I am in the same boat. Definitely interested to hearing everyone's take on this!

Yes! You can do it. With tons of practice you got this.

@ said:

I'm actually moving right after the LSAT for a job I accepted. It's not related to law, but I plan to work hard and put in my time for however many months (11?) before law school so there hopefully won't be any issue when I leave before a year is up. And if I happen to not get the results I want this cycle, I won't have to worry about finding a job or debt as I wait for next cycle.

If you have a job that you think would be fun or have always wanted to try before you head to law school, now is probably a good time to pursue it.

Thank you for sharing. I am hoping to land a job for 11 or so months as well.Congratulations on the new job!

@ said:

You could look into AmeriCorps. Service is usually for 11 months, but there are 6 month-long positions, too.

Thank you! Looking into this.

@ said:

You could volunteer for a few non-profits that you support and take some personal time to accomplish a life-long goal. If I had the extra time i'd write a novel and work as a volunteer at one of my local organizations.

Wow great idea! I hope you find some time to write a novel and volunteer. Besides work I plan to visit my dad in Shanghai and re-learn Mandarin.

@ said:

I am considering on applying for another legal assistant position but I know I may not be an ideal candidate since I would only be available for less than a year.

Do you want a job or not? If you want a job then don’t tell people you’re going to law school. I’m sorry but unless you’re working as a waitress or in retail or at a temp job you’re not going to be hired if you mention that you’re not going to be working there long term.

Thank you. That's what I wanted to hear.

Thank you you answered my question!

Interested to get the feedback too!

Hi here's my super simplified explanation:

The goal & right answer will weaken the hypothesis.

The hypothesis is that the ferrous material caused an increase in algae.

So regardless of amount, if you make D TRUE then it would absolutely weaken the theory.

It would reject that there was not an increase in Algae at all. In the stimulus, the conclusion "smh as diatoms" is a statement to simply state that Diatoms also had increased. Not to express that there is a certain amount of breeds (or wtv you call different types of algae) and within each breed there was an amount of increase. We don't care about type of algae only that there was an INCREASE in algae.

Here is also how I approached the questions.

Premise: Last Ice Age ( Ferrous material and ) C02

Premise: Algae absorbs C02

Conclusion: Ferrous material -> Increase Algae

Anticipation: The answer should EITHER provide an alternate explanation (stating something in regards to another reason besides ferrous material causing increase of Algae, etc.) or violate the argument if true (stating something in regards to there wasn't an increase, etc.)

Remember the answer is taken as TRUE. If it's true what does it do to the argument? It better weaken that shittttttt.

A. Irrelevant. Changed or unchanged doesn't matter. If this were true it doesn't do anything to weaken the argument as to why there's an increase to Algae since the Ice Age.

B. Irrelevant. We don't care about today's finds.

C. Irrelevant. That's cool that there were other minerals. But if this were true it still wouldn't weaken the argument because there could be 5million types of minerals and if there is an increase of Algae it still could be true and well it just doesn't do anything to weaken the hypothesis/argument.

D. Good. First off, they state something that happens "DURING the ice age" which is a good indicator. Okay so, if this were true then it would mean that there wasn't a lot of Diatoms/algae. Automatically weakening the argument. Because you take it as true, if Diatoms die there will be shells left. If there wasn't an increase of those shells that that means that there was NOT an increase of Algae. (regardless of kind)

E. Irrelevant. We don't care about today or what is or not being harmed.

Again, someone please correct me if my though process was incorrect!

Hi, I would be happy to do a PS swap!

Here was my approach:

Premise: Fungicides unsuitable for small banana groves

Premise: most large plantations are in locations isolated from fungicides

Conclusion: Most of world's banana crop is not seriously threaten by Sigatoka disease.

What's the gap: World not threatened by Sigatoka disease to banana plantation

Anticipation: Answer should explain why even with all the information banana crop is seriously threatened by disease. So, my thoughts are then it must mean that since small banana groves are a no go because they are susceptible, there must be more large plantation band crops, thus no worries for Sigatoka disease.

A. Irrelevant. The word "eventually" is a red flag. If were true still would not explain why currently the world's banana crop is not seriously threatened.

