Someone help me with E. The word "continuously" threw me off. If the ozone has been depleting then the amphibian population would have therefore declined "exponentially" yes? Or is this a some/most situation where the former is a necessary condition to the latter?

Call lsac. See if they'll take your money. What's the worst they can do, say no?

Also, I've found that using the phrase "my dream is..." sounds awful in my experience interviewing candidates. "A primary goal of mine is..." sounds far more professional. The former makes you sound like a child wanting to be a princess when she grows up. Except maybe don't use the passive voice. YMMV.

I've got the opposite situation as Alex, funnily, with the same drive. I don't have the grades, the softs, the advantages. I was a complete idiot in my early 20s and am an entirely different individual at 33. Unfortunately, the system is not designed to separate those individuals. I've got nothing in my file as of now that would cause an admissions counselor to stop and say, "Wait, we're really going to reject THAT?!" incredulously. Everyone has a few letters where smart people say nice things about them. Plenty of people have work experience with successful accolades. A lot of applicants even went to Iraq/Afghanistan to get shot at so that doesn't make me special either. The only thing I have is a hypothetical LSAT score that makes someone at a desirable school take a chance on an old guy who spent his teens/early 20s doing drugs and the last decade justifying nation building on the other side of the world. It's literally all I've got.

If I'm going to get rejected I at least need to look at myself in the mirror after that judgment and not regret my actions. Pumping through 10 more practice tests even when my last five test average is already 173 is what I need to do to reconcile a "no" on that regret question. I can work 6:30-5 and then study. In the grand scheme it's a small price to pay. It doesn't hurt that I won't have to play rocket target lottery ever again.

Yeah, I still have a problem with this one. If this "later music" is allowed to be classified as its own, singular, new type of music, an assumption but certainly not one that's too far when considering the entire passage discusses the development of an artistic movement, then E is a worse answer than B.

Take November. Have everything else ready. If you're happy with your November score, go ahead and submit your applications. If you're not, retake and hold off until next year. Don't waste your money applying to schools when you don't have a record LSAT score. There's too much risk of not getting the score you need.

I'm in similar shoes and I wrote one. I think it helped my packet but I also think it was important that the DS be part of a collective narrative. The end goal is presenting yourself as an applicant who will contribute to the diversity of the class. If you can do that with your DS then I think it's a good opportunity to communicate that. Caveats apply, if you're a poor writer or you come across as insensitive the DS definitely has potential to hurt your packet.

Also, don't set unrealistic expectations on yourself. Why would you believe that this is the day you will hit 170 if the top of your range has never touched that number? Your median is 166. That's a reasonable expectation. If, after five more tests your median is 168 then you can have a swing at expecting a 170. Until then you're really doing yourself a disservice by pressuring yourself setting an arbitrary score goal instead of just answering questions.

I work full time and take college classes online. I get about 60-100 minutes per day where I can study LSAT. I've been going at it since mid September, rarely going more than 2 hours in one day but rarely missing a day completely. I think it's completely doable though I do admit my wife has taken a bigger role in making sure dinner is prepared and the house is clean and I have not had a ton of leisure time on the side. I think many aspirants put these grandiose plans to their minds that will inevitably be unfulfilling because of the difficulty in attainability. I think buying the starter, taking a diagnostic, and then just trying to go through an hour a day is a good way to do it. It's helped my diag go from 153 to a 170+ average in the last month. I feel this program prepared me well, but if it hadn't int he early stages, I wouldn't have invested in the ultimate+. JY is intimidatingly intelligent and his methodology may not work for everyone. For me it's good, but there was a learning curve. You can sample that by youtubing his LG explanations. Then, just do a little bit every day and start timing sections as soon as possible. Good luck.

@ the good news is that, since you are missing flaw questions, these are some of the easiest questions to improve on since they are both so prevalent and so repetitive. I'm struggling with them as well and the best advice for those is to just do a ton of them until you start to recognize the same answers over and over and are able to quickly understand why the wrong answers are wrong.

Also, be careful of selection bias. You may think that you had it down to the last two but I have found that oftentimes I am struggling between two wrong answers while I had arbitrarily eliminated a better answer by being too strict about wording. This might help as well. If I don't have it relatively confident I don't let myself debate between a 50/50. I skip it and come back and redo the question if I have time. If I don't, at the end I'll just pick one of the two. The extra time wasted isn't going to be worth moving my perception toward a 55% answer over a 45% one.

