I have a friend who moved to the US recently for a job. She’s experiencing some really awful problems w her employer and she’d like to speak w an attorney to explore her options.

My question is, what’s the most efficient way to find the proper attorney? Are there any reliable online reviewing sites out there that you’ve used and recommend? I’m aware of several but not sure whether to trust them or not. Would anyone in the courthouse be able to suggest a handful of firms?

Any tips are greatly appreciated. Thanks

“Logic Grid Puzzles - Word Games For Brain Training by Ross McNamara“

I’m having a lot of fun with these. Maybe a good way to pass time while waiting for admissions decisions or score reports.

I don’t get it. AC B looks to be necessary but not sufficient.

A->(B-most->C)

Therefore

B(-some-)D

AC B gives us C(-some-)D

Which allows us to draw: B-most->C(-some-)D

But we can’t conclude that any Bs are Ds from this conditional chain. That is an invalid argument.

I got this question right but only because B came the closest (C/D/E don't even contain the new idea which is found in the conclusion and A was intuitively wrong). Maybe I am misunderstanding the logical relationships? JY didn't mention this issue and neither does the Manhattan forum.

If we were to change the premise to C-most->B, then AC B would allow us to conclude B(-some-)D but I don't think that's the correct translation. The Manhattan forum agrees with me on this.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-4-question-22/

Admin note: edited title

Hi everyone. Just sharing my positive experience so far in case any of you find it helpful.

I received an unsolicited fee waiver from UCLA on 8/20, but with the new cycle approaching and considering that I am planning to apply to a whopping 21 schools, I decided to send out requests to each of the schools this morning.

Michigan and WUSTL promptly granted me fee waivers.

I'm interpreting Yale's response as "Yes you can have one but we have to wait until our applications open in October."

The remainder of the schools have either not responded yet, responded that they don't grant merit based, that they don't grant solicited waivers, or directed me to a formal application process. Almost all schools that did not grant me a fee waiver suggested I apply for need-based.

How can we pit schools against one another? I am working under the assumption that if I applied to school X with a GPA/LSAT higher than their medium and I applied to no other schools, then I would receive less scholarship money (generally speaking) than if I applied to schools which School X competes with and was accepted to those competitor schools.

Maybe that assumption is wrong. Please let me know.

But assuming that it is right, how should we choose those other schools to apply to? Regionally? USNWR rank adjacent?

@"David.Busis" perhaps this is covered in one of the admissions courses. I am focused on my LSAT so have not ventured much into that world.

Hey @"David.Busis" . This resource is so helpful. Will a 2019 version be available?

https://classic.7sage.com/admissions/lesson/law-school-financial-aid/

I'm not using the modern tests yet but I just encountered my first Eval question on PT 36. Do these QTs appear more or less often on modern tests? They don't seem to be covered in the cc.

I had a lot of trouble with this in drilling and BR. I believe what I was missing is the following:

Likelihood of theft

Average for theft-prone cars (with anti theft): 50%

Average for theft-prone cars (without anti theft): 80%

Average for non-theft-prone cars (with anti theft): 10%

Average for non-theft-prone cars (without anti theft): 8%

So yes, anti-theft devices do generally reduce the chance of theft, but if most anti-theft devices are on the most theft-prone cars, then there will still be a correlative relationship between these two.

I find myself struggling with Disagree questions. It's difficult to keep the moving parts together and find the overlap. Especially when there are embedded clauses which obfuscate the domain of discourse or in particularly loooong questions such as this one.

I think my recent focus on Disagree questions is starting to cause me to get worse at them lol. If anyone has a question analysis or feedback for this question or Disagree questions in general, I would love to hear it.

Thanks

Proctors: Laid back and professional. Although, for one of the sections they forgot to call out the 5 minute warning... good thing I had my watch.

Facilities: Clean, comfortable, easily accessed. I walked from my apartment but there are parking facilities on campus so driving shouldn't be difficult. Brought a sweater but didn't need it -- comfortable temperature.

What kind of room: Lecture hall.

How many in the room: 30-40

Desks: Long tables. We were spaced about two chair lengths apart.

Left-handed accommodation: N/A but wouldn't have been a problem since it was tables not desks.

Noise levels: There was camp for young kids going on next door and they were incredibly loud but none of the sound came through the walls. We could only hear it during the break and beforehand.

Time elapsed from arrival to test: 30 minutes.

Would you take the test here again? Oh hell yeah. Ideal conditions in my opinion.

Date[s] of Exam[s]: June and July 2018.

