I think you answered your own question!

@ryanshort8883541 said:

I honestly don't even remember the last time I was asked to read a passage and answer questions on it or solve a problem that didn't involve the heavy use of math.

@ryanshort8883541 said:

I'm kind of getting the sense that just jumping in and attempting problems probably isn't going to work for the LSAT.

@ryanshort8883541 said:

I've taken somewhat of a logic class before (discrete math) but the logic on the LSAT seems to be a much different type of logic than what I learned in that class, so unfortunately I don't know how much help that will be.

As a 7Sage alumni, I am thoroughly convinced of the CC's indispensability. Without it, I would've continued making the same rookie mistakes I picked up during my pre-7Sage self-prep sessions. Even if I wasn't a CC-proponent, all of the evidence above would prompt my recommendation that you go through the CC at least one time to see what you know, what you don't, and which of your existing approaches you can improve.

The LSAT is a beast, so going through JY's approaches will help you master it much quicker than heading straight into practice tests without a solid approach or any sense of familiarity with the recurring patterns and concepts. Also, burning through practice tests prematurely is an arrow to the foot insofar that you have less material to practice with in the future.

Tl;dr - Don't skip the CC. :wink:

@gurikaurkahlon743-dawg Unfortunately I don't have a larger version of the study guide accessible to me. I'd recommend that you zoom in on the study guide, screenshot each section, and then print out those sections separately. Best of luck!

@philipehenry7807 said:

Can anyone PM me the study guide? I am having trouble accessing the Google Drive.

Can you PM me your email? I'll send it to you that way.

Seeing as people are still finding the study guide helpful (I'm flattered!), I want to bump this thread for anyone who hasn't seen it, especially for those preparing for the upcoming June LSAT. Best of luck, everyone! :smile:

You have a solid GPA and it would be a shame to simply 'bite the bullet' and apply without trying your hand at improving that LSAT score.

My first LSAT score (Dec 2017) was quite low and I applied with it thinking my GPA would get me through. Lo and behold, it didn't. Like you, I was 23 at the time. I reasoned that taking the next year to study rigorously would inevitably increase my chances of being admitted to my desired schools, so I did just that. I buckled down and retook the LSAT a year later (Nov 2018). I improved on my first write by 18 points, which secured my admission to each school I applied to. To my surprise, I also received scholarship offers. I'm now starting law school in the fall and will be 25 by that time.

Considering my own experience and having had the same thoughts then as you do now (i.e. feeling that time is of the essence), I encourage you to retake. You're young and the average age for entering law students is ~26 anyways!

@maxbbarb7382 said:

This is some true Canadian level kindness here! I hope you get all of the good karma

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2015-05/26/15/enhanced/webdr02/anigif_enhanced-23600-1432668305-3.gif?downsize=800:*&output-format=auto&output-quality=auto

@leahbeuk911 While I wasn't available to take part in it, I do recall how dedicated you were to getting the November 2018 study group together. You really showed initiative to learn, improve, and help others do the same and it paid off, so congrats!

@701170 said:

Wow! Thank you!!!!!!! Congratulations on your victory. Stories like this are so refreshing when times are getting tough. You're definitely an inspiration to keep pushing. Thank you again.

@701170, thank you! When I was studying, I would always read success stories and take my motivation from 'em, so I'm glad that sharing mine helps in this sense. Best of luck with studying and keep pushing thru!

@acarman250782 said:

@ajp0808668 said:

Yea it'd be cool if we could download or print without having to sign up with scribd..

I signed up and still wasn't able to download it or print it.

@cb504526991 how are you "paying it forward" if you are not making your study sheet available? If you can add a direct link to your study sheet it would truly help us all out.

Apologies! A friend suggested scribd and I was just here for a good time, not a long time, so I jumped at using it without realizing that it was largely unaccessible. Anyways, hope the new link works for ya and best of luck studying!

@jevelasquez47182 said:

Congratulations! Are you attending a Canadian law school?

Thank you! And I am! Canadian thru-and-thru here.

https://media.giphy.com/media/MvbCvLEvPtsQg/giphy.gif

And thank you everyone for the congrats! I appreciate it :blush:

@katiecurran2020140 said:

Yes the new link works @cb504526991 Thank you so much!

Phew, thanks for letting me know! Happy studying :smile:

Hello everyone,

@james1992812138 is correct! Unfortunately, I don't check back here often and assumed the document would be accessible for all. My apologies to everyone who experienced this trouble.

Above you'll find a new link where you can download the study guide. It's also here (to save you the trouble of scrolling up): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pwW83WTTOdGDOR5gRDZAfyb32EyUf6Fy/view?usp=sharing.

Kindly let me know if it works!

I agree with @sanchezsarahr931. Going through the CC at a slow pace and making sure to do the practice sets (timed and BR) at the end of each section is critical because it helps you crystallize your learning. Each lesson builds on the next (kinda like math), so you have to slow down and master one lesson at a time before you move on. Not 100% sure about a lesson before moving on? Stop, repeat the lesson, and then see if you're 100% confident again. Don't move on until you are feelin' a hundred.

