- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
Hey all,
So yea I'm in this predicament. I've spent a few days in torturous introspection to no avail so lets see what you folks think. I took the test under awful physical conditions to say the least; coughing, sneezing, migraine, light headedness just to name a few of my symptoms (that I'm still dealing with). Had to get up a few times mid section to go spit and blow my nose.....I digress.
I ran out of time on every section (around 5-7 missed in each I'd say) and only got through 2 and a half LG. Oddly enough, I felt pretty confident on almost every question I did answer. Including LG. Mid 160s was my goal but I am all but certain I fell short. Before falling ill, I conceded that I'd retake in December if I came out unconfident. Now I'm faced with the decision of whether or not to cancel. Thoughts?
mattjm1121980
Question from a fried brain: difference between not both statement and always apart biconditional?
so hopefully this is a temporary loss of clarity, but I can't quite articulate the difference. In grouping games it seems that both A-->/B and A(--)/B can both be represented visually on a gameboard stacked in a box with a slash no? As in, if A is in a group then B is not; compared to A and B cannot both be in the same group.
Someone get my back!
i think this may have been a bit easier if the question stem had said "misinterpreted" instead of "interpreted"
something's fishy with 12. i don't think the use of "in England" necessarily implies that women in other countries also received grants of their husbands land. to me it just reveals that there are countries that use other terms to label or describe what could have only been practiced in England. instead of "dower", they called it "rewod".......
number 17 is ridiculous. is money not a resource that should be "conserved"?
I also chose D but i really didn't like that option much either. it seems to be based on the assumption that only major artists could have create "valuable paintings"
I chose B not because I assumed lobsters live long enough to get gill disease, but because it must be that the lobsters in the open ocean (the ones we don't catch) aren't being harmed by the sewage that's in an industrial harbor, hence the longer lifespans. Meaning that the proposal to reroute sewage would be in fact be useful in reducing gill disease. Am I wrong because I assumed the longer lifespans are at least in part due to the decreased likelihood of gill disease?
I still don't get how classifying an action into a category isn't a matter of fact. If you are found guilty of murder, isn't that guilty verdict a matter of fact? I understand that it carries legal ramifications, but I feel the ruling itself is a matter of fact. What am I missing? Or is this a semantic nuance of legal expression?
(A) was my first answer choice, but i wasn't totally satisfied because of the last sentence of the stimulus. it claims that it is almost impossible to make drivers with a lot of demerits into good drivers. it doesn't say anything about those also with serious driving related offenses, therefore i understood that these drivers would not be in the "DLS" group; they'd be just "DL." JY justifies (A) primarily with that final sentence, but to me it seems that there is insufficient info in the stimulus for complete justification.
am i missing something?
Thanks for the great feedback guys. Way to keep my sights up! Keep it up brna I'll be meeting you in the 170s soon enough!
Hey all,
LSAT prep noob here and I was just wondering how much of a better candidate I can make myself with, say a 170+ LSAT. I posted a 157 diagnostic, so from the feedback I've received, 170+ is at least within the realm of possibility. I graduated May '13 with about a 3.4 GPA (<
yea i didn't mean that i'd take the PTs right away, but in due time when i am deeper into the prep, they should help paint a better picture for me. btw, what are Cambridge materials? am i a moron for asking that? lol
thanks for all of the input guys. hopefully after another PT or 2 i'll have a better picture of what my timeline should look like.
thanks thats great to hear! i did much better on the logic games and reading comprehension than on the logical reasoning. at this point i am looking to study maybe 12-15/week give or take but for some reason i am finding the prep so far a bit fun (yes my life is that boring lol) so i may push it a bit further. today alone i've spent about 10 hours reviewing the test and watching the video explanations. i guess thats what this NYC winter will do to you lol
Hey all,
so i am new here at 7sage (Ultimate) and just finished PTJ07 scoring a 157. my original intention was to prepare for the better part of a year and take the real deal in Feb '16. at this point i would just like some feedback on what significance that sort of score (if any) should have on my preliminary timeframe. i hope to get to 170 (at least 165+) and the sooner i take the real LSAT the better, but i'm not at all willing to compromise my preparedness in order to save time. is it reasonable to think that i can bump up that score 10+ points? before PTJ07 i essentially did no LSAT prep outside of reading about the test.
i'd appreciate any and all feedback!
I'm having the same issue. I was actually able to take the test but now that I want to review my answers, I am locked out......
Hey all,
I purchased the Premium package a few days ago and I just finished the June 07 LSAT but for some reason my account is denying me access now that I want to go back and review the score and answers. All of the lessons from the June 07 LSAT link including the video explanations are now locked and highlighted in yellow. I tried logging in and out a few times but its still the same. What could be the problem?
Thanks,
Matt
to me the reasoning in the stimulus seems fallacious because it attempts to rely on expert authority at all rather than valid argument; in this case a valid rebuttal of the success of a program (or lack thereof).