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 @jonahgriego643 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 agree with @cgryniewski818 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, @dornakhazeni411 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.

Thanks for this @xlvovska162. 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... @1iqbaldeol212 @dornakhazeni411 '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/

@ezheng811 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.

@wwijaya1190566 : Wow! I had no idea. That privatization one was gnarly. What did you think of the earlier RC section?

@1iqbaldeol212 Thanks for the advice. I appreciate it. And @wwijaya1190566 : 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.

@ezheng811oshun1 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

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!

; )

I'm going to take a stab. Please disregard if it's too garbled an explanation.

I am going to try to explain in English how it was I arrived at the right answer. I did not diagram or use Lawgic directly. I think there's a lot of verbiage that can tangle up the reader. The key thing was to disregard utterly everything that was unnecessary, thereby avoiding being misled.

The contention is in the first sentence: there is a difference between beauty and truth.

i.e. Beauty is not the same as truth, truth is not the same as beauty.

Then the writer is positing a theoretical opposite to his own statement, but if you're watching the language, it's here, and it's pretty easy to notice the leap the writer makes, the assumption.

We've been dealing with "beauty" and with "truth."

When the word "best" is introduced, you are suddenly in a realm for which there's been no valid premise stated. This is where your assumption is hidden.

The writer has made a leap, kind of super casually, that the most realistic (i.e. the most truthful, let's give him that) are ... the best. Says who? The only terms the writer's provided so far are truth and beauty. "best" is taking us to a qualitative sphere that we have zero information about. So... necessarily this is where the assumption lies. And by the structure of the sentence, the assumption 'has' to be that, "the most beautiful works of art would be the best." The reason is that we are playing along with the writer and in doing so, to state the opposite of his original statement, we could really only say that if truth and beauty were the same thing, the most truthful (i.e. realistic) works of art would be the most beautiful. But the writer doesn't say the most beautiful, instead the writer says "the best."

If you slotted the assumption into the middle of his second sentence, then it would read, "After all, if there were no difference AND IF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WORKS OF ART WERE THE BEST WORKS OF ART, then the most realistic pieces would be the best as well."

The rest of the question is just superfluous stuff to distract the reader.

With regard to answer choice D I would say that the terms it presents, "only the best artworks are beautiful," represents a subset relationship, or an intersection relationship, whereas AC (A) represents an exact equivalence where all the items in the jar "most beautiful" are also "the best." Whereas when you say, "only the best artworks are beautiful," it seems to me you have the vast category of things that are beautiful and a little circle that represents "the best artworks" inside that giant category.

No idea if you'll find this helpful.

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. ♥︎

Hi. I'm using your question to practice whether or not I have a handle on the negations meself.

My thinking is as follows:

If you take the notion that to negate a conditional statement, you are basically sticking "It is not the case that," in front of it, then the statement you are looking to write in Lawgic would end up being "It is not the case that 'any pricing practice that results in unreasonable prices should be acceptable.'"

Let's call the clause 'any pricing practice that results in unreasonable prices,' X. In this scenario, the sentence would now read "It is not the case that X should be acceptable."

OR X some not acceptable, right? Since negation of a straight conditional is

X ←s→ /Y.

So, I think the negation of answer choice (E) would end up being: Pricing practice that results in unreasonable prices ←s→/should be acceptable, OR in English, 'Some pricing practices that result in unreasonable prices should not be acceptable.'

Thanks very much for the quick response. It does help. I think the notion that the terms of the argument had telescoped into "else," and that I had to draw them back out, that idea, got totally lost in the anxiety of ... well, you know the rest of the figuring. As soon as my mind absorbed that the intermediary step required a translation of 'else' into English, to derive 'other than a mistake," then it all made sense. i found the piece I was missing. Thanks again.

#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!

THANK YOU! I spent so much time reading and rereading this and listening to JY's explanation and then going on some other explanation thread and none of it was penetrating my brainfog till I read this incredibly clear explanation. Now I get it and it seems... so obvious! Argh!