Hey All,

So I have an issue regarding this question and would love some input.

P1: Cholesterol is a known factor in coronary heart disease and stroke.

P2: Cholesterol needs a carrier, known as lipoprotein to transport it through the bloodstream.

P3: Low-density lipoproteins (LDLs) increase the risk of coronary heart disease and stroke.

P4: Aerobics exercise increases ones high-density lipoproteins (HDL).

P5: HDL levels are higher in women than in men.

P6: Both aerobic exercise and being female are positively correlated with lower risk of coronary heart disease and stroke.

C: Therefore, we can tentatively conclude that HDLs help prevent coronary heart disease and stroke.

Humor me for a moment. If I told you that "Food is a known factor in obesity", what can we logically infer from that? That food plays some sort of role in obesity. We cannot say that the lack of food, surplus of food, or type of food is the problem because we don't know more than the fact that food is a relevant component to this condition. We would need to bring in our outside knowledge of obesity to know that it's typically the surplus of food that is the contributing factor. This reasoning is what is going on in my head during this question, and is why A was so attractive to me.

A- I chose A because the argument never said that the presence of cholesterol is a contributing factor in coronary heart disease and stroke. P1 says that it is a factor, but without allowing outside knowledge into our reasoning, based on just the information we are given, we can only really conclude that cholesterol plays some sort of role. Maybe that role is that high cholesterol contributes to coronary heart disease and stroke, or maybe its that low cholesterol does? Or maybe only certain types do? I figured this question was playing on our outside knowledge of cholesterol, because the argument that we are given never says that high cholesterol is what is bad. It just says cholesterol in general is some sort of factor. P1 would need to say something like "Cholesterol is a known contributor in coronary heart disease and stroke." Or even "High cholesterol is a known factor..." would be better.

(Outside info- HDLs are considered good cholesterol. So why would excreting good cholesterol from the body necessarily be a good thing? I'm sure there is a scientifically sound answer to this but, in terms of the LSAT, what's relevant is the major assumption here.)

B- I didn't have a problem eliminating B

C- I see why this is the correct answer...I just couldn't quite come to terms with A.

D- I didn't have a problem eliminating D.

E- I didn't have a problem eliminating E.

Thanks in advance.

Hi All,

I really want to add another element of my personality/background to one of my applications. I want the admissions officers to know that their school is genuinely at the top of my list and to express the reasons why, but their application does not offer to many opportunities for expression (meaning they don't offer optional essays or ask for a "Why School X" reason). I vaguely mention in my personal statement why this school appeals to me, but it barely scratches the surface. I'm hesitant to add a Why School X essay as "supplemental information" because that is typically intended for addenda/diversity statements. What do you all think?

Thanks in advance!

Hi All,

I could use some help with this necessary assumption question. I definitely see why C is a necessary assumption, but I'm having a hard time figuring out why E is not also an equally necessary assumption. I have yet to find an explanation online that addresses my thought process.

The argument is as follows:

P1: Nuclear reactors are sometimes built in “geologically quiet” regions.

P2: Geologists call these regions “geologically quiet” because such regions are distant from plate boundaries and contain only minor faults.

P3: No minor fault in a geologically quiet region produces an earthquake more often than once in any given 100,000- year period.

C: Out of all the potential nuclear reactor sites in such a region, the ones that are least likely to be struck by an earthquake are ones located near a fault that has produced an earthquake within living memory.

I had chosen E, but the correct answer is C. I see why C is a necessary assumption, but my current issue is seeing why E is not.

C is correct because we cannot assume the relative location of the nuclear reactors to the minor faults. It could be that some nuclear reactors are on one end of the "geologically quiet" region and that the minor faults are miles away. C addresses the assumption necessary to position all the nuclear reactors on the same playing field (proximity wise), which renders the conclusion's validity possible.

