- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
As the 2019-2020 cycle draws to an end, I thought I should share a recap of my admissions results and say a big thank you to JY and the 7Sage Community.
I started studying for the LSAT in 2018, with a diagnostic score of 153. After a year of intense studying with 7Sage, I was able to boost that score up to a 169. And I'm beyond thrilled to share with you that I was accepted to Berkeley and Cornell, among other very prestigious law schools.
I had basically zero knowledge of the test itself in the beginning, let alone the law school admissions process in general. Signing up for a 7Sage LSAT Course was possibly the wisest decision I've made in the past couple years, as I've benefited tremendously from the curriculum that I thought was very insightful, easy-to-follow, and beginner-friendly. The Discussion Forum served its purpose as an indispensable source of information; I was able to get all the help I needed from the Sages and users who were more than eager to share their experiences. What I found most amazing was that all of it came at an extremely generous price.
All in all, I am grateful that I found 7Sage and that it offered me an opportunity to excel at one of the most challenging tests there are. I'd like to express my utmost gratitude again for the 7Sagers for their advice and support - without them, I doubt that I would have made it this far.
Thank you!
@ericauhunmwangho91 Basically I follow JY's method - I think there's a whole lecture on it that's definitely worth listening to if you haven't done so. After you finish a PT. go back to and work on the questions you circled on your timed run. Take all the time in the world, as it is very important that you understand the questions thoroughly.
As for RC, I would advise you to read a lot. You get a huge advantage if you're familiar with the topic of the passage - so read as many articles, blogposts, textbooks, etc. as you can, to broaden your background knowledge of relevant areas.
@kmcclanahan90414 Took me about 2 months I think. I broke the 160 ceiling fairly early, but getting to the high 160's was the hard part.
Hi.
The March LSAT results were in two days ago. I'm so glad to say that I scored a 169!
I know there are plenty of people here with 170+ and yet aiming for a higher score, but I am content with what I've accomplished after a long journey.
I'm an international applicant with a GPA classified as 'Superior.' I'm a traditional and have studied for the LSAT for a whole year.
I went from a 148 diagnostic, to 161 in June 2018, and to a 169 in March.
I was averaging mid-160s before the March test, so my final score took me by a huge surprise.
LR was my biggest weakness, as I started out getting -10 for each section. I improved a lot by drilling by question type and focusing on those types that I had the most difficulty with.
The Blind Review and foolproofing methods worked out wonderfully for me as well. At one point I was wasting my PTs by taking three tests per week, and obviously getting nothing out of each test. Learning the proper BR method was a game changer for me. I started seeing steady improvements in my overall performance.
I just want to say a big thank you to JY and 7Sage for your help.
I'd also like to add that 7Sage works, although the process could be long and wearisome, as it was for me. So don't give up!
Peace out :)
Consider this analogy:
Radioactive waste cannot be recycled.
For this reason, we cannot recycle many spent nuclear fuel rods.
Unless the majority of the spent fuel rods are radioactive, then there is no point in saying that many spent fuel rods cannot be recycled for this reason (that radioactive waste cannot be recycled).
Here's another analogy:
P: Some people study hard and don't get 170 on LSAT.
P: Some people don't study hard and still get 170 on LSAT.
C: Studying does not promote scoring 170 on LSAT.
For Q13, Here's a slightly different approach I took in choosing (A) over (E):
Per dictionary definition, "postulate" means to suggest or assume the existence of something as a basis for reasoning.
If you substitute the word with this definition, the part in question reads: "she was unable to assume the existence of the mechanism by which to explain radiation."
Let's put in our two contenders here, (A) and (E).
(A): She was unable to assume the existence of the physical process.
(E): She was unable to assume the existence of the theory.
For me, it didn't make sense to assume the existence of a theory. On the other hand, assuming the existence of a physical process sounds perfectly reasonable.
Hope it helps!
*Flaws:
1. The premise offers an unrepresentative sample to support the conclusion: Most cases of insomnia that psychologists treat - do they represent all the cases of insomnia? Clearly not. They are too narrow of a subset.
2. Why can't sedatives be used to alleviate the stress?
3. What if psychotherapy doesn't work?
(A) is not the flaw, hence the correct AC. In fact, it is written backwards. It is stress that causes insomnia, not the other way around.
(B) Yes. This points to Flaw #1.
What if the treatment of the rest of insomnia cases (other than most cases that psychologists treat) requires sedatives?
(C) Yes. This points to Flaw #3.
(D) Yes. Flaw #2.
(E) Yes. Also Flaw #1.
Parallel Flaw, Curve-breaker
B (ET) → B (UFO)
/UFO
Assumptions:
1. /UFO → B (UFO) false
2. B (UFO) false → B (ET) false
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
B (ET) false
Assumption #2 does not follow logically. We cannot say B (ET) false unless we confirm /ET (ET doesn't exist.)
