Hello, and thank you for the response! I'm wondering about this statement: "It would show up as an additional app doc." Does it mean that if an AO reviews my application after this additional app doc is made, will they see my original application as it was submitted but with an additional document attached?

Their RC sections feel just like the newer ones, I highly recommend them! LR not so much.

As far as I've been told, most law schools want you to list all of your post-high school work experience. Sure, if it was a one-week gig that you aren't keen on revealing, then by all means leave it out. However, the jobs you've listed (hostess, brand ambassador, retail) are by no means irrelevant to a law school resume and would likely reflect positively on your diverse experiences rather than poorly for having held multiple jobs.

This is the advice I've received from an AO on 7Sage, so don't take this with a grain of salt; they know what they are talking about! In any case, we'll wait for an official response. Good luck on your applications!

I highly doubt having an additional LoR added to your file after your application has already been submitted will affect the position of your application in relation to the rest. However, do note that submitting your application before receiving all of your LoRs may result in your file being evaluated before the additional LoR even comes in.

Granted, I am not an AO, so I cannot guarantee anything. My advice would be to seek advice from a former admission officer, if not a current one. In any case, it has been said that mid-October is the "sweet spot" to submit applications, so if an LoR is holding up your submission, really do consider the impact a single LoR can have on your file.

Congratulations on your 180!!! That is a major accomplishment, and the law school admissions officers know it! I won't let your GPA hold you back, given your work experience and the option of writing an addendum. If you are currently in any academic environment where you will be able to complete assignments, then I would highly recommend you seek a letter of recommendation from your academic supervisor.

Posting before score release so that people know they have a place to go if the time comes 👍

6:20 😂

@PerpetuallyConfused Exactly. Eating an apple is not morally wrong, but it would be strange to call it morally right.

@Njbrunette They're not actually. This section (#2) was actually from PT 82, whereas the rest of the sections (#1, #3, and #4) were from PT 86.

The reason is because the LSAC reconstructed the disclosed tests so that they replicate a 4-section test. Otherwise, they would all be 3-sections, as they do not disclose experimental sections.

@SelinI I see your point. However, if the reason you want it on your stats is because of, say, the reality of multi-day testing accommodations, then this can be replicated by taking the full PT but exiting out of it between sections (this removes the automatic countdown).

Otherwise, if you are referring to individual sections taken over the course of your practicing without necessarily attempting to replicate a full PT to begin with, then having these sections auto-compile into full PT scores would likely skew the data upwards due to the removed structural constraints.

@LSAT101 Precisely! The "in principle" is pulling a lot of the weight here.

Hey! I actually do individual sections and calculate my full score too! The easiest way to do this is to add up your -Xs from each scored section and look at the table here: 7Sage LSAT | Score Calculator & Converter

Say you completed the three scored sections from PT 156 and got -1, -2, and -4. That totals to -7, and you can find the score for -7 on PT 156 like so (171):

"All drugs" in AC B is supported because Dario would allow any drug that isn't already patented (i.e. new) to be granted a patent, and those that are already patented are ones that Dario agrees with them being patented.

Bottom line is that AC B does NOT commit Dario to agree that any drug compound should be granted a patent more than once, so it saying "all drugs" instead of "all new drugs" is supported.

This way this question works is that it prompts you to believe there are two potential reasons for humans' ability to detect the extroversion: culture or biology.

What the chimpanzee premise is supposed to establish is that the ability is not cultural.

There are two ways to attack this argument:

1) Show that the ability to detect dominance in chimps is indeed cultural.

2) Show that the ability to detect dominance in chimps is completely separate from the ability to detect extroversion in humans.

AC C goes for 2) by strengthening the ties between dominance in chimps and extroversion in humans. Sure, it does not prove that the conclusion, but it nonetheless ties human extroversion and chimp dominance together, and pair this with the fact that the rest of the answers are so much worse, we have to choose AC C.

@AlexHaro His statement shows that he grasps Carla's statements about the benefits of research, but that the connection Carla made between that and supporting professors taking time off from teaching flew right over him.

Look at it this way: Even for us to understand how Carla's premise supports her conclusion, we need to make an inference; David's response shows that he failed to see this connection.

@HimajaReddy I want to point out that hypocrisy itself is not a reasoning error. It is the fact that the author impugns the motives of Roehmer, which happens to be a hypocritical move, that constitutes the flaw.

@Vanesszabaranyai Where is Kevin's video?

@lindsaywasserberger269 We know that the mail advertisements induced millions of purchases from home because we are given this causal statement:

Because of direct-mail advertising, millions of people buy products by phone or online.

Thus, it can be inferred that if it weren't for these advertisements, home purchases would be less by millions, and AC B would suggest that these millions would be purchased anyway but at the store.

ACs D and E can be ruled out because if one were the right answer, then the other would have to be as well, and there cannot be two right answers.

@sofiesunshine My rule of thumb when it comes to ambiguity is to first interpret the ACs in their least charitable interpretation, and if this leads to ruling out every AC, then go back and reinterpret those that were ruled out for an ambiguity.

@flowerberry The way AC A allows the conclusion to be properly drawn is because we are told that money is a universal phenomenon, i.e. ALL societies have it. If it is the case that some societies have never had contact with and been influenced by any other society, then the fact that these societies have developed money shows that there are some societies that independently developed money without having been influenced by other societies.

@ZulymarPerez It draws attention to the implicit assumption that high salary is the only relevant financial reward.