User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free
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.

0
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

0
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.

7
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

5
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.

1
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.

1
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.

0
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.

3
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.

2
User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Friday, Sep 25 2015

@974 Things that don't imply causation/causality:

1) Correlation

2) Conditionality

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

1
User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Friday, Sep 25 2015

Agreed, all because indicates causality

1
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.

0
User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Sunday, Sep 20 2015

@jimophtho788 glad it helped! The rattlesnake question is the very worst.

0
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?

2
User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Thursday, Sep 17 2015

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

@jimophtho788 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".

0
User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Thursday, Sep 17 2015

The logical opposite of can is cannot or as @nye887085 is saying, never.

0
User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Wednesday, Sep 16 2015

@sarkisp23965 what question are you referencing? It would certainly help my knowledge if you could share. Thanks!

0
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

1
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.

1
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)

5
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.

2
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.

1
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!

5
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 @coreyjanson479.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.

0
User Avatar
benjaminwrichmond663
Saturday, Sep 12 2015

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

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?