removed by mods; please review rules.

Don't you dare

This one is all about the F/N allocation. It also kind of hinges on J-G-R and what clues you get from the questions. When I went back and did it just now, I arrived at most of my answers by taking the tiny piece of info the question gave me, filling in the board with it, then deducing based on the JGR rule. If you can pin something down as definitely being in spot 3, you can contrapose the only-if rule. If Q isn't in 3, Q must be before S. S being before Y didn't really help a whole lot, but it was enough to push out a few slight modifications to my board.

If you want a similar game, find the one about Terns in Gladwyn Hall. (I really can't remember much else about that one) it was a bit easier game, but was essentially the same in terms of the inferences that needed to be made. The distribution is key on these. Also, the one about Professors and Interns in offices 1 thru 7. The professors can't be next to each other so it forces a P/I/P/I type distribution. I really wish I could pinpoint the test numbers on these games, but alas, they are now distant memories :-D

And be honest about how many times you had to read the Mate question

Can't wait for the LG YouTube vids!

Yeah, from what I understand, that restriction is for full time students. UH and UT anyway (admittedly a small sample, but those are the only schools I'm looking at) restrict full timers to 20 hrs per week. UT doesn't have part time, but UH does, and it imposes no restrictions on part timers. It's only 3 classes per semester for part-time.. which is a pretty light courseload IMO.

RE: Scholarships, ehhhh probably not as much. On UH's ABA disclosure, it shows part time students got a whopping 0 in funding. The tuition itself is lower though, at approximately 20k whereas full-time tuition is 29k. I do not believe that this includes private scholarship amounts, which could be used to offset tuition. But the way I see it, as long as I can work 40 hrs a week and make a regular income, I should be able to cushion the blow a lot more than if I had gone full-time.

What's your opinion on adding a diversity statement for LGBT candidates? Also, how would that go over in a "red state" like Texas where LGBT rights are actively opposed in government? Would it be wise to concentrate on this topic or just not mention it and focus on other aspect of myself?

On the test, I glazed thru the game, the rules, and then I even took a peek at the questions, before going in and transcribing the rules visually and making it happen. Take for example the television show lineup game on PT 65 game 4 where they give you the rules about the hour and half hour, then in the questions ask you the order. I think it helps to get an overall picture of what you're about to do, figure out how this game is most familiar to previous setups, then read the rules and transcribe, then go back and verify. What if you put O before P and it was supposed to be P before O? You'd be totally screwed.

I just don't find full-time to be viable.. I'm 30 with a job/mortgage and Mommy doesn't pay my way, either. I just don't see being around 30k in the red (the cost of law school per year roughly) and another 30-40k in the red due to the income I make now turning into zero. Yeah, I could work part-time I suppose but.. that won't be a lot better. Also, I depend on my job for health insurance. If you factor that in, it'd be like another 200 per month. Adding it all up, it just doesn't make any sense. Part time will let me make my income, and yeah, I will probably go into a little debt to go to law school, but I will be able to offset it a lot easier than the hit full-time would impose on me.

So for me, it's a process of elimination question ;-)

This is a good one. I can't reveal the specific content, but I'll say that there was a similar question on the June test. It's sort of like a hybrid principle/parallel/whatever question. It goes to show that the heart of Logical Reasoning is the argument structure and being able to comprehend somewhat dense information as well as process it somehow. Hehe guess we'll be doing a lot of that as lawyers

I went back over this one, and I think the best strategy here is POE. It's easier to find the wrong ones than to pre-phrase the right one. Also, we are required to accept all the facts presented by the stimulus yet at the same time make a case for considering reporting this wanted fugitive unethical.

A) This is the opposite. This basically states that it is unethical to CONCEAL the fugitive's identity. Bad.

B) Anyone except personnel in the office? But the stim already said they could report gunshot wounds. This isn't compatible. Bad.

C) Okkkk.. I'm liking this. It makes the needed exception for gunshot wounds, and also offers a reason why the action may be considered unethical that is not forbidden by the confines of the stim. I'd hold onto it.

D) Hmm. The stim doesn't suggest that physicians would need patient consent to report the gunshot wounds. This isn't compatible, either. Bad.

E) Similar to to B.. if this were the case, then the gunshot wound reporting would be out of line. Bad.

So.. C is the best out of the bunch, and as it turns out, it is correct. Notice that the stim says physicians are required to report gunshot wounds to specifically police, and infectious diseases to specifically health authorities. The "poster" of the request for information was police, so the fact that C doesn't mention infectious disease reporting to health authorities doesn't necessarily trigger a contradiction.

