In terms of evaluating your app from a numbers point of view, I think they'll use your CAS GPA. However, if you can write about your study abroad experience, show how you did well, and maybe tie that in with why you'll make a good law student/a specific area of law you want to study, that wouldn't hurt your app!
Between PTs, drilling is your best friend. I might split it up like this, once you take a PT and assess what the main focus of your studying for that week will be: LG/RC/ or LR.
Once you decide which area will be your main focus, on Monday if LR or RC, do a timed section from a fresh test. Then BR that section the same day or the next day, depending how much timing you have. Then check your answers, and prioritize the answers you either got wrong both times, or got wrong on BR but didn't get wrong originally. Last priority is to go over questions you got right both times and questions you weren't 100% sure on. I always made problem sets of all the questions I flagged, and also a separate problem set for each questions I got wrong (either initially or on BR). I then would copy and paste the LR questions or RC questions that I got wrong/had the most trouble with into a google doc, where I would write out the type of question, premises, conclusion, and then method of attack, then write out why each answer choice was wrong and why the correct answer choice was correct. Then I'd write out a key learning from that question. this process helps you see patterns, learn from your mistakes.
The next day (whether Tues or Wed), I would maybe try drilling some LG Games (3-4), usually I would take a whole fresh LG section from a Practice test and do that section. If you have time, BR the section or individual games that you flagged questions for. Then check your answers, and save in a separate problem set each game that you got wrong answers on. Then watch the explanation on 7sage. Then do each game that you didn't do perfectly again, right after watching the video. If you don't get 100% on the next attempt, rinse and repeat until you get them all right for that day. I would also try some old games that you had trouble with, just to confirm you still remember how to do them correctly.
I personally think you're the only one who is actually going to be doing the learning and the tests. Writing out explanations for questions in LR/RC you got wrong takes a lot of time, but it's worth it because that's how you learn from your own mistakes and start seeing patterns.
Haha thanks everyone!! Definitely feeling the love. I think I might have gone for ice cream and then had a drink when I found out :blush:
I believe the hardest part of the study process was keeping my spirits up when I would take a practice test and not see the improvement I was hoping for. This probably was the hardest thing I have ever done academically, and it was very difficult for me to keep my morale up and not get down on myself when I scored below my target on a PT, especially after putting hours into studying. Reading other's posts who also struggled kept me going. I knew logically if I kept studying, I would of course improve, but I didn't always believe in myself!
I think the most rewarding part of studying for this exam was watching my understanding and mastery of the test grow with time. Seeing connections/similarities between certain LR questions during my last month of studying that were totally lost to me a few months earlier was very satisfying. As your time studying goes on, I believe you start to refine your skills in the test and spot patterns that you cant' spot earlier on when you're less familiar with the exam. The exam really does reward long term studying! And of course, receiving my score was an immensely gratifying feeling, after many months of hard work and sacrifice.
Believe it or not, I actually scored the 156 on the July exam, which was 2 points lower than my original diagnostic! After licking my wounds, I returned to studying in September. But I was still testing in the low to mid 160s all the way up to my exam, apart from one PT that was a 170.
If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out!
My GPA didn't change at all, I'm on a 4.0 scale where an A- is 3.67 points and a B+ is 3.33 points.
I don't think it should matter too much, considering that LSAT scores are valid for 5 years. The admissions office does see the date of the exam, but it shouldn't affect how they view you as a candidate! If you want, you can add an addendum explaining why you took two years off between the test and applying.
Get as much sleep as possible the night before the exam. I had trouble sleeping, so the sleep quality wasn't the best, but if you allow yourself more time to sleep, the better.
If you can, do some aerobic exercise before (even a walk). It's proven to keep the brain more alert. I brought a thermos of coffee along with me to sip on while I drove to the exam, but didn't have any caffeine once I arrived to avoid a crash (don't go OD on the caffeine!). Healthy snacks like granola and berries will give you the carbs for long term energy, and a lil chocolate for a sugar rush at the snack break.
Yeah it's a ball point blue pen and actually worked fine for me. Stylus is on the end if the pen
Congratulations, that's a great score!
That's what did it for me as well. And I promise to do a more in depth review of my whole process. I learned a lot and want to pass on those learnings to others I can to others.
I will make a longer post about my LSAT experience later, but I wanted to give a huge shout out to 7sage and your community. I'm breaking up with the LSAT, and cant wait to enjoy my freedom.
