Discussions

davidk6259611

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

LSAT · Should I take the LSAT in October or November?

davidk6259611

Thursday, Jul 29 2021

Hello! The best piece of advice I've heard when it comes to this kind of thing is to take the LSAT when you feel the most prepared. You're never going to feel 100% ready, but the key is to feel comfortable, prepared, and confident. That means different things to different people, but to me it means getting my goal score at least a few time on PTs and even trying to score above my goal score in case I have test day jitters. If that point for you coalesces in October that's awesome, sit for the test in October. If October comes around the corner and your gut or scores are telling you another month would really help, then don't be afraid to push back. I think technically you could take Jan and still apply, although that would be very late in the cycle -- only mention it because Nov./Dec. is still relatively in the thick of everything.

With the flex you can change your test date a few weeks before at no charge, so you could always sign up for October and see how you feel a few weeks out. Moreover, since you're still going to school which is a huge commitment, your test date may depend on some other factors like your midterms/papers/finals schedule.

The general consensus that I've heard from an application standpoint (from tutors, admissions counselors, law school literature, etc.) is that any points you can gain on the LSAT are worth delaying in the cycle, especially if we're talking about October to November. Sure, it's ideal to apply as early in the cycle as possible, but if you can bump that LSAT score up even a point or two, it's my understanding that the score boost will more than compensate for being a few weeks/month later in the application cycle.

I really hope that helps and best of luck whatever you end up doing!

General · Quit My Job to Study for the January LSAT. Help!

davidk6259611

Monday, Dec 28 2020

I agree with the comments above! If your BR is the highest it has ever been, that's exactly where you want to be. That means that after the CC, you understand the content of the test more than ever before. Some of the work you put in after CC is refining/honing your skills to get even fewer wrong, but the vast majority (at least in my experience) of post-CC studying is improving everything beyond the actual content of the test. In other words, after CC you're mainly working on timing and the feel of the test itself.

For me, the only thing that has significantly improved my score across the board has been repetition plain and simple, but always emphasize quality over quantity. I would never necessarily recommend a PT a day. It sometimes takes me a full week to earnestly review a PT and do an autopsy on what went right and what went wrong. I find that if I give myself ample time to review a PT, I seldom make the exact same mistakes again.

You can always push your test date back if you feel like you aren't where you want to be yet. I used to hate getting that advice, but I realized that if I wanted to score high, it was going to take time. Plus this is a great time in the cycle to postpone, unless you still wanted to apply this year.

If you have your heart set on Jan, it's still great news that you have time off work. I'd personally PT as much as possible AFTER doing some individual timed sections. Once you get the hang of single timed sections, it's much easier to jump into the entirety of the test and all of its timing nuances. Plus, it's far more approachable to start BR-ing with individual sections than the whole test. For LG and somewhat for RC, I found that the main thing that worked for me was drilling, drilling, drilling. LR was a little more diverse in how I could study and improve (repetition helped, but also reviewing what each type of question was specifically asking of me, solidifying good habits like separating premise and conclusion, etc.).

Hope that helps! Good luck!!

General

•

Saturday, May 28 2022

davidk6259611

Advice from a 3 year journey to 170 and a T-14 acceptance

Hello!

I won’t be offering any tips or tricks on the mechanics of the LSAT as that’s been covered ten times over and I don’t think I can add anything of value that hasn’t been said before. I’d love to lend a few words to everyone on here though because you all have helped me immensely in what has been a very long journey. I’ll try to keep it relatively short. First off, THANK YOU to this community, you have been a beacon in some really frustrating and quite frankly hard times. You’ve provided worthwhile advice and some levity to a really intense and drawn out process.

One thing I’ve learned in retrospect (and from my always poignant and thankfully non law school gf), that I think we all should hear…

It’s so easy to get wrapped up in this process of studying and admissions. In fact, I would venture to say that everyone in this community is an over-achiever in some way. You all care immensely about your future and that’s wonderful and what will ultimately make you all successful in your own ways. With that though comes a huge amount of pressure, whether external or self-imposed. So, if I could offer one final piece of advice, it would be this:

Breathe. Find time, as best you can, to live life outside of the LSAT/admissions bubble. It’s a fantastic place with truly amazing people trying to help one another, but you have to find the time to take your dog for a walk, to go on that date, to call your mom, to watch your favorite movie, to smile at the sunset. The moment that I really started living my life again in conjunction with thoughtful, intentional studying, was the moment that I started performing my best on this test (not that that should be the main motivation for doing it).