The flaw here is that the argument mistakes B (ET) → B (UFO) for ET → UFO.
If we substitute the latter with the original premise, we get a valid argument:
ET → UFO
/UFO
/ET
(/ET → B (ET) false)
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
B (ET) false
.
(A) is correct because it commits the same flaw:
B (U) → B (C)
/C
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
/U
*The conclusion does not exactly say B (U) false, but recall the implicit premise that /X → B (X) false.
Therefore, /U → B (U) false.
Hi @hleedokdo611,
Hailing from Seoul here. Glad to see other 7Sagers in the vicinity!
Here is how I interpreted (D) as a strengthening AC:
If both groups rejected cereals low in sugar even when they were heavily advertised, that could mean that they have a natural preference for sugary cereal.
This leads to an alternative explanation that it was because of the children's natural preference, regardless of how many TV ads they were bombarded with, that they chose the sugary cereal.
The stimulus does describe a binary cut of the world: Aware → Tainted and /Aware → Illusion. So I guess it would likely qualify as a viable answer, in my opinion.
This question might seem impossible at first glance, but if you look into it it's very cookie-cutter:
JPB → KLE
JPB ("as we sometimes are")
-----------------------------------------------------------
KLE
-----------------------------------------------------------
Not (KLE → /FP) = KLE & FP
Since we've established KLE, the sufficient condition we need is JPB → FP
@xadrianas6x881 @oshun1 @kingse414
Thank you all for your thoughtful advice! :smiley: I'll be sure to answer the "study interrupted" prompt on the application.
.
@wentingli1617290 said:
@89079 said:
Took it in Korea.
Turns out I got an experimental RC, which I really hoped to be the real thing because I found it a lot easier than the first one. The first LR (the one with chimps learning to trade) was challenging, while the second (the one with jurors using cell phones in the court room) was a breeze.
Not so sure about LG... got stuck with a game pretty bad and had to guess 2-3 questions.
Do you remember having question in your first lr about fine thread and 60/90% cotton?
Thanks!
Yes, and since I had only 2 LRs, the one with fine thread and cotton was not an experimental section.
Hi. I'm an international and I took the October test in Asia today.
Score cancellation was never an option, until this afternoon after I stepped out of the testing room feeling absolutely defeated.
I took my first LSAT in June after 3 months of study and got 161. From then on I drilled through most of the PTs except for the very recent ones (PT 80 onward), scoring in the range of 162-169. I felt better prepared and so decided to retake this month.
The exam was a lot more challenging than I expected, definitely so compared to the recent PTs I've been practicing with. I didn't make any Scantron mistakes, finished every section in time and bubbled in all the answers. But of course, having finished every section in time doesn't mean that I nailed each of them. I am pretty convinced that I bombed an LR section, for which I circled around 7 questions and had to take a wild guess on 2-3 of them. LG has always been my strong suit, but today I got stuck with a grouping question and had to guess 3 questions. As for RC, I don't feel so confident either - don't think I ruined it but I definitely could've done better.
My target score is 166+. It was my plan to apply this cycle, but I can wait a year and apply next cycle if I must.
I'm considering cancelling my score because I heard that law schools tend to view multiple scores negatively. I would wait for the results if it was my first go at LSAT, but seeing that this is my 2nd test I can't afford to take chances. Trying to gauge all the possibilities before I make a big decision.
So, here are some questions I wanted to ask:
Please excuse the poor writing. I would appreciate honest opinions.
Thanks.
Took it in Korea.
Turns out I got an experimental RC, which I really hoped to be the real thing because I found it a lot easier than the first one. The first LR (the one with chimps learning to trade) was challenging, while the second (the one with jurors using cell phones in the court room) was a breeze.
Not so sure about LG... got stuck with a game pretty bad and had to guess 2-3 questions.
(D) proposes a counterexample:
Small studies are so damn common that there are 10,000 of them in total.
Large studies are not so common, so there are only 100 of them in total.
Let's say newspapers report on 40 small studies that are dramatic and 20 large studies that are dramatic.
Dramatic + small studies/All small studies = 40/10,000 = 0.4%
Dramatic + large studies/All large studies = 20/100 = 20%
In this scenario, large studies are way more likely to be dramatic in general, despite that newspapers report on more dramatic + small studies than dramatic + large studies.
Eliminated E because I thought the conditional was backwards...
Now I see that E is not a conditional logic but rather a correlation (The longer in use, the more widely used).
Tricky question!
(SA: Nations' economies prosper → Gov't economists examine every significant factor that affects economy)
P: International factors significantly affect nation's economy
ㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡ
C: Nations' economies prosper → Gov't economists must look beyond national borders (= must look at international factors)
@jadaamethyst1996279 Hey, I purchased Ultimate+.