Discussions

chahyong966

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

General · Myers-Briggs and the LSAT

chahyong966

Monday, Apr 30 2018

@ Oh wow! I used to be ENFP but now I am INFP. We can be emotional together lol

LSAT · ⭐️ Official June 2018 LSAT Discussion Thread ⭐️

chahyong966

Friday, Jun 29 2018

Retaking in September haha

General · Low/Mid 160s vs Cancel for T14

chahyong966

Thursday, Jun 28 2018

Here is the link to "Ask Me Anything with AccountsPlayable": https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/comment/99062

General · Admissions Webinar + Editing Giveaway! Weds, Jun 27 @ 9 p.m. ET

chahyong966

Thursday, Jun 28 2018

Thank you for the webinar yesterday. One vote for Application Requirements for Top Law Schools (2017).

General · .

chahyong966

Friday, Apr 27 2018

@ Here is an interesting post about reapplying with same numbers: https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/15604/re-applying-a-case-study

General · .

chahyong966

Thursday, Apr 26 2018

Have you considered applying ED for Northwestern next cycle? Northwestern gives $150K merit scholarship to ED applicants. If you are planning to stay in the Midwest and are debt-adverse, I think Northwestern might be a good option for you. I've lived in both cities for years, and the living expense in Chicago is much cheaper than DC.

Admissions · Accepted to Harvard!

chahyong966

Thursday, May 24 2018

So well-deserved :)

Study Groups · June'18 Study Group - PT 80 |Tuesday, May 22nd | 7:30 pm EST

chahyong966

Tuesday, May 22 2018

Guys, I am catching a cold so I am going to bed early :( See you guys next week!

Study Groups

•

Thursday, Mar 22 2018

chahyong966

Washington DC)

Hi,

I am looking for a study partner to meet twice a week to do PT and BR together until the June LSAT. I took the September and December 2017 LSATs (161 and 160). I had been PTing at 167-172 before the December LSAT, but I got really sick on the test day. June 2018 will be my last shot, so I want to make every effort to get a 170+ on this test.

I work full time, so I am available after 4 p.m. on weekdays or during the weekend. My strongest section is Games (usually -0), so I can help with this section. I am looking for someone with strength in either RC or LR.

Please let me know if you are interested!

Admissions · N

chahyong966

Thursday, Jun 21 2018

Have you considered other top 25 schools in the Midwest? Even with your GPA, with a 170+ LSAT score, you have a good shot at WUSTL and Minnesota with scholarship (http://mylsn.info/and472/).

General · seeking a little advice...postpone till Sept?

chahyong966

Monday, Jun 18 2018

Have you considered taking in both July and September?

And I also highly recommend the BR calls - I saw so much improvement in LR after joining BR calls for my June LSAT.

LSAT · "Some not...." "Not all"

chahyong966

Wednesday, May 16 2018

@ I think what you are referring to is "none" as the logical opposite (negation) of "some". "Some are not" is the negation of "all", not of "some".

I think @ is correct in that "some are not" translates to 0-99, as "not all" translates to 0-99.

General · Thank you to the community

chahyong966

Monday, Aug 13 2018

CONGRATS, CHAIM!!! I am so happy for you :) You deserve every bit of it!!

LSAT · ⭐️ Official June 2018 LSAT Discussion Thread ⭐️

chahyong966

Tuesday, Jun 12 2018

@ Yes, the same! I felt pretty time-crunched on that first LR.

LSAT · ⭐️ Official June 2018 LSAT Discussion Thread ⭐️

chahyong966

Tuesday, Jun 12 2018

EDIT:

@ I had the same sequence: LR RC LR LR LG. I just searched on Reddit, and it looks like my first LR, which had 26 questions, was the experimental.

Study Groups · June'18 Study Group | Blind Review PT 76 | Tuesday, May 8th | 7:30 pm EST

chahyong966

Wednesday, May 09 2018

Missed you guys @ and @! See you next week :)

General · Wandering Mind

chahyong966

Monday, May 07 2018

Join the RC call with JY! There is another one tonight.

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/15999/rc-review-pts-58-65-all-rc-sections-may-3rd-june-2nd-9pm-midnight-edt

General · RC Review | PTs 58 - 65 | All RC Sections | May 3rd - June 2nd | 9pm - midnight EDT

chahyong966

Sunday, May 06 2018

@ And you really nailed that summary today! This session is helping me so much too.

General · Restarting after a long break

chahyong966

Friday, May 04 2018

I was in a similar position as you when I came back to studying after the December LSAT and 2018 admissions.

Rather than doing full PTs or timed LG sections, how about doing separate drills on sequencing, in/out, grouping, mixed? You probably don't need to learn it all over again, so it would be good to just separate out and clarify LG by each type.

General · RC Review | PTs 58 - 65 | All RC Sections | May 3rd - June 2nd | 9pm - midnight EDT

chahyong966

Friday, May 04 2018

This is the link: https:// i.imgur.com/YMFSCrd.png (Delete the space between https:// and i)

The next session is tomorrow (Saturday) at 9 p.m. EST for PT 58 Passages 3 and 4.

