Mike is from the Bay Area and has only recently learned to shut up about that. He studied philosophy at Yale, then went to Yale again for law school. There he discovered a deep, residing passion for not being a lawyer.
After law school, he went home and founded a tutoring company where every hour purchased was matched one-for-one with an hour given pro bono to low income students in Oakland. He did that for 10 amazing years, and he always insisted his LSAT students use 7sage – the company with the best curriculum and the best ethics (it’s not even close).
Now he’s living the dream – making content with J.Y. and Kevin, and helping to refine the curriculum he has admired from afar for over a decade.
He’s a father, a trad climber, a hockey player, and an avidly goofy goose.
Applications
Discussions
The short answer is there really isn't an important difference between the two categories you're describing. There's a REALLY big difference between PSAa (which are basically MSS) and PSAr (which are basically Strengthen), and people often confuse the two, which is why those tags exist.
I'm like 95% certain that all Strengthen-questions-that-explicitly-call-for-a-principle should just be tagged PSAr. The one you linked is a good example -- I just changed that Q's tag to PSAr. It probably got the Strengthen tag because of the "most strongly supports" language (PSAr questions often use the slightly different "most helps to justify"), but that's a stylistic difference, not a substantive one.
Tagging in @Kevin_Lin in case he's interested.
For future readers: this take on (E) is off base because premises don't need further support. That's what makes them premises.
I'm headed off on my annual pilgrimage to Yosemite for the next couple weeks, so no classes during that time. Love you all, GOOD LUCK ON THE OCT TEST, and I'll see you back in class/stream Oct. 20th.
Generally speaking, there's not much reason to cancel a score. Schools only care about your highest.
Individualized tutoring is a great idea. How are your PT and blind review scores?
A point is a point, and as far as individual point increases go, "150s" to "160s" is no joke either.
The real thing is to take the same attitude in debriefing this official result as you would a practice test. It's good when things go wrong during practice because addressing errors and weak spots is part and parcel of learning. You get 5 swings -- use each one to learn and you won't see that cumulative effort as wasted if/when you land that higher score.
First off, on very rare occasions we are allowed to question premises -- when they're openly and ridiculously questionable. Hard to describe, but it happens sometimes.
That's not what's happening here, though. The premise is that the group reported exercising more. No one is doubting that they reported that. We're doubting whether those reports are accurate.
For the admissions side of this question, I'd encourage you to ask our podcast team during today's livestream. (I'm just a lil LSAT boy I know nothing of admissions.)
As for never taking it again...
MichaelWright
InstructorA message for September testtakers (especially those in despair)
Happy (or horrifying) score release day! I’m here to bring some words of hope and encouragement for all of you, especially those of you facing a disappointing result.
In the video I made for August testtakers last month (which you can watch here), I shared my own thoughts on what a low score does and doesn’t mean. Since then, we asked our team at 7sage for their own takes on the subject, and today I want to share with you all an excellent letter we received from one of our tutors, @DillonChaney.
We've got resources for you today. Most notably, we're stacking office hours throughout the day so you can get the emotional and practical support you need. We're also hosting a Live Score Release Extravaganza in a few hours (5pm ET) where the 7sage Podcast team will be answering questions and doling out advice gems and a few tantalizing giveaways.
Please also feel free to use this thread to vent, ask questions, or share your experiences – I'll be around all day (and all week, including Thursday evening's lofi stream which will surely involve some score release Q&A).
Weird-sounding though it is, it's a very common construction in the law. We talk all the time about "parties to a lawsuit."
That angle is contravened by the premise: "works capable of satisfying virtually any taste imaginable".
As a gift to my fellow Californians and night owls, I've moved the lofi stream to Thursday evenings at 7pm PST/10pm EST. With any luck, this'll be our new forever timeslot.
Roll through tonight and AMA, or watch me do whatever it is I decide to do. Current idea is to build a big ol' repository of how various common flaws are phrased and share it with people.
For those of you thinking (C) should be correct because "there is little chance" implies "there is some chance", watch this:
Lloyd may technically be correct that "one in a million" means "there is a chance", but that is not Mary's main point.
@crorosco02956 Yeah (E) is just what we call "descriptively inaccurate". (E) is a claim about why people believe advertisers, and the argument just doesn't touch that topic at all. In the argument, people just do believe advertisers -- we don't know or care why.
@crorosco02956 have you tried the (E) section of my video? that should hopefully help, but happy to give it another crack if you're still wanting clarity
@xcutethings have you clicked the little 💡 right of (C)? Hopefully that snippet is helpful, but I'm happy to answer any follow-up Qs you might have.
I mention this in my new snippet, but just in case you missed it:
No one is assuming nanobes are single-celled organisms. The ideas is that if single-celled organisms are capable of doing the thing, maybe nanobes are too.
See the analogy I offer under (B) for more detail.
@Isabella! Because the question is crazy complicated already and (with the benefit of hindsight) that claim isn't used in the argument.
Realistically you would want to have it on your radar as you consider which inferences to make.
@PT180 The idea is that you shouldn't do something that would make a previous action you took unacceptable.
Let's say I made a gofundme for disaster relief which generated $40,000. Then I said "hey maybe I should just buy a car."
You might respond: "You shouldn't accept charitable donations unless you're going to use the funds for charitable purposes."
If I buy a car, my previous acceptance of those donations will be rendered unacceptable, so I shouldn't buy the car.
@Kgarciarojas9 I'm realizing (E)'s snippet is confusing without the context of the analysis section. Re-reading the analysis might help.
I split the "things are bad when..." rule into two separate principles based on the two conditions from the "or" statement. But there's an implicit extra condition inside of each -- there actually has to be some kind of harm caused.
This nuance is needed because of (A), which features intention without actual harm.
Anyway, the principle I cite in the (E) snippet only deals with the "reasonable expectation" condition.
You're right that the condition about intended harm doesn't trigger in (E), which is why that part isn't cited in the snippet.
@KN2025 have you read my snippet? your interpretation is quite similar to the one I came in with, so it addresses your point directly
@mjgangbar1794 This is spot on. Our name for this general concept is weighing factors.
yep!