0

    Confirm action

    Are you sure?