General · June test in 3 weeks but still struggling to perfect LG

chahyong966

Monday, Jun 04 2018

Hey I like your name/profile pic. I love Demi Soda :)

Now that you already have fool-proofed all those games, I would say revisit the basics. Review your habits and reinforce good ones/eliminate bad ones. Check the following:

When writing down the rules, are you numbering them like JY does in his videos (Rule #1 X-Y, Rule #2 Z-X, etc.)? This is a simple habit, but it is essential. Always write down each rule separately before combining the rules together (especially the ones with logical chain).

Review your method of diagramming. What is your method/habit for each game type?

I find vertical diagramming/game board works best for grouping/in-out and horizontal for sequencing. This approach is particularly efficient when a game includes both grouping/sequencing because you can fit all the rules in one game board without confusion. If this approach does not work for you, that is fine - just review how you diagram for each game type and reinforce that method.

Also review how you diagram each rule. Are they simple enough? Are they distinguishable from each other (How do you diagram "A comes some time before B" and "B immediately follows A" differently?)

In reviewing your habits, it may also be worthwhile to try to explain how you solved a few games to another person. Explaining forces you to remember how you did the game, so it helps you become more conscious about your methods.

LSAT · Conditionals: Only A is B and the like

chahyong966

Thursday, May 03 2018

@ Thanks for providing the question!

LSAT · Conditionals: Only A is B and the like

chahyong966

Thursday, May 03 2018

As a reminder to myself, here are the necessary condition indicators: then, must, only, only if, only when, depends, requires.

"Ensure"/"Assure" is tricky in that it has a nuance of time delay. The definition of "ensure" is "make certain that (something) shall occur". Similarly, the definition of "assure" is "make (something) certain to happen".

Because of that subtle nuance, or the ambiguity of, time, I don't think ensure/assure qualifies as a necessary condition indicator. For instance, given "perfect market economy", I am not sure whether "maximum utility" would be ensured immediately or eventually.

So, if I were to translate "Perfect market economy ensures maximum utility" into a conditional statement, maybe I should be indicating the time as well:

If "perfect market economy", then "maximum utility" at some point.

(Contrapositive: If "no maximum utility" now or ever, then "not perfect market economy".)

So, to go back to the example I wrote in my first response, the statement "Only success assures happiness" will not translate into the bi-conditional statements. It will only translate into:

If "assures happiness", then "success"

If "no success", then "happiness not assured"

If "success", then "happiness at some point"

If "no happiness now or ever", then "no success"

What do you think?

LSAT · Conditionals: Only A is B and the like

chahyong966

Thursday, May 03 2018

@ hahaha the song reference, and thank you for your insight!

Wow - "Only perfect market economy ensures maximum utility, though others may achieve maximum utility as well" is a really interesting statement. It is NOT a bi-conditional in my opinion, and here is why:

"Ensure" is being used as part of the sufficient condition itself. The sufficient condition is "Ensure maximum utility", rather than just "maximum utility". Thus, the first conditional statement goes as:

If "maximum utility is ensured", then "perfect market economy".

(Contrapositive: If not "perfect market economy", then "maximum utility is not ensured".)

This statement still holds true even with the latter phrase "though others may achieve maximum utility as well". According to the contrapositive, even if it is not "perfect market economy", "maximum utility" itself is not necessarily precluded from ever happening - it is just not ensured.

I am thinking about whether "ensure" is also being used a necessary condition indicator. I will write more when I can clarify my thoughts.

LSAT · Reading during study breaks

chahyong966

Wednesday, May 02 2018

Here is a post from Pacifico. He mentions reading materials as well as audio books:

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/3035

LSAT · Conditionals: Only A is B and the like

chahyong966

Wednesday, May 02 2018

I think "Only A is B" is different from "Only A assures B".

"Only A is B" (B -> A) does not necessarily preclude other necessary conditions. For instance, "Only the best regional swimmers will participate in the state competition" does not preclude "To participate in the state competition, one must be 16 years or older":

Participate in the state competition -> best regional swimmers

Participate in the state competition -> 16 years or older.

So, to elaborate on your example ("Only you are the winner of this competition"), this still does not preclude "To win this competition, one must participate in this competition", for instance. There can be other necessary conditions that may not contradict the original statement.

"Only A assures B", however, might be a bi-conditional as you suggested, although I am not 100% certain. "Only" introduces a necessary condition, and so would "assure", which I think is being used in the same context as "guarantee".

Example: "Only success assures happiness" - if it were a bi-conditional, it should translate to the following statements:

One is happy if, and only if, one is successful

One is successful if, and only if, one is happy

If one is not happy, then one is not successful

If one is not successful, then one is not happy

This is interesting. Where have you seen "Only A assures B" on the LSAT? I would love to take a look at the specific example.