When I chose E, it was based on a similar thought process that I believe C requires...I chose E because the stimulus never said that the faults had to produce earthquakes. The stimulus says that the maximum is one earthquake every 100,000 years, but what if there are some faults (or entire regions...) that produce NO earthquakes? In that case, it is not the faults that have had an earthquake in living memory that are the least likely to be struck by an earthquake-- the least likely would be the faults that are "dormant" or "inactive." E fixes this by establishing that there will be at least 1 every 100,000 years (in conjunction with the stimulus, that means there will be exactly 1 every 100,000 years).

Can someone help me out here? I see two equally necessary assumptions and I know I'm most likely misinterpreting the stimulus? Or E?

Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-2-question-21/

Hey All,

Logically, what does "almost all" translate to? It seems that it should be more restrictive than "most", but I'm not completely certain.

Currently looking at PT79.S1.Q18 for anyone who wants context.

Thanks.

Hey All,

My law school applications require me to specify how many hours I worked per job, and I also want to mention that in my addendum as well. I cannot remember exactly how many hours I worked for one particular job. I remember that it fluctuated (It started off somewhere in the ballpark of 8-12 hours a week and then it increased later as I needed to make more money. It could have been anywhere from 15 to 25 hours...I don't remember). I left this job around 4 years ago and I've had a good amount of jobs since. Is anyone else having trouble remembering these details? How should I address this?

Thanks!

Hi All,

Quick question--we routinely refer to our current "PT average." I know J.Y. must have addressed this somewhere in the CC (I went and looked for the video and could not find it, so maybe I'm making that up), but what constitutes our "average"? Most recent 5 PTs? 10? All of them?

Also, what's the standard outcome regarding performance on test day? I vaguely remember someone (J.Y. maybe?) saying that you can expect to score +3 or -3, depending on how you personally handle pressure and nerves.

Just want to get a realistic range of what I can expect come September. Thanks in advance!

"Has there ever been an interruption of one or more terms in your education for any reason?"

Is this asking about whether or not I took a semester off or transferred schools? Or are they asking about an interruption in the middle of a semester? My inclination is that a term refers to a semester, but I'm not 100% certain.

Hey All,

Quick question about your PTing procedure- how do you guys decide where to put your experimental section? I've been placing it randomly. Before I take a PT or look at which sections are which, I'll decide "okay, I'll take my experimental section 2nd, 3rd, last, etc." However, being that I always know which section is my experimental section, it hardly simulates testing conditions. There is inevitably a more "relaxed" approach to a section that I already foreknow is not going to be scored.

Thoughts on this? Also, does anyone know if there are any statistics determining how often the experimental section appears first, second, third, fourth or last?

Thanks!

"Have you ever, either as an adult or a juvenile, been cited, ticketed, arrested, taken into custody, charged with, indicted, convicted or tried for, or pleaded guilty to, the commission of any felony or misdemeanor or the violation of any law, or been the subject of any juvenile delinquency or youthful offender proceeding?...Do not report parking violations."

So I was issued a speeding ticket that ended up being reduced in court to a parking violation. I'm not sure if I should report this, considering they specifically say not to report parking violations...I don't want it to come across as though I am ignoring their request to not report parking violations, but I am also not sure if the fact that I was initially issued a speeding ticket changes things.

Hi All,

BU does not accept merit-based application fee waiver requests (as they've expressed to me via email), and neither does Cornell based on my understanding from their website. They utilize your stats from CRS. However, my numbers put me in the high 75th percentile at BU and, for Cornell, my LSAT score puts me in the high 75th percentile and my GPA puts me in the 50th percentile. I don't know what these schools have determined as their range regarding who receives merit-based fee waivers, but if anyone else has further information about this, I would appreciate it. For example, has anyone received merit-based fee waivers from these schools yet and, if so, would you mind sharing your numbers or when you got the offer?

These 2 schools are the only schools who have not offered me a merit-based fee waiver with the exception of my 2 reach schools.

