Yes, it would get you in. No, I would not apply ED to Columbia if I were you. You actually have a pretty decent profile. Retake and apply far and wide, in my opinion.

@rileymajeunefagan676 said:

There are virtually no advantages to cancelling.

No schools average. Some people claim that Yale does, but there is no evidence for this. There is in fact evidence that they do not. Schools only care about the highest.

My advice: do not cancel.

Google "Do Law Schools View Multiple LSAT Attempts as a Negative?" for a blog post by Spivey. You should not care about a lower score on your record.

Thanks for putting this so succinctly! I look forward to your explanation of the judges passage when you become a sage haha. Also @pcainti665 I have also been shooting for a 170+ and felt fine until my RC section which was last. I clearly did not prepare well enough in RC. I also thought about canceling but my thoughts are similar to @rileymajeunefagan676. What do I gain by canceling? Law schools see a cancel not a low score? What does that do? It was a good experience. It alleviated a lot of anxiety about testing conditions. It showed me what I have to work on. I feel the dread, the panic, the angst, the 'I should have'. But take it for what it is. A great learning experience.

@shanedrider779 said:

@pcainti665 said:

Hi all I'm here now. So about the LSAT...LG way easy...RC average and 3 LR so I have no hope of knowing which one is real....also I'm guessing -9 curve?

RC sucked yo. LG was easy afffffff

have a drink now

@pcainti665 if that's your reaction you did fine. @shanedrider779 I feel you. went straight to the bar and had a bloody mary.

@vorodm01394 said:

@81974 said:

@vorodm01394 said:

@mma038827 said:

@vorodm01394 said:

One of the most challenging aspects of the test: breaking the seal

Use the latch on your watch! I struggled with this the first time I took the test too

Yeah, I tried to use pencil. Didn't go well. Flashback to the first MIB movie.

lmao same I used my pencil and then saw at the end of the test all the millions of black smudges. Also I was like are they going to wait for me to open this shit up? lol

first time takers problems

Lol glad I am not the only one. Since I was the only person sitting in the front row, I assume all the other test takers were thinking 'wtf is this guy doing.'

lol. I was the sitting right next to the human sniffling and sneezing machine. lucky 7sage proctor prepared me well for that.

@vorodm01394 said:

@mma038827 said:

@vorodm01394 said:

One of the most challenging aspects of the test: breaking the seal

Use the latch on your watch! I struggled with this the first time I took the test too

Yeah, I tried to use pencil. Didn't go well. Flashback to the first MIB movie.

lmao same I used my pencil and then saw at the end of the test all the millions of black smudges. Also I was like are they going to wait for me to open this shit up? lol

first time takers problems

@vorodm01394 said:

One of the most challenging aspects of the test: breaking the seal

hahaha omg me too!!! I was like what the fuck. how do I do this?

@tatianacook99 said:

@farrellkaitie398 said:

I had LR LG LR LR RC

Praying that the second LR was real since it was the only one I felt confident about what I remember is

LR1some hypothesized light in space

LR2 workers wearing black lifting belts

LR3 shouldn't have to pay someone for driving them to school because it's on the way anyway

Although it's very possible that I blacked out on the entire test and am remembering this wrong

I had the LR2 and LR3 questions that you had. Had lg experimental so your LR1 was your experimental

yay! only good news I've heard

@mattop6816 said:

Was meal specials the second or third game?

third game was about people interviewing other people or like suspects... somebody was getting interviewed. second game was the one with the [removed]

@8166 said:

@7sagestudentservices

so the general consensus is that RC was hard. Will the curve reflect this? how does that work?

Honestly I doubt the curve will reflect this. For 81 lots of people thought RC was really hard and the curve did not reflect that.... sad because I also feel like I bombed RC. That fricken judges passage made no sense. Curve is always pretty consistent.

@7sagestudentservices said:

@jacobzuberi601 said:

Homophones was real

What was your experimental?

I assumed the 26 questions one was real just because LR seems to be one section with 25 and one section with 26. is this not a viable method?

@tatianacook99 said:

One of my logic games sections had East and West and the second logic games section had a variable called Shakespearean something. Does anyone know which one was the actual logic games section?

Thanks!

east and west was real LG section

So homophones (my third LR) was real? I can't remember anything from the first two LRs. Second section was LG. All I know was both had 25 questions. Hoping the first was experimental.

Judges opinion made no sense to me. Ugh RC!!!

In terms of social movement legal support I would like to help arrestees engaged in various types of civil disobedience or direct action and for various causes. I am also interested in helping to combat oppressive ag-gag laws. I'm a recent fan of the National Lawyer's Guild - it would be awesome to be involved with them.

Yes! You too!

This was amazing! Thank you! @dml277475 be sure to check this out!

Coming back to this. I think I misunderstood the original plan. The plan the author mentions from lines 6 to 10 stipulates that the books will be manufactured at the point of sale (presumably at the store) instead of being manufactured at a warehouse. That is the main point. I'm not sure why I glossed over that. In this context, C is unsupported. We don't buy the books from the publishers. We buy them from retailers (online or in person). In this new economic model when we buy a book it will be manufactured at the store or wherever the machines are located and then shipped to me or I walk out of the store with it. So the need for warehousing under this economic model would be to store paper and binding material. It would be unreasonable to store all the paper and binding material in the store since that would be a lot. But the book making machines would be in the store.

The big thing is the books are manufactured at point of sale not in the warehouse. This has repercussion on the whole publishing industry. That is essentially what the passage is about.

