@BeckettBeatty SAME! Scored a 161 in Nov and going in on sat to hopefully break 170. I hope your test went well today! Putting good energy out there :)

@Day10 Here is a guiding question I used to help me with my personal statement (I hope you find it helpful!):

What kind of lawyer will you be when no one is watching?

1. Structure of my essay:

   1. Describe a scene (one moment, one problem, one tension)

   2. Reflection: what you realized about the system (any system) and power.

   3. Growth: How has that realization changed how you act

   4. Forward thinking: Tie everything together- this section should tell the admissions counselor (not directly but organically) what kind of lawyer you aim to be. In other words, by reading this section they should know clearly what kind of law or what area of the law you will pursue WITHOUT YOU EVEN STATING IT. **aim for clarity*

   **Keep your PS precise , reflective (not emotional), calm and confident (no moral outrage or "the system is broken etc") its generic and I guarantee the admissions counselor will read thousands of essays about the "broken system" and "people not having the rights they deserve". You have to stand out.

I want to reiterate: I am a science teacher by profession; I truly have NO idea what exactly to do but what I can do is put myself in the position of someone reading the essay (and hundreds of other essays) and consider "how would I feel if someone wrote xyz and how likely is it that I'm going to see a similar (xyz) from 100 other applicants"... you have to stand out and that only happens by being organic. Your tone can't be robotic and it has to remain consistent that's why I would steer clear from AI- use your words, even if you think they're imperfect- keep revising and ask friends to read and give you suggestions. These are professionals they will notice AI and they will automatically think negatively of your application before even getting to all of it. You don't want to tarnish your application by even giving a hint of AI use.

1. I don't know your story so it's hard to answer whether or not this "fully tells your story". 2. A personal statement (in my experience- I've done a lot of research as I'm writing mine now) should, in part, clearly (either explicitly or implicitly) convey why you want to go to law school / get a JD .

With that being said, I am a HS teacher so I have a lot of experience assessing student work (as will an admissions officer) and please don't take this the wrong way, but I can automatically tell you used AI to write this. Parts of this read as one style of writing and totally change into something very complex and robotic seemingly at random.

I also think there are way too many grand sentences in here about how you want to use the law to change lives etc. it doesn't come off as genuine. Lastly, there is way too much mention of the bill of rights and other legal related concepts- it feels like you are trying really hard to associate yourself with as many legal sounding things as possible. This does not come off as genuine, it comes off as forced and inorganic.

NONE of this feedback is to make you feel any sort of way I just want to share my two cents with you. Remember I'm some random on the internet, so if you feel this feedback is way off the mark please don't take it too seriously- just wanted to help!

Hey J.Y.,

Since you just posted I hope you're reading this; Thank you for helping me on this LSAT journey- it has taught me to think and understand complex thoughts and concepts (not something I expected to happen along the way).

Could not have done it without your assistance! (This is not to get the prize I just figured I'd have a better chance of getting you this message if I posted it here :)

See I thought A was a contender because

Varying makeup of traditional diets ---> Different avg fat intake ---> Cancer

So it could be the different diet (foods) eaten in the country that cause the cancer NOT the intake of fat itself.

I ended up choosing D anyway but sometimes I see an assumption (env pollution can be an alternate cause of cancer) and don't see why that is a worse or better assumption than a different diet in a country can cause cancer (due to some different chemical within a populations food that causes the cancer).

Both seem (to me) like equally valid assumptions albeit the latter is a bit more of a stretch.

@quinnch1115 I had the exact same thinking going into this and even after the explanation. If i'm saying " People in the tourist industry would never knowingly do anything.." I am implicitly acknowledging this argument does not apply to the "unknowing" people.

I'm confused here because the question just asks us to identify a strategy used in the argument- In mentioning other peoples argument (it is widely accepted...) isn't the politician strengthening his analogy? Thus, wouldn't this be a "strategy he used"? That's why I chose C.

#HELP

#Feedback

I've been studying for months so I have definitely seen a lot of video explanations and I notice that (like in this explanation) JY will begin to explain the question then go off on some quick unnecessary tangent (where he models the logic but in a unrelated example). This just starts to confuse me because it breaks the flow of my understanding... one moment you're talking about the question and the next you say something about cats and dogs that kinda relates but is unnecessary. You can model the logic by using the thing in the specific question you're explaining as to not confuse. I think this allows me to remain locked into this specific question instead of losing focus and now trying to make sure I understand the cat and dog tangent.

Totally personal to me just thought I'd share. I love this curriculum and I really appreciate you for making it!

Also for my math people (if you were between C and E) if you have 1 accident per 2km that's a 50% chance of an accident. If you chose E and increase the possible km of road available to drive on, the rate (50%) remains the same because it doesn't change based on how much road is available to drive on but based on how much road IS driven on by the car.

ChatGPT is your friend.

Input as much data as you have (LR & RC weaknesses according to your 7sage analytics, your official and practice scores, amount of time you plan on studying a day, when your next LSAT is, your observations on where you think you're struggling etc) and let AI give you some suggestions as to how to proceed. The more data you provide, the better the output will be.

