JY's analogy with punching the argument in the face made me laugh so hard - "you're not punching the argument in the face, you're ABOUT to punch the argument in the face"

@ @ what sort of awesome super power lets you know this? 0_0

I think I will end up postponing until Oct then. NYU says the latest score they'll accept for Fall 2016 is December 2015 - do you think there are any downsides to potentially having to take it again then (besides the application being a bit rushed, etc.)?

@.hopkins noooo, NYU is pretty much my top school :(

So given that they take the average of your scores, that makes me a little less inclined to take it in June. I haven't gotten through all the material yet (I haven't even gotten to taking all the preptests yet) but my score when I took the practice test cold before 7sage was 150...I don't know if that matters. I just don't want October to be my last and only opportunity to take it...what if something goes wrong? But thanks for all the input guys, I'll give it a bit more thought :)

As long as you downloaded them, nothing else should have really changed, videos, etc. are all still here :)

Congratulations!!!!!!!!!! Totally inspiring.

There are 2 ways this argument could have been strengthened - 1. by filling in the gap of "why does the shift from multiyear projects to short term projects constitiute not good research?" and 2. by filling in the gap of "why do short-term projects maximize citation counts relative to multi-year projects?" The correct answer choice chose to answer #2.

I still don't understand how D is wrong. I can see why /EW-->PC is not a contradiction to EW-->PC. You've failed the sufficient condition so it doesn't apply. However, when you take the contrapositive and it becomes /PC-->EW, isn't this now a direct contradiction of /PC--->/EW? Isn't this the same concept that's being applied for A?

Spent forever trying to figure out the logic behind this question but finally came up with an analogy that clarifies it for me: Being born an heir in a rich family will ensure that you are rich. However, trying to be born an heir is obviously not the most effective way to become rich. In fact, it's rather impossible to be born an heir if you're already alive and not (lol). But that doesn't mean you're not acting in a way that will most likely make you rich. For example, you can go to a top law school and get a great job. Or you could try to win the lottery. Therefore, the method that will ensure a consequence is not necessarily the method most likely to obtain that consequence. BAM.

I was so sure that the answer was B - Adam Smith defines "free trade" a certain way and NAFTA obviously defines it a different way. But actually what's happening is Adam Smith defines "free trade" a certain way and NAFTA is violating that by putting restrictions on boundaries - NAFTA is not arguing for an alternative definition of "free trade", they're simply violating Adam Smith's definition.

So they resolve the impasse by limiting the first generalization to two-party transactions only. I missed this little detail because it doesn't directly resolve the impasse. Instead, it says "the above generalization is true but only when talking about two-party transactions" and sort of implies that that would not be the case for one party transactions. Is this right?

I picked E at first because it sounded kind of right but going back and really reading it, I see how it was meant to be tricky. It does describe the situation but flips it around. It is saying that to resolve the impasse, replace being affected by an action (one-party transaction) with being affected by someone else's action (two--party transaction). This does not resolve the impasse, it's where the first generalization errs. In fact, the impasse is resolved by excluding one-party transactions from the generalization meant for two-party transactions.

What I'm confused about on this question is how you know that M is talking about the drug's side effects rather than its therapeutic effects. His paragraph just says "various effects on the patients' bodies" so who's to say whether those effects are the main, therapeutic ones, or side effects?

When I read the question, I thought M was making the assumption that the drug would work (ie have some sort of an effect at all) - but what if the drug had no effect, or had effects similar to those of the placebo? In this case, M would not be able to conclude that a DB test can't be used because you would not be able to distinguish between the drug and the placebo. Therefore, he's assuming that he already knows the result of the study, ie that the drug works at all. Unfortunately, none of the answer choices fully articulated this, though C came closest so that's what I chose. What a terrible question.

Do premises (or rather, sub-premises) supporting the sub-conclusion also support the main conclusion as well, such that if E had said "It is cited as evidence that people's political behavior frequently do not match their rhetoric," it would be true?

@ First take was June 2015, then June 2017 and September 2017 :smile:

Correlation relationships are not conditional. Are causation relationships conditional? For example if we say Inadequate prenatal care causes low birth weight babies, can we say that if you have a low birth weight baby, you must have had inadequate prenatal care? We can't, because there could be other reasons, prenatal care being just one cause, right?

