Thank you so much for your kind and generous gift. I'm really grateful to be a part of the 7Sage community. 💕 ~

@AlexHaro Facts! Because law schools keep complaining about score inflation. The thing is... smaller text doesn't assess your reasoning abilities. It assesses whether or not your vision is 20/20. Many of these changes are silly and unproductive. Now that I know what they are trying to do, I will begin drilling super difficult science passages, because that's an easy way for them to make the exam as a whole harder.

LSAC is honestly such a crappy organization!! How do they think this is fair? Don't they realize this change puts more recent test takers at a disadvantage compared to prior test takers? They only care about making things easier for the law schools they serve. They don't care about candidates at all. Also, even if you're an experienced test taker and know what to highlight, the highlighting function is more time-consuming to use. I repeat... LSAC sucks!!

When you are reading the passage, try to focus on the main point and central ideas of the passage. Also look for differences of opinion, agreements, and the arguments the author and others (e.g., critics) use in making their claims.

For implied questions, think about how the main point and key ideas of the passage interact with each answer choice.

For context questions, think about the first topic sentence of the paragraph in which the word is located. The topic sentence will give you insight into the purpose of why that word is being used.

For analogy questions/"apply to new contexts questions," think about the overarching general principle of the key ideas.

The important thing is to avoid answering implied questions based on "vibes." It's good to cross out any answers that conflict with the main ideas of the passage and then to briefly go back to the passage to test the remaining 2 or 3 answer choices against the passage for those questions that ask about smaller details.

Lastly, you want to engage with the passage by making connections between sentences and paragraphs and quickly paraphrasing parts of the passage you don't understand in your own words.

Internalizing this framework for working through passages helped me go from -9 to -3 or -4 on timed RC sections. I'm hoping I can get this number down to -2 by the end of this month.

I hope that helps!

Because LSAC sucks! That's why!

This would be me. I'm missing -3 to -5 on LR. I'm hoping to get this number down to -1 or -2 by the end of the month. ~ Also, I've been taking L-Tyrosine for my ADHD (I got it from Amazon), and it has been helpful but if you take it for too many consecutive days, it can make you very drowsy and tired.

Honestly speaking... I empathize with how you're feeling, because I'm also 30 and have desired to attend law school since I was like 15 years old. Part of me wishes I had begun law school a couple of years ago; with that being said, I completely agree with @TravelJunky! If you're fortunate enough to live till your 90 or 100 years old, then you would spend the next 60 or 70 years never being able to refer to yourself as a lawyer if you decide to let your age prevent you from pursuing this goal. Also, people on Reddit and other forums in their early 30s or mid-to-late 20s who make these kinds of posts about whether it's too late to pursue something are being a bit insensitive toward older applicants in their 40's and beyond.

It's never too late to evolve and become a better, more educated person. There are people in their 50s and 60s who decide to become doctors. If you love learning, then why not?? Unfortunately, schooling in the U.S. is outrageously expensive, but scholarships do exist.

I live in the Richmond area. ~

@SCOTT_LEBO Thank you for the advice, Scott! That makes sense! : )

@AlexandraFriestman Sure thing! Thank you. : )

You can definitely score in the 160s. Maybe try seeking accommodations? Also, if you take time to get some good work experience or do something interesting for a year or two while you study a bit more, then that should help you. Many schools including top ranked schools, like USC and Penn, ask candidates with low scores to explain why their scores don't reflect their ability to succeed in law school, so that tells me that law schools do accept candidates with low scores. Scores are a huge factor, but people with lower scores do get into law schools. Don't feel embarrassed. The exam tests a very specific way of thinking, and very smart people do in fact struggle with this exam. Also, I saw some students saying that this exam has been a barrier for them for like 10 years, so don't get too down on yourself. Keep your head up. ~

Thank you, Kevin for such a high level explanation! I really appreciate everything I was able to learn from this video explanation even while getting the question correct! Wonderful!

Interested

"What I learned from those hearings is that understanding someone’s story is its own form of advocacy."

This sentence here above is really, really good!

father's cousin's sister

"For the first time, the difficulties of my upbringing didn't make me feel fragmented as a person, but instead useful."

"Listening to him, I was quickly reminded of what it means to come from a place where..."