Thanks for this article @tristandesinor505 . Higher education is fucked up in this country!! Law schools too. :( Georgia is awesome though. I will tell my young fam who lives there about it. :)

Got to A from POE on timed but in BR got to A this way:

If email suggests illegal stuff, then the disclaimer gives you no legal protection. No legal protection means that the disclaimer has no purpose. So the conclusion is that the disclaimer has no purpose. Well, this is only one situation in which a broad concept such as "legal protection" would serve no purpose. Could there be other situations where the disclaimer could provide legal protection? In order for the conclusion to be valid no. And that is what A gets at.

@edricbala130 said:

Context: sharks do not eat electric fish

Observation: this one type of non-electric fish lights in flashes to confuse the shark even though it uses much energy

Hypothesis: the non-electric fish evolved this feature as a means of avoiding sharks/predators

A) no electric fish lights up like our type of non-electric fish

.... don't you see how this would weaken it? If none of the electric fish light up like it then the potential presumption that the non-electric fish lights up like them in hopes of appearing as electric is destroyed...

I do see this argument and I didn't think A strengthened this argument. For me the essence of this argument was that the non-electric fish that lights up wants the predator to think that the lighting up is indicative of its electric-ness. So A makes no sense in regard to strengthening the argument. B is so weak though as a strengthener but that is how a lot of strengthening AC are. It strengthens it because we it kind of nods its head to the fact that the evolutionary characteristic is successful. Is that where you're seeing with B as well? I couldn't see that in Sami's argument - could you explain more the difference between comparing humans to cats in this argument? Her argument parallels the eating to the chasing... Also I guess I contradicted myself earlier when I said if one human walked as light-footed as a cat then it wouldn't strengthen it.. hmm interesting... what PT is this question from?

@samuelttyler890 said:

Cats walk very light-footed when compared to other species.

A) no human is as light-footed as cats.

It is not a necessary assumption because it is already stated. From Manhattan this would be a premise booster.

I agree that it isn't a necessary assumption. I don't think it would wreck the argument if there was one human out there who could walk as light-footed as one cat. But I don't think B strengthens the argument. The argument is about how a trait evolved. It doesn't really matter which cause of death is the most common. Could the most common cause of death have changed over time and in a much shorter amount of time than the time it takes for evolution to take place? Before it was dogs or bigger cats whereas now it's cars? Doesn't really effect the argument because the argument is about why an evolutionary trait came about. That's why I eliminated B. A seems better to me because if humans did walk as light-footed as cats then how could you use a cat's light-footedness to explain the difference between humans and cats in relation to their behavior to dogs? I don't think the strict conditionality is necessary which is why I don't think it's a necessary assumption but the essence is something the argument either assumes or relies on.

I could be entirely wrong. Like so so so wrong. Been wrong before. But that was my line of reasoning. If I am wrong I'd love to be corrected!

A

This argument structure was harder for me to see for some reason.

p: genuine happiness requires people who pursue personal excellence and undergo change.

c: the principle that we should accept ourselves is a bad principle (aka we should be dissatisfied with our own abilities) assuming we want people to be happy.

gap: we need something to connect pursuing excellence or undergoing change with being someone who is dissatisfied with themselves.

b) people who ARE dissatisfied with themselves are less likely than other to pursue personal excellence. that means that people accepting of themselves are more likely to pursue excellence. well if people who are accepting of themselves/satisfied with themselves are more likely or even equally likely to pursue excellence than that destroys the conclusion. why is it a bad principle now?

My take on this tough question.

PSA: bridge the gap between premise and conclusion

p: the damage done by violent TV is more harmful than the decrease in freedom of speech

c: it is not inconsistent to support freedom of speech and limitations on TV program content

a) I incorrectly chose this because I misidentified the conclusion. I thought of it as a prescriptive argument saying that the support of both limiting of freedom of speech was okay because of the consequences of not doing so. But this doesn't really help support the conclusion which argues that supporting both is not inconsistent. It's a different concept. Arguing for something is different than arguing that something is consistent.

b) this is the only answer choice that supports the conclusion. this answer choice says that we can support both freedom of speech as a right and recognize that sometimes freedom of speech will have to be limited. I was thrown off by "other interests" but I think that I could have overcome that dislike of the words if I had been focused on bridging the gap between the premise and the conclusion.

c) happiest - wrong

d) I didn't find this appealing until I started looking into this question. Like A it doesn't actually focus on supporting the conclusion which is that a position is not inconsistent. I thought this was too broad and was trying to justify much more than the argument entailed but that might not be a good reason to eliminate PSA answer choices.

e) this is a lot like D but it is ultimately wrong for the same reason A and D are wrong. they are not supporting the actual conclusion of the argument.

14) A is tempting and it has something that D lacks. It talks about the issues of problematic early scholarship. However, it limits the scope to "identity." The passage's analysis of Native American forms of autobiography go beyond just identity. The assumptions are about self, life and writing. Furthermore, it's not that the scholars overlooked the nuances of concepts of self, life, and writing in Native American cultures, it's that they overlooked the fact that European and Native American concepts differ. So A has the words scholars but it doesn't actually talk about where the scholars went wrong.

D is better because it is broader in scope by mentioning forms and underlying assumptions that differ from those of European-style autobiographies.

Sometimes it's hard to choose between two answer choices in RC. Choose the less objectionable one. A is harder to make fit. D is only lacking the scholarship aspect of the passage.