User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free
User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Monday, Sep 28 2015

Make the steps and layout of every game you do completely redundant. Same way of writing rules, same placement of game board, same placement for deductions and limited option game boards. Use strategist like checking off rules or double checking to make sure you never make a mistake.

User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Sunday, Sep 27 2015

Stop taking PTs! The same thing happened to me before my first administration. I took PTs every day the week leading up to the test and it didnt go well, ended up canceling.

User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Sunday, Sep 27 2015

Just to give you a heads up, I started with a 170+ goal and have never consistently hit that after 15 months of studying, and taking all modern tests (36 and up, including superprep and a few in the 20s). Im going into October fluctuating between mid to high 160s and low to mid 170s. Sometimes you need to readjust your expectations. It's a hard freakin test.

User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Monday, Jun 27 2016

I think for the money LLL is asking, it's a good deal. Certainly helped me out. I was sort of hoping we might catch the attention of the course makers here (*cough*) because the fact pattern for the 3rd taxi driver hypo in the crim section seems to be missing and I would like to do it.

User Avatar

Sunday, Apr 26 2015

benjaminwrichmond663

BR Group Starting PTs in 40s

Would anyone like to group BR tests starting in the 40s? I would be on track to BR test 40 starting on the evening of 4/29.

I did a group BR with #LSATurday, which was great!, but that BR group is moving on to PTs in the 60s, and because this is my second time around with the test I am really just taking tests in the 40s and early 50s (I have already taken the 60s).

If you're interested and want to do BRs in the 40s let me know, and we ccan set something up over skype.

Thanks!

Ben

User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Saturday, Sep 26 2015

Right understood. The strengthening question I am referencing I got wrong - so just wanted to flag this potential issue for others. Even though correlation alone is not good evidence for causation, it can strengthen a causal relationship presented in the argument stem.

User Avatar

Sunday, Oct 25 2015

benjaminwrichmond663

Taking the Long Road

I wanted to put my "LSAT Journey" up here as I think it might help other members of the 7sage community. If you want my perspective on this process and some tips for those just starting, read on!

I started prepping for the LSAT in June of 2014, using Barrons and Kaplan, planning to test in September 2014. This was an ineffective way to prep because of the quality of the materials I was using and I quickly switched to Powerscore, using both the bible books and an online prep course (live classes). I went into the Dec 2014 test feeling OK, but bombed logic games in an early section of the test and literally didn't have the mental stamina to finish. Read: I may have had a breakdown.

In retrospect, my 2014 test prep was insufficient. I hadnt done enough prep, specifically fresh prep tests, and I hadnt mastered Logical Reasoning and Logic Games methods. I started studying with 7sage around February 2015. 7sage definitely helped. However, I took the June 2015 test but was disappointed with my score, a 162. I had been PTing in the mid to high 160s and my original goal had been to break 170.

I buckled down after the June test and kept studying. It was really painful. I worked with a tutor outside of 7sage to keep me focused and committed to a study plan. I kept consistent PTs in the high 160s and low 170s, although at this point repeated content was a problem. This past LSAT, October 2015, I scored a 167. I wasn't disappointed but I wasn't happy either, pretty much neutral to the outcome and relieved I didn't bomb the test. It capped off a study process of ~16 months.

In sum, this process is a beast. I spent thousands of hours (and let's be honest: dollars) doing prep and didn't achieve the original results I set out for. That said, I did get through it. I did break 165, and I did improve my score between the administrations. If I had to boil down my advice in the long-run it would be something along these lines:

1. Don't skimp on prep materials - go straight for the best material and prep available for you. Put the work in to figure out what type of prep you need at the beginning of this process and stick to that prep. If that means working with a tutor or taking a class, start doing that as soon as you can.

2. Make an overly-detailed study plan and stick to it. Working full time, traveling, being in school, etc. whiles studying for this test is hard. As someone working in consulting who travels (on an airplane) every week, I struggled to stick to a study schedule. Ultimately I recommend getting out an excel sheet and make a day by day plan to get you through the next 3, 6, or 12 months to your test administration. Show the schedule to your peers, study buddies, etc. and get feedback on whether your goals are realistic. Include things like exercising, napping or "free time" in your schedule if that is what you need to make sure you can take a break and not get burnout.