So hustle, study hard, put in the time, but it’s equally important to exhale, to think about something else, something silly and inconsequential, to put away that prep book, to allow yourself to ignore the newest medians for a day, to close that reddit tab and remember that there’s more to this world than the LSAT and law school.

Don’t let life happen without you while going through this journey because I promise you, nothing is worth losing yourself, even for a moment. This test and process are truly a give and take, and sometimes the harder you force it, the more it will push back against you too.

I hope this helps even a little bit and thank you all again for providing a great space for the past few years!

Oh, and big shout out to Chris Ngyuen and jmarmaduke for being great tutors and guides, as well as EmmaJean Holley for being a fantastic and lovely writing coach.

-Best,

David

Admissions · Should one wait for CRS fee-waiver from T14 at this point

davidk6259611

Wednesday, Jan 26 2022

Hello lsat2016! I'm in the exact same boat, only registered a week ago thinking I had already done so.

I have no basis for when or how often the T-14s send the application fee waivers and had already applied to them when I realized I wasn't registered :( However, I did reach out to USC Admissions asking politely if they had any fee waivers and they got back to me very quickly. Within a day I had the fee waived. Also ASU recently offered to the pay fee waiver and CAS fee.

Point being, I don't think I'd wait any longer, just reach out directly to the schools (although I'm not sure how effective this is for HYS all depending of course on stats). I've gotten fee waivers for other schools organically via CRS since, but no T-14s -- again though it has only been a week and I already applied so I doubt I'll get anything.

Hope that helps!

Admissions · LOR's for Older Students?

davidk6259611

Thursday, Aug 26 2021

I definitely agree with @ here. It all comes down to who can write the best letter for you specifically. I personally take that to mean the professionals I work most closely with, who know me best, and who are consistently judging or assessing my work and capabilities (and who are complimentary of them of course). Hope that helps and the best of luck :)

PrepTests ·

PT148.S1.Q12

davidk6259611

Monday, Jan 25 2021

Answer choice A gave me pause, but I ultimately went with C.

I think there are multiple strikes against A. I actually disagree a little with JY here and think that it may be reasonable to assume that the predators that are being prevented from moving in are moose predators, otherwise what is the AC even talking about. Regardless, it's easier to eliminate A on the basis of the word predator alone, but I think intuitively that's a little harder to realize under timed conditions.

A is wrong for a few other reasons in my eyes. The key to RRE questions is to explain away the phenomenon in as much totality as you can. In other words, the trickiest WRONG answer choices in RRE questions often only explain part of the phenomenon or make you think that it's explaining the entire thing. That's how they trip you up. In this question for example, we're tasked with explaining a few things: 1) why the wolves aren't depressing the population 2) why the moose are growing (as opposed to staying the same). I'm sure there are some other things we could explain as well, but those are the main points here. I've found that RRE usually has 2 main phenomenon we need to explain.

A is so weak and maybe, just maybe in another question could be the right AC, but when compared to C, there's no doubt which is stronger. A says the presence of wolves TENDS to discourage other predators. Well how do we know it discourages the right kind of predators as JY points out, and also how do we know it discourages those predators in this particular situation? Moreover, it discourages them from "moving in." How do we know that matters here? That's basically saying that wolves potentially prevent new predators from being introduced. What about existing predators, moreso how does that explain why the wolves aren't depressing the moose population themselves. And and and, why are the moose still growing? Even if new predators weren't coming it, it's not necessarily explaining why the moose are still thriving with the wolves present.

C does that key thing in a correct RRE answer choice where it gives you a potential explanation of all or most of the phenomenon in question. Here, C answers why 1) the wolves aren't depressing the population -- they are, but they are only killing a fraction of the moose and 2) why the moose are growing -- because the wolves are actually preventing a more harmful situation by essentially eradicating some disease from the population.

