@ said:

Ideally yes, but there are going to be people who keep bubbling answers after time is up and they run the risk of getting caught by a proctor and that proctor issuing a misconduct notice to LSAC. Think of it like driving through a red light. Do people get away with it? Yes. Can you get caught? Yes. In my opinion it's not worth running the risk. Plus, if you're in the situation of having to bubble answers after time has been called, you probably haven't maxed out your potential.

Agreed! Especially when time is called just when you are going to circle an answer, it can be very tempting to not put your pencil down. Putting your pencil down when time is called may not be fun--especially if you know the right answer--but, in the long run, honesty feels better than getting one more point that may or may not affect your curved score.

And on @'s point about "you probably haven't maxed out your potential", I've found that to be very true. Skip more and bank the time for later so there's less of a chance for a last-minute scramble!

@ other than thinking of good questions, is there anything we should do to prepare for the webinar(s)?

@ said:

Stop being a crazy person and keep these activities separate, that's my advice. You need to focus to study, and you need to focus to workout effectively. Don't try to be Superman.

@ I think @ makes a good point here. It all depends on what you're looking to get out of your gym time. If you just want to move your body, try some of the things I've suggested above. But if you're trying to actually work out, focus on that.

@ said:

but with my crazy full time work schedule most days I have to choose one or the other and ..... por que no los dos?

I feel your struggle! I've tried to think of ways to pull study time out of gym time too. The best I could do to meaningfully "study" was to complete simple mental tasks.

For example, I downloaded the Quizlet app and saved flashcards made by @ (https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/7890). I had some success studying the flashcards for lawgic indicators and common logical fallacies, although a 45 minute gym session became a bit long to just run through two sets of flashcards lol. When I didn't bring my phone to the gym, I'd try to mentally list off as many of the lawgic indicators as I could. I liked to think it helped me stay focused for when I would start studying at home after working out. Sometimes it did, other times it didn't. Unfortunately (or fortunately), the LSAT is all about learning how to think, not memorization. That, as I think you know, makes it tough to effectively study while multitasking.

One other thing I tried was brainstorming personal statement ideas while on a stationary exercise bike. Again, it kept me thinking about law school applications. But I can't say that any great ideas came from the exercise bike brainstorming sessions.

In short, I'd say experiment and see what works for you. I wouldn't expect to do any hardcore studying in the gym. But maybe you can use your time to just be thinking LSAT thoughts. Maybe gym time is a good time to think about and practice how you're going to stay sharp during the 15 minute break (https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/2683). Or maybe, as many have suggested, gym time is a good time to relax and enjoy focusing on something other than work or the LSAT, a time to help yourself avoid LSAT burnout. I think there's good that can come from whatever you choose to do. Good luck! :smiley:

You might try contacting the prelaw advisor at your undergraduate university. Some offer free personal statement editing and other help!

While watching J.Y.'s live commentary for PT81 section 2 LR, I noticed that he uses his pencil (and hand holding the pencil) to follow with each word AND he uses the fingers of his other hand to follow the line that he's reading. Both of his hands are totally engaged with what he's reading.

I started doing that and found that more physical engagement with the text has helped me to mentally engage with and focus on what I'm reading. Give it a try!

If you have access to it, here's the link to J.Y.'s live commentary for PT81 section 2 LR: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/preptest-81-s2-lr-live-commentary/

I had a similar question last week and called the LSAC. If everything in your LSAC application is uploaded and ready--application forms, personal statement, résumé, extra essays, transcript, letters of recommendation--once you click "complete application" (or whatever the button says), the LSAC system automatically sends notice to the law school that they can pull your report. So there's not too much lag there. I think they may still send notice to the law school if your letters of recommendation or transcript aren't uploaded but I'm not sure. Call LSAC Technical Support and they can give you more detailed information about the status of your LSAC application.

There is a bit of a delay for the law school to complete processing of your application. For my application to one law school, it took two business days for the admissions committee to process it. They process applications based on when they receive them, so the sooner everything is in, the better. I'm pretty sure that admissions committees don't deem an application complete until they've completely processed it. You might try calling the admissions committee for the school you're applying to for more information.

Good luck! I hope you're able to get everything in by the deadline!