I didn't read this question carefully enough because I immediately gravitated towards the reasoning behind C even before I had looked at the answer choices. The argument concludes that 1984 influenced "a great number" of the magazine's readers but obviously as JY said, if the number of people who read the magazine are in the millions and they only asked 1000 people, regardless of how many of those people did or did not choose 1984, it can't constitute "a great number." I definitely see how B is also an obvious answer but how do you choose between 2 presumptions?

Isn't D more of a necessary assumption? If the data isn't correct, the argument just can't exist...right? Because if the data isn't correct, then we don't know whether Moderate Exercise --> decreased blood cholesterol and without this premise, there is no argument.

@ said:

Do you mind if I ask how long it took you to get that score

@ Of course - I studied for a year and went from 161 to 172 but I think it can definitely be done in a shorter period of time...I was working full time and living in a foreign country when I was studying :)

@ said:

With a 3.5 and a 172, that will get you into probably almost all of the bottom half of the T14, with a solid shot at all non-HYS schools. Even with a 175, you still wouldn't have a great chance at HYS, and it wouldn't significantly change your chances at the rest of the T-14.

@ Do you really think so?? I've been so stressed out about apps that I've started to have doubts about whether I'll get into any of the T14s...

@ said:

@ said:

I got a 172 in September and have a 3.49 lsac gpa with a stem major. I'm applying this cycle and planning on blanketing T14. I'm trying to decide whether or not to retake in December and try to get a slightly higher score to mitigate low gpa...but I don't know if it's worth it. I wouldn't be able to complete my application until scores are released in January and I don't know if a few points increase would significantly increase my admission chances or if that's worth the later app submission. If I don't retake, I would submit all my apps by Thanksgiving. What do you guys think?

I would apply now and retake it anyway. If you are looking for a 170+ retake success story, I got a 172 in February and retook in September for a 180 after 3 months of study. I'm finishing applications now and am glad that I have done everything possible to boost my chances.

The 172 should probably let you stave off rejection at almost all schools until at least January if you apply now. After that they see the retake. If it's higher, that's great and could help. If it's not, you don't lose anything since they look at the highest score. If you don't improve in December, a higher LSAT score in February can help with getting off waitlists and negotiating scholarships as well.

Lock in the gains from a relatively early application by applying as soon as you can get your applications in (with well written essays and letters of rec). After that retake it a time or two. Other than the cost of the LSAT which is a pittance next to law school tuition, you are playing with house money.

Good luck with your applications and your retake(s)!

Edit:

You might want to hold off on Harvard and Yale until after your retake(or inform them you are retaking). They might reject you before your retake with a below median GPA and LSAT. Your chances are better(though it's still Harvard and Yale son not great) once you become a splitter by getting your lsat above their median.

@ Thanks for the advice, it's amazing that you got a 180. I might just do what you said and apply asap and see where I'm at with studying come December. The thing is, I've already taken the lsat 3 times...I know schools besides Yale aren't supposed to care but I feel kind of awkward taking it a 4th or even 5th time. I've also been slacking on studying because I've been so busy with writing PS and supplemental essays. If I were to submit now, should I tell all schools to hold off on reviewing my app until December scores come out or just H/S? To be honest, I'm applying to both just for kicks, I don't have any hopes of actually getting in. NYU is my dream school.

@.18 Mine is at my uni as well but there's a billion rooms in that building haha so I'm not really sure. It's good that you know though!

Glad I'm not the only one, thought there was something wrong with my ticket :) I guess I'll just get there early and figure it out. Can we print out the admissions ticket today even though the room number isn't on it?

Will things like this still remain http://classic.7sage.com/lesson/quiz-on-complex-conditional-translations-to-lawgic/ ? I don't think they're official lsat questions...?

I thought D was perfect except for the conclusion where it says workers are "productively filling their time." Isn't that different from "having enough to do"? Having enough to do doesn't mean you're filling your time productively. I have more than enough homework to do but definitely am not "filling my time productively"...or as productively as I could. Isn't this an assumption?

Congrats @ !! I guess we're not always the best at predicting what score we got based on how we felt the exam went - I felt the same way and got a pretty decent score. Quick question - how do you find out your section by section scores? Is it on the lsac website somewhere?

That is so amazing, congratulations...your hard work and dedication paid off :) Good luck!