I wouldn't worry too much about having a PhD student write your LOR (slight caveat that it may affect an application to an elite law school). My partner and I both have advanced degrees and wrote a number of LORs for undergraduate students who were admitted to law schools across Canada.

Advice I was given when I was an undergrad applying to grad school was: get an LOR from someone who really knows you and can speak with some specificity about your ability. I don't think there's reason to believe that wouldn't apply to law school. I think its better to have an LOR that reads like it was written by someone with knowledge of the applicant than a highly formulaic, potentially vague letter from a professor.

I am in almost precisely the same boat (FT job & looking at CDN law schools) and was also floored when I saw what the 7Sage study schedule generated for me.

Aside from the LSAT Trainer schedule, which I've been using as a rough guide while trying to work through both the content of the book & 7Sage, I chilled out a bit when I looked at the breakdown of the 7Sage schedule's later weeks. Obviously the BR method will require significant investment in the early stages of running through PTs, but theoretically (in practice, almost assuredly) it won't continue to take 12 hours / test up until your test date.

If you cut that from 12 down to 8/10 per test - and probably even less - the simple average the schedule generates (total hours of all the material over weeks you inputted) gets a lot more manageable.

Good luck!

Would love to join y'all. Consistently in the higher 160s, with usually 2-4 off in LR and 3 off in RC (getting killed in LG still but that's something - as you said - JY's explanations are fine for).

I remember this one messed with me the first time I saw it, too.

I think the tricky thing with this question is getting caught up in trying to full think through the ratio / proportion of O16 and O18 in the ocean, and in the rain.

The stim tells us 1) that vapor contains more O16 than O18, 2) normally this doesn't matter because precipitation restores this balance and 3) that during ice age a larger-than normal amount of precipitation doesn't return to the ocean.

The inference here is that point 2 & 3 taken together mean the balance of O16 and O18 in the ocean is going to be off.

ACs

A) this can't be right because the passage tells us different

C) We have no reason to expect this is the case -- why would snow / rain during the ice age contain more O16 than normal?

D) We don't know anything about land - maybe ice caps are considered land, maybe they're not, but we don't know

E) Again we know nothing about overall change in the composition of seawater, presumably there are other components aside from O16 and O18 (like hydrogen, I'd imagine) and maybe they impact composition more.

B This is the right answer, if only because the other answers aren't strongly supported by the text. However, it's really clearly the right answer because of what we're told at the end of the passage: that lots of ocean-evaporated precipitation doesn't fall back on the ocean, it gets caught in ice caps. What does that imply? That that balance isn't being restored. What does that imply? That we're left with more O18 in seawater because less of it evaporates, and the O16 that does evaporate gets stuck in ice.

This is my first crack at an extended explanation...hope this helps!

Would be interested, especially in working with some folks taking the June test. Have a few periods of days off booked before the test, so happy to invest some time in this.

Econ & Museum were pretty tough -- think I cracked the museum one, not so sure I nailed the econ... I guess we'll see!

Would be interested, please do let me know! If this thread slowly dies - anyone else on here interested in coordinating something feel free to message me & we can coordinate.

The author believes that objections are grounded in an appeal to tradition, but is instead suggesting (as the last sentence states), individuals who offer that objection are misinterpreting what the actual motivation behind the tradition is (or at least what a tradition-based policy prescription ought to be).

Both my thoughts and the stimulus are v awkwardly worded

Had the same worry -- if memory serves and based on the frantic re-reading I did after, ripping up the paper is not required for the writing sample but is required for the Flex.

Another suggestion that you may find helpful is to start incorporating some similar level reading into your daily routine - whether that's the Economist, https://www.statnews.com/, or something more law-oriented (here's a great Canadian repository of freely-available reports from legal research institutes: https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/reports/). Reading comprehension is probably the most broadly applicable section of the LSAT, and so can find an infinite amount of content that's going to be written at a similar level, hopefully on topics you find mildly interesting. I think by incorporating some of that into your daily routine and outside of the atmosphere of a timed RC section, you may start to see improvements in RC.

If you're both comfortable with what you're scoring and not taking the 15 minute break, I don't necessarily think you need to both doing a 3 section test. If you are taking the 15 minute break, then maybe a Flex format or two wouldn't hurt.

Fwiw, LG are definitely a weak spot for me vis-a-vis LR & RC, so I did notice a bit of a variation in my score when I started doing the Flexs, as LR's relative weighting dropped by 17%. For that reason, I did find doing the Flex format helpful if only because it helped me with relative prioritization of studying over the next ~2 weeks