Thanks for this @. I appreciate the tips and the input. Past Saturday, and the immediate distress following the test, I was more clearheaded and could see beyond the one experience. I am grateful for the input here. My take away from the incident is that I need to work on my focus so as to make it a bit more shatter-proof. Definitely, your strategies sound like just the ticket and I will put them into practice. Thanks also for the offer to look at the addendum. I think I've made my peace with Saturday's incident, but should I decide to write one at any point, I'll take you up on the offer. Thanks again!

Thank you for putting such an A-mazing trove of invaluable information in writing and sharing it here. Really underscores what a solid community 7Sage is for you to give back like this. Don’t be too hard on your 1L grades. Like you observed about the LSAT score not being a predictor of how1L would go, these grades too are only a beginning part of your learning and gaining insights into how you learn. Your answers are so precise and instructive as to what worked or how you might do this or that differently. And in terms of the things you had to do differently you communicate well the need for applying your mind differently which is so fascinating and makes so much sense. The fact that you are able to convey it indicates how your way of learning and thinking itself is changing. That is so huge and a pretty profound pedagogical event. Carry on and shine. And thanks again for taking the time to share all this.

BTW, last night I came across this crazy incident account on Reddit, and a few others, which really put things in perspective... @ @ 's 'be staunch' advice is more key than one knows before going through this mill!

https://www.reddit.com/r/LSAT/comments/9e99km/proctor_started_talking_to_me_during_test/

@ Thanks for commenting. And yeah... for sure. The guy was totally as quiet as he could be and I feel awful for him. If what I said made it seem like I felt it was some fault of his, that's not what I meant. It's just that I did have the experience of my concentration breaking and not being to get it back. The comments here have been invaluable because they have forced me to consider that that is a problem with my concentration, my preparedness, whatever. So, point taken. I'm so happy for 7Sage. Such an amazing learning community! Thanks everyone.

@ : Wow! I had no idea. That privatization one was gnarly. What did you think of the earlier RC section?

@ Thanks for the advice. I appreciate it. And @ : Yeah, same RC. I didn't realize it was experimental, yep, privatization. So, does that mean they don't count it 'at all?' That is so weird. Thanks for the input. It really helped me get some perspective.

@oshun1 Thanks for your perspective. I guess, to me, it did feel like it had an impact. Also, no one I know has ever left an LSAT to go to the bathroom. I do realize it's an option.

Reducing the trade deficit is not the same thing as improving the economy IF the measures being considered could possibly have other effects. This is not something I understood when I first approached this Q. The way (D) is worded "fails to consider one effect of a regulation may be offset by another" is also very coy. You have to then come to a second inference, namely that a +ve effect of the regulations could be offset by a -ve effect. These considerations never crossed my small mind when looking at this Q's AC's first time round. Ouch.

Love the mammoth drawing!

I don't know for sure, but this article seems to imply that an actual recommendation matters: https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/law-admissions-lowdown/articles/2016-07-20/anatomy-of-a-law-school-recommendation-letter

Well, I've been reading all the entries in this thread, thinking, nope! I'm not posting. But now, reading some of the entries, I feel heartened even though, clocking in at... 55, I still take the cake in the age department! I concur with the comments above about perhaps not being remotely capable of envisaging a career in law when I was younger. My trajectory has been in film and literature for decades. I've done well and in some way needed that life. Until now. For the last fifteen or so years, I have also worked as a court interpreter. Over the last year, taking stock of the future, I felt compelled to do apply to law school. Unlike others, I am single and have no children, no attachments. The notion of living another two decades say, and not being engaged with the needs of others really bothered me. I'm healthy and if I say so myself, reasonably bright. Working in the courts for so long has given me some understanding of how the justice system is working currently, and I guess my hope is to work for reform and/or to assist those that don't have the means to hire their own attorneys. All that said, the path ahead is often dauntingly long. The LSAT is such the first step. I'm taking it one piece at a time, but also seeing the end goal gives me courage and motivation and focus. Hoping to apply in 2018 and start in 2019. Fingers crossed. Good luck to all of us!

I agree with @ esp. about sticking to one LSAT course and its methodology. The question of whether or not you need new LOR and essays came up in the 7Sage podcast #9 where David Busis was talking to Selene Steelman the Admissions Director at Cardozo. You might want to listen to that.

