@ said:

Hey all,

I can’t make the big webinar on whether one should cancel July, but I am freaking out and am at a loss for what to do.

Stats things:

I have only taken the July LSAT and scored a 163

I graduated from an Ivy League school magna cum laude with a 3.87 GPA and won an award for my senior thesis.

I am 100% interested in schools with strong public interest programs, and am in love with NYU and Berkeley. I do not technically count as a URM but identify as a queer person of color; my background is middle eastern. I have slaved over this test for a year, neglecting my personal statement and going through a lot of emotional turmoil because me and tests don’t mesh so well. I was scoring 165/167 before the test, so I chalk up the drop in my score to test day nerves and starting 3 hours late. I think maybe I could do better, but really wanted to start my PS and get a move on the rest of my application. I have been working for over a year at a prestigious public interest org- with a rec from my employer, my thesis advisor, and a professor, I think in terms of recs I'm pretty set. I am a good writer and feel that the rest of my application is very strong, but I know my score is seriously lacking for the places I want to be. ‘Holistic’ application assessment seems like a myth, too.

So, with all that said, should I retake?

Unless you really need the money I would keep that score and pay for a retake in November. It sounds like you have a strong application, if you can bump that up 3-4 points I think you will be able to get into a T14. I personally always did about 2-3 points below my PT average on actual test day, that 163 is probably fairly representative, but there is always the chance you can have a great day on your next take and knowing you have a solid score to fall back on might help alleviate test day nerves.

I took the bait on B, and initially thought this was some serious BS, but after further review I think I get it. Using rock salt to de-ice roads is a part of road maintenance, but that isn't the issue. We have to prove that reenacting the policy of using rock salt disproportionally burdens low income people more than the current policy of not using rock salt. Ok, they are already disproportionally burdened by the local sales tax which pays for road maintenance, but the real question here should be does this new policy further disproportionally benefit them compared to the status quo? If B told us that using rock salt would increase the cost of road maintenance which would in turn increase the local sales tax, then I believe B gets the job done, but it does not do that.

@ said:

As I take more LSATs still under 10 preps tests I am noticing I am getting best sections but can never string together a great whole test. Is there any advice on the best ways to string together whole tests because when I train individual sections I can get down to -2/-4 rather easily. Is it smart to string together multiple sections when I practice between doing whole pretests? Also is it worth using newer logic games than training with old ones?

When you are getting close to the real test ideally you will be focusing on the most recent PTs because those are most likely going to be the most similar. The basic skills you need to succeed can be developed and honed by using old PTs, but I think there is a clear difference between PTs in the 80s and PTs in like the 40s. If you just take one of each, I think you will feel it for lack of a better word. However, LG on the old tests is the one section that I found particularly relevant. The logic games really have not changed very much, and I think some of the hardest games are from the older tests. I started to develop a mastery of LG after just repeatedly doing older games.

As for stringing together whole tests, I would say just keep plugging away on PTs and trust the blind review process. Under 10 is not very many so its certainly likely that you just need to develop stamina, which will come by simply taking more timed PTs. Maybe try doing some back to back reading comp sections in between PTs if you feel like you really need to build this. Just don't waste sections from the newest PTs.

@ said:

I'm really struggling with the logic games section, whenever I see a game for the first time I tend to struggle. I've foolproofed about 40 games so far, I was wondering after how many games do people foolproof before seeing results?

I don’t have an exact number but I’d say it’s probably around like 200 total games including repeats. I would do some games as many as 10 times over. Redoing the same game for me was big, I really tried to force out the inferences time and time again and eventually it did just click.

So basically there first premise about water not being a problem for soil erosion on flat land is completely irrelevant? Negating B just seemed to wreck the argument so much that I couldn't justify not going with it, but I really am struggling to eliminate A still. The "consequently" after the first premise led me to interpret the second sentence as basically "because soil erosion by water is not a problem, farmers whose land is flat do not build terraces to prevent erosion." If the argument is interpreted this way, which seems totally reasonable, then how is A not necessary as well? #help

@ said:

Hello! I graduated from college in May of 2017 and will be applying to law school this coming fall.