I can't say I actively took notes, but I did create excel charts and flashcards for the following concepts: logical indicators, biconditional indicators, valid + invalid argument forms, the common argument flaws, and the logical reasoning question types (which breaks down an approach to each question type, an explanation of direction of support, and typical questions stems). If you want some more info on these notes, don't hesitate to message me!

Hey, fellow Canadian here. For UBC, references are required for discretionary and aboriginal applicant categories. I met with an admissions advisor a couple months ago and asked them the same question (because UBC's website is a little misleading with its use of "optional" and "not required"). They told me that if I feel my references will help my application, then I should apply for discretionary. That being said, I was also told that even if I get my references to send in their letter for me and I apply within the regular applicant stream, they will keep the letters they receive on file and "may or may not look at them". So, in all, I'd recommend either (1) applying for discretionary if you have reason to, or (2) apply for the regular applicant stream, but get your referees to send their letters in anyways.

The worst that can happen? They don't look at 'em. The best that could happen? They take 'em into consideration. Worth a shot!

Hey @sabrinaishaque800,

Before 7Sage, I was on the Manhattan Prep package. Granted, my LSAT score after studying from this material wasn't great (I chalk this up to my inadequate studying methods as opposed to the material itself). I joined 7Sage as per a friend's recommendation and went through the CC just once and found that everything sunk in perfectly. By no means am I a logic genius, mind you; I went through the CC hella slowly and made sure I was confident in my understanding before I moved on to the next lesson. I wouldn't say that my familiarity with the CC concepts wasn't helped by the Manhattan material, but I can say that everything crystallized for me when I took my time on the CC. My CC timeline involved covering a few lessons each day for 4-5 hours, all within the span of ~3.5 months.

If you have the time, I would recommend going through the CC again, making sure to not move on from a lesson until you've completely understood it. If you do this, I don't think you'll need supplementary prep.

I know this doesn't necessarily answer your question, but since I went through the inverse, I figured I'd offer my experience as food for thought.

Cheers!

I've reached this point as well after studying for an entire year. I'm just doing PTs casually and counting down the days till I can reclaim my existence before the LSAT.

@ohnoeshalpme804 said:

Have you ever filmed yourself or gotten the timing for individual passages/questions?

This is something I haven't tried yet, so I'm going to give it a shot. Thanks for the suggestion!

@ohnoeshalpme804 said:

For me, it helped a lot to try finishing RC sessions in 30 minutes and lived with it as if they were real scores.

Interesting process. Did you eventually develop a timing strategy? Or did you just find that your speed and accuracy improved by limiting yourself to 30 minutes continuously?

@jevelasquez47182 If you're interested in UofT, then I would also encourage you to apply to Osgoode as well, given that they're both located in Toronto proper. From what I know, UOttawa places less importance on the LSAT score compared to UofT and Osgoode, so they tend to look at the entire applicant profile. UofT, however, is largely focused on numbers, so a strong LSAT and UGPA is key to get in there.

@jacquestoupin470 said:

Where you want to work, and what work you want to do is more important when choosing schools.

The latter is especially important. The thing with Canadian law schools is that some schools are known for specific areas of law. For example, Dalhousie is known for environmental law, UofT is known for corporate, UBC for indigenous and women's law. These schools do, obviously, offer a multitude of specializations, but taking a look at prof specialties, courses, and clinics offered at each university can be helpful in determining which ones you want to apply to.

25 (fingers crossed) and 4 years of work experience (academic and administrative, but not law-related)

Hey gurikaur,

First, I think it'd be good to review some of the typical question stems for either question type so that you're familiar with usual indicator words. For example, the words in this question stem indicate a strengthening question: "best support Jeff's conclusion". Quiz yourself!

- https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/quiz-on-logical-reasoning-question-stems-first-half/

- https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/logical-reasoning-question-stems-first-half-flashcards/

Here I'll answer your question on how to tell the difference between MSS and strengthening questions. MSS questions ask you to locate a conclusion among the ACs that draws direct support from the stimulus (which, for MSS questions, is comprised entirely of premises). More often than not, MSS questions are marked by their tell-tale indicator phrase "most strongly supported" in the question stem. On the other hand, strengthening questions are a different beast. While MSS requires you to find a conclusion among the ACs, strengthening questions urge you to find an AC that bolsters the argument in the stimulus. Unlike MSS, strengthening questions provide you with an argument in the stimulus that has both premises and a conclusion, so you're trying to ensure that any such gap P gives to C is filled by the AC you choose.

I also recommend that you review this lesson: https://7sage.com/lesson/lr-question-stem-grouped-by-direction-of-support/. Familiarize yourself with the direction of support in each question type since it will help you to internalize your approach to each question type and help you avoid tripping over the question stems.

Hope this helps!

@keerutsingh856 said:

Lesson learned. Be very careful what you disclose to these people. Don't put any information on your LSAC account until you are sure it is permanent or you are about to send transcripts.

Precisely! I think it's good that you shared this, especially for those who're applying for the first time. Could save someone a lot of unnecessary stress during the application process.

@kingse414, we've read the same things then: Canadian law schools want to know the formative experiences (personal, professional, and academic) that makes an applicant particularly well-suited for studying law. No school I've applied to has asked for creative-statements or "stories" per se, so yeah, I think I'll just brush up what I have and resubmit an updated version of my PS.

Thank you, everyone!