Thanks for sharing! What did your daily study schedule look like if you don't mind me asking? I work full-time so I can only dedicate around 2-3 hours a day to studying, and I have to work on LR too. I'm hoping to take the test in June, but honestly I'm comfortable pushing to August if need be. Currently averaging -3 for RC, -6 for LR, and -3 or -4 for LG.
I'm feeling really hopeless when it comes to logic games. I'm still only able to really get -3 on new sections within the time constraints. I feel like I've been working on logic games for such a long time and I'm just curious how long it took others to prefect their score? Really need a high LSAT score to balance out my low GPA so it's not an option to be getting anything worse than -1/-0 on this section.
I scored 2 points above my average PT but the score I got I had originally scored on a single PT. Ultimately I scored 10 points above my diagnostic (which I took in 2018/19 - it's been a long journey! And it's still not over.) Really encourage taking breaks. Do something you love, relax, try not to think about the LSAT or law school for a few weeks. It's been a huge help and relief for me and it really has motivated me to get back into studying.
I'm not an expert but I believe mindset does play a huge role on test day. What do you do before you take a test? Are you getting lots of sleep the week of? Are you eating a good breakfast, relaxing, etc.? Or are you spending the morning of in full stress mode, counting down the minutes until testing time?
Also, taking a break from studying and prep was hugely helpful for me. June was my first ever take and I did nothing LSAT related for a full two weeks before the test. I ended up scoring my highest PT score and I'm glad I took the time to recoup and let my brain rest before going in.
I know you must feel completely demoralized and I'm so sorry! This test is so so difficult and stressful, but with your PT scores (especially if you're simulating test day during PT's) I think you can absolutely get closer to your PT range. Rooting for you come October!
January and February are a little late in the cycle to apply, especially if you're hoping for scholarship money. It's certainly doable but the best advice is to take the LSAT when you're ready and don't rush the process. Your chances of being admitted reduce every month that passes because law schools typically accept students on a rolling basis. Even though they say their deadline is March, I personally would not apply any later than Dec.
Hi everyone. I'm planning to apply this fall and would love some insight on letters of rec. I'm four years out of undergrad and have one letter already completed by one of my professors from freshman year. Thinking about the other two letters I need, here's where I stand:
I've worked for a small nonprofit since graduation and have a fantastic relationship with the Executive Director. I know she would write me a wonderful letter of rec and has worked with me for 6 years (two internships in the summer at the same nonprofit). This is a non-legal job.
The husband of my Executive Director is a trial attorney and partner at a firm in a mid-sized city, and has an excellent legal reputation. When he found out I was interested in law school and specifically public interest he asked me to interview for a part-time comms position at a pro bono legal clinic - of which he is the Board President. I have been working there for nearly two years very part time. I also have a great relationship with him and he would write me a wonderful letter of rec as well.
I'm not sure if I should use both of them for my letters of rec as I'm unsure how it would look to have a a husband and wife each writing me a letter. I've had a longer and more comprehensive working relationship with my Executive Director, but I don't want to leave out a letter of rec from the only recommender who is in the legal profession.
Any thoughts? Should I speak with an admissions consultant to further discuss this? Thanks in advance!
Is the 2.1 your LSAC GPA? If you haven't already sent all your transcripts from every institution you took a college class from to LSAC that would be your first step. Then you'll know exactly what GPA will be sent to schools with your applications. Your graduate GPA does not factor into your UGPA, but I've heard that school's do see it as a "soft" on your application. Ultimately, as you said in your post, UGPA and LSAT are the two "hard" numbers on your app and carry the most weight. I would write an addendum outlining the issues you faced in undergrad that contributed to your lower GPA, and highlighting your success in graduate school because of X, Y, Z, etc. Maybe have a few people or a consultant review it. Best of luck!
A is the conclusion because everything else in the stimulus is directly supporting it. If you're stuck between what you would consider two possible conclusions ask yourself which one supports the other. You might find an intermediate conclusion, but ultimately it is still supporting the main conclusion.
Thank you for your comment! It helped put things in perspective. I just finished a new practice test and scored a 168. While I'm disappointed in the drop, I'm hopeful to keep moving forward and honing my skills.