@ for me the hardest ones are the ones that read like, "which of the following statements would the author most be inclined to agree with?" or "Which of the following studies would be most similar to the studies performed by the researchers in paragraph 2?" Then there will be an entire column of answers, with usually a few of them nuanced. That's obviously not well-crafted like the actual exam question but that's the kind of question that I can spend three minutes on and still only have eliminated two or three answers. I get that it's essentially a MBT/inference question but I still dump loads of time on those.

Need some more help on A. The conclusion is that the individuals must be ignorant of history for the reason that limiting dissenting speech leads to undemocratic policies and the establishment of an authoritarian regime... What if the lawmakers are specifically intending to give rise to undemocratic policies and establish an authoritarian regime. Then they could very well be aware of history and want to repeat that for personal gain. That was my thought on A and I still don't really see why it's a wrong answer.

Take two more tests over the course of the next week. Then classify all of your LR misses by question type. You're likely to see one or two specific question types that stand out above the others. Re-do that core curriculum. Then go to the video explanations for those questions and see if what you learns tracks with the way JY explains the answers on those questions. Those video explanations are, for me, both the best and worst things about 7Sage. They're the best in that they provide a way to answer that one person good at the LSAT solves. They're the worst because they can't answer follow-up questions or provide an alternate approach. Having said that, there are usually follow-ups in the comment section below where people will have asked the same question you have over the course of the last few years.

Also, that 154 is your first timed test. You have nothing to compare it to. It sounds like most of the questions you had time and energy to try you got right. That's great! Speed doesn't typically come from concerted efforts to "go faster". It comes with increased levels of comprehension that allow you to find correct answer choices and eliminate incorrect answer choices more confidently. My first timed test was below yours and I broke 170. It just took an hour a day (not on and off) and a full test each weekend over the course of 5 more months to get the result I wanted. That test is a data point. When you have 10 you can start tracking them. When you have 20 you can start to ask some harder questions of yourself with enough data to back up options.

Man, fuck 27. This question relies on incredibly detailed analysis on its correct answer choice that, if approached in this manner, the rest of the test would paralyze a test taker into finishing like 2/3 of the questions. "Does not necessarily endorse" is technically true even though it completely fails the reasonable person standard with the article. Yeah, the author pretty much endorses it but places a few words to distance him or herself from doing it explicitly. IMO, C DOES support a policy recommendation. It recommends that the discussed version of transfer of property should apply and even clarifies it further. We could go around in circles with that but it doesn't make it an effective question. It's just there to be contrary imo, and possibly lead test takers into implementing time wasting strategies. FU, LSAC.

Also, I don't know how competitive you would be for a T14 transfer out of Oklahoma even if you were top of your class. Transfers are rare enough and you will be competing against people from the top % of classes from places like Fordham, Geroge Washington, WashU, Iowa, and USC which are rated much higher than OU and those folks are going to get the T14 slots. You can call Northwestern and ask them about their transfer stats and where they take their transfers from. I would be very surprised if they took anybody from outside the T50.

I don't know what your GPA is. I assume it's below 3.5 If it's not below 3.5 you just need to study for the LSAT until you get a 168. It's really that simple. If you're below 3.5, like a previous poster said, you need a score good enough to get you into a T14 or a top regional law school from a place where you want to settle. Ties in that area are a serious bonus. Do not count on transferring. Plan it from the end. Pick the place you want to live. Research the market for that place and find which schools they OCI. Then get the scores to go to those schools.

The issue I'm finding that resonates the most with smart individuals is the reconciliation between potential debt vs placement and the bimodal structure of the law market related to salary. With that said, I would advise you to at least have one of those two things covered if you are not getting into a school that puts you on the positive side of that equation. If you have the right connections to guarantee a good, steady, paying job or if you have the money to go to law school free of charge then I say go for it no matter what. You've essentially eliminated the greatest concern. I would not, however, stake my future on a law school with a 65% placement rate that only puts 5% of its graduates in the upper tier of the bimodal distribution if I was taking on any significant debt.

I'm not you so this is just one idiot's opinion. But I would do a budget breakdown and compare your needs with the ABA/NALP standings of any law school you would elect to attend. It may open your eyes a bit as to what would be required to succeed after your education.

