How JY feels about this passage is how I feel about the LSAT

Thanks!

When you guys BR, do you BR every single question or only BR the questions you did not answer (if any) and the questions you flagged during the test. I thought the other questions that you felt 100% on you don’t need to BR. Of course, you should still review the entire test throughout the week but a 100% BR is not required according the J.Y.’s methodology. Correct?

I’m trying to balance speed and efficiency with in-depth review but also not without ‘over reviewing’ a test and moving too slowly.

Taking the LSAT at the comfort of your own home in less than two hours is undoubtedly a HUGE advantage. However, assuming you’ll preform exactly as you would on a regular LSAT is frankly speculation until the actual scoring data arrives. I agree with @, at least if you have 4 sections you could offset a section in which you underperformed in. Underperforming in a three section LSAT could have catastrophic consequences. But then again, big risk big reward. However, If everyone bombs one section or generally underperforms, aren’t the LSAT scores curved so would it matter anyway?

Nothing like being 20 min into Solid 7Sage LSAT studying, you’re crushing your 3rd of 4 logic games and and your 4 year old daughter and 6 year old son burst into your office so that you can be the honest broker about who is the fastest kid! Ahh I’m gonna need more whiskey during this study journey...#struggleISreal

@ said:

@ said:

I had a 3.78 GPA in college but this damn LSAT is a tough nut to crack. I think if I could score in the high 160s it might make the jump worth it. But working 60 plus hours a week makes studying near impossible with a family. Trying to eclipse 150 has been tough sledding..

I work and have a family to handle, plus rural living demands (fence mending, wood cutting and stacking, driving long distances for groceries and doctors, etc). I started my LSAT study while I was taking very heavy semester loads for my BA, too. In total, my LSAT journey took ~1.5 years, and I went from very low 150's to low-mid 160's (I probably could have gone higher, but I was happy with where that score got me and didn't want to wait another cycle).

It sucks, but for those of us with obligations, it just takes longer. And that's okay. Trust me when I say my results were 1,000% worth the time I spent. I believe there is at least one other in these forums who took over 2 years to get their desired result, and they would also say the time spent was worthwhile.

If you want this, you can make it happen. Just don't compare your journey to some 20-something who can spend most of their day, uninterrupted, studying the LSAT. Of course they're going to see results faster. It felt like it took forever before something clicked for me. And then, bam! Done. On to admissions. On to telling schools that offered a full-ride "no" because I have some great options (that one was the most mind-blowing moment aside from realizing my last LSAT score meant I was finally done and going to law school). It's just time and effort to get there, and no one can tell you how much time it will take.

That’s a great perspective and I appreciate the advice. It’s simply going to take a large amount of continued studying but I believe I can get there. Good luck on your law school journey!

You’re not alone and this is a great question that I wrestle with every day. I’m 31, have a wife and two kids, and have had a great career as an Officer in the Army with benefits to make sure my family is taken care of. I’m on the “up and up” so to speak within my field, so I’m hesitant to walk of away from a career, especially now being 10 years away from a 20 year retirement and getting a pension the rest of my life. I’ve always wanted to serve but the job continues to get less fun as I look toward becoming a Major and positions beyond.

I think studying law could re-energize my passions which have basically leveled-out at this point. I think anyone could find purpose as a lawyer. I do enjoy serving in the Army, however, the hours I’m putting in and the instability of moving every few years really sucks. Plus, I could go for free using the G.I. Bill. I had a 3.78 GPA in college but this damn LSAT is a tough nut to crack. I think if I could score in the high 160s it might make the jump worth it. But working 60 plus hours a week makes studying near impossible with a family. Trying to eclipse 150 has been tough sledding..

I totally get it. You want to do it for the right reasons but it can be hard to know unless you’re actually doing the job yourself. I do believe ou’ll always have apathetic, whiners that hate being a lawyer as I see those same people in the Army. But that is more reflective of them vice what the actual job satisfaction may bring. I’m sure there are astronauts that hate being astronauts. If you get some good advice just let me know because I’d also love to hear it. Good luck!

In the most recent webinar LSAC hosted, they said they would make an announcement on April 10th on the way ahead so need to speculate.

I’m currently serving as a Company Commander in the Army, usually working 60 or so hours a week while also trying to not be a total POS husband to my wife and father to my two kids. Exhausting is an understatement while managing a full time job, 181 Soldiers, and LSAT studying. My schedule currently allows for me to get to work at 5 A.M., study until my morning formation at 6 AM and then get in another hour from 12-1 PM and, if I’m not asleep, get in another hour from 8-9 after kids are in bed. Perfect day is 3 hours although realistically i get in 1.5 hours a day. Also, I’ve been recording my “real” study hours and, although 7-sage says I’m 100 hours in, total study time has been 150 hours. I’ve been studying since June 14 averaging 1.25 hours a day. It’s a marathon and not a sprint. As the author notes in his comment from his drill sergeant, slow is smooth and smooth is fast. Looking forward to see how i do on the 25 NOV LSAT and 13 JAN LSAT as well!

#help. I understand sufficiency-necessity confusion and I get how this is set up. If you lose a liability lawsuit, then you’re stocks fall within hours after. A→B. Got it.

The stimulus states Cotoy has been involved in a lawsuit (A) therefore its stocks fell (B). So why can’t we conclude A→B? Are we splitting hairs on losing a lawsuit vs. simply being in a lawsuit? I read the stimulus and see this as a restating of premise conclusion simply using Cotoy as the example.

Also, nothing boosts your confidence when you get a wrong question that JY describes as “as easy as it gets.” Lol

#help I can understand why answer choice A is wrong because financial support is assumed as encouraging innovation when it could mean other things. However, why does “unsponsored” in AC C assume innovation? Does’t it make the same false logical leap that the money answer does in answer choice A? Couldn’t you also assume that less money restricts innovation as there is no information to assume the contrary? AC C assumes a privilege that is not granted to answer choice A. Help!!!! Thanks!

#help Doesn't answer choice D simply paraphrase answer choice A? Isn’t “scientist should refrain from interpreting evidence on the basis of previously formed expectations and convictions” the same thing as “it’s advisable to use double blind studies whenever possible.” I don’t understand the differences and JY doesn’t really describe the different other than to say its wrong. Also, why do we assume “high proportion” is the same as “whenever possible,” especially when answer choice D actually uses the words “whenever possible.” Thanks!