Right now I have one academic and one professional recommendation secured. However, in reviewing the requirements for the schools I plan to apply to, I see some schools strongly prefer two academic references unless one has been out of school and working "for some time" or a "significant amount of time" or "several years". I don't find these requirements to be super clear, and am wondering if anyone has any insight as to when one academic and one professional letter is appropriate. What do schools typically consider as "some time"?

I am considering asking for a second academic letter but am not sure if that is necessary given that when I am applying I will have been in the workforce for 2.5 years.

Thanks!

It seems like most schools prefer academic references simply because they write better references and can talk directly

about what you are like to teach. I would probably just try to grab another academic reference but definitely keep the work reference as well if you believe it is strong. I am in a similar situation and I’m planning on sending 1 work and 2 academic. I thought it was odd to only send references that are from people I haven’t seen in 2 years. I think it’s pretty hilarious that many of the top law schools tout the value of work experience and publish the % of people who have been out of college 1+ years, but at the same time clearly prefer academic references over employer references.

I actually eliminated E because it is essentially concluding that ALL cornmeal used is healthy when our stimulus and answer choice B both seemed to be talking about some amount that is not all, even though the language technically permits some to mean all. E also concludes "we can be confident", I didn't think that language matched "We can be positive" or "We can be sure". Is this a leap on my part ? #Help

Went with B because the other 4 choices were pretty bad, but I didn't love B either because it said if present in "the environment". I didn't think we could assume that sending the chemical to waste dumping areas = chemical is present in the environment. JY explains it like we are talking about landfills, but the stimulus doesn't explicitly say that. Am I just reading this too closely or incorrectly ? # Help

I struggled with D because if they prove that life could not have originated on earth, but life currently is on earth then they have proved that life came somewhere else. The scientists don't need positive support to make their argument valid. All they need to do is prove that life didn't originate on earth. I thought the premises were kind of contradictory because of this. #Help

@ said:

@ said:

2 months ago I consistently scored around -14 and now constantly score around the -4 mark. I used to focus on remembering everything while now my goal is to remember the structure of the passage and remember what each paragraph does. Once I got that down it was just lots of drilling.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by structure, i keep seeing this every where but when I read for structure what exactly should I be looking for in the paragraphs and should I be annotating?

Reading for structure is basically just focusing on what role the sentences and paragraphs play in the writing. When people talk about structure in RC they usually are focusing on why the author wrote each paragraph. Ask yourself how does each paragraph relate to the entire passage as a whole. Additionally Focus on main points and the basic support given for these points.

@ said:

Is it normal to get a significantly higher score on one section of LR and a lower one on the other section? I average 22-23 right on one section and 15-17 on the other section...

I think one section is generally harder, but 5-7 question difference is ridiculous variance. Is it always the second one and you run out of stamina or something? I have no idea why else that would be happening. I don't think I have ever had more than a 3-4 question difference between my LR sections on any PT I have taken.

@ said:

It’s official now—just got the email. Only the 180 ban is being applied retroactively, all the other take limits are being applied starting with the September 2019 administration.

Just out of curiosity, Why would anyone retake a 180?

I don’t see any downside to July. If you do bad, just cancel and sit for September. Even if you do bad, you could still potentially be exposed to the digital format on actual test day which would be a big plus in my opinion.

@ said:

will start the RC section soon. I really appreciate it if you guys can give me advice on how to carry on from here. Once I finish the LG section I will start fullproofing the bundle while going over the RC CC. I will watch the webinar on what to do after I finish but I could use some strategies. (When to take timed sections?) ( when and how many times to take full PTs) So basically for my situation which im sure many of you have been through whats the best way to go?