3. Play the mental game. Don't let this (awful) test get the best of you. There were definitely times when I was mad, when I thought I was going to go to a dumpster-fire/non-LSAT required law school, or when I wanted to give up on this whole process entirely. None of those thoughts werre helpful or productive. Being good at the LSAT means, well, you are good at the LSAT. That's it. There's poor correlation at best between L1 performance and the exam. When you get mad, try to repeat that yourself and take deep breaths.

In summary, I'm not glad we go through this awful experience to get into law school. But there are some ways you can make it less painful, and knowing these tips and tricks from the start will help you out.

Best,

Lorax

User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Saturday, Jun 25 2016

Hey everyone - KTCOOLS seems to be in beta or something. I've been working through the Hypos and there are definitely some issues with scoring and some of the fact patterns are missing. Does anyone know the best way to contact Larry about these issues? He hasnt responded to any of my emails.

Ben

User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Friday, Sep 25 2015

@ Things that don't imply causation/causality:

1) Correlation

2) Conditionality

@ if i remember correctly, sometimes correlation is used in a strengthen question as an answer choice to strengthen a causal relationship.

User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Friday, Sep 25 2015

Agreed, all because indicates causality

User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Friday, Sep 25 2015

Cancel after the test counts. Believe me, you dont want to be on team 3x. Just push back if you're not ready yet.

User Avatar

Tuesday, Aug 25 2015

benjaminwrichmond663

Wild Fluctuations in Score

So I've been at this LSAT thing for a while. One aspect of test-taking I am really struggling with is consistency. On my last round of testing leading up to June 2015 my PTs regularly fluctuated between 162 and 171. This round of prep honestly hasn't been much better, with scores ranging between 165 and 178. I've controlled for repeated content as well as testing conditions like location, noise level, etc.

What I am coming down to is that most of my issues are around focus and consistency. I'm trying a few new things to address this, and I was wondering if anyone with similar problems with test taking can weigh in here - what have you done to "get in the zone" and perform consistently on your PTs?

What I'm doing:

-Big Picture: Trying to be aware of how my week is going at work and in life in general, and proactively preventing any issues or concerns from creeping into my prep by getting really proactive about keeping work and life separate from test prep

-Routine: For my weekly practice tests, making sure I get a good night's rest on Friday night, wake up on saturday and go biking, then eating and get ready in my workspace for test. Usually start testing around 11am each time I test.

-Mindset: try to do a mini-meditation where I completely clear my mind before I actually start the test - this is usually only a 2-3 "quick meditation" exercise where I try to get absolutely clear in my head, then snap into test-taking mode

-Logic Games: Creating a template for how I will lay out every game, its game pieces, rules, etc. and stick to that setup for every game

-Logical Reasoning: Forcing myself to focus and spend adequate time on every question by instituting a mandatory "1 free skip" rule

-Critical Reading: Focusing more on text and less on marking my passages, although working on how to make this a consistency thing I can bring to my test taking

-Also crushing my flashcards to make sure I don't slack on fundamentals

7sagers - what are you doing to get in the zone and ready for your tests? How do you deal with, uh, absurd fluctuations in your score that you are pretty sure are not due to repeated content or bad test taking conditions?

User Avatar

Saturday, May 23 2015

benjaminwrichmond663

"Please Put Your Pencils Down"

Hi 7sagers,

I have a question about test taking. At the end of the section the test proctor says "please put your pencils down."

While the proctor is saying this, can we bubble in our last answer(s)? Unfortunately as I am often considering 1 or 2 questions at the end of time on a section, this is a real concern for me. I want to be able to at least fill out a bubble for each question. And there is a second or two between when the proctor starts saying this and stops saying this which (if you are hovering on a last question) can allow you to jot down your best (or automatic) guess.

What are the experiences of those who have taken the test with this issue?

Thanks

User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Wednesday, Apr 20 2016

Tossup b/w NYU and Berkeley. Leaning towards Berkeley w/aid offer. Sending good vibes to all those 3x LSAT takers out there.

User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Sunday, Sep 20 2015

@ glad it helped! The rattlesnake question is the very worst.

