Side-note, is there such a thing as a plateau?
I've never scored higher than a 169 on a timed test.
If I register for the 7sage "LSAT Starter Course," and if I actually use it and put effort into it, could I bump my score so that I'm averaging high 160s? I stated earlier that my biggest issue is logical reasoning.
Not necessarily. I know I can do well if I apply myself and put in the work, just like everyone else. However, I'm not shooting for a 170. I'm super okay with a 164-165 on the exam and I think that I can get that with where I'm at now. I'm just not 100% confident.
I was getting like 163s before June so I haven't improved a lot because I haven't put in the work.
And I'm pretty sure I've taken more than 20. That was just the number off the top of my head. I checked my notebook and I've taken 36 (some timed/some untimed) since March.
So my idea now is that tomorrow, I'm going to go to my testing area (the classrooms are open on Saturdays) and just mimic test conditions as much as possible and see how I score. If I do worse than a 164 I'll cancel the October LSAT tomorrow. Do you guys think that this is a good idea?
Thank you for your time :)
Okay. I wouldn't take February anyway because I'm applying for Fall 2016. I didn't prepare well for October because I was so burned out from studying for June. I've taken well over twenty prep tests and I've reviewed them multiple times. However, my average LSAT score on full length timed PTs is a 165 with logics reasoning being my most challenging area. I got a 159 in June and was extremely disappointed. I'm trying to get a 165 on October I just don't know if I can do it. And then on the other hand, I don't know if I'm just underestimating myself. I know a reason why I did badly in June was that it was at 12pm and I was feeling extremely anxious. I've been trying to meditate to combat that but I don't want to choke again. Sorry there's so much information in this comment, but any help or suggestions or personal experience would be appreciated.
Like I said, I would take it since I've paid for it and to get the extra experience of taking a real exam and cancel my score. I feel like that is more beneficial than just not going to the exam. Either way I'm probably going to take December.
I took the June LSAT. I'm signed up for October but I don't feel prepared. I was thinking I would take December instead.
My question is: would it seem unattractive to law schools if I took the June LSAT, cancelled my score for October, and took December?
Because I paid for October; I might as well take it for practice and just cancel my score.
Thanks
I feel super burned out also. I have been studying for the LSAT since March. I took the June LSAT and now I'm about to take the October one. Burn out really sucks. If you're taking the December LSAT, you're fine. It's more beneficial to take a break than the push yourself more and more until you completely lose al motivation, which is what I did. If I were you, I would take a week off and not even think about the exam. December is super far away. Also, I identified with your love for logic games. I actually think that they are games and I thoroughly enjoy them. Everything else is lame though.
Okay. I had more trouble with confusing sufficient for necessary.
This problem came up for me when I was working on PT 73 section 4, question 25:
I > T
L > T
L
Conclusion: I
For my answer I incorrectly put, "taking a necessary condition for L to be a sufficient condition"
The answer is "taking a necessary condition for I to be a sufficient condition"
So is this flawed argument assuming that:
I > T
L > T
L
T (assumption)
T > I (illogical)
I (conclusion)
Am I doing this right?
I understand that this is probably a dumb question but I keep having difficulties with flaw questions that have answers that "confuse necessary and sufficient conditions."
This is what I understand so far:
If I eat an apple, I will be healthy.
So eating an apple is a sufficient condition to being healthy since I can be healthy through other ways as well. It doesn't have to necessarily be by eating an apple.
I just know that if I eat an apple, I will definitely be healthy. To reiterate, being healthy doesn't necessarily have to do anything with eating an apple.
So if I say:
1. if I eat an apple, I will be healthy
2. I am healthy
3. I ate an apple
Is that confusing necessary for sufficient? Which flaw is this?
Can I have an example of both types of confusions (confusing necessary for sufficient / sufficient for necessary)?
Thank you!
Can I have one too please? I do the worst on those
Hey, I don't know if this is right but I'm going to attempt to defend E.
So, yeah, E is a weird choice. But if you look at the stimulus and try not to make any assumptions from it, it works.
Stimulus says: "one can always keep warm by PUTTING on an extra layer..." this doesn't necessarily mean that the stimulus is saying by WEARING this thermal shirt that it's going to warm you up. I guess it's pretty weird, but I wouldn't make the jump from this sentence to the last sentence that starts with "after all..." like, i could imagine the act of putting on the extra layer is enough to warm up vital organs, and then warm up hands. it never says anything about WEARING an extra layer is what is keeping vital organs -> hands warm.
Also, C just seems random to me. Frostbite? I mean there are definitely places around the world that are cold enough to cause frostbite during winter, but it doesn't seem to really weaken the argument. Especially if you look at the argument being the act of putting on something -> warms vital organs -> warms hands
I don't know if this was helpful. It's a weird question.