The admission curriculum has been super helpful to me and has undoubtedly increased my chances of admission to many schools this cycle. I definitely recommend it to anyone who wants to perfect their applications. (A huge thank you to @"David.Busis" and his team). I have one suggestion that I think would make it even better-- a section on scholarship negotiations. What is the proper protocol regarding timing and how to frame your "argument" for more money? What are comparable schools that make it appropriate to use money from one school to ask for money from another? Who do we contact? What do we say (in other words, do we explain that we deserve the money or that we have gotten better offers elsewhere? At what point is reiterating your qualifications and contribution to the campus redundant from your application?) How much emphasis do we put on money being our decision making factor without sounding ungrateful for being admitted? I know technically the curriculum is focused on admissions, but I personally think scholarships play a huge part in the process.

Just a thought! On that note...does anyone have any input on this? Definitely planning to ask at least one of my schools for money within the near future, but I do sort of feel like I'm shooting in the dark regarding how to do this.

Hey All,

Should I include the same header for my resume that I do my personal statement? (Name, LSAC Number, Résumé)? NYU requests that you include this information for each attachment, so I added the header on my resume for them; however, I’m wondering if I should do that for the other schools as well. It sort of just adds extra clutter onto the page but if this is something schools find helpful or are expecting, I'd like to put it there.

Thanks

Hi All,

Does anyone have suggestions for external sources for logic puzzles? I've been noticing on the newer tests that the unfamiliar games are seriously tripping me up.

I usually am paralyzed by them during the test; however, immediately after I finish the test, I will take a fresh look at it and be able to solve it with little, if any, issue. I know a lot of this is psychological, so I want to get as familiar as possible with new logic games and become comfortable with thinking on the spot. Every logic book I looked at does not even sort of reflect the type of scenarios I see on the LSAT. The puzzles don't have to simulate the LSAT questions exactly, but I would like become familiar with unusual puzzles that are at least somewhat relevant to the newer games. My research has led me to the conclusion that there are not many resources out there for this.

Has anyone come across anything that might be helpful OR does anyone have any other suggestions for fixing my logic game paralysis problem?

Thanks!

Hey All,

If my graduating GPA was a [] and I received summa cum laude at graduation, but my LSAC GPA is a [] (darn you high school college courses...and I also transferred from a university where my GPA was a bit lower), should I indicate summa cum laude on my resume? I'm having a hard time figuring out how to present my GPA in general, considering the drastic difference between my graduating GPA and my LSAC GPA...Should I indicate both? I was originally planning on leaving my GPA off, considering they have my transcripts, but 7Sage's admissions course recommends adding your GPA unless your GPA is horrendous.

Thanks.

Hi All,

Let's say we have the conditional statement "If I go to the market and go to the mall, then I will reward myself with ice cream."

Then I have the statement "Even if I go to the mall, I will not reward myself with ice cream."

What implications does this have? "Even if" is not a conditional indicator, so I believe all this statement is really saying is that "I will not reward myself with ice cream." From this we can infer that "I will not go to the market." We know that even if I do go the mall, it still not sufficient to trigger the conditional, so therefore we must know that I am not going to the market.

Thoughts on this? For a point of reference, PT71.S3.Q11 is what prompted this consideration-- answer choice B specifically.

Hi All,

I've made an observation regarding Main Point questions on some of the most recent RC passages (70s primarily). I was reading a post on the Manhattan Prep LSAT forum, where another poster verified my suspicion. I want to share my observation with you below in the hope that it will help someone approach Main Point questions in the future.

Historically, the LSAT writers have favored answer choices that encompass the main point of the passage and whatever subsidiary point was made in the passage. The correct answer choices have been broad, inclusive statements and certain incorrect answer choices were incorrect because they were “too narrow” or did not encompass one of the subsidiary points while another answer choice did. In recent tests, however, the LSAT writers have started to exploit our conditioning to this type of strategy. They will add a broad answer choice with unwarranted strong language (subtle strong language, like “most” or “prominent”) or with incorrect time frames (like “recently” or “historically”) that encompasses both the main point and the subsidiary point. They are trying to utilize the fact that we have been conditioned to look for “more complete” answer choices and hope that we will overlook the subtle characteristics that ultimately make the answer choice incorrect. The correct answer choice ends up being something more direct, narrow, and only concerned with the author’s overall takeaway rather than any “exceptions” or “sub-points” he/she gets into. (See PT73.S1.Q16- answer choice D & PT74.S3.Q9- answer choice E for examples)

With one month until the September test, I know keeping this in mind will help me be more aware of these types of strategies the LSAT writers have been utilizing. Has anyone else noticed this as well?