Congratulations! Thank you for the tips, as ever. Especially for writing about being temperamentally inclined to juggle too many things. I really identify and have found it so hard to make the LSAT studying routine consistent. Best of luck to you in law school.

I was worried about the same thing a couple of weeks ago, @ because I'd applied before the law school deadline, but was taking the January test. I'd not expected that LSAC would hold on to things like my essays, LOR's, etc. while they waited for the LSAT score. When I contacted LSAC they said this was done per the schools' request that everything should be sent at the same time. The school does receive the application form itself, but then the package goes out after the LSAT score comes in. I just checked and the LSAC status, as of today, says "in progress." I think this is fairly standard procedure and likely will be updated as complete in the next day. Although I did contact the schools, they essentially said that they were aware, and would receive the report when all the elements (i.e. including the LSAT score) were ready.

In my view making a case for assault is not the way to go. But it may be valuable to submit a clear record of the event from your point of view to the LSAT administration. Stating clearly that while you understand you violated a rule, you could let them know you felt it was important to let the administration be aware that the action by the particular administrator was inappropriate. As @ says, it's possible this person has in the past made unwelcome contact of this kind, or may in the future. Your reporting it would provide a record.

Thanks very much for the quick reply, Selene. I appreciate it. And I found your use of the word 'offer' heartening in my gloom tonight. The 7sage transfer-101 link was great. It addressed a lot of my questions and concerns. I also looked on the ABA site and learned the school admitted very few transfers this past year. However, three of those few were from a school I believe I'll be admitted to. The thing I find somewhat confounding, in view of the early transfer application option, is how on earth professors at the first school may be convinced/persuaded, after knowing you such a short time, to write a glowing recommendation (or a glowing enough one) for your application to the new school? I guess maybe it comes down to just cold hard facts. It seems like a pretty high level of preparation pre-1L is advisable and will be rewarded. Perhaps even starting to think about the pieces of the transfer application asap. Thanks again for your comment and the links.

I got super hung up on the fact that the question never states that the base amount mined was a constant in the two years. If that were stated, the answer seems easy to pick. Are we just suppose to add in that assumption? I have a hard time seeing how that inference is to be made based on the info given.

#help I can see the parallel argument form in AC(A). in the way "nothing else could have made the conductor grimace the way she did," exactly echoes the structure of "caused the bulge that the wall now has." What I don't understand, notwithstanding JY's explanation, is how to turn AC (A) into the simple valid argument form we derive from the stimulus. I was able to get that. But for some reason, the wording in AC (A) is stumping me. I get that we are starting with the conclusion, but I'm stuck on the "nothing else could have made the conductor grimace the way that she did." I can't parse the sufficient and necessary pieces of that sentence. JY just slots them into the joist translation, but I can't decipher them independently. Just a brain freeze. I 'think' it has to do with 'nothing else,' the so-called referential phrase, needing to point back to the conclusion, i.e. it contains the second piece of the argument. Right? But I still am having a hard time making the leap from the words 'nothing else,' to the second piece of the argument. OMG. If anyone can try to explain it any differently, I'd so appreciate it. Thank you!

I totally did not understand the first part of this passage about the magnetic field reversals. Thinking it through, I realize I did not spend enough time to read it properly. As a result, the rest of the Question Set was all downhill. But, because I'm a freak probably, I want to say, I never would have thought studying for the LSAT would involve learning about geology. It's fascinating info and, for my money, beats the in, out, sequence this, sufficient that stuff for entertainment value. Which is not to say I'll AT ALL manage on the next gnarly science reading comp, but this was super fun learning! Thank you for the Economist tip, JY, and also for the science-y videos (I watched another one earlier about evolution and biodiversity). If a science passage ends up coming up on the RC that I already watched a video about, I will be so stoked!

; )

Am I in right in thinking the whole 'calories from alcohol' thing is almost like a red herring? It seems like the relevant info (now that I've seen JY's diagram and listened to his explanation), relevant that is for choosing the correct answer, is just what allows you to see that after you add up the calories for both groups (and it could be calories from any source) two different calorie totals result in the same weight gain. Once you see that it's easy to see that the right answer has to be D. It seems really, 'from alcohol' could be changed to 'from chocolate cake' or 'from standing on their head,' and the answer would be the same. But this info about the calories being from alcohol distracts and can get in the way of summing up the actual relevant facts. At least it did me. Argh.

Every time JY chooses to use the female possessive pronoun, I want to get up and applaud! Makes me so happy that he does this. ♥︎