- Joined
- Jun 2025
- Subscription
- Live
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
I am a reapplicant this cycle, after an unfavorable outcome last cycle due to a very low LSAT score (140's), and am wondering about my personal statement. I am applying again to the same schools I got denied/ WL from, and do not know whether or not I should change my personal statement, or just revamp what I already have.
The personal statement that I submitted last year dealt with a very specific part of my undergraduate experience, and now that I have graduated and am taking a gap year, I do not know if I have to change it, or if it still could apply post graduate. I want to maximize my chances of getting into the schools I want, but I also do not want to have to go completely back to the drawing board. Any advice or help?
Thanks everyone!
This feels like an assumption the author would make- that mulch containing both works better than mulch containing only manure. Am I wrong in saying that a "provide no evidence flaw" is similar to an assumption?
Could it be true that we could quickly eliminate B and C, because it talks about Kay agreeing with important issues, when the stimulus is talking about a trigger of disagreeing? Just trying to see if I can gather some tricks to use to better help with moving quickly and efficiently!
Why does Question 6 allow for us to infer something is true about a new concept? I feel like in previous questions we were told to ignore new concepts because we cannot infer from the stimulus they would be correct.
How can we assume that "not uncomfortable" is comfortable. I know it makes sense, but I remember a lesson where it was not accurate to do this?
How am I supposed to practice like this and attempt to understand mapping if I will not have time for this on the test? The mapping for this took like 3 minutes, thats more than I should spend on the question right?
Should the statement "for, since, and because, introduce premises and you will find the conclusion present in the same sentence" just be completely disregarded- like not too much thought put into it.
I have 2 questions-
How can we tell that the support is strong in this? Just because the premises support the conclusion?
This may be getting ahead of myself- but how do we know that number 2. and 3. of the premises are the only options? Is it because it says "members" and then "all other members"?
I just want to make sure I am not missing anything.
In a "most vulnerable to criticism" question are we supposed to contradict the author's conclusion while finding the flaw?