You shouldn't feel bad about postponing your education. If you look at Harvard's J.D Class of 2023, the vast majority of them have taken time off after college, with 23% of the class being out of college for 4 or more years. Spending time off after undergrad makes you the norm, not the exception.

However—and I say this without knowing all your the details about your life—what worries me is hyperbolic discounting. This refers to our tendency to increasingly choose immediate and smaller rewards over longer-term but bigger rewards.

There are many examples of hyperbolic discounting when it comes to test-taking. Even though undergraduate students will have weeks to study for a exam, they tend to only start studying a few days prior. So by pushing your test date back, you also decrease your motivation to study. It's entirely plausible then that by the time the 2022 LSATs come around, you still haven't studied enough.

The main takeaway from all of this is that you shouldn't feel guilty about the decision to postpone your LSAT, but you shouldn't then use this decision as an excuse to start slacking. My advice would be to make a study schedule here on 7Sage. With a year to study, the schedule will be very forgiving when it comes to the weekly hours. Then, I'd share your 7Sage account with a friend or family member who both deeply cares about you but is also an extreme hard-ass. That way, they'll make weekly periodic checks on your study schedule and keep you on course if you start to waver.

Gl on your future endeavors!

harvard class facts: https://hls.harvard.edu/dept/jdadmissions/apply-to-harvard-law-school/hls-profile-and-facts/

We tend to overestimate what we can do in a week, and tend to underestimate what we achieved in a year.

If you were to judge yourself narrowly by only looking at this week's performance, then you may see yourself as lazy.

But if we look more broadly and consider that you've been studying for 7 months, and have probably spent over 200+ hours studying at this point, then the answer for me is no: you are not a lazy babushka :smile:

Good luck in August!

-

B only explains half of the phenomenon's.

After the creation of the mall, we are trying to explain how two phenomenon can happen together:

1) the mall makes a total $100 a day

2) the local economy (which includes the mall) only sees an increase of $10 a day.

Answer B only explains 1). The $100 the mall makes mostly comes from non-local sources (tourists).

What remains unsolved is 2). If the mall makes $95 from outside sources, why is the local economy only seeing a small increase of $10 dollars? Shouldn't the increase be exactly $95 dollars?

For example, if you take 10 liters from your (non-local) neighbor's pool and add it to your (local) backyard pond, the increase in your pond's water is exactly 10 liters, not anything less.

Answer D explains both phenomenon. It explains how the mall can make $100 but the community only sees an increase of $10.

D says that most of the mall earnings ($90) would have been spent in the community whether or not the mall was built. Thus, this $90 does not represent an increase in the local economy. The rest of the money ($10) does represent an increase in the local economy. So if the mall closes, the local economy only loses $10. The other $90 is being spent anyways. This explains why the local economy sees an increase of $10 a day, and how the mall makes $100 a day.

Hope this helps!

For people who have trouble understanding why A is correct, it may be helpful to understand "cohort effects".

A "cohort" is a group of people who share a life event at a particular time (i.e year of birth, year of entering college). For instance, all the people who graduated high school in 2020 is considered a cohort. On the other hand, 'high-schoolers' are not a cohort, since we don't know the particular time they were high-schoolers (in 1800? in 2010?).

In this case, we have two cohorts: people who are young at the time of the study, and people who are old at the time of the study. For the sake of argument, we will say the cohorts are baby boomers vs. millennials.

A "cohort effect" happens when a effect unique to the cohort is mistaken as effect of something else (i.e age, education). In this stimulus, the unwillingness to share financial secrets may be effect of baby boomers, but the researchers believe this unwillingness is the effect of oldness.

The reason the cohort effect exists is because each cohort shares life experiences unique to them, and these unique experiences influence the cohort's behavior. For example, perhaps living through the Cold War has influenced baby boomers to be protective with their financial information. On the other hand, millennials did not go through such experiences, and so are not so protective. Thus, being protective with your information is a consequence of living through the Cold War. It is not a consequence of your age. This is the possibility the researchers do not consider, and is the flaw in their argument. Their flaw is a cohort effect.

Studies are suspectible to the cohort effect when they only sample people at a particular time (i.e 2021). The way to rule out the "cohort effect" is to follow a cohort through time. This would involve following millennials as they grow older to see if their opinion changes. Or looking at baby boomers when they were younger to see if their opinions were any different. This latter suggestion is exactly answer choice A. Choice A is saying that the researchers should have asked the baby boomers when they were younger to rule out the possibility of a third cause (the cohort).

I may not have explained things as easily or as clearly as I could have, so I will leave this link for anyone who wishes to inform themselves more.

Hope this helps anyone!

https://www.thoughtco.com/cohort-effect-definition-4582483

Great explanation :)

The reason why C is a trick question is because it seems like it is attacking the premises.

The first problem with choosing C is that JY tells us to assume the premises—in this case the experimental findings—are true, and to avoid answers that question the truthfulness of these premises.

The second problem is that C doesn't actually question the truthfulness of the experiments. Recall that the experiments talk about inactivating herpesviruses, and it is these inactivated herpesviruses that cause cancer. Turning off the herpesviruses is different from killing the viruses. It could be the case that THC both inactivates herpesviruses and kills herpesviruses. Killing herpesviruses makes you more susceptible to cancer, but 'turning off' herpesviruses causes cancer. Thus, C, if true, does not weaken the author's argument that marijuana causes cancer since THC causes cancer.

Hope this helps!

The farmer follows three steps to get the seeds to grow:

1. Seeds are buried for prolonged darkness

2. Seeds are churned up for a necessary brief exposure to sunlight

3. Seeds are buried again.

Now we look at option D: "the seeds will not germinate unless churned up and redeposited".

Option D has to be wrong because we cannot churn up the seeds at anytime. According to step 2, the seeds must be churned when there is light. If we churned up the seeds in the dark and redeposited them, the seeds will not grow. Thus, it is possible for the seeds to not grow even if the seeds were churned and replanted. This flatly goes against the conclusion of option D.

Hope this helps!

P.S

Option D was my initially answer too XD