I could be way off base here, but it sounds to me like you're putting too much pressure on yourself (high achievers--like 4.0 students--tend to do that).

Without knowing you or your particular situation, I'd just recommend a few things:

(1) Take a break. And make it 3 weeks. A lot of high achievers like yourself understandably put a lot of stress on themselves. So you might end up ruminating over the test for the first few days of your break. With that in mind, a few weeks' time should give you enough time to meaningfully step back from everything.

(2) When you get back at it, study at a pace that works for you. Do you have a job? Family? Stuff going on in your life? Sleep/stress issues? Factor those in to the schedule you set. A common theme among fellow studiers is that they push themselves too much, perhaps by seeing how well others are doing. You're trying to learn a new language, so go at your right pace.

(3) For most of us, getting good at the LSAT takes a lot of time and effort (and making a ton of mistakes). It's easy to get wrapped up in the fact that you're not moving as fast as you want to or that you're not anywhere near your goals. But focus on the day-to-day process of learning the language of the LSAT. The other stuff--your confidence, higher scores, better blind review--will follow.

(4) Realize the vast majority of us are like you. I studied for over two years before I finally took the LSAT. I had no idea what I was doing. I was pretty bummed when I saw my initial diagnostic. I was so unsure of myself that I legitimately asked my undergrad professor if I was even smart enough to go to law school. Now I've got my dream job. Most of my LSAT friends went through similar experiences, too.

50% of the LSAT is about stuff other than the material--e.g., your mental health, confidence, diet/sleep, schedule. You've got a 4.0 (I most certainly did not). If you can keep your confidence, I'd be willing to bet that you'll be fine.

Awesome!!

@ didn't apply to Michigan because he doesn't want to be a lame-o 1L compared to my amazingness as a 2L.

Congratulations nevertheless and what a story. Lot of time, effort, AND risk put into an incredible result.

176??? Dude way to go! CLUTCH!

Just mathematically speaking, start with variable/groups/slots that are the most/least restricted. For example, when attempting to find what must be true, begin by looking at the variables/groups /slots that have the least amount of room to budge. Again, mathematically, those are the most likely to yield a must be true inference.

Conversely, if you need a standard could be true inference, begin with the variables/groups/slots that are the freest. No rules talk about "A"? "A" is a floater - start there. Then move to the next freest.

You won't always see what is the most or least restricted and that's okay. Practice can help with that. But it's important to have at least an inkling of how to objectively approach inferences. Otherwise, if they're just "not coming to you," you're screwed. Over time, your intuition will probably get really, really good. But even I would get stuck in LG and would be forced to use this technique. It's also especially helpful for rushing through ACs. For example, If I need a CBT AC, I'm not going to test out the ACs that have very restricted variables.

24/25 is the median for law schools, these days, at least at the ones I know of. I'm 26 myself, and I've found that taking a few years off was beneficial for a variety of reasons. And I would argue taking the time off brought no disadvantages.

few, haha.

Running late! I'll be there in a huge.

@ Yes!

@ Good question. No, tutoring sessions are not recorded.

Haha, thanks for always correcting my mistakes, @

And just FYI, everyone! Tonight is the last RC session I'll be doing. We'll be going over the final passage of PT 35.

@ Good question. Tutoring sessions aren't recorded, at least generally.

Yeah, we'll be doing the CO2 passage

Everyone is objectively team RC. Why is this even a question???

Someone from University of Michigan was telling me that his tuition was practically paid for by student teaching. Not sure how much his tuition was or how much he was making (or if the university just deducts).

oops! Sorry guys.

And @ we'll be doing the multiculturalism one (second passage).

I did not have one from Michigan and got in. Had one from UVA though - all admitted students have to have an interview. Of course, plenty of people who are not admitted get interviewed, as well.

Much of the work of gaining inferences can be done "upfront" - that is, while actually reading the passage. From my experience, there are three ways to gather inferences:

Tone: This can either be of the author's or of a subject's. The author's tone can clue you in, not just of the author's perspective (which can sometimes be otherwise hidden), but of the author's purpose. Does the author want to argue for something? Is what the author discussing something new and not thoroughly understood? What does the author think of the subject? If it's an artist, does the subject appreciate the art and not necessarily the artist (as weird as that seems, I've seen it). Understanding and pinpointing the tone can really help with tricky author's attitude questions, for example, where the correct AC is actually stronger in its wording than an incorrect AC.

Purpose: Understanding the purpose of the passage's "chunks" is absolutely crucial. When the direction changes, ask yourself why the author is telling you this. Is it a claim? Support for a claim? If the passage is an argument, identify the premises and conclusion just as you would in LR. This will help with Inference-type Questions. When confused, ask yourself "why tell me this?" Often, that alone can help make sense of what's going on. For example, if the answer is that the piece is a claim, there may not be any support or clarification for it yet. If so, keep reading! If it hasn't yet been explained, of course you're going to be confused. Identifying the purpose also really helps to identify relationships, which may be the most important tool for inference-building...