As someone who went through a similar experience, can I ask when you decided to take your official test? I am scheduled for August but worried I don't have enough time. Did you wait until you were comfortably scoring in your goal range (mine would be above 175) before taking it?
Last week I scored a 179 on a PT in the 70's. The score completely blindsided me as my previous highest score was a 170 and I'd been scoring in the high 160's for the past three PTs. I am of course very excited about this score but I am panicking about maintaining it. I haven't taken another preptest since but I've been drilling logical reasoning in the 80's (old practice tests I took over a year ago) this week and my LR score is dropping significantly. I typically score -2 to -0 but in these early 80's PT's I'm scoring -4 to -6. I am panicking about my next PT score dipping back into the 160's. I need a 170-high to offset my low GPA and even though I know I should feel confident about scoring a 179 on a practice test it's honestly made my anxiety worse.
Can anyone give some advice on how to handle score drops in the 80's? I am taking the August test and feel like time is running out to prepare effectively. Also, any advice you can give on managing stress? This is the most stressed I've ever felt in this process and I've been studying for a long, long time.
Definitely agree with @. I took the LSAT for the first time last week and I was not ready. I regret registering for the test before I was PT'ing in my goal range. Now I have no choice but to retake and perhaps delay a year in applying. Don't put that pressure on yourself. Is it possible for you to jump that many points in such a short period of time? Sure. Is it likely? I'd say no. You're embarking on a very laborious study journey. My diagnostic was a 151, and while I do not know what I scored on my test last week yet, I'm sure it was close to where I was PT'ing after 5-6 months of studying - high 150's or low 160's. I have a similar goal score to you, and what I've learned over these last few months (and 3 years of on and off studying) is that you cannot rush this test.
Hi there! I'm no expert, but I thought maybe I could help shine some clarity on this question for you as I just went through this LR section of PT4.
The first thing that has begun to really help me with LR questions is truly understanding what the stimulus is saying. So, in simplifying the wordy stimulus, here's what I came up with:
Premise 1: 100 non-cocaine users are tested for cocaine use. On average, 5 will test positive.
Premise 2: 100 cocaine users are tested for cocaine use. On average, 99 will test positive.
Conclusion: Therefore, if we randomly select a group of people, more of them will test positive for cocaine use, than those who test negative for cocaine use.
Before I even approach the questions my brain is already sending off red alerts. This argument already seems flawed to me. Why? Because we don't know how many of the people in the randomly selected group will be cocaine users vs. non-cocaine users. We need to know this in order to place any kind of judgement on what the results will be. The conclusion COULD be true if we knew for certain that, let's say, 98/100 of the random people selected are cocaine users. Then, sure, based on percentages we could determine that more people in the group would test positive for cocaine than not. But we don't know that. It could also be true that 98/100 of the random people selected are NOT cocaine users. Then, based on percentages, more of the people would NOT test positive for cocaine use.
With that in mind, going into the questions it's easier to pinpoint the correct answer (C). What if only 2% of the general population has ever used cocaine? It would be difficult to randomly select a group of people where the majority have used cocaine then.
I hope that makes sense. Like I said, I'm no expert on LR and I'm still learning too! I'm trying to approach every LR stimulus with a critical eye, looking where the author is leaving something out, or making unfounded conclusions. It's really helped me. If you want any more info on resources I'm using feel free to private message!
Lol I love that the new urbanists response to the opponents argument was just "yeah, well those values suck".
I took my first diagnostic LSAT in 2019 and got a 151. Last week I opened my LSAC account to see my final score from my third take: 171. To say I'm ecstatic is an understatement. It's been a long, long journey to get here. Through battling an anxiety disorder and, until recently, undiagnosed OCD. Through working multiple jobs at once and trying to study in my down time. Through navigating the normal ups and downs of life. It has been the hardest and most rewarding thing I've ever done. It took one year of procrastination, two years of on and off studying, and one year of dedicated, give-it-everything I've got studying to get here. And you can do it too! Don't worry about other people's timelines, their successes or failures. Focus on your goal and work tirelessly to get there. I believe in you just as much as I believed in myself!
