Discussions

elizabethsong95459

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

LSAT · ⭐️ Official June 2018 LSAT Discussion Thread ⭐️

elizabethsong95459

Sunday, Jun 24 2018

Hi!

For those of you who took the LSAT today in Asia, I'm trying to figure out which one of the two reading sections I got is the dummy.

-one section had the following three passages (not in any particular order): the use of voice identification as evidence, dual passage: Whig historical approach (comparing past and present), convection & plate movement

-the only passage I remember from the other reading section is the super difficult dual passage about microfinancing/credit.

Which one of the reading sections is the dummy?

Thanks!

Admissions · Experience with 7sage's Comprehensive Admissions Consulting

elizabethsong95459

Wednesday, Feb 20 2019

The consultants show great willingness to help and really put in the effort to answer all your questions/comments as quickly as possible. They will always be there for you! As the first in my family to go to law school, I was so unsure about everything from which schools I should apply to to writing continuing letters of interest to negotiating scholarships. My consultants looked at my numbers and were able to find the perfect strategy (ie. which schools I should set as my "target," "safety," and "reach") for me. They know the ins and outs of law school admissions, which was perfect for someone like me who knew almost nothing. They are really honest about this too---they don't try to sugarcoat anything but rather give you a realistic picture of what you can and probably cannot achieve. I got into my dream school, and I think a large part of it was because of this strategy. I'm about to enter the scholarship negotiation phase, and I'm sure that they'll be very helpful in this area as well!

General · LR Workshop with Sage Josh | Abstract Concepts | Wednesday, November 8, 7:30pm EST

elizabethsong95459

Monday, Nov 13 2017

@ Are you going somewhere?

General · LR Workshop with Sage Josh | Abstract Concepts | Wednesday, November 8, 7:30pm EST

elizabethsong95459

Friday, Nov 10 2017

Will the next session be on a Monday or Wednesday?

LSAT · "Accurate and Complete List" Type Questions

elizabethsong95459

Thursday, Sep 07 2017

Same question for Q20 G4 PT 74: "Which one of the following is a complete and accurate list of all of the photographers who must be assigned?" Because the question stem doesn't have the words "any one of whom," I thought it would suffice to just check one of the scenarios, but JY's video makes it seem like we need to check all possible worlds. I'm so confused!! :(

LSAT · "Accurate and Complete List" Type Questions

elizabethsong95459

Thursday, Sep 07 2017

Thank you for the replies! I had initially thought that it would suffice to just check one of the possible worlds, but I reviewed this game again, and I think my initial intuition was wrong. For example, in solving Question 22 of PT 69 G4 ("Which CANNOT be the complete assignment of paralegals to T"?), if I were to have only checked one of the worlds, then answer choice A for example should also be correct (but the correct answer is actually D). If I had checked just one of the possible worlds, I would have mistakenly concluded that G can't be the complete assignment of paralegals to the T case by looking at, for example, one of the scenarios where F is the only paralegal in the T case. And I would've chosen A and gotten this question wrong. It was only by checking ALL of the possible scenarios that I was able to conclude that G and L (answer choice D, which is the correct answer) can't happen in ANY of the scenarios.

Does this make sense :S

LSAT

•

Friday, Dec 01 2017

elizabethsong95459

Causal Chain

I was reviewing Q19 from Section 1 of PT 27 answer choice A, which got me wondering about causal chains.

According to the stimulus, pollen can cause the release of histamines, and histamine cannot cause cold symptoms.

Answer A says: "Pollen and other allergens do not cause colds" and it is an incorrect answer.

Can we not link this up into a causal chain like "pollen --> histamine --> ~cold symptoms" and conclude (through the transitive property) that pollen cannot cause cold symptoms?

I know for conditional reasoning, if you have a chain like "a-->b-->~c" you can conclude "a-->~c", but is this not the case for causal reasoning?

In a similar vein, if you have a causal chain like "a causes b. b causes c", you CAN conclude that "a causes c," right?...

Thank you!