User Avatar
JesseMcCarthy
Joined
Jan 2026
Subscription
Free

Admissions profile

LSAT
169
CAS GPA
3.59
1L START YEAR
2027

Applications

Lewis And Clark
In process
Pacific (Mcgeorge)
In process
Santa Clara
In process
Seattle
In process
UC - Davis
In process
UC Law San Francisco
Applied
UNM
In process
USF
In process

Discussions

User Avatar

Wednesday, Aug 26

JesseMcCarthy

😊 Happy

Well, thanks 7Sage

Five point score improvement. May take again because why not but in disbelief at my score. Which is basically now way beyond the 75th at any school I'd be interested in. Didn't even feel too hot coming out of the test.

For the record, I hated diagramming and conditional logic the entire time but still went way beyond my expectations. We are all gonna make it.

6
User Avatar
JesseMcCarthy
Monday, Mar 2

This is fantastic! Thanks a lot.

2
User Avatar
JesseMcCarthy
Sunday, Mar 1

Can you not do contrapositive with De Morgan's Law?

10
User Avatar
JesseMcCarthy
Sunday, Feb 8

@HenryLehmann Someone I know who took the LSAT said you earn doing it fast and intuitively by lots of diagramming practice which stuck with me.

6
User Avatar
JesseMcCarthy
Monday, Feb 2

I'm struggling with number four a bit - if it's 2 groups 200 randomly selected subjects for both trials the correct answer seems like a large interpretive overreach for me.

1
User Avatar
JesseMcCarthy
Tuesday, Jan 20

What about /12 (less than or equal to half of) for negating most?

2
User Avatar
JesseMcCarthy
Saturday, Jan 17

@OmarAbuaita He talks about this around 5:00 in the video lol

2
User Avatar
JesseMcCarthy
Saturday, Jan 17

Eliminating the redundant requirements definitely eye opening!

3
User Avatar
JesseMcCarthy
Saturday, Jan 17

Kicking as much universal/not contested info to the domain to keep the diagramming simple helps me a lot.

3
User Avatar
JesseMcCarthy
Friday, Jan 16

That monster question made my brain feel like it was dying but I ended up with /physically dangerous and inspires revulsion -> horrific -> threatening which I don't think it was really right but got me there.

4
User Avatar
JesseMcCarthy
Wednesday, Jan 14

Was I wrong to go SAS-> /P and /A-> SAS and then combine to /A-> SAS -> /P? I noticed it didn't say she actually delivered the speech and got it right but felt I was following the group three unless rules here.

5
User Avatar
JesseMcCarthy
Wednesday, Jan 14

Brutal

10
User Avatar
JesseMcCarthy
Saturday, Jan 10

Subset membership is enough for superset membership but not required. Superset membership is required for subset membership, but not enough.

5
User Avatar
JesseMcCarthy
Wednesday, Jan 7

@AR91 Easier way for me to ask does something else support this? If so I usually find it's an intermediate conclusion and works pretty well so far.

1
User Avatar
JesseMcCarthy
Wednesday, Jan 7

Echo what everyone else is saying about taking my time and making sure I understood what each part of the argument was doing. I've also done a fair amount of drills and did the free lawhub stuff so I often feel like I'm in a stage where I can overthink and psych myself out of an easy answer - but 3/3!

3

Confirm action

Are you sure?