B. Looks good. Also, if you negate to large plantations do not produce most of or all of the world's banana. Then this could mean that maybe there's a lot of small banana groves in locations nearby populations. So it would WRECK the argument of not being seriously threatened by Sigatoka disease.

C.Irrelevant. if the disease spreads more slowly then the world is threatened by the disease.

D. First, we don't care if it's the only disease that threatens bananas on a worldwide scale. We only care about why it's okay to say banana crops are not seriously threatened.

E. Irrelevant. It's okay for them to be exposed, but the large plantations have the ability to kill the disease. Also, that's the opposite of the premise discusses it could be that they will soon be exposed to the disease since the disease are attracted to wherever bananas are.

Congratulations!! Killin it. Thank you for the tips.

I definitely keep an eye out for indicator words for the conclusion and the premise. But for me, I find first understanding the stimulus is helpful. So basically, as I'm reading, or before hoping into the question, I pause and make sure what the conclusion and premise is. Specifically, questions that ask what the purpose of the sentence was or the overall conclusion of the stimulus has worked well for me. I struggled with this too. Love reading everyone's approach.

Claim:All actions product of environment

Claim: Not criminals but people who create environment.

Conclusion: Law abiding people are responsible for crime.

First thing after I read the stimulus I was like "Wait whaaaaat this person does not make any sense. Didn't they just say it's the environment and not the criminals and/or people who are responsible but are the product of....? They're concluding now that it's the law abiding people??

A. I mean yeah the word "environment" was stated in the stimulus twice. I feel like this was to trick you. But I didn't see that the issue was that there were 2 meanings of ambiguity.

B. No, don't care. Defining the actions that are socially acceptable/unacceptable wouldn't be the problem. Again I think they're trying to confuse you into thinking that because they have two concepts and intertwined that it needs to be defined...or something, when they just contradict one another. lol

C. No, don't care. Distinguishing whether that person is a criminal for committing the crime doesn't really state the problem of the argument.

D. What...just no. There were no references to stats or the size "small minority of the population" as the argument.

E. Yes! When I read the conclusion I had immediately thought as I said above "Wait what... didn't you just say...." The conclusion conflicts with the premise/support given to prove that it's the environment and not the people or criminals, but instead all of a sudden the law abiding peeps are responsible. ......But, didn't you just say peoples' crimes are the product of the environment?

Anyway, that's my thought process. Someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong or if there's a quicker/better away to go about this questions. Thank you!

Haha winning

I totally understand about the price. I am sure whatever you decide you'll do great come test day!

@ I think maybe I will also do a timed section a day. I'll tailor that once I get the ball rolling. Thank you for sharing and happy studies!

@ LOL I love it. I've been avoiding alcohol because I never meet my expectations... it goes from "Ok ONE glass of wine or cocktail" to drinking three and then F*** it. Cheers to you!

@ I'm almost 100% sure. The last couple of weeks I have had a major drop in my PT scores. About 10-8 point difference from my average so a little rattled by that. Thank you and you too! You got this

I am currently taking the SF course with Nathan Fox.

Not sure if the NY class is organized in the same way but so far, Saturday and Sunday consisted of 2 full sections timed with thorough review. Also, there is time throughout the class to ask about any and all of your LSAT, law school admissions, paying for law school, specializations, etc. The course I am taking came with books full of real LSAT questions that you can use to drill with explanations, access to videos with explanations to all sections of the test and a extra help session (office hour style) on a different day.

I find it helpful to be in class because studying can be very lonely/stressful and it keeps you focused on LSAT prep for over 4 hours. On my own I take many breaks....this course is my LSAT bootcamp/final push before the September exam.

I would use this course as a supplement. I still stick to 7Sage for LG and I still take practice tests and BR them after. Also the explanations used were not too far off from what I already learned from 7Sage, so you are able to tailor what you know and works for you at the same time.

I would say if you want the in-classroom experience I would definitely take it!

Interested!

Hey! I would love to help. Message me!

Needed this! You are not alone. Do not give up you have what it takes.

THANK YOU!

Hi! I would love to swap.