What is the date of the test you plan to take? After you complete the CC and have a strong grasp of the fundamentals, it is time to

start taking timed PTs and then rigorously blind reviewing them. Do not skip out on this. It is the most beneficial part of the studying process and treat it as equal or more important than actually taking the PT. I would also watch the video explanation for every problem you get wrong and every problem you weren’t confident why the answer was right. I also just watched all the LG videos and redid the entire LG section every time. I think this was key to mastering that section. Repetition really does wonders with LG. As for the PTs, I would start around 55-60 and work my way up. Probably take 2-3 a week depending on your situation, available study time, and date of test.

@ said:

I was wondering which would be the better route after finishing my CC on 7sage. I've been loving the CC so far and I am thinking ahead to what I am going to use in conjuncture with 7sage. I heard that the trainer's LG sections is not so great, so I was wondering if I should use manhattan prep's LR and RC books to go along with the CC, or go with the Lsat Trainer anyway?

I think the combo of the PowerScore LG Bible and JY’s videos are all you need for LG. I can’t speak to Manhattan materials, but I found the trainer moderately useful. It really focuses on broad strokes big picture stuff and tries to hammer home basic principles like identifying conclusions and understanding how the premises support it or reading with an eye towards the numerous flaws inherent in most of the arguments made on the LSAT. This is foundational stuff, but if you master it, you are in great shape.

For some reason this jumped out to me and I went with E on the real thing, and no other answer even gets near the heart of the argument so I'm not saying this is an unfair question, but on BR I really think it is a stretch to say the argument depends on this assumption. The fact that an animal favors a certain type of environment does not ensure that this is where the animal will live or be found. There are plenty of examples where certain species are forced to live in environments that they do not favor, but the circumstances demand it. I know I'm nitpicking here, but they set such a high bar with question stem on these necessary assumption questions and some of the more recent tests seem willing to push it much farther then the older tests. To actually wreck this argument we need to make the assumption that these worms primarily inhabit the environment they prefer, this seems fairly reasonable, but still an assumption needs to be made.

I found this so tough, and I think its because I just don't agree with the argument. I was between C and D, I wanted to pick D, but kept telling myself that just because the film is successful doesn't mean it is misguided to criticize this other aspect of it. Maybe the film would've been even funnier if the characters were not overly stylized and the criticism is in fact warranted. I do see how D is correct now, but I'm still struggling to understand how C is wrong. My thinking was basically, we know this is a comedy and we know it was funny. We also know the important thing for comedies is to be funny. If we now add that comedies should get their humor from stylized portrayals then isn't it misguided to criticize the comedy for doing something it is supposed to do? #Help

@ said:

Does anyone know on average how many points above a school's median would it take to get a full tuition scholarship, maybe even more than that? Obviously, they take other part of the application into account but assuming those are good

I do not, but am very curious about this as well, especially at the T25 schools. I have seen plenty of variance on my LSN. Also at some schools 1-2 points above the median is the 75% or better, I always thought to get a full ride you generally well above in GPA in LSAT unless there is something else that makes you an incredibly compelling applicant.

@ said:

My average BR score up until 68 was 175+, and as soon as I hit 70, it dropped to 170, and today I got 168 for BR.

I’m getting a lot more RC questions wrong.

I used to get -1~-3 for RC during BR, but I got -7 today. Actual score dropped as well.

Is there a significant difference between 60s and lower RC passages and 70+ passages? I usually get -0 on my untimed drill, so I don’t thinks drilling older passages would be helpful in this case. Two weeks til the real test and I’m screwed.

The more recent RCs have absolutely started asking more difficult questions. No noticeable difference in passage, but more LR type questions where you need to evaluate reasoning. People seem hesitant to say it but I think the most recent tests are flat out harder except for the LG section.