@ as others have said and I'm sure you know, those are some tough questions and there aren't easy answers. I like @'s comment to think about yourself in 5 years. It reminds me of Bill Burnett's TedTalk (and book) about Designing Your Life. You might find Bill's insights helpful to think about as you consider the opportunity costs of your possible paths.

Here's the TedTalk:

little late to the game on this, but I just re-read Mike Kim's "five essays" in chapter 1 of the LSAT Trainer (I've got the 2016 version) and found it pretty inspiring. If you've got the book, give them a read!

I'm late to the party, but here's my thoughts on this tough question:

A. No human is as light-footed as cats.

As others have said, this negates the possibility that humans and cats are equally light-footed. If that were true, then why are cats afraid of dogs but humans aren't? Does it have to do with differences in body size or maybe something else? This answer prevents us from worrying about those questions, thereby putting greater emphasis on light-footedness as the evolutionary development to avoid being noticed by dogs. While I wasn't super comfortable with this answer at first, it's the only one that doesn't bring in information that is irrelevant to what is included in the stimulus, so that's why it felt right. I think we don't expect a strengthening answer to be one that precludes other explanations from being true, because it's not how we usually think about strengthening an argument. Usually, we think of strengthening as "adding to", but equally appropriate is "preventing removal from", i.e., "blocking".

B. Being chased by dogs is not the most common cause of death for cats.

The stimulus says nothing about death, so it's not going to help us connect the premises to the conclusion. Even if this wasn't the most common cause of death. Maybe it's the second-most common cause. There's still ample reason for evolutionary development to avoid being chased by dogs.

C. Many other types of animals have light-footedness similar to that of cats.

Cool. Maybe they also are scared of dogs and evolved light-footedness as a means of going unnoticed by dogs? We have no idea. This doesn't do anything to connect the lightfootedness of cats to their evolutionary development.

D. Cats are much faster than other heavier animals.

Are dogs "heavier animals" than cats? Not necessarily: http://www.khq.com/story/35487755/spokane-cat-is-probably-bigger-than-your-dog consequently, this statement may not apply to the relationship between cats and dogs and thus wouldn't affect the support between the premise and the conclusion. We'd have to make some assumptions to make the statement apply to that relationship, but we shouldn't do that.

E. Dogs that chase cats also chase other species of animals.

so maybe those other animals are light-footed as well, like answer C suggests. This wouldn't help for similar resons as answer C.

The explanations for these answers would similarly apply to @'s parallel argument.

The directions often contain rules for the game (especially number of pieces, clues to the type of game board), so why not read them? The point of foolproofing is to foolproof the entire process of completing a game, not just part of it. :smile:

@ said:

Nothing is set in stone, but I figure I'd like to do prosecution. I have a background in electronics/computers, so I figure I'd be put on stuff like that. While I can definitely see the advantages of PhD when it comes to hardware design, I don't see how it would be relevant to software.

Agreed. If it was a PhD focused on software, that may be very helpful. PhDs focused on other subjects would probably just be a waste of time.

@ this is probably a good question to ask lots of patent attorneys (or hiring managers) as you might get a variety of answers, even if they're in the same field. :neutral: Also, try looking through the job posting sections of websites such as patentlyo.com or ipwatchdog.com to get a feel of the qualifications that firms are looking for.

I think the answer to your question depends on what kind of IP law you're looking to practice. Patent prosecution would, I expect, favor people with advanced degrees as having an advanced degree correlates with greater knowledge of the field the invention is in. Greater knowledge of the field makes understanding what's out there and what's not a little easier, that understanding being crucial to drafting a patent application. That's probably why there are many PhD patent agents out there--they focus on specific technologies that they know very well from personal experience.

That said, in my limited experience (I work in patent searching, which is one step in the patent prosecution process), I'd say that advanced degrees are more important for people focusing on biology or chemistry. An advanced degree in engineering doesn't seem to be necessary, but again, it probably depends on what you're trying to do. If you're a civil engineer that wants to draft patent applications about semiconductor fabrication, which you have no experience in, an advanced degree specifically focused on semiconductor fabrication would probably be helpful and maybe even necessary.

