@Mina.G They probably won't make a video for this because it's an old PT but I can try to explain it!

P1: Gov provides insurance for individuals' bank deposits.

P2: Gov also requires banks to pay the premiums (a regular payment made to an insurance company to keep a policy active) for this insurance.

P3: The individuals primarily benefit from the insurance; therefore, gov should ensure that these individuals pay most of the premium (instead of the bank). In other words, the thing that benefits the most, should pay more for the benefits than anyone else.

Conclusion: the gov should require the individuals to pay for the premiums per their individual bank deposits.

So the individual should pay, and not the bank. There's a couple of assumptions being made here, but the main issue has something to do with the individual NEEDING to pay. The assumption is that the bank can't pay, or that the bank won't pay. This is the part we attack.

(C) does this:

Banks do not always cover the cost of the deposit-insurance premiums by paying depositors lower interest rates on insured deposits than the banks would on uninsured deposits.

Negated, (C) says that banks always cover the cost of premiums. That's all we need to know. If this were true, then the individual does not need to pay, the bank already covers the cost by paying them lower interest rates! Therefore, it CANNOT be true. We want the individual to pay!

(C) gives us that room to think that for at least SOME instances, those banks won't cover the cost. If the banks won't cover, then yes, the government should make the individuals pay. This is necessary for our conclusion!

I'm not an admissions expert or anything, but I think t100 is still reasonable within your reach as long as you remain open to options. I do believe that you're right and that you should report it on your C&F as clearly and honestly as possible, as there is a chance that it will come back to you when you apply to take the bar later.

This is what LSATDemon says about it:

Can Disclosure Affect Your Chances?

The impact of a disclosure depends on the nature of the incident. Minor issues, especially those without formal charges, are unlikely to hurt your application significantly. Admissions officers often appreciate applicants who handle such situations with honesty and accountability.

If you’re worried, apply broadly to different schools. Each school has its own approach to C&F issues, and applying to a range of programs increases your chances of acceptance.

Moving Forward with Confidence

If you’re dealing with a C&F issue, the best approach is transparency and factual clarity. Review each school’s questions carefully, seek advice when needed, and respond honestly. Remember, it is always safer to disclose when in doubt. Law schools value accountability, and a clear, concise explanation can ease concerns about minor past incidents.

It seems like you've done enough stressing over this one-time mistake, and I personally don't believe that it's as damning of a crime as literal plagiarism or copying off another person for an exam. All you can do at this point is to finish your undergraduate to the best of your ability, secure great academic recommendation letters, and score as high as you can on the LSAT. I don't think your GPA is 'wrecked' quite yet, and I think you are demonstrating an active student life with a wide range of involvement. Granted, I don't know you, and I can only speculate; but from one stranger to another, I believe you when you expressed regret for your past mistake and that you have been trying to rectify it since then.

@pjin It helps to reword (C) first before negating!

(C) The ideal bureaucracy will always have complaints about unprecedented problems.

Negated:

The ideal bureaucracy will not always have complaints about unprecedented problems.

Then our conclusion wouldn't follow because we need unanticipated problems forever to expand regulations forever, and we need expanding regulations forever to have an ever-expanding system of regulations!

If you think that you should diagram, you should diagram! Just start writing things down, even if you don't know what to diagram. Just be on the lookout for conditional indicators, and it should hint to you what to diagram. You can practice diagramming drills where you just take a bunch of conditional stimuli and diagram them quickly without answering the questions (this isn't a 7Sage feature, but you can just select conditional question types from the pre-PT100s). It might not be realistic to diagram everything during the actual timed PT, but eventually you'll be able to discern what to diagram and diagram mentally.

I think your LR can realistically go up to -1/-2 by Aug/Sept, but I think your RC may need a little more of a jump. If you're not keeping a WAJ for RC, I would recommend doing that! And take note of the type of passage and RC Question type that you're getting wrong. I like to think of RC as a longer form of LR, with mostly MC/MSS/Inference question types.

You've made a lot of progress since your diagnostic score, so be proud of how far you've come! I think that 170+ is possible, but it's also important to be mentally prepared to study beyond Aug/Sept (as someone who has been in 160s jail for months).

One more thing regarding The Loophole: it's a really good resource and handy tool! But from my experience, I would be careful about using the powerful/provable spectrum words to inform which answer to choose (logic will ALWAYS trump word strength). Knowing the strength of an AC that you need for a question type is absolutely important, but I think the more recent PTs have been starting to stray away from the powerful/provable spectrum language and instead testing more on actual conditional/causal relationships (you might already know this, but just in case other people are wondering!).

Wishing you luck fellow 7sager, you got this!

It looks like one or two of the passages in RC made you a little stuck! Don't worry about it too much, you're still averaging -1 to -3 per section and you did great on BR! I would just spend some time with those passages and try to identify the things that you missed under timed. Keep it up!