To everyone still studying, just know you all will reap the benefits of your hard work! This test absolutely broke me at some moments along the way, but I always remembered the long game. Dont give up!
Nevermind, it looks like my CAS report was just recieved by my school! So it looks like LSAT writing doesn't need to be fully reviewed (or for others, even submitted) before a CAS report can be generated.
With LSAC's recent announcement that they will release lsat scores to law schools before the lsat writing review has been completed, I wonder about how this policy change will affect CAS reports.
My report is currently being held up because LSAC hasn't released my writing sample review (despite completing it before an applicable application deadlines), although my october score was released today. However, within my LSAC account, my law school report appears ready to be sent. The report status under the school I applied to says :
"Report generated: type credential"
Does this mean that the CAS report has been generated and will be sent?
Thanks!
Hi Everyone, does this mean that the CAS report will be released to schools even before the LSAT writing has been completed for review? I'm in a tight spot where I completed the LSAT writing before a school's application deadline, and received my october score today, but the CAS report still hasn't been sent to the school yet.
However, I do see in my LSAC account under the Law School Reports for the requested school that it says Report Generated- Type: Credential Assembly. There are no error messages, so I'm guessing that LSAC might send out the report tomorrow morning if the LSAT writing portion is no longer needed to send scores.
As a third note, does anyone know how long it takes for the proctors to review the LSAT writing videos, on average?? I'm stressed out here and will call LSAC tomorrow, but am currently searching for answers.
I had 3 LR sections (all 26 questions I believe). The order was LR LG LR- LR RC
The first section for LR was harder than the other two. I think there was a question about fish with upwards eyes, but I honestly can't remember because that could have been in one of the other sections. The other two LRs were more manageable in my opinion. The LG seemed easier, although the format wasn't typical for LSAT games. The game with tour guides gave me the most trouble, ended up guessing on one question there.
RC I thought was tough on two passages, okay on the other two. The volcanoes and I property gave me the most trouble.
Overall, I was happy because I answered almost all the questions, and because I did much better than I performed in July. I'm not really sure which LR section was experimental for me, but that's fine! Hopefully I won't have to retake in November!
Ie some things that are intelligent don’t exhibit consciousness.
Consciousness ←s→ complex behavior
Complex behavior→ intelligence
Consciousness ←s→ intelligence
Type of Question- Weaken (8/28)
Argument: OPA; Dioxin, produced by paper mil;s, causes fish birth abnormalities, because paper mills release dioxin daily into the river where fish live directly downstream. However, when the paper mill shuts down, fish hormone levels return quickly to normal despite the fact that it takes dioxin a long time to decompose in the environment.
Conclusion: Dioxin isn’t the likely cause of these abnormalities.
Method of attack: How can weaken the support between the premise and the conclusion?
A- .This is a classic trap answer choice, trying to attack the premise. Even if this were true, the studies could also still be true. Also note the word some.
B- Literally trying to attack the premise, which we never do.
C- Correct. If dioxin is quickly carried far downstream, then during a mill shutdown, it will not be present in the environment of the fish directly downstream from the mill. This means that the fish are not exposed to dioxin during shutdowns, explaining why their hormones balance out.
D- We don’t care about physiological changes, we’re talking solely about hormonal changes/birth defects.
E- My original answer choice, but again tries to attack the premise. Also note the word thoroughly, ie its okay if the connection isn’t thoroughly understood, doesn’t weaken the argument.
Key Takeaway- This is a tricky one, and requires understanding the arguments’ premises before being able to answer the question. Remember with weakening questions that you can’t attack the premises, and always ask “So what if this is true? How does this affect the argument’s validity?”
For question 19, I got it wrong in BR and in the timed PT ( I chose B both times). Here goes my explanation at why A is correct over B.
B- incorrect for two reasons. At first i thought it was restating her hypothesis that many immature nerve cells are programmed to die. In fact, answer choice B never mentions nerve cells dying. Instead, it says that developing embryos produce more nerve cells than they will need. These are two different (albeit related) facts. Secondly, as JY mentioned, The results from her 1949 research concluded what answer choice B states.
A is correct for the reason that the scientists "theorized that a chemical produced by the tumor was responsible for the nerve cell growth". She then tested this hypothesis through the expriemtn of using the chick embryo tissue culture and mouse tumor cells.
