User Avatar
football17297
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free
User Avatar
football17297
Thursday, Aug 29 2019

If I'm understanding your question correctly, this is standard practice. Many people apply to law school during their senior year of college. You won't need any sort of conditional acceptance.

User Avatar
football17297
Thursday, Apr 25 2019

@ First, thanks for your comment! I've seen a lot of you on the forums in my short time here, so I almost feel a little star struck haha.

As far as PT scores go, I've only taken one other one (PT 73) since I started reviewing, because the LSAT Trainer curriculum has only prompted me to do that one (and 72 as well, but circumstances prevented me from having the time to do it that week). I believe I've got something like 5-6 actual lesson chapters left in the Trainer, but they seem to be getting more niche than the earlier ones, leading me to believe I've been exposed to most of the base knowledge. I'm just getting into the phase of studying where I'm doing almost exclusively sets and not conceptual work (although I'm not sure I like that the Trainer recommends sets by question type).

The last four-ish weeks of study, I'll have no other obligations, so my plan has been to take 4-5 tests each week, as well as drill question types that have given me trouble.

User Avatar
football17297
Thursday, Apr 25 2019

@ Thanks for the in-depth personal anecdote! That timeline is really interesting and helpful. Congrats on the 171!

User Avatar
football17297
Friday, May 24 2019

@ That's honestly such a good idea.

User Avatar
football17297
Tuesday, Apr 23 2019

Could you explain your thought process a bit more? Which answer did you choose?

Since this is a supporting principle question, all of the answer choices will likely contain axiomatic language. In other words, we are looking for something definitive ("is") that would help strengthen the author's claim. Further, I think you might have misrecognized the role that "quite probably" is playing in the stem: it's simply support for the actual conclusion, which is that this advance shouldn't be counted as evidence. Why shouldn't it be? Because Einstein knew about it and "quite probably" adjusted the numbers.

The stimulus isn't asking you to find a principle that accounts for probability, i.e. "If it's probable that he adjusted, then it shouldn't be counted," because that doesn't make the argument airtight. It just takes something arbitrary (the probability of him having adjusted) and uses it to justify the claim. Instead, the stimulus is asking for something that will shore up this uncertainty; we need an answer that guarantees that if he adjusted the numbers, then the advance of the perihelion of Mercury (whatever the hell that is haha) should not, under any circumstances, be counted as evidence.

D does this. It doesn't care about the probability of him having adjusted, it only cares that IF he did it, then it shouldn't be counted as evidence. This makes the argument pretty solid, because we have reasonable cause to believe Einstein adjusted the numbers, and given our principle, if that's true, the advance should not be counted as evidence in favor of the theory. Hope that helped!

User Avatar
football17297
Tuesday, Apr 23 2019

@ Awesome, I really appreciate your advice. Best of luck!

User Avatar
football17297
Tuesday, Apr 23 2019

@ Thanks for your response!

I've still got a couple of chapters left in LSAT Trainer, but for the most part I feel I've got a grasp of LSAT basics and modes of thought. No one section stands out as problematic, although RC has shown the least "improvement" - I go anywhere from -2 to -4 usually and can't seem to figure out a way to systematically avoid this. In LR, I think my path forward is developing question specific strategies and figuring out my timing. LG is similar, right now I'm just trying to get experience with as diverse an array of scenarios as possible and figure out the subtle nuances that seem to crop up over and over again. I'm never really at a loss for how to approach a game, it's just a matter of how exhaustive I can make the diagram.

So you're thinking as many timed PTs with blind review and fool-proofing as possible?

Hey guys, I'm very new to 7Sage, but have found the discussion and resources to be a invaluable supplement to my LSAT studies. I apologize if something like this has been asked before, but I couldn't find it in a search, so please forgive me if I'm being redundant.

To be short, I'm graduating college in May and looking to take a gap year before attending law school, meaning my goal is to be part of the next (Fall 2019) admissions cycle. I'm planning on taking the June LSAT, since it's the last disclosed test on the schedule. I began studying at the beginning of March using the LSAT Trainer (I was totally clueless and had read that 12-weeks was a solid amount of time), and had been feeling fairly confident about my progression/habits until I stumbled upon a 7Sage podcast. You guys do some incredibly airtight review and in-depth studying, and I've begun incorporating a lot of these habits into my process (blind review, fool-proofing, etc).

What I've noticed, though, is that the time horizons for 7Sagers are generally longer than what I am looking at (3-months for June LSAT, potentially up to 6-months if I retake in September). I also sort of shocked myself and got a 167 diagnostic. I didn't want to put too much weight into that score in case it was a fluke, but I do seem to be testing at around a 166 - 171 level right now. Given my limited time and the fact that I feel fairly confident with my progression, is it wise for me to go the whole 9 yards and ensure that I'm fool-proofing everything ten times and blind-reviewing for hours on end, or should I only do these things for the question types I've identified as problematic? I don't want to half-ass this process, but I also spent 5 or 6 hours yesterday fool-proofing ten or so questions and worry that perhaps I could have cut that in half and used my energy on another problem area.

I understand this is a unique situation, and I anticipate a lot of the responses to be something along the lines of "extend your time frame," but please treat this like a logic game ... given THESE conditions, what do you guys suggest?

(That being said, I'm certainly not opposed to treating June like a trial and taking again in September, but I'll have more limited time once I start working in mid-June).

Thanks so much!

User Avatar
football17297
Saturday, Jun 01 2019

Congrats, that's incredible! Any insights into what went well on this PT and what got you there? Taking the real deal on Monday haha @ kommst du aus Deutschland oder? es ist möglich, dass ich die Prüfung einmal in München machen muss.

Confirm action

Are you sure?