https://law.washu.edu/news/podcast/redacted-review/. Obviously, if UF is what you want, prioritize them. None of us can guarantee what's gonna happen, as we are not on the admin committee there, and traditional prediction calculators aren't really applicable to you, as I'm sure it's rare that schools see people in your situation. But the awesome thing is, UF is a real chance for you now. Before you took the LSAT in September, it would have essentially been a pipe dream, but I think at minimum you will at least get a human to look at your file. What happens from there, none of us know, as there are a lot of factors that go into all this, but at a minimum you are a realistic candidate now, which was the best-case scenario for you prior to taking the Sept LSAT. Also, think about it: less than 300 people get a perfect score on the LSAT each year, and you are one of them. UF probably sees kids with a 3.8 plus all the time, but not all universities and majors are the same. The LSAT is meant to put everyone on a level playing field, and you scored in the 99.9999 percent; that is a major bargaining chip. There's got to be a top 40 school that will throw a full ride at you to buy your LSAT score.

Honestly dude first congrats this is a real achievement. 7 sage should interview someone like you because the pressure of doing well on the lsat is on another level when you don't have the gpa as a cushion to help you get into your goal school. In terms of your concerns of getting into a school like UF, I can't say for certain as I am not an admin officer there, but I would bet they would be willing to take your gpa in order to get someone with your lsat score. At the end of the day law schools mainly care about the median gpa and median lsat for the incoming class. If they get enough students to where the median gpa won't be impacted a crazy amount they should be more then willing to take a person who scored higher than their median lsat let alone a person who got a 180. The people making this decision are people too and know that not everyone has their stuff together from 18 to 22. I think as long as you write a compelling gpa addendum I genuinely thing you should be fine. I honestly think you should be looking at the tier 14s. For instance, Wash U allows you to redact your gpa entirely with a 180 you are 5 points higher then their median.

Always rooting for my fellow nontraditionals!

Man if you had more time I think you could have seriously hit 170 plus hope you are killing it in law school

I am white, I am a fucking bum

I do live in a trailer with my mom

My boy Future is an Uncle Tom

I do got a dumb friend named Cheddar Bob

Who shoots himself in his leg with his own gun

I did get jumped by all six of you chumps

And Wink did fuck my girl

I'm still standin' here screaming, "Fuck the Free World!

I always need to hear this man. Like there was a time even Messi and Michael Jordan sucked at their sports.

This teacher is incredible

@MarkDossey yeah I was like well this will be a 2 star and was shocked when it was 5.

@SwagOD I mean he knows how to dribble he just wasn't elite at it by nba standards. His defense shooting and off ball play is why he was as good as he was in his prime.

I don't really have tips per say as much as saying yeah man you are not alone on finding this question type difficult. I am on this portion of the study plan and this is the first question type where I have had to really slow down my studying to analyze what is going right and wrong. I think so much of it is determining the conclusion and then how the premises build up to that conclusion and what is missing to guarantee the conclusion. The other thing is deciding what facts are useless vs genuine premises.

@wgresh The problem with D is you confused it as a conditional rule when it was saying that in GENERAL qualified economic advisors command higher salaries than what the city is willing to spend. The test writers baited you into assuming that the one the city hired was not qualified because they were willing to accept a salary lower than what most qualified advisors accept, but it is possible they are one of the qualified economic advisors who are willing to accept a salary within the means of what the city offered. B, however, isn't claiming small cities can't benefit; it's showing that the evidence from the comparison cities may be less predictive of what will happen in this materially different city.

@AreeshaSaif I think you’re missing the full causal chain. The argument says the mild winter caused birds to forage naturally instead of visiting feeders as much.

C tells us that birds at feeders are more vulnerable to predators than birds foraging naturally. So now we have:

mild winter → more natural foraging / fewer feeder visits → less exposure to predators → more birds survive → larger population.

That gives us an additional mechanism connecting the mild winter to the larger bird population. Without the mild winter, more birds would have relied on feeders, where C says they would have faced greater predation risk.

What was her original score? If she started with, say, a 162, but because she is a high achiever, thought that was bad, that is very different from someone who started with a 140 and had to work their way to a 174.

@c00lbeans D actually pushes against the argument rather than strengthening it. The conclusion is that corporations' actions influenced the government's funding decisions, based on the fact that corporations discouraged alternative-energy projects and those projects then had their funding cut.

But D tells us that some projects corporations encouraged also had their funding severely cut. So the government's funding decisions don't seem to consistently track what corporations want. If corporations discourage projects and those projects lose funding, but corporations encourage other projects and those projects also lose funding, that gives us less reason to think corporate influence explains the funding cuts.

