- Joined
- Oct 2025
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Discussions
Have you ever seen those videos where animals try to look bigger to scare off predators? Like some spiders raising their two front legs to look bigger, or a person putting their hands up to look bigger in order to intimidate a bear? I think that's sort of the logic of bigger size = bigger threat. But, this does require outside knowledge :/ so, it's an unfair advantage to have prior knowledge of this info.
Nah man, E is just not working for me. The conclusion makes the inherent assumption that the dogs must have been transported by one of these regions meaning Mexico and Peru. So if A were not true, then how can we draw this conclusion?
I had the worst brain freeze while trying to pick between A and E. Got it wrong.. 12min wasted.
Tried to understand this question, couldn't comprehend what the hell anyone's explanations were saying. Moving on.. I'll take the L for my own sanity.
Yes!! the assumption that psychological effects can entirely relieve the pain was sketchy. I thought "no way that could remotely be possible" so crossed out C.. without a second thought... Any doctors in here that can chime in?
How does "must not have been checked out for over two years" become "must have been checked out within two years" when negated? I'm so confused.
Please only comment if you're not charging more than $50 per session as that's all I can afford. Thank you!
I took the April + August LSATs but my highest was a 155 in August. RC was hella tough which led to the lower score I believe. I'm looking for a tutor that charges at or below $40/hour as that's all I can afford at the moment. My biggest issues are flaw, weaken/strengthen, conditional reasoning, NA, and phen-hypothesis according to 7Sage's analytics. For RC, I'm a non native speaker but I got my average from a -14 to around -7. However it looks like my RC isn't too solid either because a science passage in August singlehandedly ruined my score.
Also, I'm currently scheduled both for October + November and I plan on taking both.
Thanks!
Hi everyone, I'm scoring in the mid 150s but need a 160+ for November. I'm also taking the October LSAT but have not been able to figure out an effective studying method. I am decent at RC but LR is my biggest issue. When I do an untimed section I get around a -4, but timed it goes up to around -10.. My worst question types are flaw, strengthen/weaken, conditional reasoning, and phen-hypothesis.
Sometimes I get perfect 5/5 on my timed drills on lvl 4-5 questions but then get stuck on a lvl 2 or 3 which makes no sense. So if anyone has any advice on what I should do to improve quickly please let me know! Should I do untimed short drills, do timed full sections, or take a PT every other day? I'm not sure.
I missed this question because I thought the conclusion only applied to old insomniacs (yup, fun mistake). But for anyone else who might've made the same mistake, here's how 7Sage's AI helped me understand my error:
-Look at the exact wording of the pharmacist's conclusion. The pharmacist says this proves the claim that "the pineal gland produces less melatonin as it ages."
-Notice what is missing from that sentence? The word "insomniacs."
-When someone makes a sweeping biological statement about "the pineal gland," they are stating a universal rule about how the human body works in general. They are making a claim about all aging people.
-If the pharmacist only wanted to draw a conclusion about insomniacs, they would have had to explicitly limit their conclusion by saying: "the pineal glands of insomniacs produce less melatonin as they age." But they didn't do that. They tried to prove a rule for everybody.
JY saying "I don't know what this is talking about" to the 2nd most picked answer choice was funny lmao
I had the same question.. I thought "essential to" introduces a sufficient condition, but didn't he say in the video that it introduces a necessary condition?
I refuse to believe this is only a 3-star question. I have no clue how "anyone believing that no individual can have an effect on society's future" is the same as "future will be determined entirely by vast historical forces that individuals are powerless to change." I'm so lost..
I have a friend who is currently a 2L, he's helping me out with what to do. He told me to add a paragraph to my personal statement about why I specifically chose this law school to apply to, and to show I researched and actually care about this specific law school. He told me to do this for every law school I'm applying to.
Now my question is, should I heed his advice? Or not?
My own logic says to not include this in my personal statement because I have a very powerful + long story that led me to pursue a law degree. And I just want my statement to have that experience, the ways it affected and changed me, and then end with wanting to become a lawyer to prevent anyone else from going through my experiences (not in a "I wanna save the world" cliche type of way, it's more authentic)
Would love to hear y'alls opinions! Thanks.
Omg I received the same email despite being registered for October!! I don’t know what’s going on
Do you entirely skip time-sink questions and just pick a random answer, or do you give it a min and a half and choose what's best? I've been trying to gauge what the best method for time-sinks are, but am unsure. Also congrats on the amazing score!!
Not me thinking Marife doesn't believe it's a murder movie since it failed the requirement, but Nguyen thinks it is because the murder should not be taken as a defining characteristic of the film implying that it's still a characteristic, but not the defining one. Somehow still got C, but def via wrong processes lol
Just think of E in terms of a causal argument.
This is all a causal chain.
less coverage + secretive business causes isolated politicians, which in turn causes reduced resident participation response which then causes discouraged resident participation
We don't get to go back and say well if there was no discouraged resident participation, then that would cause a politician to feel less isolated. You can't just flip a cause-and-effect chain backwards like that.
So, there's no causal contrapositive basically :)