Great question

You might be somewhat accurate.. for example.. UT's "early admission" reward is like 10,000 per year. To be eligible for that for this cycle, you'd need to have an October score. Taking it in December would miss the cutoff date. (Not saying you're applying to UT, but just an example)

I think it could factor in, actually. But if you end up bombing and scoring below your target, you'll have to wait until December anyway. Maybe taking the test in October then planning to either cancel or retake is a good strategy. Sitting for the test was an interesting experience that I'm not sure I could have simulated any other way.

Yeah I was curious about something. I'm not a K-JD type student. I didn't even go to college right out of High School. I finished my AS, then a few years later my BS, and now I'm finishing my MA. I am 30. I have spent all my adult years in the workforce in various jobs.

My question is should my essay focus on my academic experiences and use very creative storytelling-like prose like I see in many examples, or should I focus more on my professional development, and write in a businesslike manner? Any insight would be appreciated. If it matters, I am not applying to a T14 school, just a middle-of-the-road law school (UH.)

Thank you

I actually also have the manhattan grouped by problem type.. unmarked for the most part

http://www.amazon.com/Actual-Official-Out---Print-PrepTests/dp/1456387049/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1435946315&sr=8-1&keywords=out+of+print+lsat

http://www.amazon.com/Actual-Official-Recent-LSAT-PrepTests/dp/1453820698/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1435946331&sr=8-5&keywords=cambridge+lsat

and you can also get 41-50 grouped by problem type

http://www.amazon.com/Real-LSATs-Grouped-Question-Manhattan/dp/B00ZVPN3BC/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1435946357&sr=8-6&keywords=manhattan+real+lsat

If you are interested in that first book, the Out of Print LSATs, let me know, because I have an unmarked copy that I was using to prep that I won't be needing anymore. Maybe we could work out a bargain

Welp.. if previous tests are truly useless, then you should get 180 on each and every one, correct? Chances are that's not going to happen.. I went back thru a lot of old materials that I once used and still got several questions wrong. Taking a previously-used PT will most likely go a lot quicker than if it was your first run, though, so maybe a built-in handicap of a couple minutes on the timer would be one way to make it harder. The ones you get wrong after going back to the same test will really help expose those weaknesses, because this is already your second time looking at it.

I love the games. It's the closest thing to "fun" you're gonna get on the LSAT. I really wish I got both AR sections on test day but noooo I had to trudge thru 3 LR sections.

I enjoyed approaching it by game type. I started with the freebies like the simple sequencing and built up to stacking/grouping/mapping/hybrid/matching games. Powerscore advocates this approach and you can also do it here or in several books that are available that organize sections by question type. There is a list somewhere around here of games by type.. Seeing them grouped in this manner I believe helps crystallize the similarities and begin paving the neural highways of memory.

You're doing the right thing by starting early, sir or madam. Since you said you're undergrad, you have to be at least in the last semester of it, if not farther away. That's definitely the right time to start.. not the summer before law school! About what the last guy said.. I personally think the Powerscore LG bible is a good one, I used that.. got -2 on the games in June. The Powerscore LR bible is like ehhh.. and the Powerscore RC bible is just a waste of time.

7Sage is great because this is all in video and audio format. Sometimes ya just can't be holding open a huge phonebook-sized thing. Although I do think the pencil+paper+book method is the best and eventually what everyone has to get good at, 7Sage allows you to play the lessons wherever.. maybe at the gym.. on the road.. at school.. just load it up on your phone and strap on some headphones. There is proven benefit in listening to audiobooks while you are not actively engaged as a way to let your mind absorb information on the topic in an unfocused manner. Kind of like observing a star from an indirect angle, it looks brightest.

I'll go ahead and be the devil on your shoulder here.

I think a 169 is an absolutely incredible score that I would just accept and move on. I mean.. if you're a splitter, you will inevitably receive a lower aid package at these top flight schools than students with a similar LSAT and much higher GPA. It may be advantageous to go to a slightly better school than your regional, but how much more advantageous? Perhaps there are other factors, like proximity, family, work, dual degrees, the amount of aid a regional school would give you, where you want to practice law, etc. I see a trend of people obsessing WAY too much over like 2 or 3 points on this test.. and I just am not convinced that it's necessary.

I got a 165, which is more than enough to get into my regional target school, and I'm happy. I'm not saying you should necessarily be the same way, but just be open to accepting something slightly different than the most optimal (or what you perceive as optimal) situation. In the long run, it might be a wiser decision. And if you absolutely are determined to get those 2 or 3 extra points, welp, then hit the books bro.

^ what that guy said.

My diagnostic? IDK.. I didn't really approach this in a formulaic manner. I just bought the PTs and dove in. I never even took a class. I couldn't, with my work and school schedule. Self prep does work.. at the end of the day, the LSAT is a pencil and paper test that you will take by yourself. You will be there at that desk alone with only your abilities. If a course helps you stay on track, or motivates you, or something like that, then perhaps that's what you need. At the end of the day, all any course will do is lead you to discovering your own ability to defeat the test. You can get to that destination other ways.