I don't know about the dual enrollment (most high school college credits i.e. AP/IB are not counted towards your LSAC GPA) but the LSAC GPA is scaled to their own metric (what courses get counted or not counted is on their website!).

My college also doesn't award A+s, and from what I've seen online, there isn't much that we can do. That's why some students have 4.2/4.33 GPAs, and some students could have 3.9/4.0 GPAs (both excellent GPAs). Unfortunately the student with a higher GPA will be recorded as such, even though it doesn't necessarily mean that a 4.2 GPA student is a better candidate than 3.9 GPA student. However, I believe that admissions are notified about whether the school awards A+s or not, and they are generally aware of this discrepancy.

Law schools will receive the CAS report from LSAC which has your scaled GPA, but I'm pretty sure that they also receive the original transcript from your school, which will have all of the information about the dual enrollment from high school and your undergraduate GPA.

Yes, but it's not that noticeable of a difference as it's accounted for already when they convert the raw score into the weighted score. So if you got the same score, you can reasonably assume that your average performance is that score.

The LSAT also includes a score band with your score, which is a range +/-4 points of your official score. So if your score fluctuates a little, it is not solely a reflection your abilities but also an assessment of whether your performance was at your best/average/lowest.

I think it's recommended to gauge where you are by using your average score, while keeping in mind that your current potential is your highest score.

I think as long as you show how you've overcome / learned to manage your mental health and how overcoming those struggles makes you a good candidate for law school, it should be okay :-)

@nycxchi I think it's because "imperfect" literally means "not perfect." So it would be one thing if we conflated "imperfect" with "flawed" or "bad," but because the prefix "im-" means "not," the opposite word is the same as the negated word.

IMpossible → not possible or /possible

IMmortal → not moral or /moral

IMpolite → not polite or /polite.

Hope this helps!

@dvmelody It is different from the current one!

Let's say in 2026, our current vender is UniDine Services. And until last year in 2025, we have been using Hall Dining Services.

They survey was conducted in 2026, asking the students if they would like a different food vendor from the current one, UniDine Services. Those students said yes.

We know that the only alternative vendor we can use is our old vendor, Hall Dining Services. The spokesperson took that to mean that if the students don't like UniDine Services, then they must prefer Hall Dining Services.

But the spokesperson is assuming a lot here. What if the students didn't know that the only alternative option was Hall Dining Services? What if Hall Dining Services had far worse quality food than UniDine Services, and the students don't like UniDine Services? These assumptions are pointed out in (A), the spokesperson is assuming that the students were aware of the only two options that they had.

I don't think we had to conflate "different" with "new" in this statement, and I don't think the LSAT would ask us to do so unless it was explicitly stated in the stimulus!

@YosefWolff I think you may be misunderstanding (A). They're saying that brain scans for mental activity is of "doubtful value" in comparison to x-rays, which as you correctly point out, are "straightforward and indubitable." The argument is not saying that x-rays are of doubtful value, but rather using it to show that it IS valuable in comparison to brain scans for mental activity.

@StellaO'Brien I think it's not shifting meaning, because "criticizing" could also mean evaluating! It sounds weird in this context, but "to critique" or "to criticize" could also mean to evaluate (i.e. literary critic).

I fell for the trap!!

Conclusion: Drabble will almost certainly appoint Lee to be the new head of arts commission.

Premises:

• Drabble always repays her political debts as soon as possible

• Lee wanted the job for a long time

• Drabble is politically indebted to Lee from previous election.

(E) Negated:

• It is NOT the case that the only way Drabble can adequately repay her political debt to Lee is by appointing him to head the arts commission.

• In other words, Drabble can adequately repay her political debt in some other way that appointing him head of arts commission. Maybe he also wants to be head of public works. This will not allow us to draw the conclusion that Drabble will almost certainly appoint Lee to be arts commissioner.

(A) Negated:

• Drabble HAS political debt that is both of longer standing than the one she owes to lee and could as suitably be repaid by appointment to be the new head of the arts commission.

• Let's say Drabble has an additional political debt to Green. Green also really wants to be the new head of arts commission, and she'e been indebted to Green LONGER than Lee. Because Drabble ALWAYS repays her political debts as soon as possible, she has a larger obligation to Green. If (A) were true, then Drabble would NOT almost certainly appoint Lee.

(E) is worded so clearly and (A) is so wordy, which is why (E) was so tempting! I think (E) could possibly be a sufficient assumption? But unfortunately is not necessary.

Immoral actions harm others, but they also eventually harm those who perform them.

• Alec cheated on his wife. His wife is harmed, but Alec will eventually be harmed by his own actions.

The conclusion is that people who act immorally are probably unaware of consequences of their actions, rather than being just a bad person.