I find it so strange that this should be the question type I struggle with in RC. After all, isn't this what RC boils down to? "What did that passage say?". And yet, it's by far my most missed question. I am only getting 69% of these correct, which crushes me because they are the most prevalent question type.

My other weak spot is Recognition - Main Point.

I am quite strong on all other types, but these 2 make up about 40% of my misses and What Is Stated is the lion's share of that. I haven't put much effort into RC yet and I've got 3.5 months until December. Right now I miss anywhere between 3 and 7, but usually 4-5.

If anyone has specific strategies for addressing these QTs, that would be really helpful. But I suppose I just need to develop a consistent approach to RC, which I haven't done yet. I don't like notating very much, so I guess I need to improve my internal organization for the passage. That should help me to quickly confirm on "what is stated" questions.

I chose B under timed conditions but switched to A in BR.

My issue with B is that there are no "potential" criminals here. If B said "nothing should be done to protect criminals at the cost of placing restrictions on law-abiding citizens" then it would be airtight. But "potential" doesn't work because if you are found in the prison directory, then you would have been convicted of a crime to be there in the first place.

I chose A in BR because it made the distinction I referred to above, but it doesn't actually connect to our conclusion so it can't be right.

PSA are just not clicking for me and I feel very uncomfortable answering them even when I get them right. I'm drilling them this afternoon and I had some trouble with this question. Any tips on PSA in general would be great as well as input on this question.

Context:

There is a hypothesis that dreams are produced when the brain erases "parasitic connections" which accumulate during the day and take up space in our brain. Ant-eaters are the only mammals that doesn't have REM (when we humans have our most vivid dreams). The ant-eater has a very large brain in relation to the animal's size.

Conclusion:

This fact (ant-eaters don't REM and have big brains) provides some confirmation for the hypothesis above.

Premise:

The hypothesis predicts that for an animal have an effective memory and not dream, that animal would need extra space in the brain to account for the parasitic connections which aren't erased each night.

What I'm looking for:

Most of this question is context and that made it a little difficult for me to zone in on the conclusion and premise, not to mention it is a pretty wordy stimulus. We need to connect the premise to the conclusion. The ant-eater's anatomy aligns with the hypothesis' prediction and the argument concludes that that provides support for some confirmation of that hypothesis.

Answer Choices:

A) Facts about one species of animal (ant-eaters don't REM and have big brains) can provide confirmation for hypotheses about all species that are similar in relevant ways. I really liked this under timed conditions because it seemed to fit the mold I was looking for. Ant-eaters are mammals (similar in the relevant ways) and the author is using the facts about that animal to provide support for the hypothesis. The issue with this AC is that despite the strong language, it doesn't meet the level of sufficiency needed because it says "can". Well, does it?

B) Strike 1: we only have 1 prediction. Strike 2: how can we know that the majority of predictions is confirmed when we don't enough know how many predictions there are? Eliminate.

C) That's not the method of partial confirmation. Our stimulus provides a little confirmation by fitting the predicted circumstances when the hypothesis is irrelevant. Eliminate.

D) "Partially confirmed"... that's good. And the second half is good as well. The hypothesis itself doesn't explain why ant-eaters wouldn't dream, but its anatomy fits the prediction made about cases that do not fall under the hypothesis. I didn't fully grasp the different between the prediction and the hypothesis under times conditions. And I latched onto A and brought confirmation bias into the remaining AC. Correct.

E) There is only 1 hypothesis. Eliminate.

The line graph that tracks our misses by test for each section... there are 2 separate lines for LR... does one of them represent the first LR of each test?

I am asking because I believe the graph is telling me that either the second LR section is consistently more difficult, or, more likely, that I have a conditioning problem. My first LR section seems to be consistently stronger than my second.

"First, here are a few undisputed facts about Robert Pruett. He is 38 years old, and has spent every single day of his life in prison since the age of 15. The crime for which he was convicted at that age—the murder of a neighbor—was in fact committed by Robert’s father, Sam Pruett. The prosecution’s theory was that, even though the senior Pruett actually stabbed the victim, Robert was present and liable as an accomplice. At an age when many children have just finished middle school, Robert was given a 99-year sentence in the Texas penitentiary."

On Thursday, Texas plans to execute him. Edit They are executing him for the murder of a jail guard, the case for which is circumstantial.

