I used the unlimited admissions consulting package and I consider it one of my better investments because I got to work with Sarah Cohen (consultant/angel in disguise). She helped me craft a PS and DS that allowed me to punch way above my numbers. Sarah was warm, perceptive, and meticulous. Her suggestions were constantly on point and she made drafting fun. She can be reached at sarah@nikwan871.com. Just to clarify: I highly recommend Sarah, she'll be the best decision you make this year.

Hi Ashley,

I highly recommend 7Sage's Sarah Cohen. Sarah carefully sculpted my PS and DS - both huge factors for me outperforming my numbers. If I sent an email, I usually received a response within a day (no longer than a few days). With her direction, my writing improved tenfold. Her suggestions often left me nodding and muttering, “She’s so right…that’s perfect”. Sarah was genuine, professional, and meticulous (and patient… and committed…and supportive…the list goes on). Best decision I ever made. Here's her contact info, if you want stellar guidance: sarah@lexxx74569.com

I don't see anything wrong with initially supplementing a LG lesson here and there for funsies. However, because you're scoring well already, I would lean towards drilling.

It's sufficient, but not necessary.

I will be 30 if...when I matriculate next fall. A quote I'm fond of: "Don't compare your chapter 1 to someone else's chapter 20".

I agree. Especially when they talk about "such efficiencies". Hard not to approach the answer choices without confirmation bias.

Let's say our manufacturing company has 1,000 employees and the on-the-job accident rate is 10% per month. That would mean 100 people are getting injured every month.

Now we just hired 500 more employees. Because of the influx of new bodies, we conducted safety training and our accident rate dropped to 8% per month. Although the accident rate declined, we increased the number of workers; so now 120 people are getting injured every month, despite the safety training.

@dennisscoggin21 and @kingse414 brought up great points. Don't be too concerned with a slight decrease at this stage. These PTs vary in terms of difficulty. Drilling is paramount if you want to see progress. Blind Review is another huge factor. When you BR, don't just look at a question and be like, "oh yeah, that's what I should have done". You need to have this approach: "What mistake(s) did I make, how can I avoid these mistakes in the future, why was my answer choice wrong, why were all the other wrong answer choices wrong, etc."

It's so beneficial to understand yourself and how you think. Try not to be discouraged by low scores. If you really want it, you have to take the necessary steps to improve. It doesn't happen overnight. As @kimht90675 once said: "Learning to see further is always hard work. If it's not horribly frustrating, you're almost certainly doing the wrong thing!"

Don't worry about PTing, especially if you haven't completed the CC. PTing can wait. Focus on understanding yourself and this will help you understand the LSAT. Maybe you're experiencing a little burnout. Take a little break, whether it be a couple days or a week. Come back refreshed and ready to grind. Many of us have been in the same boat. It just takes some persistence. You got this!

So inspiring! Your username and results.

Rachel states: "this freedom has caused a decline in the quality of art". A decline in quality is synonymous with lower quality and she is talking about the quality of art in general. She is referring to contemporary artists' freedom from constraints when she talks about "this freedom".

If contemporary art has caused a decline in the quality of art...who else is being compared? She's not talking about future artists. She's talking about past artists. She is comparing current artists with past artists: "free of the constraints that bound their predecessors". I hope this helps.

Concise Summary: People want others to like them right away. There is usually a negative view towards people who are cautious about liking others immediately. Others will not like you if you come off as judgemental when meeting new people, so it's best not to act prudent in public.

(A) We don't care if people are spontaneous or well liked. Good for them, but we don't care.

(B) Ummm...no. We can't make the connection between 'imprudent people' and 'acting instantly and intuitively'. Also, how does this help our conclusion?

(C) Again, not helping us. It's a broad statement and it weakens the argument.

(D) Okay....so what? Good for them? How does this help us form a conclusion?

(E) Perfect. If it's not a good idea to cause other people to dislike us, then we shouldn't act prudent in public.

I hope this helps.

B would only be applicable if Phoebe used any data in her argument. Accuracy is determined by how close a measurement is to the true value.

Phoebe: There have been 5,000 reported sightings of strange glowing lights, but a number of these sightings have a straightforward, natural explanation. They occurred clustered in time and location around the epicenters of three earthquakes, and so were almost certainly earthquake lights, a form of ball lightning caused by stresses in the ground.

Quincy: How can there be 5,000 reported sightings if only 1,000 people live in the town where the epicenter is located?

Obviously this is a terrible argument, but it's just an example of how one would challenge the accuracy of the data in this scenario.

@anthonyserifsoy171 I think the recommended number of prep tests really depends on the individual. Some folks only do a handful and score well (we hate them), while others do 10+. The consensus leans towards doing as many as you can get your hands on, but don't forget quality over quantity. I haven't seen/heard anyone experience diminishing returns. Mostly just burnout. I would also avoid alcohol and anything else that makes you happy.

However, there is a multitude of advice on this database and you should peruse the discussion board. There's a lot of sage advice on here from more qualified individuals than myself (pun intended).