Thank you 7sage for my first introduction to the LSAT, for walking me through conditional logic, diagramming, and question types. Oh, and for your stellar logic games curriculum. Saved my life. Thank you to LR Perfection to finally getting me consistently scoring -0 to -5 on LR sections. Thank you to Powerscore for their LR discussion forums and their podcast. Thank you to this community and the LSAT subreddit community for answering questions, alleviating fears, and encouraging me to keep going. And thank you to me, for sticking with it.
I work full time as well and knew by May that I wasn't ready to take the LSAT but was in the same boat as you. Already signed up for June. I went into June KNOWING I'd need to retake to get my goal score. It honestly made the test so much easier. I didn't put pressure on myself to get a score that I knew was unattainable at that point. My advice is don't stress. If you're pretty sure based on PT's that you're not going to get the score you want/need, then go in knowing that this LSAT take is more like a practice run. I certainly learned my lesson and I refuse to schedule another test until I'm consistently PT'ing in my goal range. But I am SO PROUD of how I did on my June take. It's not the score I want/need but it's MY score and it's a pretty decent one at that.
Best of luck!!
Read. That's the best advice I can give to anyone who wants to improve their reading. Read broadly and frequently. Read more. Read novels, magazines, The Economist (frequently recommended for those who want to improve their RC score), biographies - whatever you want so long as you're reading.
Foolproof, foolproof, foolproof. Keep a spreadsheet of each game you do and record the amount you got correct and your time. If you didn't get all the questions correct, and you didn't score within the suggested time frame, do that game over the next day. I don't stop practicing a game until I've done it correctly (all answers right and under recommended time) three times in a row, with weeks in between attempts. I'm consistently at -1/-0 on logic games now and I've only foolproofed 20 PT's worth of games. Do not dive into the clean PT logic games. There is still MUCH you can learn from the other ones you have already done. I know it's boring and tedious and hard to do the same game over and over and over again but I believe it's one of the most effective ways to hone your LG score.
Are you studying full time? That's a huge score increase in a very short amount of time. It MIGHT be possible if you're studying like the LSAT is your full-time job, but I think realistically you need to dedicate more time to studying. Why are you taking in April instead of delaying until summer or early fall?
We're concerned with the temporal aspect because of this: "Since Mayor Drabble ALWAYS repays her political debts AS SOON AS POSSIBLE." If we're taking the stimulus as 100% factual (which we should be), then we must be literal about Mayor Drabble always repaying her debts as soon as she is able. Here's how I approached the questions:
A - Correct answer. If Mayor Drabble had a political debt that is of longer standing than Lee's, she MUST repay that first. And if the person she's repaying would settle their debt with Mayor Drabble through their appointment to the be the new head of the arts commission, than Mayor Drabble must pay that debt. Negating this answer choice destroys the argument/conclusion.
B - So what if she owes MORE of a debt to someone else? She's concerned with paying of debts AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Maybe the person she owes a larger debt to has only been owed this debt for the last hour? Or, say they do have a longer standing debt than Lee - maybe they don't want to be appointed to the arts commission. Maybe they want money or a trip to Cancun. She could still easily repay Lee through the appointment to the arts commission.
C - Again this doesn't matter because of the "as soon as possible" thing. This could be true, that she could repay a debt to someone else through the appointment to the arts commission, but so what? Lee could still have been the first one she owed a debt to. Therefore, his repayment comes first.
D - Irrelevant to the conclusion. Our conclusion is that Lee will get the appointment because Mayor Drabble is greatly indebted to him and he wants it. We don't have any basis for worry about whether Mayor Drabble is concerned about qualifications. We're only talking about debts owed and paying them off.
E - This is an attractive answer choice, but incorrect nonetheless. If we negate this answer choice it shows us why it is incorrect. Negated - "Appointing Lee to head the arts commission IS NOT the only way Mayor Drabble can repay her debt". Great, that still lines up with our conclusion that "Lee will almost certainly be appointed to head the arts commission". Our conclusion is leaving some wiggle room there. We're not saying that Lee will absolutely, certainly, 100% be appointed. If that was the argument than this answer choice could be correct. But negating this answer choice simply says "there's another way that Mayor Drabble can repay her debt", that doesn't mean she won't appoint Lee to the commission, it just means she doesn't HAVE to.