Relationships: The passage, and even the ACs, are loaded with referential phrasing, but not in a very obvious sense. "Legitimacy" and "moral authority" are effectively synonymous, for example, and even that isn't too much of a stretch. Relationship-building can come from identifying companions, contrasts, sets/subsets, before/after, referential phrasing, analogies, examples, claims (conclusions)/support (premises), et cetera. Often, pieces of the passage won't make sense until you've established a relationship, and this is where identifying purpose and relationships overlap. Why tell me this? Where did this new idea come from??? Oh! It's support for this former idea? Or it's expounding upon and linking back to what was just stated? Once you've made the connection, you can "infer" meaning from the relationship. A great example is where one side of a contrast doesn't make sense, but the other side does. Use the other side's "opposite" to make sense of what exactly (or perhaps just generally) the other side is. You now better understand why there's a contrast, as opposed to merely understanding that there is a contrast. The latter, however, will generally be enough but can make your life a bit harder.

From this, you can genuinely expect certain pieces to be addressed in the questions. When in the questions, I do something of an anticipation for Specific Inference-type Questions (i.e. “The most likely reason the geometers would have been skeptical of Morris’s claim is that”) by collecting what I'm limited to. This makes the question easier, as I'm not tempted by information that isn't relevant to the question, even if it is true or mentioned in the passage. If an AC is waaaay out of left field - in other words, if I can't remember where the topic was in the passage - I'll table it, because I may have missed this while anticipating what information I need/can use.

Possible/plausible does not equal MSS or something that can be inferred. If it can completely go either way, how is there support for one OVER the other?

The ACs will suck. As with all ACs, there not there as obvious choices. Even if you understand the passage fully, you still have to critically analyze the ACs before making sense of plenty of them. Key in on referential phrasing. Where words are iffy (i.e. descriptive content), be a bit more hesitant with eliminating. Underline that word, move on to the other ACs. If nothing seems very obviously right, and if you have to go back to that AC, attack that AC by eliminating it or verifying it according to that iffy word. Provide synonyms for it or link it back to see if it works.

Don't freak out if all the ACs seem daunting. If unsure, move on, as you should be doing with all questions in RC. And many ACs aren't that significant, so be ready for that. For example, if two people disagree about a certain topic, and if a question asks what both may agree on, there isn't much! Expect the AC to not be that substantive in what it's stating.

In MSS questions, the author may not have stated something that is in fact the right AC. The author doesn't have to. So if you're saying, "The author never states this," in order to eliminate an AC in that question type, you're eliminating it for the wrong reason. An author could give a correlation and an MSS correct AC could give you a causal claim. It's never mentioned in the stimulus but there's support for it. That's what you have to care about.

@ yes! hope to see you there!

Oh wow. Yeah, I definitely only answered a snippet of the actual question.

Just to make sure you're all on the same page as I am (I admit I may make that quite difficult!), I was really only answering the logical relevance of "even if" on its own. So if you alone have a statement like, "Even if I go to the mall, I will not reward myself with ice cream," you will not reward yourself with ice cream whether or not you go to the mall. So logically, "even if" in this case does nothing.

So as to your greater question, I still think you're right. "Even if" can be left out of that statement, so you're left with "I will not reward myself with ice cream," as you noted. This negates the necessary condition of the original statement, which would force us to state you will not go to the market, if you DO go to the mall. Though I do think that if you do not go to the mall, then I don't think you can state whether you went to the market or not, as you could in that case go to the market without triggering the necessary condition of rewarding yourself with ice cream.

@ You've answered your own question, and correctly. I consider "even if" to be logically irrelevant but not topically irrelevant. So while it may be important to note whether you go to the mall or not, it doesn't change the fact that no matter what, "you will not reward yourself with ice cream."

We're live!

Looking forward to you all joining!

And @, it's totally cool. I'd say it'd be better for your sake to do it, though I don't think not doing it should preclude you from joining. Just be sure you aren't wasting too much new material, especially if it's a full, fresh PT.

Hey, guys! Thanks for the interest! I'll be posting for this week's session soon. We'll be going over PT 30.

Definitely run with the dean's recommendation if you're convinced it will be both positive and substantive. Same for the employer recommendation.

As far as finding another professor, you'll definitely have to find the "next best," as I imagine is the case for your other professor. If that's the next best, I wouldn't add anyone else. Additional, sub-par or even "pretty good" rec letters will only mar your really great ones.

Best of luck with hunting down that professor though. I didn't have anything like this, so I definitely can't imagine how stressful that's been.

Getting ready to start!