@ said:

Hey everyone,

I really need a sanity check because I feel like I'm getting in my own head. So I started studying about a month ago and was initially planning on taking the October LSAT because learning about the July Freebie. I started off with a 155 diagnostic with -8 and -11 on the two LR sections.

I then went through the LSAT Trainer (minus LG because 7sage's LG explanations felt more intuitive) and the CC and have recently started taking timed full PTs. Now this might be a very small sample, but in the 6 PTs after one month of studying I am getting an average of 164 with scores ranging from 162 to 168. (and BRs ranging from 171 to 174 if that matters) The score jump from my 155 diagnostic is due to a pretty big increase in LG as one might expect, but also because I got -6 to -3 in LR sections in all 6 PTs.

Now this is where I need a sanity check. When going through LR sections now, I don't feel like I'm doing things differently from when I took my diagnostic aside from maybe a better understanding of what the question stems are asking. Since doing well on the first PT after going through the CC, when doing LR sections in full PTs I just try to go as smoothly as I can while telling myself to trust my instincts and it seems like its working out. So my question is, did anyone else experience this random jump in LR after the LSAT Trainer/CC? Is it even possible that I was lucky 6 PTs in a row?....

I don't think you are getting lucky, 6 PTs is a large enough sample size to infer that you have significantly improved. My experience was pretty similar actually, had very quick gains on LG and picked up a couple points on LR strictly by understanding exactly what the question stem was asking. However, your LR jump is greater than mine was. I found that it was much harder to keep improving after the initial boost, don't want to be a downer, but just want to make sure you won't expect quick gains the whole way. I think I was PTing 163ish within 2 months and then it probably took about 4 more months after that to start consistently hitting 168-170. You are definitely off to a great start though and certainly not insane.

This question is such garbage. The argument still only makes sense if we assume that when the fragments are passed down to ancestors they remain in the same spot. This is never stated. How am I supposed to know that's how it works? What if the fragments that get passed down also go to a random spot ? Answer choice C is now useless.

C was so tricky, but it actually doesn't resolve anything. "upgraded with new traffic lights" implies that there were already lights there. I don't think a new or old light is going to make any difference on the time. I remember an older LSAT and they used a very similar concept with stop signs.

@ said:

Hello. I plan to take the LSAT in October, but I know I can also take it in July and if I don't do well enough, take it without extra charge in October. I know I can also see the score before cancelling the July score. I'd like to take the July test because I want to get experience taking an LSAT under real conditions. However, I still have the fear (irrational or otherwise) that a candidate cancel will look bad. Should I take the July LSAT anyway, or does the risk of a cancel outweigh the benefits? Thanks

The generally accepted advice seems to be that schools don’t really care about one cancel. I think this is especially true for the July test because everyone is aware of the digital/paper mix. I wouldn’t advise you to take it if you are completely unprepared, but if you think there’s a shot that you could get lucky and hit your target score it might be worth it.

@ said:

How is your timing? I was in the same boat for a while, but focusing on timing was key for me. If you’re scoring that highly, it could be that you’re rushing the more difficult LR sections (15-~25) and spending too much time on the easiest questions. I tried to limit to one minute per question on 1-15. Odds are you’re first choice for an answer will be correct.

Reading is the most difficult section to improve. I would recommend printing all the reading sections for the early LSATs and just getting reps in.

Finally, see if there is one question type that you’re bad at. I focused on PSA questions for 2 weeks and finally saw some good improvements.

Were you able to improve by just blasting through RC passages? I am in pretty much the same boat, but I fluctuate by about 5 points depending on my RC score, it is ridiculously frustrating. I go anywhere between -2 to -7 and can't find consistency. I definitely didn't give this section enough attention early in my prep, but I'm guessing I've still done around 35-40 sections. I literally never feel comfortable on this section and always feel rushed.

Wow, I took way too long on this question. Basically, D strengthens the argument ever so slightly by showing that when the cause is gone so is the effect. This is far from proving the argument, but it does nudge it in the right direction.