Sorry this is so long, but hope it helps to those who didn't understand or key into the 'predator' assumption early on! :)

PrepTests ·

PT140.S3.Q26

davidk6259611

Friday, Sep 25 2020

I was also able to eliminate D because to me, it doesn't truly explain the discrepancy between the two elements in the stimulus (1. increased life span/overall health and 2. increase in the rate of serious infection). We're tasked with explaining how these 2 seemingly opposed realities can occur together. D -- on the face of it -- explains why there may be an increase in serious infections, although as JY pointed out, it does not actually do so b/c of the word 'rate' along with a required assumption that the population has increased. However, I was able to quickly eliminate it because it doesn't actually fill the gap. It only discusses one side, infections, and does nothing to account for the why or how there can also be a simultaneous increase in overall health and life span. I believe that even if the stim didn't say rate, D would still not totally suffice as the AC at least in relation to E because we're still not explaining how the 2 seemingly disparate worlds can co-exist. E does a much better job at this: modern treatments are actually the cause of this infection increase. This allows for both modern treatments to exist and be responsible for increased health and life spans, while also accounting for a same world in which infections have increased.

In short, D never links the two ideas as well as E, which is at the core of correct RRE answer choices -- you must engage with both sides of the apparent contradiction to come to an explanation.

General · 8 Things I Wish I'd Known

davidk6259611

Sunday, Jul 25 2021

I couldn't agree more with every bit of advice on this list. Going on 2+ years of studying for this beast of a test and registered for August. Everything here is spot on from my personal experience and from the tips I've gotten from everyone I've ran in to that has 'succeeded' (whatever that means to you :) ) on the LSAT. Thanks so much for this post!

PrepTests ·

PT154.S1.Q18

davidk6259611

Saturday, Feb 20 2021

On my timed pass I actually put A making the mistaken assumption(s) JY points out NOT to make. My reasoning was that if babies do pay extra attention to those phrases, then they must have an effect/help babies learn a language. Certainly, paying extra attention can only help no?

In retrospect and on BR I see how silly this is. I made way too many leaps and also, if anything AC A weakens the argument (which at its very core, NA is a strengthen type question).

I made the obvious assumptions that paying extra attention makes something more learnable/strengthens the babies ability to learn a language. It could have absolutely no effect, it could have a detrimental effect even. What if focusing on the simple phrases distracts a baby from learning other fundamental lessons that come with learning a language??

Regardless, it's certainly not a necessary assumption. We don't need the babies not to pay more attention to those simple phrases in order for the argument to even begin.

Moreover, if we negate it (what if the babies DO pay more attention), the results in the argument still yield. The two groups of babies still learned the language at an equal pace. We're not even touching the essential bridge we need to close the gap (grammatical structure and learning a language). If anything, A is a weaken AC. If babies do pay more attention to the simple phrases, than all the more reason those simple phrases play no role in how they learn because they aren't causing the babies in that group to learn any faster, yet they're devoting more attention to those phrases.

General · 7Sage Podcast Episode #43 - 7Sager Chris - 138 to 173 LSAT

davidk6259611

Monday, Apr 19 2021

Awesome episode! Chris is a wonderful tutor and it was really interesting to hear more of his story :)

General · How long have you been studying?

davidk6259611

Tuesday, Jan 19 2021

About 2 years total so far :) went through multiple test prep books after half-heartedly taking the LSAT in 2017 (still in undergrad), including all the Powerscore Bibles, then started with 7sage. The leaps I've made with 7sage have been immense. Took me about a year to finish CC and have been PT-ing for the past 4ish months, closing in on my target score, but that last little bit seems to be the hardest. Earnestly studying for a year and a half and plan to take in April or summer.

I agree with what others have said, everyone has a different time table and that is often contingent on how much you can dedicate to studying each day and how focused you can be while doing so. I work full time and also work OT almost everyday, along with a pre COVID commute of 3+ hours, so an hour or two is all I can get in per day with a few days off here and there, but not many.