"...but because they revealed how oftentimes the hardships of those who have fallen victim to such systemic barriers stem from the same issue (you might want to reiterate the issue here).

I hope this helps you. : )

I think your essay overall is strong and tells a beautiful story. ~

"The same experiences that once made me feel fragmented between two identities..."

I'm not sure exactly what ELD means but I'm presuming it means like remedial classes.

"At home, my family and I only spoke Punjabi because my parents..."

"Even the lunch I brought home made it difficult for me to fit in..." OR "Even the lunch I brought exposed me"

"I sensed that there was another aspect to my story that didn't fully make sense to me at the time."

By the way, I'm a former college admissions counselor if that matters at all. Lol. Either way, the essay reads well and should make a good impression on any former admissions officer! The very best of luck to you! : )

The tests in the 150s are subtley and objectively different from all the other tests but not necessarily more difficult or more easy in my humble opinion. The arguments in the LR sections of the PTs in the 150s have flaws that are more subtle and less evident and the RC questions of PTs in the 150s test on more implied/unstated questions and ask less questions regarding what was directly stated in the passages, so you have to make more inferences, which requires more engagement with the passages main points. However, many of the really hard LR problems come from the last few questions in the section on older PTs in like the 120s thru 140s in my opinion, but those sections on the earlier exams also each had like 10 relatively easy questions in the beginning of the section and then a few really hard ones at the end. On the newer PTs in the 150s each section only has like three relatively easy questions in the beginning a couple dispersed in the middle of the section and then most tend to be level 3- medium difficulty questions, so finishing the first ten questions in the first ten minutes wasn't super easy for me personally. In fact, almost all the questions in the LR sections in PTs in the 150s seemed to be of moderate difficulty.

Anyways, yeah! I think 7 Sages smart drilling feature is incredibly useful and then spending as much time analyzing what went wrong in those PTs and what aspects about the RC passages the writers of the LSAT like to ask about is really useful. I noticed that the writers of the LSAT really care about spotting differences of opinions, specific methods scientists use to conduct an experiment, old vs. new developments and methods, and arguments. I've been struggling with RC sections in the 150s as well, but I'm now focusing on the trends of what the LSAT writers ask in addition to understanding the main point and the author's tone. ~

Also, taking brief notes on questions you missed and then revisiting those same questions you missed like 1 - 2 weeks later and trying to answer them again under timed conditions is really helpful. I'm also focusing more on concepts rather than questions - concepts like cost-benefit analysis, the ideal experiment, etc.

Yes it's possible, but you need to go through the core curriculum again, because if you are scoring a 135, then you don't have the foundational LSAT skills you need to reach 160. Either way, I would let go of applying to law schools this cycle spend a lot of time going through the core curriculum. Then when you are done with the core curriculum you can begin taking practice tests - like one section a day timed, repeat it untimed (focusing on missed questions and questions you were unsure about) then review questions you missed twice very thoroughly. ~

Just keep going. It takes some people 4 months and other people 2 years before they see the scores they want. First go back to the core curriculum and review the question types you keep missing. Use the analytics of 7 sage to pinpoint your weaknesses and focus drilling those questions in the core curriculum. For some question types, improving your conceptual understanding of how to approach that question type could add 5 or 6 points to your score. Just don't give up! You've already made incredible progress and will continue to improve if you keep going. Also, don't worry about having to wait till next cycle to apply. This is your future and its important that you leave nothing on the table with regards to your effort in studying for this exam and the money you can get from schools or the caliber of school you can go to!

@Bazooka66 I agree with your perspective and think your comment would actually make for a good essay on the real thing! Lol!

I'm wondering if a prescriptive claim can even be false??

Answer choice B is also wrong because it says, "do not have experience everyday," however the stimulus says research shows that people do not defer to journalistic news reports except on matters that have NO direct experience. The phrasing "do not have experience everyday," leaves room for could have 'some' experience or 'none.' We don't know the extent of the experience that people have with foreign policy, we only know that they don't have everyday experience with foreign policy but they could have some experience with foreign policy. In this case they wouldn't even defer to journalist. ~

Edited:

OMG! JY already said this but I missed it the first time. Lol.

This is wrong my friend. Being a mammal is necessary for being a human. The superset is the necessary condition.