I find this story abhorrent. But it is very important to read, not to mention how well it is written.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/10/the-autobiography-of-robert-pruett

Hey ya'll,

With my July score in the books I'm paying a lot more attention to my school app list. I recall stumbling upon a really helpful site at some point which compiled law student feedback on various topics for their respective schools e.g. Georgetown students describing the collaborative vibe amongst the (generally) older student body and the lack of "gunners".

If you know the site I'm referring to or have another resource which you have found helpful (besides the standard numbers sites like LSN, MyLSN, etc) please do share.

Thanks!

Anyone been through on of these? Mine is schedule for the end of this month. What is the dress code and what sort of questions did they ask? Any tips for preparation?

Any and all info much appreciated.

Asst. District Attorney in Philly or Pittsburgh -- that's my goal.

Numbers: Avg 167 LSAT (fighting for 170+ this cycle); 3.55 UGPA

Non-traditional applicant with 4 years work experience. Debt-averse. Not about "prestige-for-prestige-sake" but understand the practical advantages offered alongside prestige in many cases. Not about Big Law.

My numbers likely don't get me into Penn. The job placement and bar passage numbers for remaining PA schools scare me. I'm looking for strong T1/T2 schools where I can get significant scholarship money and reasonably expect to have good job prospects outside of that region (since I'd like to work in PA).

So what do ya'll think? How should one in my situation go about pursuing an ADA position in these specific cities?

I hear that prestigious PI is quite competitive; does that mean I should be chasing T13? Those schools also have much better LRAP. But what about a strong school like BU for which I'd be at/above the medians? That is where my focus has been.

What differentiates law students when applying for 2L internships at a DA's office? Should I prioritize larger cities for a 2L DA internship or is a DA internship in Pittsburgh considered as strong as in Philly/Boston/etc? My guess is the former but also if I want to work in Philly/Pitt then I should probably pursue those.

Of course, the standard networking is also wise. I really like what the reforms the new Philly DA has implemented and I plan to reach out on those grounds.

Any and all input is greatly appreciated. I've spent almost all my time preparing for the lsat so am behind in my law school and career research.

EDIT: My GPA is below BU 50th but at least above the 25th.

EDIT: ADA is not a PI position. My bad.

I sat for the December test last year and was ill-prepared for it. My prep leading up to that take was filled with most of the common errors laid out in the 7Sage curriculum. I'm now planning to sit for this December's test and while I still have lots of work to do, I wanted to share this one thing since it is probably the only reason my goal score of 170 is within reach.

Spend A LOT of timing mastering the fundamentals upfront. That is shared regularly in this community but only because it is so important. I did nothing but fundamentals (Lawgic, grammar, QT strategies, LG Foolproofing) from February of this year through July! Here is why this was so important to me:

High Score --> Mastery of Fundamentals

not(Mastery of Fundamentals --> High Score)

Now that I have been taking full timed PTs and timed sections, I realize just how intuitive all the material has to become in order to be applied consistently when the clock is ticking. It is really difficult to perform at your peak for each section of a PT and then to do that consistently enough that you are confident you'll do it on D-Day. There is so much that I've had to learn beyond fundamentals like skipping strategies, comparative RC strategies, POE strategies, endurance, and durable composure. I tried to learn these things concurrently with the fundamentals last year and it resulted in a unideal score because I wound up learning neither. Even learning those "extras" now when I have a pretty good handle on fundamentals is difficult.

This is probably most useful to those who are just beginning or those who are debating whether or not to delay their take. I hope some of you find some use in this and will learn from my mistakes. Best of luck!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-3-question-26/

I got this question right during the PT by POE (A-B reverses necessary and sufficient terms, ACD all use most-statements) but in BR I really had to labor over the logic. It in fact took several sessions to feel good about my interpretation. However, my translation differs slightly from JY due to the presence of nested terms so I'm curious what ya'll think about it.

expect benefits outweigh cost → (acquire info → R)

Therefore

acquire info → R

This appears to be the most basic logical structure in the book. A→B, therefore B. We need A. But the nested terms muddy the waters a bit. We need to conclude R which is nested within the necessary condition. Because of the odd form, there are more ways of doing that than just A→B. But, most importantly, we can't conclude R if one expects the "benefits outweigh the cost".

This is really where I had my difficult. the easiest correct AC would have just said "The benefits never outweigh the cost". However, what they gave us was

acquire info → expect benefits outweigh cost

That results in a perfectly valid but unusual form. Our final chain looks like

expect benefits outweigh cost ↔ acquire info → R

"Consumers who do not bother to acquire this info are acting rationally". We can safely say that now because consumers who don't bother to acquire this info also don't expect the benefits to outweigh the costs.