Yeah I think a lot of people dive into this like "oh man I'm gonna get that 180 I'm gonna get in everywhere and get all these scholarships and I'm the best and I can do it. That's a great attitude, but it might not be realistic to materialize. This is a very hard test, it's not designed for everyone to just waltz in and nail it. I was avging 170s on my last PTs.. I knew I would probably dip a little below that, but I went in and tried to get as high as I could.. came out with a 165, which was extremely predictable. (I thought I did way worse)

My decision now is whether I should try again and attempt to go to UT (whose median is around 167) which would require another 2-3 months of prep, stress, time, effort, etc. and where I'd probably not get a lot of scholarship money because I'd be on the lower end of the GPA / LSAT scale, AND where I'd be required to attend law school full time without any income or health insurance.

OR

Be happy with my 165, apply at UHouston, probably get an average award pkg, and go part time where I can also make a regular working salary of like 40-50k, and not be knee deep in dept by the time I get out.

Of course UT is like the "harvard of the south" but when I really consider all factors, is it really wise to put all my eggs in that basket? Bar passage rate from Houston is very high. The price is reasonable. The area is nice. It all just kind of "makes sense" whereas striving for this ideal of some affluent school really doesn't.

So that's great for all the 180 HYS people, but I think my 165 is exactly where I need to be, exactly what I wanted out of my prep, and perfectly acceptable for my target school (UH 75th percentile is like 163) and so.. I may hang up my pencil sharpeners and just call this one a day! It's been a wonderful experience, and I'm very satisfied with the discipline I was able to conjure up and the skills I learned while doing it like critical reading and logical reasoning.

First of all, the arguments in PT7 and other earlier PTs are weird. I like them, but they are not as relevant as later tests to the current questions asked on the LSAT. They can certainly assist with analyzing arguments, but just be aware that some of the types of questions and patterns of questions they ask are obsolete.

The question asks which one of these answers would add a fact that makes the advertisement of the product containing "44 percent fiber" misleading. Well, my first thought is, "44 percent of what?" E addresses this concern by pointing out that the pill contains way less than 44 percent of the daily recommended dose of fiber, which could be misleading to consumers who read "44 percent" on the label.

A is like a stock wrong answer choice, "other products such and such" (this answer may be right on a few questions, but rarely)

B doesn't really cause me to feel misled about the statement, it's just some superfluous fact

C is just completely out of left field

D this seems like it could be somehow related, but when I add this to the statement I don't see any misinformation occurring, or at least at face value.

E ah ok. If the RDA of fiber is like 90x more than what is contained in this product, the statement that this product contains 44% of fiber could mislead me into thinking that means 44% of the daily allowance.

This question is really odd.. and there's not really a way to pre-phrase I don't think. I got this one mostly by POE, just be eliminating answers that don't make any sense.

EDIT: OOPS i answered for question 4! HAHA if you need that explanation check here! ^

Yeah well you bring up an interesting question.. whether or not the "immersion" in the study of this test is worth it, healthy, viable, advisable, etc. I'd argue that it is.. only if you don't have a great deal of time. Ideally, though, you'd spend like a year or two getting ready for this test. For whatever reason, a lot of people don't actually do that, but I think if that suggestion were made to pre-law students, we'd see a lot more sane LSAT prep. I did what you did LOL I hit the books for like 2 months, and did barely anything else. I'm actually astonished that my grades didn't suffer in my MA program. But I think this test does require some degree of sacrifice. If it were easy, everybody could just waltz in and get a great score and go to Harvard. It's not designed for that though. If you have to cram, you will probably make sacrifices. A longer, drawn-out, stable strategy of prep would probably eliminate that problem.

As another working adult, this thought has plagued me since yesterday when I saw my 165.. It's enough to get into a realistic school that has a PT program (which I pretty much need to do so I can work) and with PT programs at my school, there is no amount of aid that you will receive, so a higher LSAT score may not necessarily help. It may help with private scholarships and the like, however. So.. everyone wants to go gung-ho and get that 180 and get into some amazing school but.. I'm not so sure that's a wise decision for me. I mean.. studying for the LSAT is like a huge chunk of your life. It might be more sensible in the long run to take admission to your target schools, and spend the next few months doing something else you're interested in.. read a book, take a class, learn a skill.. whatever! Life is short and studying for the LSAT is not the be-all-end-all

@ congrats on the score, that's really amazing. I re-did the games tonight and I still think that they are definitely hard as hell. No shame there. You must have whupped the other sections to come out with what you did. I think I did as well as I did on that section by sheer luck. For instance, I got the substitution equivalence question right. Hands-down 100% guess. I did not even try to do that one on test day.

The rest was POE basically.. I knew I could knock out like 3 answer choices on most of them, then put down an answer as a wild guess, and also some shotgun bubbling.