So I finished University back in 2012. I doubt any of my professors remember me, and even if they were able and willing, they couldn't give an honest account of me. I finished my Masters back in 2016, I have a Professor who says she'll write me a letter of recommendation, and she does remember me. I'm afraid her letter won't mean much because it doesn't seem anything that isn't your bachelors really matters? What should I do? I know I could get 2 letters of Reccomendation from my Masters program but I'm scared it won't be worth anything.

Thank you guys for your insight

My question is on what Law Schools will they be looking at GPA from? I went to a community college to get my Associates and then finished the other two years at a University. My grades at University were not as good as they were at Community College. At community College I finished with I believe around a 3.45 GPA, and at University with a 2.88 GPA. That averaged to about a 3.25. I'm hoping Law Schools will look at that 3.25, and count Community College, as that was work towards my Bachelors and that was about 80 credits. I don't see why they wouldn't look at that. My University Transcripts show some of Community College classes but they don't show the GPA, they indicate it as 0.0, meaning they're not counting that towards that University's GPA.

So what can I expect they'll look at?

Thank you

June will be the first time I'm taking it. I'm shooting for 155-160, but I'll be happy with 150. Been PTing around 144. Haven't even started studying for Logic Games, but I figured I'd do that now and in between then. But the window to postpone and switch is quickly closing. I'd rather have one good score, than 2 scores. Someone said it's better to not have all your eggs in one basket, like if I were to just do September, but I also don't want to go in and do poorly and it reflect badly on me, when I apply this fall.

What should I do?

Thank you

Hello, I know this seems like a weird question, but I can't find much anywhere else. I'm planning on attending a local Law School, and their median scores they take are around 150-155. I know I'm not shooting for the stars here, and these are dismal scores to most of you. I'm about 3 months into studying, my latest score was a 144. I'm getting about --13 on LR, -15 on LG, -12.5 on RC. What would those scores need to be at to achieve a 150 and a 155? Meaning does it need to be -10 LR, -13 LG, and -10 on RC, or however that figures out to? I'm just trying to decide if it's realistic to hit that mark before June, or if I'm needing to do September as well

Thank you

So I’m really struggling with these causation questions, not because I'm getting the wrong answer, but because I’m confused about Causation strategy, and when to use it. So I have 2 questions.

1st one is, When approaching general weakening/strengthening questions, that are not causal, we approach these with the strategies JY has laid out for us, in those lessons, and not as a causation question, correct? Is there an easy way to tell the difference between general weakening strengthening/weakening questions? What tips would you recommend?

2nd question is, I'm having trouble in applying the causation strategy to questions. I just did the Synesthesiacs question, under the Causation questions in the syllabus (LSAT Preptest 34, Section 2, Question 12). I asked this in the question just now, but I'm hoping I'll get more replies here.

So I hovered over A and B. A to me felt like it most weakened it, and I wanted to pick it, but to me it didn’t really feel like I was following the structure of how to attack these. In it, this question introduces a data set, in the form of research, with some people. Don’t know if I should have construed that as co-incidence or correlation, since some is kinda vague, so I went with Correlation. Since it’s a data set, I looked for an answer that introduces a competing data set. And B was the only one. B didn’t really seem like it weakened it, but hey, I followed the structure (or did I?). If I had followed the Co-incidence rules, then I would have arrived at A, since it is a competing explanation. Is that where I screwed up?

If not, could someone please clarify for me what I’m doing wrong. Do I follow this strategy down to a T? It feels like when I go off intuition I do better, but I don’t want to rely on that.

Thank you

Just started Group 3 Logical Indicators, and I'm confused. I'm not confused about the process (or at least I don't think I am). With Group 3 Indicators, you pick an idea, negate it and make it the sufficient indicator. I'm going through the flashcards, and when I'm applying the rule, it's not making any logical sense. I'm getting the correct answer, but translating it back into English, makes no sense to me. Here's my logic for some of them:

Add pennies until I tell you to stop.

/P > S

Do not add pennies until I tell you to stop

Logically doesn't match or make sense with original statement.

There is no point unless we win

P > W

There is point unless we win

Logically doesn't match or make sense with original statement

Sing until the cows return

/S > CR

Don't sing until the cows return.

Logically doesn't match or make sense with original statement.

I know I"m doing something wrong. I don't know if I"m properly picking the binary opposite, or what I'm doing wrong. Please someone walk me through it.

Thank you