Hi All,

I've seen many explanations regarding this infamous Han purple question--none of which have addressed my specific confusion:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-1-question-17/

I chose the correct answer A during my timed take, but hesitantly changed it to E during BR. I'm still confused and I'd love for someone to read my reasoning and give me some guidance as to where I am going wrong.

CTX: How the ancient Chinese of the Qin and Han dynasties synthesized Han purple has confused scientists.

P1: A common type of white glass and Han purple were produced with the same chemical ingredients.

P2: Both were produced by similar processes involving high heat and lead.

C: Han purple was probably discovered by accident during glass production.

One thing I noticed was the how the premises give us similarities regarding how white glass and Han purple were produced, but then the conclusion randomly brings up how Han purple was discovered. My thoughts were that the correct answer will probably have something to do with this. Either that, or the wrong answers would exploit this subtle distinction.

Another thing I noticed was that, except for the contextual information about Han purple confusing scientists, every piece of information that was given in the stimulus equally applies to both the white glass and Han purple. All we know is that they both have the same properties--we don't know if one was better than the other or that one was more prevalent. So the conclusion could also very well be that "White glass was probably discovered by accident during Han purple production." We have the same exact support for that conclusion as we do the conclusion we are given. So I figured the correct answer choice could assist with this by creating some sort of supporting distinction.

A- I originally chose this because I did not initially notice the produced/discovered distinction in the stimulus. Upon BR, I noticed it and figured that A was wrong because where Han purple was produced does not seem play into how it was discovered. Something can be discovered intentionally in the middle of a forest (anywhere really), but then the following production of that thing can be in a factory once it had been improved and commercialized. To me, production and discovery are two clearly distinctive events. Also, this just contributes to the similarities between white glass and Han purple. There is no distinguishing effects of this answer choice, so, like I pointed above, the conclusion could still just as reasonable be: "White glass was probably discovered by accident during Han purple production."

(B, C, and D were easy for me to eliminate. For anyone interested in seeing my reasoning for these answer choices, feel free to ask!).

E- I never loved E, especially since it ambiguously used the term "more" without telling us how much more (1% more or 80% more?). I also didn't love that E qualifies the artifacts as "surviving artifacts." I initially figured that, the fact that white glass was more prevalent in surviving artifacts could be because 1) it was more easily preserved or 2) it was more commonly used. Then I realized that if it was more commonly used, this answer choice could be introducing the possibility that white glass was used longer than Han purple was. I thought that that was what they were trying to get us to see? That white glass was produced and discovered first and that is why there is more of it than Han purple? If that was the case, then I guess it supports the conclusion. It weakly supports it, but it presents us with a new possibility that would render the conclusion more likely. Also, this does point out the supporting distinction between white glass and Han purple that would lead us to the conclusion we are given rather than the alternative conclusion: "White glass was probably discovered by accident during Han purple production."

Between A and E, I do not like either of them. I really struggled between both of these answers, but I finally concluded that A requires us to assume that discovery and the following production process are the same event. To me, that's equivalent to saying that the birth of a child and the child's following life events are the same event. They just are not. E also wasn't a great answer. I recognize the steps and assumptions needed to choose E. But given the remaining 4, I figured (and still consider) it to be the best option because it at least slightly introduced a possibility for the conclusion to be true.

Help! Thanks in advance!

It's always the one star question that throws me for a loop...

This was a question I circled for BR and even after thoroughly reviewing it, I chose incorrectly (D).

The question gives us and a problem and principle.