And in all circumstances you should take the test a third time if you can afford it.

I had some trouble in LR with simply not understanding what the passage actually said before I started struggling with the answers. While drilling 35 minutes sections I circled any question that I didn't feel 100% confident on and then took all those questions along with any other that I missed and rewrote the stimulus in my own words and then rewrote the question in my own words. This solved a large amount of problems though admittedly at a great cost in time. I was missing 7-9 in LR when I started doing that and had trouble adequately understanding why many answers were incorrect. I'm at the point now where I'm in the 3-5 incorrect range where I can now start funneling through the reasons I'm picking incorrect answers.

I think too often we focus on WHY the answers are right or wrong without fully comprehending what we just read. Anecdotal, admittedly, but I think that it pays to take an approach from the ground up if an individual is missing as many questions as you and I have missed. Grit and drive are important. Don't give up.

There are usually only 2 or 3 questions per section that have some pretty intense lawgic in my opinion. I tend to skip them, do the other questions, and use my last ~5-8 minutes on those questions. I usually get through them with enough time even though I do diagram them. I also will diagram when I want to check a parallel flaw/method question against two answers I think may be acceptable or if I've eliminated four and I really have a problem with the fifth answer. I've found some ancillary benefit to skipping those questions as well. Usually when I finish one of them my brain feels legitimately used/tired. By saving them to the end I have the short break between sections to center with some breathing and not risk a tough, diagram question influencing a following, easier question because of fatigue.

Since it's now relevant with your 33 bennies here's an awesome spreadsheet that gives you school-specific info: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TZWCZ79yFzrv2J6bdyzqtS_uZFb8-mQ-9pXkALxEtw8/edit#gid=1439159944

Definitely agree with your method regarding SA questions. For example: PT 68, Sec 2 Question 23 was, at the time of my practice, way too advanced for me to understand without minutes of thought. With that said, I just linked up the jump in logic and picked an answer that covered it. It was a guaranteed 50/50 more than likely and it freed me up to think critically about three more questions rather than banging my head against the wall on one singular answer.

If registered for February schools will know that when you send in your application. Unfortunately, the evidence seems to point to apps with a Feb LSAT as not receiving commensurate acceptance and ESPECIALLY scholarship money compared to apps submitted before the FEB LSAT. Any apps you submit will have your DEC LSAT score on them already. You might be in a situation where it's better to take the LSAT again in FEB (and possibly again in June) and then reapplying next cycle, especially if money is a concern.

This is by no means necessary, you can absolutely attend next cycle with an LSAT from FEB, but if you aren't happy with your results this cycle you are likely to have more success next cycle.

So you're making a few assumptions here. You're assuming that this language is inclusive of all possible chapter GI Bill bennies when it's likely geared toward chapter 33 users. Montgomery is probably such a rare bird with law schools, simply because it doesn't make a lot of sense to use it against chapter 33 for almost all applicants, that it DOES make some sense from their point. They're just considering post 9/11. The stipulation essentially covers the school's right to assert their own right to maximize the GI Bill payments they get since chapter 33 is exclusively "last-payer". If they offered you 40k and post 9/11 covered 11k then they're in the same boat if they offer 30k and post 9/11 offers 21. In each scenario the student gets zero money on the back end unless some of that scholarship is converted to living stipends. Some schools do that. No school is required to.

And anyway, BC should have a bad taste in your mouth anyway because of its paltry yellow-ribbon contributions. Not that it's relevant to a Montgomery user but that should tell you all you need to know about BC's desire, or lack thereof, for veterans.

LG is the easiest to improve initially. For me the best improvement came after I focused hard on getting the first ten questions right in LR and the first 2 games completely right in LG. We don't score highly by getting questions wrong. Improving accuracy on the questions you do is far more important than worrying about speed. Good luck.

Be careful of interpreting ABA stats without further looking into them. GW's biglaw numbers seem to be pumped up by a larger than average amount of IP applicants. If you are eligible to sit the patent bar this may be a positive for you. If you aren't it may be a negative.

A still confuses me to this day because I think it's a very extant possibility that Caligula's enemies destroyed the good documentation and left remaining documentation that paints him as a tyrant. I guess "specific, outrageous acts" could still exist but there are varying levels to these and I still am unconvinced as to the argument of C.

#help (Added by Admin)