I'm having a difficult time trying to figure out when to use conditional reasoning. Can someone explain to me which questions types are most common in which to use these CR?

MSS & MBT, Strengthen, Weaken, Flaw, and (Flawed) Parallel questions come to my mind. If you are having a difficult time trying to figure out when to use CR, I strongly suggest you don't move on from that lesson until you really, really know it. You don't want to spend time figuring out whether you are dealing with a causal or a conditional relationship, trust me.

Second Question - When should I use the questions from the test bank? I feel like there is no time set to use these questions for practice. Should I do them when Im working on that exact lesson?

You use them when you feel like you need practice or revisiting a certain question type. Don't use them too early, or you will have burned up some questions by the time you start tackling PTs.

I feel like if I work on these I'll forget them towards the end of the CC. That's what happened last time, I wasn't able to remember anything. While Pting I forgot how to spot an arguments premises, conclusion, context, etc...

I suspect you have not been internalizing the lessons you went through, i.e. waltzing through each lesson because you think you got it, only to find yourself blanking out during a PT. Spend time on and actually learn each lesson. Write short summaries in your own words; keep visiting them until it literally becomes your second nature.

That said...

Also, I'm incorporating powerscore lessons with 7sage.

Don't. One curriculum is more than plenty, especially if (1) that curriculum in question is 7Sage or PowerScore, and (2) you are not internalizing the lessons you go through. Give up PowerScore, and spend that time on reinforcing each lesson.

@ said:

only 62% of UVA grads took on Jobs at Large Firms. That's really low for a high ranking school. I think typically the number is closer to 80%.

It's actually quite decent. If I'm not mistaken, only Columbia has something like the rate you mention (78%). If that 80% figure were the golden standard, schools like Yale (61%), Harvard (57%), Stanford (50%), and Chicago (61%) -- or the whole legal education system, for that matter -- should have been labeled educational scams a long time ago.

an internal devil is telling me WHAT DO I HAVE TO LOSE?!

Your odds are quite low at this point (unless you happen to have something like... I don't know, +3.9 GPA and +174 LSAT). If you get rejected and reapply to the same school next cycle, you will be deemed a reapplicant, meaning that your chance of admission to the school may be significantly lower.

And I found that a good number of top programs don't grant fee waivers to reapplicants. Might have been just me, of course. Since it's your alma mater, you might be lucky.

The world would be a perfect place if those words indicated context every single time (and the global workforce would be operating on a four-weekday calendar, and we would have conquered cancer and hair loss).

It all depends on the context.

The latter. See "Miscellaneous Logical Indicators" under "Introduction to Logic."

Depends on the school's policy. If they send acceptance and waitlist notifications by email and you haven't received one, chances are a rejection letter is on your way.

Are they necessary? Will I be at a disadvantage if I don't use them?

This is not my first time studying for the lsat. I have used other prep courses before and have also self studied with the LSAT trainer (which i loved).

No, especially since you meddled around with at least two prep courses and the Trainer. Taking a proper prep course is more than enough to get you equipped to tackle the LSAT. And you had the Trainer. They all point in the same direction. So do the Bibles. So does 7Sage.

Stop theorizing. Start practicing. Get your target score.

So far I've had 4 waitlists (GULC, Cornell, Michigan, Columbia)... Was pleasantly surprised by Columbia.

I am not a fan of breaking bad news, but Columbia is infamous for its waitlist admittance rate: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=225363

This is not to imply, of course, that getting waitlisted by Columbia is an insignificant feat. It is entirely impossible for some Reserve applicants to be admitted off the waitlist. If you turn out to be one of those people, feel free to point your finger at my ID and laugh at me.

Michigan takes longer than other schools. It took me about two weeks.

What was the average wait time for the schools you applied? 3 weeks?

My average time is well over 12 weeks. But while I submitted my applications on October and November (when most apps are submitted), you submitted your application in mid-February. I wouldn't think your wait period will be more than 2 months, as schools have to make decisions by certain dates due to deposit deadlines and whatnot.

As far as I can tell, those schools are intrigued by your application, albeit not to the point they accepted you outright (or there is something in your applications that made those schools hesitate). Barring any C&F issues or any other red flags, I would think a higher LSAT score will significantly raise your chances (and scholarships) next cycle; your GPA is great, and some of the best programs are clearly interested in you. If you really, really do not want to or cannot wait another year, you probably want to draft some LOCIs.

I noticed that you didn't mention any acceptances. Hope you have at least one alternative to rely on.

"Lagitha performs fifth only if Norton performs third."

from the rules, I understand the translation to be:

L=5--------->N=3

BUT i don't understand for the life of me why. They seem to be biconditional.

As in: "Lagitha can perform anytime she wants unless norton is third, and in that case, she must be 5th." Confirming the necessary in this case, actually confirms the sufficient.

You do not know whether those sufficient and necessary conditions are the only conditions that are sufficient or necessary for the occurrence of the other. For all you know, there could be other conditions that come into play.

Suppose there is a rule in one of the states: "You can shoot another person with a gun only if that person is in possession of a gun." Per your logic, everyone who is subject to the rule would be able to shoot and kill people like gun dealers, police officers, and hunters who were trying to show their children the ropes. If you shoot any of those people and end up in the court for, say, voluntary manslaughter, the judge may not be very impressed with that particular interpretation. Chances are there are other conditions that allow one to resort to that rule -- like seeing someone else break into his or her place of residence with a gun in his or her hand(s), for example.

If all else fails, I would say this is one of those things you just have to accept and move on. You know, kind of like "one plus one is two."