Don't be afraid to take more time if you need to. I've postponed my LSAT date so many times and was initially extremely disappointed in myself, but it has turned out to be the best decision for me. If you can get through CC and be PT-ing at your target in a few months, that's incredible and more power to you! If not, it's OK too, just keep at it!

PrepTests ·

PT153.S4.P1.Q7

davidk6259611

Thursday, Feb 18 2021

In retrospect for #7, I definitely understand how B is supported, but that question is absurd. I love JY's approach here -- it ain't worth the time (remembers low hanging fruit analogy).

I had my doubts but ultimately went for A on timed and BR. I was uneasy because that's somewhat of a logical leap to make, that plants and humans have some diseases in common, but I simultaneously thought, well it's a MSS question so of course we're gonna have to make some sort of leap and the rest seemed even less supported to me. I liked the weakness/broadness of AC A ("some") and I reckoned that since it was mentioned in the passage that certain plants can have medicinal effects/hold clues for medicine research, well it's reasonable to assume that we must share some diseases with at least 1 plant if those plants can fight them off and we can also benefit.

Now, I realize this isn't really supported at all. I'm no apothecary or medicinal horticulture expert, but I'm sure a lot of the disease fighting properties in plants are somewhat happenstance as far as how they work for humans (some plants are poisonous to us, some are ridiculously healthy for us). Avoiding bringing in outside knowledge though, nowhere in the passage can we assume that the disease fighting abilities of plants derive from the fact that plants are reacting against the same disease (maybe it's an evolutionary reaction to predators that makes the plant bitter, but that same element that makes it bitter for whatever reason cures a rash in humans..idk). The water transportation point, as JY points out, is supported, but wow was it such a marginal part of the passage, not sure I would've ever gotten this question right even if I had stared at it for hours...

PrepTests ·

PT146.S2.Q17

davidk6259611

Sunday, May 16 2021

As others have alluded to, I think the main thing that this question hinges on is "depend" in AC C vs "show" in the stimulus.

In AC C it states that the box office success of the film does not "depend" on its viewers finding it funny, etc., but that's not really supported. The stimulus states that box office success does not "show" what audiences find funny etc. That's an important distinction and ultimately, in my view, what makes C incorrect.

Audience reactions could affect box office success. The financial success of Batman could very well hinge/"depend" on whether or not people found it moving or scary or deep, while simultaneously NOT revealing/"showing" to the film historians what those specific responses were. Sure, the fact that Batman was funny, intriguing, scary may have contributed to its success, but we don't know just based on the numbers alone which one of those responses the audience members had and to what degree(s).

Contrast that with AC D, that is directly supported: The historians also "find that newspaper and magazine reviews fail to provide much insight." Failing to provide much insight on what? Here the stimulus is referring to "typical audience member's response."

PrepTests ·

PT150.S4.P3.Q20

davidk6259611

Friday, May 14 2021

For 20, I didn't push the info together that the study was using the most successful dowsers with the fact that successful dowsers are atypical. That makes a lot more sense in why AC E is correct. Moreover, upon review, E is better than D, but I'm not entirely sure you can say there's zero support for D.

Again this is an inference question and I think D requires too big of a leap, but I do think the passage implies that the dowsers did something comparatively impressive. "On request even located a dry fracture zone": well if geologists and hydrologists could locate the dry fracture zone upon request as well, why even mention that dowsers were able to. If we take that line to be support that the study corroborated some potential abilities of dowsers, then finding dry fracture zones would likely be difficult and something the other study participants couldn't do or had trouble doing, otherwise what's the point of that line. I understand why this is wrong in comparison to E because it requires too much guesswork, we don't know if the non-dowsers were even asked and you should always try to stick to the text, but I thought it was particularly trappy.