• In the divorce, Alec lost his reputation, his house, his assets, his family. When Alec cheated on his wife, he probably didn't think that he was going to lose everything. He may have known that his wife would get hurt, but he did not have the foresight of getting himself hurt.

The assumption is that if a person IS aware of the consequences, regardless of whether they are good or bad, then that person would not commit immoral actions.

• If Alec knew that he was going to lose everything in the divorce, he might have thought twice about cheating on his wife.

But what if Alec knew that cheating on his wife would harm himself? What if he was a self-destructive masochist who wanted to take down his wife with him? That's why we need (D).

Those who, in acting immorally, eventually harm themselves do not intend that harm.

In order for our conclusion to follow, Alec can't have known that he would lose everything in the divorce. Because if he did know, why would he do something so terrible that would harm himself (unless he is a self-destructive masochist)?

Therefore, he cannot have intended causing that harm to himself.

(Sorry Alecs of the world, I just picked a random name)

@MichaelWright Love your explanations, thank you!!

@Daisy228 It would be X ←s→ /Y, or some X is not Y!

Written explanations! I have ADHD, so I happen to absorb written content a little better. I find that the written explanations + reading through the comments helped me for the most part! I'm also someone who prefers trying to figure out a question by myself and work backwards from the correct answer. It's also nice to quickly glance at why each answer choice is incorrect.

@JohnLanza The conclusion is that we can reliably determine the age by counting the number of sections in its rattle.

With (A), let's say that rattlesnakes DO molt exactly once a year. So all rattlesnakes with 4 sections are 4 human years old. But we are never explicitly given a premise that informs us that this is true -- we are only told that the folktale claims one thing and the author jumps to a conclusion based off of conjecture. But what if there was a reason -- besides being brittle -- that would prevent us from reliably determining age?

(E) is correct for the reason that you gave, that you wouldn't be able to tell its age if the food itself was a variable. What if rattlesnakes never molt when they are hungry? This would lead us to conclude that a very hungry old rattlesnake is actually a young rattlesnake.

It wouldn't matter if 'often' changes from 3 months to 2 months because it's comparing the frequency of molting between when food is scarce and when food is plentiful. All (E) is saying is that whether they are hungry is not a factor that needs to be considered when using the sections to determine the age.

Hope this helps!

@megan309 I got this wrong but I figured out why it's not incorrectly negating the sufficient-necessary relationship:

(A) states:

if /autonomous → /maximally realistic

Whereas the stimulus states:

if autonomous → more realistic

The reason why (A) applies is because more realistic =/= maximally realistic. We just know that autonomous divisions generally have more realistic planning, but we are never told that if autonomous → maximally realistic. (A) actually only gives us if maximally realistic → autonomous which doesn't commit any sufficient-necessary confusion flaws.

liberal arts → improve intellect

if /financial gain → /hired

---------------

liberal arts → /hired

Missing link:

improve intellect → /financial gain (E)

@OlgaKaraoglu This is how I diagrammed it:

skilled ⎻m→ creative

creative → abstract

skilled ←s→ /famous

---------------

abstract ←s→ famous

Chain:

skilled ⎻m→ creative → abstract (Formal Logic Rule #5, Most Before All)

• Can be rewritten as: skilled ⎻m→ abstract

Sufficient assumption answers will always guarantee our conclusion to follow. So we need something that will allow us to conclude abstract ←s→ famous.

Formal Logic Rule #6, Two Split Mosts:

• P1: A ⎻m→ B

• P2: A ⎻m→ C

• C: B ←s→ C

So, if:

• P1: skilled ⎻m→ abstract

• P2: ?

• C: abstract ←s→ famous

P2 must be: skilled ⎻m→ famous (E). This was a good question to review diagramming quantifiers!

@Kevin_Lin That makes much more sense, thank you!

@Daisy228 The LSAT wants us to treat "few" as "most... not". So in other words, most workers in Plant B did NOT consume nutritious breakfasts during the month of the study. So Plant B becomes a sort of control group for us, because the majority of the workers did not consume nutritious breakfast. "Some" definitely leaves room for a flaw in the experiment, but that's why "few" is an important distinction!

@ak2 I eliminated (A) because it was comparing nightmare-prone children and non-nightmare-prone children. This was not mentioned in the stimulus. Our conclusion is that psychologists should identify nightmare-prone children, not that psychologists should learn why some children are nightmare-prone. So even if psychologists can identify nightmare-prone children by learning why some children are nightmare-prone, it doesn't address why we should identify them in the first place.

@lsattsal Because it's a strengthening question, we can make these connections. We don't need to guarantee the fact that there is a causal relationship between the correlation. But by showing that once they stopped eating the fruits, their symptoms improved, we can strengthen the researcher's reasoning. So yes, it could just be a coincidence that the symptoms abated, but it's one additional consideration for further testing down the road.