Discussions

dancingchicken111498

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

General · Advice for Studying While Working Full Time

dancingchicken111498

Monday, Mar 29 2021

Wow thank you so much everyone! This was extremely insightful and motivating -- so many of us are going through/have made it to the other side of the same thing! Sounds like morning studying is pretty popular and I'll probably have to buckle down and do it. Weekends also seem like the way to go. I'm planning on sitting for the August test so time to put this advice to use.

PrepTests ·

PT137.S2.Q12

dancingchicken111498

Thursday, Jul 29 2021

I got hung up on and eventually chose AC E. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I thought that you could argue that: because eliminating the beverage and upping the dosage for the same medication worked, it eliminates the option that the issue was with the medication being incorrect and therefore confirms the doctor's first line of thought. However, now that I'm typing this out, I realize that we're trying to show how the first hypothesis is supported by the second set of recommendations. The first hypothesis is that the dosage was insufficient. So AC E is actually irrelevant, wow

General

•

Tuesday, Mar 23 2021

dancingchicken111498

Advice for Studying While Working Full Time

Hello! I'm sure this has been discussed 1000 times but I'm a new-er LSAT studier here, looking for any advice on studying while working full-time from home. I know people recommend studying before the workday starts, but I cannot get myself to wake up before 8 am. It's also so difficult to have a real break in your day when you never leave the house. I'll definitely be sacrificing my weekends to the cause. Looking mostly for inspiration/tips/motivation/commiseration. Is anyone else currently building a schedule for studying and working, and has found success?

PrepTests ·

PT107.S1.Q22

dancingchicken111498

Sunday, Mar 21 2021

Premises: the government claims the country's nuclear power plants are safe, so the public doesn't have to be afraid of accidents. Also, the government moved to limit the nuclear industry's liability for accidents. If the power plant has unlimited liability, that is a threat to its finances only if you can claim injury against it, and the gov admits that therefore injury has to happen from a nuclear plant. Conclusion: the public should be afraid of accidents at the nuclear plant.

A - the gov is saying something is unsafe, so we should assume it is unsafe - does not support conclusion because the gov never says the plant is unsafe in the premises. Not a relevant assumption

B - the public is founded in its fear of nuclear injuries because those that have control over the injuries will gain financially - false, because the nuclear plant will not gain financially from the injuries

C - if something is safe only because the financial security of its operators depends on it being safe, we shouldn't eliminate that dependence because it's not in the public's best interest - does not help support the conclusion that the public's fear is founded

D - the governments sometimes says things about a possible situation that are not necessarily supported, but it doesn't prevent that situation from happening unless there's an actual danger that that situation will happen - supports the conclusion that the public has reason to fear nuclear accidents, because if there were not an actual danger of nuclear accidents, the government wouldn't be trying to limit the nuclear industry's liability

E - does not help suppport the conclusion

Admissions · Submit LSAT Addendum?

dancingchicken111498

Sunday, Dec 19 2021

@ Thank you for this very helpful information! I will keep this in mind for any additional apps I send in and otherwise hope the admissions thinks the best of my already sent in apps. Thanks to the other responders as well for the insight!

Admissions

•

Tuesday, Dec 14 2021

dancingchicken111498

Submit LSAT Addendum?

Hi all,

Looking for advice on submitting an LSAT addendum. Even though I got a 170 on my first LSAT attempt (thanks 7sage!), I decided, maybe mistakenly, to try again because I felt I had the potential to score even higher. Unfortunately I bombed my second attempt relative to all my practice test scores and scored a 164. I don't really have a good reason, other than the fact that my upstairs neighbors started blasting music five minutes before and I had to quickly switch rooms and get ready again. My first section was logic games and I couldn't solve half the games for the first time since my early study days. My other sections proceeded as expected, I think.

I understand a six point decrease is somewhat significant, but I also do not want to write an addendum that lacks a compelling reason to excuse the lower score and comes off as insincere. Would it be a good idea to send one in if I genuinely believe the 170 better reflects my abilities? I've already submitted my applications, so this would be in an email to the admissions office.

Thanks in advance!

LSAT

•

Sunday, Nov 14 2021

dancingchicken111498

PT91.S2.Q20 - The study of primates

Has anyone done this PT and have insight into how to solve this question? I understand why B is correct (the stimulus says that lemurs, which are lower primates, are the only primates indigenous to Madagascar), but I'm not sure why you cannot also infer A. The only living diurnal lower primates are certain species of lemurs, and higher primates evolved from a diurnal species of lower primate. Therefore, chimpanzee's, which are higher primates, evolved from lemurs.

WAIT, I get it. If the stimulus said that the only diurnal lower primates (DLP) EVER were lemurs, then A would be correct. But, it actually says the only living DLPs are lemurs. Therefore, there could have been some other DLP in the past that was not a lemur from which chimpanzees evolved. So we cannot properly infer A!

Posting in case anyone else needs an explanation because there are no official ones yet for this PT. Classic LSAT with the sneaky wording.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

PrepTests ·

PT101.S2.Q17

dancingchicken111498

Wednesday, May 12 2021

Not sure if anyone else had this thought process, but I got this wrong because I was thinking about how at the time of the United Nation's founding, the charter's rationale was correct, because it applied the logic to the major powers that existed at that point in time. Obviously looking back, the rationale is incorrect, because there was no way to know if the major powers would remain the major powers in the future. So, I understand that the assumption in AC B has to be made to validate the permanent veto rule.

Admissions

•

Wednesday, Oct 06 2021

dancingchicken111498

Letters of Rec Question

Hi! Trying to crowdsource some opinions on this: I have a strong letter of rec on hand from an internship that directly aligns with my future legal career interests. The letter doesn't recommend me for law school specifically and instead recommends me for future endeavors in general. Unfortunately, the internship was two years ago and the letter writer has since gone into retirement. I am having the current intern coordinator upload the letter to LSAC, but am wondering if admissions committees will disregard the letter somewhat if it's not positioned for law school. Basically, should I pull my former boss out of retirement for a bit to update my letter, or is it okay to submit an otherwise strong recommendation?