Following this post, since I'm curious for myself as well.

From what I understand, a fourth take might raise an eyebrow from admission committee but it isn't a big deal, especially if you improved. That's what they said in a LSAC webinar I attended a couple months back. So I don't think you'd need an addendum, but I'm not qualified to give advice...

Great score by the way! Happy for you.

Hey

LSAT test takers without accommodations don't need to schedule the writing portion. You can take it whenever you want once it opens, and its a pretty straightforward process. But test takers with accommodations may need to schedule the argumentative writing portion, depending on what kind of accommodations they received. If you have accommodations, check the accommodations approval email sent by lsacinfo to see whether you need to schedule the writing portion.

Hope this helps

Best of luck on the LSAT!

AI Slop

I believe @pattonleah660 up North might be talking about this video if anyone is interested:

"The 180 Brain | 7Sage LSAT Podcast"

Whenever I have thoughts like that, I immediately ignore them. I never find them helpful.

Amazing explanation. You're the best.

For all those that are wondering, the flaw exhibited here is False Dilemma. The argument assumes that just because Joshua, who has the strongest motivation to apply, isn't applying, therefore no one will apply.

I especially agree with the last thing @markandrewgarner686.andrew.garner said. Progress, when studying for the LSAT, is not linear. From my personal experience, the score I'd get on weekly PTs would jump up and down, but the overall trend would be positive. It's so important to pay attention to the big picture when looking at your scores. Don't let a couple of low scoring PTs upset you - a bad mental state affects your score negatively in a way that doesn't accurately represent where you're standing now and your potential to improve.

bro don't do it, trust 🙏🙏🙏🙏

Fantastic video

H.P and /H.T.E

excuse me this is the LSAT, math is forbidden... i think

Exactly the same issue I had. My takeaway from this monster of a question is to not only focus on the corr-caus relationship but also on what the conclusion is specifically talking about

Exactly what I was thinking.

#Help

me too, damn

Quick question: Can we call the relationship between sales figures and truth a correlation? JY says that sales figures "signal" truth, but perhaps it would be more apt to call it a correlation, where if sales figures are up then that shows truth?

saaaaame

interested

vacuous

I think your only options are to read more and write down any new words. I have a vocab list (like grade school lol) of all the new words that I have encountered since I began the core curriculum and I look back at them periodically to ensure I know their meaning.

Solid point! Can we get this feature added in soon?

#Feedback

this paragraph is making my head spin

The law from 1910 prevented the Indians from hunting the sea otters. However the 1972 law, which reaffirmed the 1910 law, also made an exception to allow traditional hunting. But, since the Indians were prohibited from hunting sea otters for 62 years, the continuity of the tradition was effectively lost.

FWS said that only those authentic native articles that were produced before 1972 are included in this exception, but since the natives stopped using sea otter pelts for 62 years, FWS prohibited them from hunting them. They said this because they had not hunted them "within living memory".

The first court case did not acknowledge this 62-year-gap as the reason why the natives were not included in the 1972 law exemption, and upheld the ban on the natives from hunting the sea otter pelt.

Hope this helps

Found this question especially difficult

Kevin said above, and I also thought this, that it appears the passage is more like a context to understand the information. Imagine if we didn't read the passage and tried to answer this question; we'd be unfamiliar with the topic the question is asking about. So I guess when it says "given the information in the passage", it's not asking you to make a specific inference from the passage.