I got Q7 wrong in both the timed PT and in BR, so here is my shot at explaining the correct answer choice:
The questions asks for the primary function of the author's mention of "marketing devices" in line 43. That paragraph begins with the author's argument against legal plans due to their harmful effects on the legal profession. Income for quality attorneys will drop, which will in turn reduce the quality of legal services provided to clients.
A- Correct answer and good, because it supports the author's main argument and makes sense within the context of the paragraph (ie supports the main conclusion of the paragraph as cited in the first sentence).
B- although this statement is factually correct, this is not the primary function of mentioning marketing devices at this point in the passage. The author is inteding to offer support for his claim made in the previous sentence, not looking to offer support for the counter argument (OPP) made earlier in the passage.
C- Factually incorrect.
D- Also factually incorrect in the sense that established attorneys are never mentioned as advocating against the legal plans. The arguments against legal plans derive entirely from the author.
E- Although its is factually correct that many attorneys have difficulty establishing themselves, this answer choice is wrong for the same reason as answer choice D. It incorrectly attributes an argument in favor of legal plans to unestablished attorneys, when in fact the attorneys have never advocated for themselves or expressed opinions either for or against these plans.
Great explanation!! A more intuitive alternative way of looking at the often SA question.
Flawed argument Form:
OPP: We should reduce excessive spending:
Response: Well actually the main problem isn't spending, it's a bloated gov.
Flawed conclusion: We shouldn't decrease deficit spending.
MAIN PROBLEM: The argument doesn't ever address the OPP. It doesn't explain why we should NOT decrease deficit spending, instead it goes into an analysis of a separate issue.
Answer choice E is incorrect because it offers an alternate explanation for the drop in applications to N. American PhD programs.
P 1: Democracies → FMCE
P2: transition to from totalitarian to democracy → regulations on capitalist activities
C: Those who criticize the regulations of certain govts are being hasty/ unfounded
Major Gap: What types of governments are these? In order for the conclusion (regulations are necessary, thus criticizing them is hasty) to be true, the government must be in a transition from a totalitarian regime to a democracy
A: Incorrect because if we take the opposite of the statement, that some governments have reached a state of perfect democracy as is possible, this has no effect on our conclusion of unfounded criticisms against govts with regulations
B: incorrect. If we take the negative of the statement, the more democratic a country is, the more regulated its economy must be, this stil ldoesn't affect the relationship between our P2 and our conclusion.
C: incorrect: negated statement: the need for economic stability does not make the existence of a partially democratic government more probable than the existence of a fully democratic govt.
This answer choice is incorrect for a number of reasons: 1. no where in the argument does it discuss economic stability. Neither does it discuss the probability of one type of govt or another. Nor does it discuss "partially democratic governments" vs. "fully democratic govts" Totally irrelevant
D: incorrect: negated statement: a free-market economy → compatible with a non democratic regime
this is basically confusing the necessary for the sufficient condition in P1: D--> FMCE
the contrapositive of this is FMCE --> D which isn't relevant to answer choice D
E: correct: negated statement: the nations (whose regulations ppl bemoan) DID NOT have totalitarian regimes
If this negated statement were true, then then the link between P2 and the Conclusion falls apart. mainly that you can't criticize regulations that are necessary to the transitioning from totalitarian to democracy.
Both researchers speak in probabilities "risk" "likely", but not in absolutes
Answer choice A : WRONG
Jenkins says there is a strong possbility of snow melting after Feb
Lurano says weather will "likely" be cold, so admits there is a small possiblity that it could melt.
B : WRONG Both disagree with the statement.
Jenkins thinks it's likely it will be impossible
Lurano thinks it will be possible after Feb
C: WRONG:
Jenkins thinks that funding will likely be wasted (risk wasting funding), but does not think definitively that funding will be wasted
D WRONG:
Both agree with this statement.
Jenkins states that explicitly, and
Lurano says that the weather will still likely be cold, implying that Jan/Feb are actually colder.
E: WRONG:
Lurano explicitly states that she that research funding considerations DO NOT outweight the safety of the researchers
Jenkins states implies that because research should be conducted in Jan/Feb, when there is less risk to waste funding, that he agrees with teh statement that those considerations outweigh the safety of the researchers.
@cilgyabraham920 no problem!! feel free to reach out if you have any other questions. I learned a lot about study techniques during this test and want to help!