@aburk3

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/except/

JY says this conditional statement is a biconditional which is equivalent to "Allen is in the park if and only if Chris is not in the park". But I see more complexity in the statement than that due to the fact that "everyday" introduces frequency. I believe that we can clearly say "/C --> A" or "If Chris is not in the park, then Allen is in the park every day", therefore if Chris is not in the park on a given day then Allen is definitely in the park that day.

However, it gets messy when Chris does go to the park. JY says that when Chris is in the park "we can definitely say that Allen doesn't go". But I don't think that that's the proper translation because it ignores the frequency aspect of the original sentence. Rather, I think it translates to "If Chris goes to the park, then Allen is not in the park everyday" or "Allen is not necessarily in the park". Which means, we don't know whether Allen is in the park or not and therefore this is not a biconditional at all in fact.

TLDR

We can say "/C --> A" "If Chris isn't in the park, then Allen is in the park"

We cannot say "C --> /A" "If Chris is in the park, then Allen is not in the park that day"

We can't say this because "everyday" negates to "at most 364 days of the year". We can't forget about "everyday" when we translate.

I can't see why E is a better AC that D. Any thoughts?

Flaw

Argument Summary:

Context: The presence of X has conditioned the US to support a substantial defense budget.

Premise 1: X is gone.

Conclusion: Doubtful that the public will support an adequate defense budget.

Prephrase:

X-->Y

/X

/Z

Huh? What is an “adequate” budget in the absence of X? That is the issue here.

Answer Choices:

A) No it definitely does not. It does just the opposite and presume the public cannot be manipulated in the absence of X. Eliminate.

B ) Well it does do this but that is not the flaw. The issue lies in term “adequate”. Eliminate.

C) He uses the descriptor “doubtful”. Definitely not it. This is confusing because it’s hard to understand. But it is false and not the flaw. Eliminate.

D) Well yea it does do this. The argument concludes /Z, but provides no support for that in the argument.

E) Yes it does this too. What the hell does “adequate” even mean?

About me

Diagnostic: 148 (LR: -18) (RC: -14) (LG: -21)

Current PT Avg: 167 (LR: -8) (RC: -5) (LG: -2)

I'll be sitting for the test throughout this upcoming cycle and aiming for 169+. Tutoring offers me an effective way to internalize this material and get over my own hang-ups keeping me from a consistent 169+ score. Also, I've been working with a pro-bono tutor for the past 6 months and I'd like to pay that forward.

I can meet for 2-3 1-hour sessions per week via skype and I live in pst timezone.

EDIT: Please feel free to DM me if you're not comfortable posting publicly. And for the sake of clarity, this is a pro-bono offering : )

@mkang89

Correct answers in MSS questions are almost always one of two types: restatement of an idea from the stimulus or the conclusion of the stimulus (which was left unsaid in the stimulus).

But I've noticed a slight variant of the latter where the right answer choice asks us to identify a sub-conclusion -- slight more complex since we need to account for the premises and the conclusion stated in the stimulus. As a result, these operate a lot like a bridging question.

In 52.3.23, the stimulus gives us two survival benefits of HS and concludes from that support that a dense colony could survive indefinitely. That conclusion isn’t supported very strongly at all. There is so much we don’t know. But we need to accept the stimulus as true: these premises support that conclusion. It feels a lot like a bridge which means we are likely pushing out a sub-conclusion from the stimulus.

A. "If there was a dense colony then that colony would be capable of carrying out the two benefits indefinitely" (paraphrase). This is perfect -- it connects the survival benefits in the premises to the indefinite time horizon in the conclusion and in that way receives support.

B. This gives us a little more info about how one of those survival benefits operates but that's not supported by anything in the stimulus.

C. We don't know anything about "most organisms"

D. "If this bacteria thrives indefinitely, then HS has removed all oxygen and killed some organisms". There are two big problems here. First, it says these HS survival benefits are necessary for indefinite thriving. That's just not supported. What if we put the bacteria in a highly controlled lab environment with no oxygen and plenty of food which didin't need to be killed? Second, the stimulus doesn't say that all oxygen has to be removed.

E. Any colony? Ensures? Not supported in the least.

46.4.09 is another example of such a MSS although I think it is much more difficult.

Admin note: edited title for formatting

I just finished it last night. How 'bout those closing arguments for the defense?? Am I right? Just poking holes all up in that prosecutor's argument like he were Zorro or something. Ahhh so good. Great book!