My guess, though, is that you're probably fine with a EE undergraduate degree. I've heard of law firms paying for their attorneys to get an advanced degree to meet the firm's needs so maybe getting an advanced degree is something to worry about later. :smile:

I was so convinced that answer C did not have an effect on the argument because of the assumptions that you have to make for it to be a weakening fact. For example, we have to assume that previous participation in scent identification studies would somehow give you some advantage for participating in this scent identification study--perhaps the previous studies exposed you to the same kinds of scents as the new study, or perhaps you learned the proper names for various scents such that in the future you could actually guess the right scent name. Even if you take answer C as true, you still have to make assumptions like those above to make it a weakening answer choice.

But perhaps that's the point? If an answer could possibly (with whatever assumptions are needed) weaken an argument, is it safe to say that it does weaken the argument? I suppose so--it at least would give one pause when considering the strength that the premises give the conclusion.

Conversely, for answer A, there isn't really anything that we can reasonably assume about it that would make it a weakening answer. We could try to assume that not matching the real scent makes it impossible to identify the scent or at least makes correct identification very difficult, but then everyone would fail, not just one particular group. And in that case, maybe some experience with scent identification tests (answer C) would be helpful for your ability to identify scents, assuming that you learned the correct answers for the poor quality fake scents in previous studies.

lol I guess I'm pretty convinced that C isn't the correct answer now. ;)

thanks @!

Hey @ it's been a while since you posted this and I wonder how you'd answer your above questions now as I'm having a similar experience. For me, I get to question 1 and freeze a little bit. It's to the point that I'm thinking of just skipping question 1 automatically, maybe doing it right after question 2 or something like that.

LESSONS LEARNED: once I realized that this was a necessary assumption question, the right answer became more clear, so be very careful about that. Anytime you say “assumption the argument requires”, you have a necessary assumption question so you can applying the blocking/bridging paradigm to it. Also, necessary assumptions should specifically focus on the subjects of the stimulus. Making universal claims are likely too much for a necessary assumption. Knowing what task you’re working on is critical, so if you’re confused about the answers, be sure to double check that.

This was a tough question for me. I had a tilda next to B, not sure why I didn’t choose it during the test, especially where D is not the most tempting answer (on review, I think A is)….but maybe if you don’t know what to think, it is! You need to be laser focused on the order of logic in the statements so you don’t get trapped up by answers like D that flip the “sufficient” and “necessary conditions” (or at least things that sound like one of those conditions in the argument’s conclusion). Also, be very wary when answers use nearly identical language to the stimulus.*

Qtype necessary assumption

Premises: end of 1997 several nations said their oil reserves unchanged since end of 1996; oil reserves gradually drop as old oil fields drained and rise suddenly as new oil fields discovered

Necessary assumption: nations are actively doing something with oil, such as using oil from old fields or discovering new fields

Subconclusion: oil reserves unlikely to remain unchanged from one year to next

Conclusion: oil reserves unchanged in 1997 -m-> probably /correct

Necessary assumption: nations that said their oil reserves were unchanged in 1997 were actively doing something with oil, such as using oil from old fields of discovering new fields...who knows if they were or not? That’s a pretty big flaw here. Only two possible explanations for remaining unchanged are not using or discovering oil at all or using and discovering exactly equal amounts such that there is no change. Author is assuming that the both situations don’t happen.

A nation has oil reserves -> more likely that nation was mistaken in its statements about changes in oil reserves than that the nation’s oil reserves remained unchanged; this could be one explanation, but I don’t think it’s the only explanation. I feel like this is more of a sufficient assumption because if you negate it, the argument still works. Additionally, saying “any nation” is much too broad to be a necessary assumption--not bad for sufficient assumptions, but not necessary assumptions. Also, the nation could have lied about their changes, so “mistaken” is much to specific.

B CORRECT in 1997, likely that (nations that said oil reserves unchanged -m-> old oil fields drained or new oil fields discovered, or both); without this assumption at all or if you negate it, the argument is wrecked. Everything is riding on assuming that the nations are actually using the oil. Although this answer doesn’t negate the possibility that the nations are using and discovering exactly equal proportions of oil, it’s still an assumption that must be made before you attempt to prove the nation is using and discovering exactly equal proportions of oil. Also, the premise about it’s unlikely that oil reserves remain unchanged would discourage us from saying that the exactly equal proportions of oil is likely. Remember that sub-conclusion and conclusion of the argument are hedged by “probably” and “likely”, so we can’t rely on citing an outlier situation as complete proof that the author is wrong.