Problem: Some of the rebate coupons that were distributed had an expiration date that was incorrect--it was too early. So some customers would unfairly believe that the rebate offer had already expired when it did not.

Principle: Anyone who creates an unfair situation has an obligation to rectify any unfair result of that situation.

So I definitely was attracted to C and D here. I can kind of see why C is a correct choice, but I am having an issue eliminating D.

D says that, since the corporation cannot identify all of the customers who were adversely affected by the incorrect expiration date, the corporation should deny the rebate to everyone who applied for it.

In real life, this seems harsh and kind of a ridiculous solution. But logically, would it not rectify any unfair result? There would be no unfairness because everyone gets treated the same way. No imbalance, no advantages, etc. The reason I liked D over C was because C presents a situation in which the corporation attempts to rectify the situation, but the principle does not say that the obligation is to attempt to rectify it. The principle says that the obligation IS to rectify it. Point blank. No excuses. Which is why D, although harsh, I feel is better justified. D presents a definitively equal situation while C presents an attempt at offering a fair result to whoever they are able to identify.

Any help would be much appreciated.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-1-question-06/

So my first rejection was from a safety school. I am a little bit confused by the fact that I got rejected from Boston College Law. I mean, thank God I already got into 2 better ranked schools already (one being a top 14 school. Still waiting to hear back from 11 more schools). However, my stats are quite a bit above BC Law's median and my personal statement/resume are decently competitive. If they were trying to yield protect me, wouldn't they just waitlist me? Anyone else have any insight into this? I mean, I was never planning on attending BC Law but it is confusing...

So...I'm pretty sure that the title explains itself. I am usually anal about my outgoing emails, especially when they are to law school admissions offices. I reread this specific email like 10 times and ended up having to change something, but didn't notice that I needed to change it in two spots. Basically, I had to change the quantity of something from 2 to 3, but only did it in one place.

"...I took 3 classes at [X Institution] in [X years] before I was enrolled full-time in any undergraduate institution. Those 2 classes show up on my transcript and contribute to my overall GPA..."

What are the chances this will hurt me? I sent it to a T14 school...do they consult previous emails from applicants when looking at their applications?

I AM SO MAD THAT I DID THIS!

EDIT: Room has been taken.

Hey All, I was planning on going to UVA’s Open House but unfortunately my plans have changed. I booked a hotel room that is not refundable at the university hotel (literally walking distance from the school). If anyone is interested in going and wants my room, I will give it to you for $60 (I’ll call the hotel and change the name on the room to yours). PM me with your email address if you are interested.

Has anyone done one? I have one scheduled for this afternoon and I could use some input! Thanks!

Hey All,

72 days left for all of my fellow September LSAT takers! Definitely beginning to feel that tinge of pressure. The end is in sight :)

I'm seeking advice from any sages/top scorers who routinely score in the 170s. A few top scorers that I've had the pleasure of speaking to had an average PT score of 173, 174, 175, etc. I'm wondering how you all were able to overcome the "almost there but not quite in the 98/99th percentile" plateau. My last 5 scores were 168, 174 (yay), 169, 168, and 169, respectively, so I'm averaging at 169.6. I'm prepping the same way I have been for my entire LSAT career, but I feel as though I cannot get over this 169 phase. Any tips from those who have been here?

RC is definitely still the primary cause of this plateau. Averaging -7 for RC, -1 for LG, and -2 for LG.

Thanks in advance!

A reoccurring nightmare of mine is to wake up on September 16 and drive to Starbucks and to accidentally lock my keys in my car (with my ID and admissions ticket) or have my battery die or get a flat tire. It's a somewhat irrational fear, since I've locked my keys in the car once in my life and have never gotten a flat tire.

I did, however, have my battery die once. The day before the June 2017 test actually (Thank God I had postponed my registration weeks before anyways).