General · How many hours do you study CC on a daily basis?

davidk6259611

Tuesday, Feb 11 2020

Working full time and commuting it can be really hard to get a good amount of study time in each day. I've been studying for a while and really trying to take my time on the CC. I usually can only manage 1-2 hours a day during the week and maybe 2-3 on the weekends. Within reason, I try to just take the time I need to really understand the core concepts and make sure I'm improving. I agree with some other posters here, the LR takes a decent amount of time, and oftentimes the harder question sets would take longer than the 30 minutes because I wanted to review them thoroughly. I feel like you're on a great track though, and it's far more important to understand and absorb the curriculum than to get through quickly (ideally we'd have both). You don't want to rush through things -- I've certainly been guilty of that -- only to have trouble with them during practice tests or have to take more time to go back to solidify them. Good luck!! :)

PrepTests ·

PT146.S1.Q23

davidk6259611

Thursday, Jan 07 2021

Another possible reason as to why E is incorrect:

I feel like it goes too far and that overreaching makes the conclusion slightly off from what the stimulus provides.

The basic setup we're looking for must involve a scenario with two different outcomes. One outcome where the result (i.e. failing as a spy) reveals information. Another outcome where the result (i.e. being a successful spy) hides information. Then the conclusion needs to say something along the lines of: Therefore, what we know/can learn is skewed towards the outcome that reveals the information.

Now to me answer choice E does a decent job of giving us the correct matching premise. It sets up a scenario with 2 outcomes that roughly mirror our stimulus (intervening vs not intervening and how the results are different). BUT the conclusion is off.

It states that therefore, "it is impossible to discern" what would have occurred. This does not match our stimulus' conclusion. It definitely does not match as well as B does. The original argument does not state that it is impossible to learn what makes a spy succeed, it merely concludes that it is far more difficult or that we know "very little" about what makes a spy succeed.

Contrast that language with AC B, where the conclusion says people are "more likely" to hear. Much better! That's weaker than impossible which is what we want.

TLDR: The conclusion that E arrives at is too strong, especially compared to B.

E's premise matches decently, but concludes that it's "impossible."

B's premise matches well AND the conclusion matches in the same degree as the stimulus: "more likely."

PrepTests ·

PT138.S4.Q10

davidk6259611

Wednesday, Apr 07 2021

I could definitely be over thinking this one and I understand why B is not correct -- it is descriptively accurate as JY puts it, but it is not the main gap in the argument.

However, I still struggled here because how do we know if those 20,000 people are unqualified. I guess that's a reasonable assumption to make, that all those people can't have expertise, but it still seemed like an assumption we had to make in order for D to be right. I kept coming back to the flaw being something like the opinions of individuals as represented in the petition signatures is not necessarily an indicator of which solution is better/it may only be an indicator of public opinion. The word expertise in D tripped me up because again, I don't know their level of expertise. What if the petition was from an environmental conference or something?? I'm rambling :), this one was tougher than it seemed, at least to me!

General · 7Sage Merch?

davidk6259611

Saturday, Aug 07 2021

I'd buy in a heartbeat. The logo or a JY-ism, some 'don't confuse sufficiency with necessity' apparel..

PrepTests ·

PT104.S1.Q20

davidk6259611

Tuesday, Aug 06 2019

This is a great test on how to handle a ton of information in one stimulus. I watered it down as best I could during the timed version and it worked for me. This is not the conditional logic breakdown per se, but it was simple enough to arrive at what the stimulus was getting at, quickly:

Poem = 1) any art 2) exploits musical characteristics of language [i.e. WofA & exploits MCL → P]

Novel = 1) art 2) does not exploit MCL

Symphony = 1) art 2) does not exploit MCL (it exploits MCSs)

Limerick = 1) not art 2) does/can exploit MCL

Therefore, if the novel is still 1) art, and we alter it to 2) exploit meters and rhymes (exploit MCL), then we get to answer choice (C).

We're mainly concerned here with what constitutes or doesn't constitute a poem (that's what we're given the conditionals for) and that caused me to stray away from AC's trying to est. what constitutes other kinds of concepts (i.e. "works of art" like in A and E).

(B) blank verse is never mentioned and we do not know if it is 1) art.

(D) is tricky, but assuming that the limerick is a non-artistic type of poetry is assuming that something can be poetry without satisfying the very conditions spelled out in the first line.