Was DBZ popular for you young bucks? Im 34 and this was a big part of my childhood!

@ShahmeerRaza I think you should go through the wrong answer choices and deduce why they are wrong if you are not able to do it for all the wrong answer choices correctly watch that particular answer choice you could not explain properly why it was wrong.

@InderpalSingh So if it's a political administration that is both economically successful and successful at protecting individual liberties, it is an overall success

A= Economically Successful

B= Successful at protecting individual liberties

C= Overall Success

A plus B arrow C is the conditional statement

It then says an administration that fails to care for the environment may succeed overall IF it protects individual liberties

It then tells us the present administration hasn't cared for the environment but has protected individual liberties

From the second statement, it meets the condition that the administration can be successful. How ever in the first condition we have just B stated in the stimulus not A so the reason c is correct is because it is saying that since the 2nd set of rules r met as long as we have A we will have A plus B which will trigger C.

The reason B cannot be correct is we have no idea from the stimulus whether the current administration is economically successful or not that is a way bigger inference to assume it is not based off what we are given in the stimulus.

@JLoyd So I think you have the contrapositive incorrect. You have A plus B arrow /C, which is right, but then you invert it to / A or / B arrow C; that isn't the contrapositive. That is an inversion error.

The contrapositive should be C arrow /A or /B

The reason we know it is /A is because the stimulus tells us C occurred and /B did not occur (B occurred), so the only way the rule works is if /A occurred

For the latter part of your question in the original statement of A plus B arrow /C BOTH A and B need to happen to trigger not /C

For instance, if I say If I am Hungry and Tired, I will leave. I need to be BOTH Hungry and Tired in order to leave. If I am Hungry but not Tired, or Tired but not Hungry, the condition does not meet the standard to guarantee that I will leave.

Think about it if I say some marbles are red. We are saying that out of all the marbles in the world, at least one is red, possibly all. If I then say, "Some things that are red are triangular; therefore, some marbles are triangular," you'd be like, "wtf are you talking about? Marbles are round, not triangular! In reality, some things that are red are triangular, which does not guarantee that all things that are red are triangular; it just says some are. Red marbles could very well be part of the group of red things that are not triangular.

All Athletes are tall.

Some tall people are uncoordinated.

Therefore there are some athletes who are uncoordinated.

This is possible but we cannot guarantee the conclusion based off the premises given to us. There are less athletes than tall people those athletes could be part of the group that is actually coordinated.

For my sports friends

All NBA players are tall.

Most Tall people are uncoordinated.

There are some NBA players who are uncoordinated.

The thing is, all the NBA players may just be in the minority of tall people who are coordinated. Based on the information given to us, we can't conclude this.

@sillybillyblu This should work like if Harry has 10 friends, more than 5 of whom are wizards.

Some Wizards are his friends; it is just saying at LEAST one, possibly all, wizards are his friends. The main thing we are guaranteeing is that at least one wizard is his friend, which is true based on the premises.

@Steffy Hopefully our speed improves lol

@TcBuzz I was confused by this too. What I think happened is that the sentence contains both “no” and “unless,” which makes the translation a little tricky.

If we say:

“No Gryffindor is brave.”

The Lawgic is:

G → /B

When “no” connects two groups, being in the first group guarantees that you are not in the second group.

Now look at the actual statement:

“No student is chosen for Gryffindor unless they exhibit bravery.”

Let:

G = chosen for Gryffindor B = exhibits bravery

A clean way to translate “unless” is to treat it as “if not.” So the sentence means:

“If a student is not brave, then they are not chosen for Gryffindor.”

In Lawgic:

/B → /G

Then we take the contrapositive:

G → B

So the final Lawgic is:

G → B

Or in English:

“If you are chosen for Gryffindor, then you are brave.”

The important thing is that bravery is a necessary condition for being chosen for Gryffindor. Being brave does not guarantee that you will be chosen for Gryffindor, so B → G would be an invalid reversal.

@TaylorCiarallo Yeah, so if you go back to the lesson on Some. JY mentioned that in everyday use, when we say "some," it normally applies to a few, never all. If there are 10 marbles and I say I have some of them, the normal assumption would be that I have like 2 or 3, not all 10. JY was saying that, strictly in the world of formal logic, "some" means "at least one to all." So, in the world of formal logic, when I say I have some of the 10 marbles, the only guarantee is that I have at least one, but I could have anywhere from 1 to all 10. So in the Persian cat example, when it said some are not Persian cats, all we know for certain is that 1 is not a Persian cat, but it is possible that none of them are Persian cats; we just can't say that with 100 percent certainty based on the information given to us. If it is explicitly stated in the premise that some but not all are not Persian cats, then you are allowed to make the assumption that not all are Persian cats.