This lovely Labor Day morning, 11 days before the September test, I was going about my normal PT morning routine to realize that I left my experimental section at my boyfriends' house (he has an awesome office so I sometimes use his office to study). I called him and asked him to bring my manilla folder out to me so I can just swing by and quickly return to my normal route. So I drive by to grab it and notice that I have some unwanted garbage in my car, so I get out to grab the garbage and dispose of it, only to lock my keys inside my running car. To my dismay, my spare keys are packed away somewhere (I am currently in the process of moving, so many things are packed away in boxes) and now I have to find a lock smith at 6:30am on Labor Day. With no luck.

I called the police department, no luck. I called the Sheriff's office and they were willing to help. So we waited about 30 minutes when a very kind officer came and broke into my car.

But then I noticed that my experimental section was not in the manilla folder. I searched frantically for it, to no avail. I must have left it on my desk at work? Who knows...so with limited PTs scheduled in my future and this being one of the final ones, my Type A personality got the best of me and I started to panic at my loss of control over the situation. I went back to my house to try and find a section-any section-but most of my old LSAT books are used and, therefore, I packed them away thinking that, from this point on, I'll only need the newer stuff. But then I decided to take miscellaneous questions from some practice material I gathered for my warm up and create a custom experimental section. So now I have a hand-made experimental section consisting of 2 LGs and 2 RCs. I may have taken them in the past too- I don't recall haha. Better than nothing I guess?

I've had a lot of weird things happen during a PT morning (one time, I kid you not, a bird flew into me at Barnes and Noble during a PT. Apparently a bird had gotten in the building and then saw the girl trying to study for the LSAT and figured that I was a good target to attack), but this morning really threw me off.

Nonetheless, I am about to go take PT78 with my customized experimental section. It's much later than I usually start and my mental game is a bit thrown off, but I guess I have to prepare for anything right? Including being attacked my birds and have my worst nightmare come to fruition during my PTs (even though, if that happened on September 16, I would, without hesitation, break my car window. This is war, people.)

Hi All,

I'm putting together my resume for my law school applications and I've come across two issues that I'm not quite sure what to do with.

Back in sophomore year, I won an award for a research project (I was 1 out of 5 winners). There was a ceremony, where we all gave speeches. I ran a Google search for this award and my name. My project came up along with a statement I had written-- all fine with me. However, the video of the ceremony also came up (It's an hour long video and my speech is 3 minutes at the end...but I am also the video "screen shot", so whether or not you watch the video, someone clicking on the page would see an image of me giving my speech). I DO NOT WANT AOs WATCHING MY SPEECH. It is an incredibly immature speech...I joked about how I tend to skip class (which is just not true...I hardly ever skipped class. I said that out of pure nervousness), I was not grammatically correct in more places than one, I come across like an airhead at points...it's just not something I'm proud of. I can't seem to find the video if I just Google my name, but if I Google the name of the award, I can find mine by clicking on the year I received it. If I Google the name of the award and my name, I will find it no problem. If I Google my name and my alma mater, I will find it no problem. My question is-- how concerned should I be that an AO will dig deep enough to find this video? Should I just leave the award off my resume to decrease the chances they will find it? It's a pretty impressive award, so I think it will help my resume, but I'm also convinced that, if for whatever reason, the AO researches me enough, they will find this video. Granted, they would have to make the decision to watch the video or skip through to find my speech--but I am featured as the video image, so that increases the chances of that happening a bit.

I was the President of a club at my alma mater that apparently no longer exists? I guess when I left my school, no one resumed the role of the President and it sort of just ended. I can't find any record on the school website or anywhere else of the existence of this club, which is a real bummer because we used to have a website where I was featured as the President. I'm nervous to put this on my resume because I don't want an AO to try and verify this and not be able to find it. I mean, if they called my school and asked about it, I can only assume the school will be able to verify that this club existed in the past (we were an official club through the student government), but I'm not sure they will put that much effort in. My question is this--if an AO cannot find this club via Google, am I taking a risk that they will think I am being dishonest? Or am I being wayyyy too paranoid? Everything else on my resume is verifiable by a Google search, except for this.

Thanks in advance!