Admissions · 2021–2022 Application Requirements

davidk6259611

Monday, Sep 06 2021

I understand the frustration. I think plenty of law schools admit past December, including the T-14 schools. There is just a significant advantage to applying earlier in the cycle. It makes sense logically, there are more spots towards the beginning and thus more of a chance you get admitted, whereas the longer you wait, generally speaking, the better stats you may need to get in as available slots become fewer. With T-14 schools, they have so many quality applicants to choose from, the more advantages, no matter how small, you give yourself the better of course.

With that being said, this cycle may be very unique. As I've read on other forums, it could be the case that law schools wait longer to admit students until they have a better handle on the general stats/averages (GPA, LSAT scores) of their applicant pool -- they would love to maintain their new medians as best they can. Last year really threw off admissions with somewhat inflated LSAT scores (at least in comparison to prior years due to the changes via the flex) and some other factors specific to COVID. This is not to say the advantage to early applying is diminished, but I could see a situation where it takes a lot longer to receive decisions.

Hope that helps! You can definitely still apply past Thanksgiving and have a good shot, so don't worry, just put your best foot forward and worse comes to worse apply next year :)

PrepTests ·

PT145.S3.P4.Q20

davidk6259611

Thursday, Aug 05 2021

I think this passage really illustrates how valuable it can be to possess prior knowledge of the topic at hand. If you have some background in history, it really favors your understanding and can lend you a ton of context. Being a history major, I took for granted words like historiography, imperialism, and diaspora. These are by no means exclusive to history, but I ran into them all the time in undergrad. Luckily, I think the questions don't necessarily directly penalize you for not comprehending the nuances of the passage, but if you can grasp the details better and quicker, it certainly is an advantage and you feel much more confident going into the questions. Now to get on all those science passages that are always throwing me for a loop...

PrepTests ·

PT134.S3.Q15

davidk6259611

Monday, Apr 05 2021

The other issue with A to me (besides the fact that it really only touches the analogy), is that even if we take for granted that it regards the argument, is still does little to weaken anything.

With any type of LR question, especially evaluative type questions like strengthen/weaken, we should always clarify what the conclusion is actually asserting.

Here, the conclusion states that the city has made an investment that is "likely to have a big payoff in several years." That's really not a strong statement in the grand scheme of conclusions you could posit. More to the point, A says that even some cars that receive preventative maintenance can break down (btw remember that "some" could be 1). So, even if we take that leap and assume the AC effects the argument -- which I'm not sure it does here -- it still doesn't really weaken.

If we translate the analogy, the matching text would be something like, "even some cities that hire long-term economic advisors end up going bankrupt", but our conclusion already accounts for that. The conclusion states that it will likely pay off, it doesn't say it will definitely 100% pay off for the city. 'Probably pay off' includes worlds where there is no payoff. Thus, by extension, AC A really isn't breaking any part of the argument structure. Whoopty doo, sometimes it doesn't work. Ok? We never said that it always results in amazing fiscal outcomes, just that it will likely have a positive effect.

PrepTests ·

PT142.S1.Q21

davidk6259611

Saturday, Dec 05 2020

I answered this one incorrectly. C tripped me up because in my mind I thought, well it would be valuable to know if the favored (treat) dog was ever the unfavored (no treat) dog in another trial because maybe one dog is inherently disobedient vs another dog that might be inherently obedient. In other words, if Dog A was given the treat and was obedient in trial 1, and then was not given a treat, but was still obedient over time in trial 2, you just have a really good doggo (and vice versa, an always misbehaved dog). That would attribute the disobedience to intrinsic qualities of the dog, not perceived fairness.

I think I can chalk this up to overthinking though and JY's standard of extremes is a good one for evaluate questions. I failed to realize the regardless of the dogs inherent qualities, I kind of dismissed the premise altogether. My thought process above is irrelevant because the results of the trial still bear out. My theory above is inconsistent because the dogs overall still gave up obedience over time if they weren't given food. So knowing if one dog was a different member of another trial doesn't matter in my context, they already told us that the dogs were more disobedient when not given a treat. UGH, woof