Also, keep track of data- I have begun to ask myself what I struggled with after EACH study session and also at the end of each study session, I plan what I'm going to focus on in the next session. The data tracking will help you pick up on patterns; are you misreading questions?, are you misunderstanding the question stem?, are you getting the conditional logic confused?, is there a certain topic type that consistently trips you up (like science or art)?

I got a 161 on the Nov LSAT. I'm using my own advice and aiming for a 170+ in Jan.

Good luck!

@Pdsouza

Prompt?: Which would they both AGREE on?

E)Nobel Prizes are inaccurate indicators of scientists' contributions to their disciplines

Winston: Would agree because the prize can only be awarded to 3 scientists but usually 4+ scientists contribute to great discovery- therefore the prize only recognizes a small subset of these scientists therefore its "inaccurate of a scientists contributions to their discipline" - it leaves out a bunch of deserving winners who contributed to the same discovery as the winners of the prize.

Sanjay: The prize can't be awarded to dead scientists therefore he'd also agree that the award is "inaccurate of a scientists contributions to their discipline"

@ajamal2479 At this point they've made partner or have a thriving firm of their own!

"question 24 is rough" truer words have never been spoken !!

I think this question is a bit unfair because it requires you understand how an adaptation arises. That's the only way you're able to realize A describes an alternative way for an adaptation to arise therefore the phenomena described in a (inbreeding with native salmon) needs to be eliminated.

The reason I chose E, (even though my gut was telling me D), was because I remember learning (in these lessons) that the Main Point is ALWAYS the authors perspective.

So I guess that's not the case?

#HELP

@ShamellBenson The computer is analogous to the "artist" and the computers creation is analogous to the "artwork".

Great Artwork --> Deep Emotion

Contrapositive: /Deep Emotion --> /Great Artwork

(if you can't express an emotion then you certainly can't express deep emotion) therefore:

A B C

/Experience --> /Deep Emotion -> /Great Artwork

D. Satisfies the sufficient because the computer (the artworks creator) incapable of experiencing emotions (satisfies /Experience) therefore we can conclude /Great Artwork

A--->B--->C

A ---> C

@FelipeCaceres-Cambero

Conclusion: Although that claim is true, it does not support the conclusion that anyone ought to pay attention to the absurd views expressed in the films.

"anyone ought to" is the same as saying "anyone is obligated to"

In principle questions, the principle does not need to use the same exact working of the stimulus, it just needs to convey what's happening in the stimulus (this can be done using synonyms or even a group of words that convey the same meaning as one word)

The way I saw this is...

The argument says that many of our inclinations must be genetic in origin, and not subject to environmental influences.

D) Identical twins who grow up together tend to develop different beliefs, tastes, and careers in order to differentiate themselves from each other.

"in order to differentiate themselves from each other."

Weakens the argument that genetics (NOT environmental influences) drive our inclinations because if I (as a twin) choose to do something because I want to "differentiate myself from my twin", that desire to be different IS an environmental (not genetic) influence!

@Crisis ActressI still don't see how D is any stronger than B. They both provide a valid reason that fire was used for things other than agriculture. 

In my head, I pictured a person waving a torch behind a herd of animals as a means of moving them forward. Thus that wouldn't have caused the burning of large areas of land. 

For B, if there were a bunch of different groups of people all burning fires for warmth and to cook food, all of those fires collectively would have made large areas of the land look as though it was burned. 

I don't see why D is better than B. They are both feasible explanations. This is a problem I have with the LSAT sometimes it seems like an assumption is made to satisfy one answer choice, when another assumption can also be made to satisfy another answer choice but for some reason we must accept one assumption is valid and the other is not for seemingly no discernible reason other than because  "that's what the LSAT says!"

#HELP

I don't see how C is incorrect.

C. more widely accepted because newly developed alternatives are more expensive than deep-well injection.

More widely accepted (to me) means accepted by the industry as an alternative more so now than in the 1930s when deep well injection began (because the alternative- incinerating, land fills etc is more expensive).

The "newly developed" part is relative. If deep well injection was used in the 1930s, then relatively, landfill and incinerator use is newer, isn't it?

E is not wrong (in my opinion) because the passage does draw contrast between other kinds of persuasive writing (advocate contrasted with propagandist) they are both ways of persuading.

Honestly, this is one of those NA questions you have to negate the ans choices and decide if that makes the argument fall apart or not.

If I negate A I'm saying the species that are declining, according to scientists due to industrial pollution, are in the same group as the species that have natural ups and downs. That destroys the argument so I chose A.

I've gotten nearly all of these right and I honestly have no idea why. I can't actually explain what I'm thinking it just feels like the answer choice I pick makes the most sense to me given the context.

Does anyone have an approach they're using that they can explain/frame for me? I want to understand!

@Calibjamess

Under Lesson 3- Bus Driver Performance (The title)

There are three options:

Bookmark l Discussion l Show question

Press Show question (eye symbol) to show you the question so you can practice before looking at the explanation!

Good Luck!

I keep getting these right but I stare at them forever (I pick the right answer quickly but it always seems SO weak that I can't imagine it's the one that is best for the argument). It's such a weird issue.

I'm afraid of not recognizing necessary v. sufficient assumption questions then second guessing myself and wasting so much time on test day.