"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.

I honestly think answer choice D is a subpar answer, but it is the best answer the writers gave us out of the five answer choices.

I didn't like D, because I assumed that 30% was the average percentage drop in crime in the country as a whole and contemplated that there could be some cities who had up to a 90% drop in crime and other cities that had an increase percentage change in crime. Even so, JY's explanation for why D is correct and B is incorrect is right on the money! Why didn't the chief's city see a reduction of 90% in crime if his city's policing tactics are really so amazing...

Thank you so much Kevin for such a great explanation! #grateful! : )

I'm thinking B and E can immediately be eliminated without deep analysis because there isn't any causal reasoning happening. I mean think about it... Alexander being a student of Aristotle doesn't "cause" Aristotle to become a student of Plato. ~

The part about not going back and thinking about what Snell's main point of his paragraph was is really helpful advice. Can't wait for more tid bits of information like this, so I can finally feel confident doing reading comp passages!!

In other words... Answer choice D cannot say the argument is committing circular reasoning when the argument employs the reasoning strategy of arguing by analogy for its premises, which is fine when done correctly. Thus, using the temporal nature of music as an analogy to argue the conclusion doesn't not commit the fallacy of circular reasoning.

Oh ok! Hahaha. I forgot the only if when thinking about the kind of reasoning being used. Thank you for your reply. It is very appreciated! : )

There could be many reasons why the university's applicant pool is smaller than they'd hoped for, but charging too little for tuition and fees could be the most impactful reason for their small applicant pool. Thus, even if there were other causal reasons for the university's small applicant pool, simply raising tuition fees would result in more applicants if the reason of charging to little in tuition and fees that the author suspected is correct. ~

actually... "at one time or another."

Answer choice A is also problematic because it says, "at one point in time," which doesn't enable us to absolutely infer that people tried to domesticate any wild animals today.

Great stuff! Thank you, JY!

What kind of reasoning is being used in the stimulus here?

Hence is a conclusion indicator. I still think the first sentence is the conclusion though.

https://7sage.com/3-ways-to-identify-premises-and-conclusions/

Facts!!! I thought the same thing and I've been studying for this exam for a little over 3 months and have never said this about a question. I always try to be humble and just accept that I must try to contort my mind to think the way the LSAT writers think but this question simply just isn't a fair question. Kevin says that answer choice C is better than answer choice E, but at the end of the day neither answer choice C nor E must be true since we don't know whether Brimley's campaign received or accepted donations in excess of $100 from anyone. It's just a bad question.

Yes! Thank you tlpalmer98! This definition makes this question make much more sense to me!

After seeing your comment, I decided to try doing the drill set on easy mode as I always only do the "hard" and "the hardest" mode in hopes that I can learn more through trying to tackle the most difficult questions even if I get all of them wrong. Lol. And received basically the same score in roughly the same amount of time. I honestly feel like the "easy" mode wasn't that different from the "hard" mode. Maybe you are underestimating the "easy" mode questions because they are labeled "easy" by skimming through or choosing to do them when you are most tired or something. Or it could just be a coincidence. Idk! Anyways, that is wonderful that you are getting the tough ones right though! The "easy" questions should be easier to review than the "hard" and "hardest" questions.

You can take pictures of ur feet if u want, but don't give up!! #futurelawyer;)