1st sentence: $ increase ---> P increase -- which can be rewritten as ~(P increase) ---> ~($ increase)

2nd sentence, 1st part (conclusion): ~($ increase)

2nd sentence, 2nd part: Little invest

This is a sufficient assumption question. We are looking for an answer choice that would lead us to ~($ increase). With the two premises, I would think that the correct answer choice would be something like

Little invest ---> ~(P increase)

and that is what (D) expresses.

(E) is wrong because no premise discusses contributing to increasing productivity.

I honestly want to attend ASU Law in the future, but not sure if I should try to get my career kicked off as soon as possible, and transfer to ASU. [...] But I would imagine I would go to Barry or Cooley with my stats, then transfer.

All other things notwithstanding, please don't sign on the dotted line for a law school with the intention to transfer:

https://classic.7sage.com/admissions/discussion/#/discussion/15964/should-you-go-to-a-law-school-you-dont-want-or-should-you-try-the-lsat-again

Retaking is the best option.

If "some" means at least one but not all.

A ginormous misconception here. "Some" encompasses "all" as well; it can range from at least one to all. Suppose there is a group of 100 entities; "some" denotes all possibilities ranging from 1 entity to 100 entities.

You may want to review the "some" lessons under "Some and Most Relationships."

How is it that the logical opposite of "All cats are pretentious" is "Some cats are not pretentious"??

The logical opposite of "all" (100) is "not all" (0-99). And both "not all" and "some not" mean the same thing: they denote scenarios where, in the hypothetical group of 100 entities, 0-99 entities possess a certain characteristic (or, in other words, 1-100 entities do not possess the said characteristic), whatever it may be. So the logical opposite of "all Cs are P" would be "not all Cs are P," i.e. "some Cs are not P."

If we're dealing with the group "cat" and "things that are not pretentious" wouldn't the statement "some cars are not pretentious" leaves the possibility that ZERO cats are not pretentious? Which directly contradicts the definition of some which is at LEAST one but not all?

Again, "some" can mean anything from one to all. And as explained in the previous paragraph, the statement "some Cs are not P" can mean that "all Cs are not P."

(For the record, "some Cs are not P" does not entail that "ZERO Cs are not P." "Zero Cs are not P" is equivalent to "all Cs are P," which is impossible per "some Cs are not P," or "not all Cs are P." See where you made a mistake?)

I'm confused to why he doesn't just use "not all" as the contradiction to "all" which would leave the range (0-99) which would make things simpler by not directly going against the definition of "some"

Like I said, "some not" is equivalent to "not all." It's just a matter of preference.

@ said:

Pepperdine has a grad that clerked for SCOTUS. Does that mean you should seriously consider the school if that's the job you want?

Which is exactly why I specifically recommended the OP to opt for UVA or any T13s he gets into if (s)he has his or her eyes set on legal academia. There are two non-T13 CVs I saw, and those professors were hired a long, long time ago.

But even though UVA has a decent number of grads that are now tenured professors, the super majority come from HYS.

A T6 legal academia placement personnel commented that law schools are becoming increasingly receptive to non-HYS applicants (though I would love to see what "increasingly" really means).

Besides, UVA sounds like a far better option than the rest (WUSTL, USC, NU).

The best option would be to retake the LSAT and shoot for T6 (provided that the OP has a good GPA), of course. But if the OP is not willing to or cannot, and wants to make the best out of what (s)he has right now, then UVA or another T13 would be the way to go. For all we know, the OP might kick asses in law school and transfer into a T6.

@ said:

@ said:

UW dinged me really quickly. I wasn't sure why when I've got in a couple of higher ranked schools. Oh well.

Perhaps they thought you would't commit to attending their school even if you were admitted?

I would think that's the case.

@ said:

If law professor is the only occupation you want, I think you'd want to narrow down the list further than that.

The odds get quite slim, but they are not nil either. I have seen a number of CVs with T13 (i.e. non-T5) degrees.

@ said:

Checking in as I too am weighing UVA @ sticker (250k debt burden upon graduation) vs. WashU with a nice scholly (90k debt burden at graduation) and Wisconsin with 30k debt. Also sitting on 4 T14 WL's FWIW.

I would like to clerk and potentially move into teaching mid-career if I have the right grades so that certainly makes the decision harder.

You may want to stick with UVA or any T13 school you get admitted off the waitlist if you want go into teaching, especially legal academia.

See "The Blind Review Method" section in the syllabus. As for the last question, you would review and try to not fall for the same (or a similar) trick in the future.

As far as my reading of Amazon's product description goes, Breaking the LSAT sounds like a guide with emphasis on a single, recent practice test, not a book that tells you how to approach (a section of) the LSAT. If you are comparing that book to any 7Sage curriculum, I'm inclined to think that almost anyone would vote for the latter, as it would give you a comprehensive approach without "burning" a recent PT.

(I should note that the comparison is quite unfair to begin with. Comparing a book that focuses on a single PT to a comprehensive curriculum is just... uneven.)

You might sign up for 7Sage, Fox, or whatever prep course you prefer. If you seek to self-study, I recommend The LSAT Trainer or the PowerScore Bibles, especially the former. But whatever you do, get rid of that book. Don't "burn" a recent PT.

Congratulations!

Thank you so much!

I stand corrected!

The problem with the stimulus is not that it makes a wrongful reversal, but that it makes a wrongful negation. You are kind of right, however, as those two errors tend to go hand-in-hand: both wrongful reversal and wrongful negation assume that A ---> B and B ---> A.

The stimulus says that, since ~PWP ---> ~GLS, PWP ---> GLS. The contrapositive of the stimulus is GLS ---> PWP, however. So the argument assumes its own conclusion without justification. This is what (D) points out: the argument assumes PWP is sufficient for GLS.