C at least one nation? We need to know about multiple nations! This is too narrow to be useful to us

D /correct -> during 1997 that nation drained its old oil fields and discovered new ones; this looks tempting, but the logic is backwards. We need to conclude that the nations were not correct to that should be the necessary condition; this uses a lot of the right words, but it’s backwards. Even then, if the order was reversed it would still be wrong because we don’t know if anyone is draining or discovering yet

E nation’s oil reserves change from one year to next -> nation obligated to report change correctly; hmm...we don’t really care about what they’re obligated to do. We care about what they actually did. Just because an obligation at stake has no effect on telling us if they kept it or not. We can’t satisfy the sufficient because we don’t know if it’s true, and it doesn’t make sense to negate the necessary because that would be saying there’s no obligation and we have no idea about obligations

Is the last half of the "Video of JY doing this" black for anyone else? Starting at around 1:18...

@ said:

The writing should stand alone.

I agree with this! I'm not saying that you are, but if you have to rely on a hyperlinked news article to really give meaning to your story, that's probably not good. Law school admissions committees are full of smart people, but assume they don't know anything other than what you tell them (not a news article). Certainly you don't have to explain every little detail and its backstory, but say what you need to to give the reader a solid picture of what you're talking about. That will help them connect with your essay.

This may sound harsh, but admissions committees probably won't care about Operation Streamline as a thing. Through narrative, show them what it means to you and they'll care about that. Remember, the personal statement is all about you. The events and things you talk about are merely vehicles to show who you are and how you think.

I've found @'s point in this discussion to be useful: https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/2683

lol I'm envisioning coffee table books filled with RC passages turned into memes like this one

@ and @ thanks for your input!

It's my understanding that the LSAT Trainer, if used to its full extent, is a self-study course basically similar to 7Sage and other LSAT courses. I've heard great reviews about the approaches that Mike Kim, the author, teaches.

However, rather than buying another book, I'd focus on working through the 7Sage curriculum patiently, diligently, and consistently. I think there's a tendency to feel that you need to buy 'all the things'--every possible prep test, all of the best LSAT training materials, all of the perfect pencils, the perfect sharpener, etc.--to succeed on the LSAT. I know I've felt that way and made some purchases for that reason (such as the LSAT Trainer). Unfortunately, while having those things can give you the resources to succeed, none of them are sufficient for success. Nor are they even all necessary for success. Your consistent efforts to learn are what really count.

I really like the first few chapters of the LSAT Trainer (that's all I've read in a year or so of owning it), but there's a lot to gain from being committed to the 7Sage curriculum (which you've already paid for) and getting out of it all that you can. If you're at a point where you've done that, sure, the Trainer's or other companies' methods for LR and RC may be useful to you. Different perspectives on things are always valuable. Just don't get stuck buying more things if you haven't tried to get the most out of what you have already. I'm sure I read a post from @ saying something to that effect once, but I can't remember where.

Hope that helps!

Hey @ have you tried meditation? That might help. I'm sure lots of meditation gurus say this, but Andy in the Headspace app specifically tells you during one of the sessions to just listen to the noises around you and be comfortable with them--just let them come and go. I've found it helpful to think about. A few deep breaths can also be helpful.

That said, I still get thrown off by loud noises and struggle to regain focus at that point. I was watching re-runs of American Ninja Warrior in the gym the other day and thought it was interesting how everyone dealt with dismounting from the rolling log. Some people held on but never seemed to fully regain their balance (and consequently didn't make it much longer), while others made it, paused to regain their balance, and then went on to shred the rest of the course. Like this guy:

It sounds like you're pausing and re-composing yourself already, but maybe, like Jake Murray, you can find a way to pivot from the moment of imbalance into a dance move that increases, rather than decreases, your drive for the rest of the 'course'. Note how he used the dance moves to shake off the imbalance. Dancing probably would be looked down on during the test, but that kind of mindset--turning the panic into a positive moment--could get you far. Maybe try saying in your mind "I can do this" and think of yourself dancing or fist-pumping. Kind of silly, but it's worth a try. Positive self-affirmation is a good thing. :smiley:

@ have you recorded yourself taking a PT? Is timing an issue for you?