The stimulus is comparing news reports on television versus news reporting via the paper. The argument notes the downsides of television reporting, namely that guests only have 30 seconds to express their viewpoints, meaning that they use catchphrases and buzz words to get their point across in the short amount of time they have. The argument says that this means people who regularly view network television news do not retain nuanced views of public issues.
On the contrary, newspapers are able to include all the background information needed, as well as extensive explanations on both sides of a public issue.
Conclusion: In contrast to regular newspaper reading, regular watching of network television news programs increases the tendency to think of public issues in oversimplified terms.
This question is a necessary assumption to it's asking us to find the answer choice that answers the question "if the conclusion is true, which of these assumptions must be true" The answer choice you pick, if negated, would destroy the argument. So:
A - This doesn't matter. We don't care if they're interested in watching news programs that are more in-depth. We're talking about CURRENT news programs. Eliminate.
B - Easy eliminate. Totally out of scope from the stimulus. Nothing in the stimulus refers to "striking images".
C - This is an attractive answer choice. It strengthens the conclusion, but that's not what we're looking for here. So what if television is ABLE to present news in a nuanced way - they're NOT doing that currently. That's what we're concerned about, not whether or not it's possible for them to do so.
D - This is the correct answer. Let's negate this answer choice and see what it does to our argument. "It IS USUAL, that network television news reporters offer additional factual evidence and background information to develop a story in which opposing views are presented briefly by their advocates." (The italicized portion of this can be tricky on the first read. This is basically just referring back to the structure of television news programs that we were introduced to in the stimulus. "a story in which opposing views are presented briefly by their advocates" can be translated into "a story where guests are only given 30 seconds to present their opposing viewpoint." The word "briefly" is simply a fill in for "30 seconds".) Regardless, negating this answer choice completely destroys the argument. If our conclusion is that viewers of network news aren't getting enough nuanced info because guests aren't given enough time to fully explain their positions, then the negation of this answer choice is basically saying "Not so fast. Viewers ARE getting this info from reporters before guests come on to argue their point of view." If this assumption were true then our conclusion falls apart. We MUST assume that reporters ARE NOT doing this on network television news.
E - Easy Eliminate. No reference to bias and this doesn't matter to the argument. We're talking about GUESTS on television news programs sharing their POV's for an argument, not the reporter.
Hi there! I have not applied to law school's yet or taken an official LSAT so take what I say with a grain of salt, but here's what I would look at/do in your situation.
Taking a diagnostic is incredibly beneficial to your LSAT prep as it let's you know what areas of the test you are weakest in. It also helps as you study and take PT's to see how you're improving relative to your diagnostic.
Looking up FIU (I typicaly use lawschoolnumbers.com) it looks like you're below they're 25% GPA which means ideally you should aim to get an LSAT score above they're 75% range. You can find that information here: https://fiu.lawschoolnumbers.com/
Getting above their 75% would be in the low 160's. You would know if this goal is easily or relatively attainable with a diagnostic score, which would also help you know how long you might need to study.
Without knowing a diagnostic I can't say much about how much you should study/what you should focus on. If you're set on taking the June test you can use that as your diagnostic I suppose but it's certainly an expensive diagnostic!
My layman's advice is to get a diagnostic, and then set a study plan that works for you. As much as it can really suck to delay applications until you get the right score, it's almost always better to wait, study, and apply with the best LSAT score possible, especially if you're a splitter.
I hope that was somewhat helpful! I think you can absolutely get into your target school with time and dedication. Best of luck to you!
Thanks! Honestly LR is my worst section. I can go anywhere from -10 to -2 but average around -6/-7. I took a two month break from studying and just started up again at the end of December. I've been focusing solely on Logic Games since then, but am starting LR prep again this week. I used Ellen Cassidy's Loophole book and I plan to reread it in February. Her Powerful/Provable method did help me, but honestly what I'm focusing on for the next 4 or so months is drilling. Especially the question types I have the most trouble with. (7sage's analytics are a huge help there) If you haven't read Ellen's book I think it's a good supplement for 7sage's core curriculum, which I've also utilized. Now it's just about really targeting my weak areas and working on my overall method/approach to the section. Best of luck!