Hello,

Wanted to know what are my chances for going to UF with these scores (trying to get at least 165 for November)

I'm going to write an addendum on why my GPA is low due to my legal issues I had to not go to school

I'm Hispanic with DACA, along with EC of winning state championships for debate

I have a hard time understanding why C is wrong.

My case for C is this:

Why would they need to increase their safeguards if they have the greatest safeguards out there. That would mean they can’t improve and so it would weaken

Because if we are going to sell them on this idea and physics say “no thanks this is 100% effective” how can we counter that?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-65-section-4-question-22/

I'm confused how this is a fallacy.

If I'm a hypocrite, saying that my reasoning is invalid because I'm a hypocrite is itself a fallacy.

**Admin Note:**https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-84-section-3-question-22/

I'm in the process of trying to get my accommodations, yet the process has been taking quite a while now in terms of seeing a psychiatrist that it will be in the next few months. I prefer to take the February test, but If I go in without the accommodation the first time, will I be denied if I retake the LSAT?

Thank you,

I always seem to crash and burn (-7/8) on that.

Any ideas on what I should be doing?

So far I have been doing drills from easiest to hardest, then focusing the strategies off all question types.

Thank you!

I want to apply this month since the earlier the better, but I feel I did better on my LSAT

I see that the conclusion is based on a resolve the paradox.

But I find that unfair for a MC question because resolving something does not make it the conclusion of a paragraph.

Example:

If I make a paragraph on what really went down on Roswell, the point is asking all the crazy thing. The main summary would be “something weird happened that caused people to look into”.

If I give explanations (aliens, CIA, time travelers, big foot) that doesn’t justify it to say that’s the conclusion. I would say “ummm no, this just means reasons for what is it”. Reasons for what? The mystery (HENCE THE CONCLUSION)

Are resolving paradox's conclusions now for modern LSAT?

Can someone explain why C isn't right

We know that she had to work hard on finding these docs because of how exceptional it is. So why can't we say it's scant

Admin Note: Edited title. Please user the format "PT#.S#.Q# (P#) - brief description of stimulus"

I keep hearing conflicting answers:

I know in some applicaitons it's just Latino, but what about others when they want you to be specific.

I got approved to take the November 23rd test after the technical disaster that happened.

Got 161 in August, tried again with this one in November and bombed hard (will see if I can appeal the tech issues like everyone else)

I don't think I have what it takes anymore after two years of studying.

I know I shouldn't be angry at a 80th percentile score, considering Hispanics get below 150, (don't wanna even imagine Autists or DACA recipients)

I just wanna say I'm glad for everyone who helped me when I asked hundreds of questions!

Apologies if you see me upset with how emotional I really felt about this. ASD people can get severe emotional reaction and for me getting wrong questions was really bad for me. I just got upset that I didn't get my goal of 163 to get the medium for UF in fear that this will lower my chances (161, URM, 3.47 CAS GPA)

Anyways, on my way to do ED for University of FL lol

The recent rise in LSAT scores after flex has been factors like this:

While I can see 2 and 3 as plausible, I have a hard time believing that 100 or so students aren't just cheating through tech (won't explain how). I'm pretty sure that the "tech" people monitoring who make $9 an hour aren't super vigilant on eye movements or on something that is suspicious.

This isn't the craziest thing people have done for the sake of improving. People cheat on the SAT/GRE/online classes all the time with similar tech that's a joke to enforce.

The amount of people that improved on the 170s tremendously and wouldn't be surprised jumped the line having the percentiles changed.

I'm frustrated that B was the correct answer

Reasoning:

We have to create an assumption that if something makes an appearance, then it strongly helps

That's like saying if I live in miami, and cancer goes down then my psychic power claims are strengthened

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

Explanation Video: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-89-section-4-question-10/

help

Shouldn’t A be wrong because we can’t assume that CAN = SOMETIMES

I CAN GET HURT ===//==== I SOMETIMES GET HURT

Thought D would make the most sense as the main point is that PW can be undermined by its own tastes.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-88-section-2-question-20/

In the PT I am taking there is a flex option that removes a LR section. Is it random/have any significance?