User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Thursday, Sep 17 2015

I had some success improving my strengthening and weakening questions by separating out the causation questions from others. Once I see a causal indicator in a stem I can get a pretty good pre-phrase of answers by thinking along these lines:

Strengthen (causation, where A causes B) Answer Types

-A occurs and then B occurs (time and occurrence both relevant)

-A does not occur and B does not occur

-Relationship is not reversed (ie B does not cause A)

-Alternate cause ruled out

-Ruled out that relationship is coincidental or correlative

Weaken (causation, where A causes B) Answer Types

-A occurs and B does not occur

-A does not occur and B does occur

-B causes A (reversal)

-Alternate cause identified

-Relationship shown to be coincidental or merely correlative (could include B occurring before A)

This is by no means an exhaustive list - thoughts?

User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Thursday, Sep 17 2015

Agreed that first statement is logically equivalent to first and third.

@ I think most negations are pretty straightforward using a logical opposite along the lines of "it is not the case that" with the exception of situations where you need to negate a conditional statement (at least this is where I had the most trouble doing negations). In these conditional phrase cases you can use the "some...not..." format to find the logical opposite. For example to negate: "If one flies on a plane then one gets frequent flyer miles" we would say "some people that fly on planes do not get frequent flyer miles".

User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Thursday, Sep 17 2015

The logical opposite of can is cannot or as @ is saying, never.

User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Wednesday, Sep 16 2015

@ what question are you referencing? It would certainly help my knowledge if you could share. Thanks!

User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Tuesday, Sep 15 2015

Did not see this John Oliver piece, thanks for sharing.

Another (former) public defender in the news:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/09/14/the-worst-of-the-worst

User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Tuesday, Sep 15 2015

I have definitely had similar problems nailing down a good CR strategy. One way I have been practicing is on my blind review, I go write the number of each question next to the part of the passage the question, or correct answer, references. For example for the question about a theme, you go back to the passage, check where language on the theme was, highlight those areas of the passage and write down the question number next to those parts of the passage. This has helped me refine my passage mark-ups, by seeing which parts of the passage are important for the questions, and it has also helped me think more like the test writer, by allowing me to see where the writers link passages and questions.

User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Tuesday, Sep 15 2015

For MSS, MSS is almost all careful reading - slow down reading the stimulus, try drilling these questions and force yourself to take a full minute on the stem

For flaws, one easy way to start is memorizing your flaw types, as they frequently repeat. JY has a list in the lessons, but I would recommend keeping your own list in a notebook or on flashcards - you should be able to rattle them out.

Some of my flaw types include:

Tradition/authority flaw

Source flaw/ad hom attack

Unclear term/equivocation

Experiment error: no control group, no baseline

Correlation implies causation

Circular reasoning (conclusion is a restatement of/used as evidence by the premises)

Descriptive (is) vs. prescriptive distinction (should)

Taking probability (60% chance) for certainty (we will win)

Taking best probability of many outcomes (12%) as more likely than not to occur (50%+)

Confusing % with a quantity

Alternate cause/alternate explanation of a given problem (often in context that if this one cause/explanation does not hold, effect or phenomenon does not hold)

Concluding that because an argument fails, the opposite outcome is true

Sampling error (surveys must be representative, random)

overgeneralization

Part v. Whole flaws

Relativity flaws (the smellier donkey may not actually be smelly)

Faulty analogy (dentists are like ostriches?)

False dichotomy: dividing group into two groups when whole should not be divided into two

Necessity/sufficiency error aka "the oldest trick in the book): if A->B, B so A

Internal contradiction in argument (rare)

User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Tuesday, Sep 15 2015

"Since" is a premise indicator (which functions a lot like "for", the conclusion can go on either side of the since/for clause).

I would caution against trying to jam "since" or any other premise indicator into a conditional relationship. We don't have evidence without conditional language that this situation takes place in every case.

User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Tuesday, Sep 15 2015

I PTed every day leading up to the December 2014 test and ended up needing to cancel my score. I wouldnt recommend the everyday strategy as it can quickly cause burnout.

User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Saturday, Sep 12 2015

Here's the framework I use:

Stimulus: A correlates with B, so A causes B (*Correlation implies causation*)

Weaken:

B causes A

C causes A and B

Relationship is a coincidence

Strengthen:

Rule out B causing A

Rule out C causing A and B

Rule out Relationship is a coincidence

Stimulus: A causes B (*Causation is referenced or used*)

Weaken:

A occurs and B does not occur

A does not occur but B does occur

Alternate cause identified (includes reversal)

Strengthen:

A occurs and B occurs

A does not occur, B does not occur

Alternate cause blocked (includes reversal)

Sound about right? Would welcome additions/suggestions!