@anthonyserifsoy171 That's not a bad plan. Have you used the 7Sage Law School Predictor? I'll link it below just in case you haven't. You can hover your cursor over the Estimated Chances Percentage and see the difference a month or two makes. Most consultants recommend applying as early as possible for the best chances.

https://classic.7sage.com/predictor/

I would recommend doing sections from early prep tests on available weeknights. This way you're still practicing without the stress/commitment of a full prep test (and saving the later prep tests because you never know). Prioritize more recent prep tests near your test date because they will be most similar to the actual test.

Also, don't let one bad prep test or one bad section get you down. These are natural occurrences and simply a regression to the mean. Brush them off and keep grinding. Another thing to be wary of is burnout. It is real. If you need to take a day or even a week off, do it. The mental clarity is worth it. I hope this helps.

Good question, but keep in mind the context. The switch will alter the statement.

D states that the situation is a possibility: One substance can be more natural than another if only one is wholly derived from natural resources.

You have two substances. One is wholly derived from natural substances. The other is not. The one that is wholly derived from natural substances is more natural.

Now, the switch: One substance can be more natural than another only if one is wholly derived from natural substances.

This changes the second half of the question to a requirement, deeming it necessary. If you have two substances that are not wholly derived from natural substances, then the requirement is irrelevant. I hope this helps.

Congrats on finishing the CC! That's a beast within itself. It seems your days are pretty packed. Is this the only time you can take the LSAT? I highly recommend pushing your test date back. If you don't feel ready, you should wait.

The extra month(s) will ease your nerves and give you a chance to properly study. Focus on quality over quantity. Blind Review is the most helpful and productive aspect of studying. You need to understand why you're getting particular questions wrong.

I know it's too late to just switch your test date without having to pay, but the money you give up for another test could mean the difference in a few points/tens of thousands of dollars worth of scholarship offers. Best of luck!

Not sure if this has been recommended to you, but I find it helpful to put a finger with my non-writing hand on the question number as I bubble. My only bubbling errors are due to selecting wrong answer choices. Emphasis on the 'errors'.

I was having a good day. Then I read your post about a month-long wait after the July LSAT.

Which of the following must be true?

(A) I am still having a good day.

(B) I am now having a great day.

(C) The early day gets the day.

(D) A day for a day makes the whole world night.

(E) I now have anxiety about having anxiety. Pre-anxiety, if you will.

C is an irrelevant statement. Does C talk about traditional attribution and whether or not it should carry special weight? Nope. Doesn't even touch it with a ten-foot pole. It just says sometimes it's hard to tell whether a work was by Picasso or his best student. Which is plausible, but it doesn't support our argument.

Notice that you're making assumptions to make C the right answer. I made the same mistake the first time. It's tough, because sometimes the LSAT requires us to make implications. I imagine the LSAT writers gave each other high-fives after coming up with this question. Before putting down their pitchforks.

There is definitely a difference between must and have, but that relationship is not the issue. Jo and Vanessa both say, "must". I don't think that Yolanda being assigned to work with Mike means that she wasn't allowed to work alone. Regardless, this situation does not align with Jo and Vanessa's suggested principles, making it the correct AC. I would focus on identifying what the question stem is asking for.

Also, the conclusions are:

V‑m→SCC+SAP

C‑m→LP + B

Hope this helps.

You did a good job identifying the flaw, but remember to spot what the question stem is asking for. We're looking for the flawed reasoning that is similar to the passage.

Doesn't it assume that pies contain blueberries = Doesn't it assume that conservative candidates are in favor of antipollution.

From the passage:

V‑m→SCC and V‑m→SAP.

From B:

C‑m→LP and C‑m→LB

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

I agree that a case can be made that "early reviewers" is synonymous with "critics and readers". However, I think there is a decent contrast between "responding positively" and "appreciating".

E states, "Most early reviewers of TE did not respond positively to the book".

The passage states, "Most critics' and readers' expectations of Black literature rendered them unable to appreciate..."

Although "most critics and readers were unable to appreciate the book", this does not explicitly affirm that they did not respond positively to the book. You can NOT appreciate something and still respond positively to it.

Although the reviewers "were unable to appreciate Hurston's subtle delineation of the life of an ordinary Black woman in a Black community", this is just one specific aspect of the book. Perhaps the reviewers were able to appreciate the constant dialogue or some other facet of the book.

Negation doesn't just mean the opposite.

A common mistake is:

If the porridge is not hot, then it is cold.

H→C

This is wrong, because it could be tepid.

If the reviewers are unable to appreciate Hurston's subtle delineation of the life...(AHSD) then they responded positively to the book (RP).

AHSD→RP

It's merely negating the sufficient, which does not affect the necessary. I hope this makes sense.

If I'm following correctly, you're assuming that:

/(PFJ→PB)

PFJ←s→PB

I would say this is definitely a possibility. JY has a good negation video that I'll link below discussing that negation in logic doesn't necessarily mean linear. By negating PFJ→PB, more than one contradiction can be implied.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/the-negation/

"Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage"

A) The lives of Puerto Rican Americans are affected in various way by code-switching.

Sure, but this is not the main point of the passage. This is similar to LR, where we're looking for a main point/conclusion. We want to find something that reflects (almost verbatim) the main point.

That's what answer choice E does. This reflects the main point of the passage in the last sentence of paragraph one. It's always helpful to try and understand the structure of the passage as you're reading it so that the answer choices become more intuitive.

I hope this helps.