Generally curious

When you focus hundreds of hours in the old PT's and finally catch up, it's another level, but not a level of to train more to exceed.

It's obvious when looking at the meta-scores that for the LSAC too many people are hitting 170 so they are making it so absurd that some questions are bound to cause people to have issues. It's disturbing as well that they are going to remove Logic Games because people are "getting it". And it's obvious that when LG is so clear cut they won't remove questions nor have it contested, yet with new PT I see 30 - 40% answers right ON THE FIRST 10 QUESTIONS.

This test went from understanding the theory behind the questions to making sure you understand any upcoming tricks.

It's outrageous that you have to spend 300-400 hours to get 170s and then slip back to the 160's since God forbid law schools weigh 70% instead of 75% of your weight-in application.

And before people start to defend the LSAC, it's the LSAC that caused the pressure for schools to get this achievement mentality to 170. 170 doesn't mean top 10%, it's the top 2.5% yet schools will do absolutely everything to get into that 170 elite status,

It's already bad enough that Hispanics get average 146, now I'm facing this test like the ending of Glengarry Glen Ross , where I thought I had it until the realization that it was mere delusion.

Can anyone explain how it's B and not D

I broke it down like this

I thought of it as MC for the end because it would justify why they did all this

I can't wrap around my head on the idea that the first rule implies that Guettierez MUST be on the aisle seat

It only say that Hoffman is behind guttierez aisle seat, and it would have been too risky to make an assumption that G is in the aisle only.

PT 47 Section 1 Question 19

In the stem it talks about a case of polio occurring due to the administration of a vaccine of 12 per year. By doing an alt vaccine, it gets cut into half 6

We need to weaken this

The correct answer is that the alt would cause for some new polio to occur.

MY ISSUE

Some means 1 - infinite; if the some of the new polio is 2, then it's obvious to take the alt. If it is 50, then it sucks

But what should we assume

Admin note: Edited title. Please use the format "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-1-question-19/

Hello Everyone,

I wanted to know that if

A -> B + C (with the + being "and")

Then the Contra would be /B or /C -> /A

And in another situation

A

B

/D ====> /A or /B?

Thank you!

I am applying this month as a URM 3.47/169, though I feel that If I try again on September I get a better chance. But is this allowed?

(----- Using 7sage Predictor(/p)

I know that GPA addendum's are supposed to short but I believe I have legitimate concerns

2.A. I stayed in my house during periods of DACA expiration, Broward College didn't give me accommodation as an "undocumented illegal" for turning in work late/online (this was in 2014 - 2016)

Second question: Does DACA help out in diversity to increase chances?

I'm disagreeing with how JY did this because we can't use common sense in MBT nor make up assumptions because we think it makes sense to us. MSS is fine because it's always a 95% certainty and 5% wiggle room for some common sense.

That is invalid because what is a valid argument and what is a sound argument are two different things. In MBT we are focusing if it is valid not if it is sound but JY isn't doing that

His argument goes in the lawgic

Standard committee ---> 6 PM

General assembly ----> 7 pm

6 isn't 7

so 6 ----> /7

Which he gets

SQ ----> 6 ---> /7 ----> /General assembly

The problem is that is not a valid argument. We can't negate assumptions since we are removing alot of presumptions.

I KNOW that 6 isn't 7, but thats not the controversy. The controversy is aligning an assumption against another assumption through negation, which that's not a valid argument.

For all we know in sound arguments, 6 is 7, or 6 does not necessarily contradict 7 (or vice versa)

Why not? Because what if it lasts 5 minutes the assembly. What if the coordinators are so stupid that they do it at the same time. Not common sense but still valid.

Parallel flaw example:

Juan likes tacos

Jake likes cars

Tacos aren’t cars

Therefore Juan —> /Jake

=====================

The lawgic

Juan –> tacos

Jake —> Cars

tacos—-> /cars

Therefore Juan —> Jake

Explanation Video: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-83-section-1-question-18/

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

Thank you 7sage community for all the help, went from a 161 to 169. Not 170 but it's perfect in my book

Going to do the consulting hours now for the essays