User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Saturday, Sep 12 2015

Another way to think about this question is the distinction between sufficient and necessary assumptions.

A necessary assumption question, such as #19, asks us what assumption is required, or necessary, for the argument to obtain. A sufficient assumption questions asks us to justify the argument, but not what information is necessary to make the argument hold in any case.

A. is tricky because it is sufficient to prove our argument correct. If relatives one has never met have a greater right than friends, and no one wants an estate to go to someone one has never met, then we can conclude without a doubt that everyone ought to have a will stating how to distribute their estate. However, does response A. make the argument hold in all cases, or just in this specific case where we hold that "no one wants his or her estate to go to someone he/she has never met?

D. Is the better answer choice because is is necessary for the argument to obtain. If we hold that everyone ought to have a will, then (D) we must assume that people are not indifferent about how their estates are distributed. The negation test that @.janson35 uses to verify this answer works because when we negate a necessary condition (in this case assumption) the sufficient assumption (In this case the argument) will be negated (shattered) as well.

I would recommend going back to the rattlesnake question (PT 30, S2, Q22) and JY's lesson on necessary v. sufficient if you need more context here.

User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Saturday, Sep 12 2015

I got caught up in adding in an implied assumption, thanks

User Avatar

Saturday, Sep 12 2015

benjaminwrichmond663

PTA S4 Q25

I'm having trouble with the following question from Superprep, A:

L: People's intentions cannot be, on the whole, more bad than good. Were we to believe otherwise, we would inevitably cease to trust each other, and no society can survive without mutual trust among its members.

Stem: Most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?

A (correct) - It fails to rule out the possibility that a true belief can have deleterious (harmful) conseuqences

My analysis:

The author claims that if we believe that intentions are more good than bad, we would cease to trust one another and as a result without this mutual trust we would not survive. We are surviving, so we must not have the belief that that intentions are more good than bad.

There is clearly a gap between believing and the truth of a statement, but I cant put my finger on the flaw. I would normally say that the flaw is that just because a belief can't be true, doesn't mean that the underlying element can't be true. This, however, doesn't line up with the flaw stated in A.

User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Saturday, Sep 12 2015

If you choose the incorrect answer on BR that means you need to go back and review that question - there is a good chance that either you are second-guessing yourself too much, or you may have an issue with the underlying content of the question.

http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/08/22/intense-prep-for-law-school-admissions-test-alters-brain-structure/

As someone who feels like they are "stuck in test prep limbo" and can't manage to raise their score through additional study, it was reassuring to read this article. There is a science to LSAT study and at least some researchers have found evidence it improves brain activity in lasting ways for the better.

I'd be interested to know other peoples' experience, have you plateaued or even gone backwards in your scores, and how have you gotten your scores back up and/or reached your target?

User Avatar

Monday, Jul 06 2015

benjaminwrichmond663

Advice Needed: Should I Retake?

I have been studying for the LSAT for roughly 1 year, and I recently re-took the June administration of the LSAT (canceled first exam). For June, I scored 5 points below my monthly PT average leading up to the exam. This definitely put my numbers off target for the group of schools I was hoping to apply to.

I have taken, all told, 43 fresh practice exams, complete with BR (all but 4 exams taken after PT 36). I have also gone through the entire 7sage curriculum, plus powerscore curriculum I started with. I simulate conditions on practice PTs (usually take tests after hours in my office with timed proctor), and deliberately go through every question on my BRs. One frustrating aspect of my practice was consistency. I saw wild 10 point fluctuations in score on fresh PT exams, even adjusting for relative difficulty of exams over time.

I am wondering if there is value in further study and a retake. Given the amount of material I have covered, is more study going to amount to banging my head against the wall? Are there new ways I can try to study that, at this point, make further study a good idea?

I value your opinions, 7sagers, thanks in advance if you have any advice!

User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Friday, Oct 02 2015

Ultimately you need to pick a system that works for you - there are a lot of variables to figure out how you want to represent so I cant really recommend a particular system.

Confirm action

Are you sure?