Is anyone else having trouble focusing on the LSAT with everything that is going on? This is an incredible space and I do not wish to compromise its neutrality. I am simply having trouble focusing. Does anyone have tips on staying the course?
I'm adding my explanation to this question since it doesn't currently exist on 7sage. Feel free to critique my reasoning.
This is a necessary assumption question. We know this because the question stem says the argument above makes which one of the following assumptions? The correct AC must be an assumption we know the argument makes. Therefore, it is a necessary assumption.
P: R bacteria provide nitrogen to bean plants and other legumes. Nitrogen is an essential plant nutrient. Wheat must normally be supplied nitrogen by nitrogen fertilizer.
C: If technology produces wheat strains that will host R bacteria, the need for fertilizers will be reduced.
Flaw: I originally thought but what if nitrogen is not the only essential plant nutrient for plants to grow? Might the need for fertilizer remain? B plays on this erroneous understanding. This isn't the actual flaw.
A. 'should' is irrelevant. This is not about what should happen it's about what is/will happen.
B. This was temping and it the trap answer choice. The conclusion says the need for artificial fertilizers will be reduced if biotech succeeds in producing wheat strains who host R bacteria. What about other reasons growers need to add fertilizer? Can we conclude from no longer needing nitrogen that fertilizer demand in general will be reduced? Even if nitrogen only comprises a small subset of all fertilizer use, if we eliminate the nitrogen need, then yes, the fertilizer demand will be reduced. This is true even if nitrogen is not the only soil nutrient that must be supplied. The key word to not falling for this trap answer choice is "reduced." Perhaps I was temped because I was thinking "eliminated." If the conclusion said the demand would be eliminated then yes nitrogen would have to be the only reason growers use fertilizer.
C. This is not necessary. It talks about other grasses but even if it didn't, even if there are strains of wheat that do have R naturally, we know there are some that aren't. That's what the whole argument is about so this is irrelevant.
D. Similar reasoning to C. We don't need legumes to be the only crops that produce nitrogen. We know some wheats don't and we know there is an existing need for nitrogen based fertilizer. The argument is simply saying the need will go down if wheat is modified to host R bacteria.
E. This is absolutely necessary. If the R bacteria did not produce nitrogen in the wheat roots then it wouldn't reduce the need for artificial fertilizer. This is the true flaw. Just because the plant will host the bacteria doesn't mean that it will necessarily have the desired effect.
I'm studying for the September LSATs with a full-time job. Any thoughts on cutting out alcohol entirely. Do people think casually drinking negatively impacts our ability to retain information? I'm talking about drinking on the weekends (getting drunk max once) and maybe a beer or a glass or two of wine on a weekday.
I'm thinking about cutting it out entirely but it helps a lot to relax and lower anxiety. Any one else contemplating this?
@ said:
@ 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
@ if that's your reaction you did fine. @ I feel you. went straight to the bar and had a bloody mary.
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
@ 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.
@ said:
@ said:
@ 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
@ 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?
@ said:
@ 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
@ 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]
@ said:
@
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.
@ said:
@ 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?
@ 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!!!
Hey everyone, I'm just posting here to see what people might think of my decision to postpone taking the LSAT until September. My goal is to test 170. My average is in the mid 160s but the only tests I've been able to score in the 170s have been retakes. Fresh tests are all in the 160s. :( I don't want to postpone because I feel emotionally ready but I think it's the wisest thing to do. The most annoying thing is how expensive it is!! And $100 to postpone vs 180 to just sign up again. I know that's not nothing but... fricken LSAC. Anyway, what do people think? To postpone or not to postpone?
Also, this is a related question to getting out of 160s plateau. I've seen on here that top scorers get through LR with like 10 minutes to spare. That's never happened to me and I'm not sure if my goal should be to just "work faster" (a mentality that, when I adopt, just makes me rush and be careless) or if I should continue to be cautious, to utilize POE unless I'm almost 100% sure of an answer, to give myself two read throughs if I don't understand a stimulus right off the bat as opposed to immediately skipping. Is there merit to a 'slow and steady wins the race' type of approach for top scorers in LR?
Did anyone take it after they'd seen major improvements (my diagnostic was a 153) but not quite reached their max? Any thoughts on LR strategy would also be appreciated.
Good luck to those who know they're ready for June! Jealous!
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! @ be sure to check this out!
When you take a re-take do you wipe your old data from the analytics section? That is what I've been doing after transposing my old answers on the backside of the bubble sheet. That way I can update my analytics to see my current weaknesses but still have the ability to compare my newer test to my old answers. But I just took a retake (PT 56) and think I did waaaay better so I'm not even sure it's worth it. I don't want my average to get too inflated.
Thoughts?
Did anyone take the June test in any of the following locations?
University of Baltimore
Radisson Hotel-Baltimore Downtown
Morgan State University
Towson University
University of Maryland-Baltimore County
What was your experience? I'm currently signed up to take it at the University of Baltimore but reviews on the web are sparse of that location in particular.
Thanks!
(Sorry mods if this post is not okay...?)
Thanks for this article @ . 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. :)
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.
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.
@ 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?
@ 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!
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.
Hi 7sage community! I'd like some advice before I hire a tutor to help me achieve a higher lsat score. I am not opposed to spending the money, but I would just like to hear any input sages or mentors or anyone else has to offer before.
I started seriously studying in May, 2016. My first PT was a 155. Since then my best has been a 162. My RC has always been strong but I still get anywhere from 3 to 6 wrong. I have made tremendous progress in Logic games. I'm definitely proud of that. I can solve basically any game. The problem is timing. Lastly, LR is hit or miss for me. I have also improved my comprehension and the ability to zero in on what the argument is and what its support is. However, my timing is off. Recently, I've been trying to do the first 10 questions in 10 minutes. I've also been marking obviously wrong answers much quicker and spending less time reading all the answer choices in depth.
However, I am worried. I am registered for December but have absolutely no problem with postponing until February. I work full-time but I am motivated and committed. When I made that first jump, I was happy but I'm eager now to see another big improvement soon, hopefully into the late 160s.
I have 23 PTs left. When I started out I did not have a plan to use my resources as most efficiently as possible. But now I am much more cognizant of those resources. So I've been spending time drilling the the PTs under 38.
I finished the 7sage curriculum and I'm just not sure where to go from here. I liked that there was a schedule. I think another schedule might help but I think I also need strategy in order to create that schedule.
Any thoughts? I know Nicole Hopkins says she is particularly good at these organizational skills. Anyone else in this position?
I don't want to "waste" ANY PTs and I do want to score above 170. I believe I can but I'm lacking strategy.
Thoughts?
@ said:
could be that @ was just saying that it's a double-edged sword for minorities. People might tend to look at a URM at a top school as being less deserving, when that's not the case. Many prominent AA's have complained about this negative consequence of affirmative action.
The URM boost exists to make sure that qualified URMs are not getting overlooked because they are URMs. They don't exist to just put random students of color in a law classroom.
Sadly the double edged sword you speak of would exist either way as it is called racism. URMs at top schools aren't less deserving. If our diversity efforts helped prevent them from being overlooked due to bias then that's a good thing. The negative consequences suck but that's also not the issue. It's actually a symptom of the problem affirmative action is trying to help solve.
Side note - I have many a critique of affirmative action but just wanted to clarify the misconceptions above.
@ 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 @ 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 @. 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.