Thanks everyone! I guess I should have mentioned that I am fairly knowledgeable about computers to save you all from the Mac spec vs. PC spec debate. I have a Dell PC myself which I have upgraded and moved to a Cougar tower and built a PC for my gf a year and a half ago. I didn't have a Mac in undergrad because I couldn't afford it, but I had a completely awful Toshiba which is what gives me pause with PC. I currently have HP's version of the chromebook as a spare laptop I rarely use, but the thing is awful for running anything more than one program at a time so it's definitely not going to cut it with its unexpandable 1gb of RAM. Really I was just looking for some firsthand experience, which you all offered, so thank you, but as @wraith985-4026 mentioned, it is purely anecdotal. I am a gamer, but on my desktop, gave up gaming on laptops when I got into the real world and didn't need to play WoW on a crappy Toshiba lol.

Anyway, it sounds like from a reliability standpoint, the results are about the same. I am an iPhone user and I do love the great support Apple has versus other companies. However, like someone else mentioned, Excel on a Mac is literally the worst thing ever (especially if you studied accounting in undergrad and had groupmates with Macs). I guess my main reason for thinking Mac was reliability and customer support, but seeing a lot of your responses kind of makes me think it really doesn't matter. The school I'll be attending has support for both. From personal experience and from Apple's great marketing, PCs do have the unreliable, virus infested stigma attached to them. I guess I'll just have to see what deals I can find and go from there. Really I just want the peace of mind that a lot of Mac users seem to get. Last thing I need a laptop crashing during finals. Thanks again for everyone's input, this was very helpful!

Side note: I used 7sage from July to October for the October LSAT and ended up getting a full scholarship to several schools, but picked Seton Hall. I'll be moving there sometime between now and July from Las Vegas. For any noobs in here, 7sage and LSAT Trainer by Mike Kim (I used it for LR only) are literally ALL you need to nail this exam. I scored a 162 working a full-time job and recovering from post concussion syndrome symptoms, so imagine if you're a student or just graduated with all kinds of time, 165+ is easily attainable (I was PTing in the 165 range with several 170+ scores).

Good luck and thanks again!

And I agree 100% with @974, simply stating that hard work and perseverance can overcome these issues is nice, but people need to know reality and some of the things that will get in their way. This is why I commented on the tutor thing asking for tutors to include their work/school status. With no disrespect to anyone, but no way in hell would I hire a 7sage tutor who did not work a full-time career like I do. How can you relate to me and prep me for what I will go through? If people get discouraged by that, well, they shouldn't be here in the first place IMO. The workplace is not for the easily discouraged, especially corporate or for the government (I have worked for both). 7sage may very well give you the resolve you need to succeed by presenting you with challenges well before they come.

Peeps, I have already taken the LSAT twice, scoring 6 points higher the second time thanks to 7sage and lessening post-concussion syndrome symptoms. I don't need the whole mindset peptalk. Also, if you took my statement literally that the LSAT makers favor rich people, then you missed the point (go figure). The LSAT, like most things, inherently favors rich people, not because of the content, but because the more money you have the more you can spend on studying in many different ways. Denying this is naive, plain and simple. Further, don't read into my statement any more than is required; the LSAT inherently favors the rich. The end. I am not saying I am comparing myself to a rich person, saying I wish I was rich (although, separate from this, I do wish that), not saying I am discouraged by not being rich, or that you should be discouraged, or anything else. I am stating a simple fact that some of you naively disagree with. 7sage has been great, but some of you need to lay off the psychologist attempts; some of us just enjoy a debate and pointing out clear inaccuracies, and pointing those out doesn't mean I have some deep down feelings and thoughts of self doubt and whatever else you may try and help me with. Thank you!

I sense a different tone now, which may be because of what Wang and Song already said. I don't disagree with this current message, but the one you sent above, I still stand by my response.

@2543.hopkins I couldn't disagree with you any more. The LSAT absolutely favors those with money and those not working full-time. That doesn't mean a rich kid will never perform worse than a poor one, as you seem to imply, but it absolutely does mean those with money have more resources available to them. If I had endless money to spend I would have hired tutors, signed up for the most expensive 7sage package, bought every released PT, etc. But, I am not, so I could not. I didn't read the rest of the OP because it seemed like a bitch-fest, but this one point I do agree with OP on. And I am also going to give my response I always give to people who think what they've been through is somehow representative of reality: Your reality is not my reality, nor anyone else's. Sure, you were still able to succeed without much money, that doesn't mean more resources wouldn't or would've helped. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have done better with more resources or anyone else for that matter. After all JY has taught us, you should know a thing or two about small sample sizes.

Thanks, it could've been much worse so I am grateful it was not. And no, sorry, I do not have much insight on what makes a good supplemental statement (besides my own situation) and I don't want to lead you astray by pretending I do.

Good reason is I was concussed in April while studying for the June LSAT and still have PCS to this day, but it is no where near as bad as it was in April-May and I now know how to manage it better than before. Also I had surgical procedures done on each of my feet in May which required me to take strong painkillers, making studying....difficult to say the least lol.

got my score in email. waiting for my gf to get home to open it. good luck!!

GRAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was predicting Friday or more likely Saturday based on the past. This is exciting/so nerve racking. Being as I don't ever plan to take the LSAT again, the weight of this is going to be huge! Good luck everyone! BTW if you didn't see JY's post, 89/101 is a 170.

I had the 3 lr, 26 26 25, rc 27, and lg 23. Based on this one of my experimental was a 26, because if not that would be 102 questions. Luckily the two 26s were my worst sections.

JY plays WoW.

Agree with allergic, I have been under the weather for about 2 weeks, same symptoms as you, and on the first day it was the worst. Took a PT on the second day and I am pretty sure I scored a 171, which is my highest ever. Who knows, the fear of being/getting sick might put you into the zone and make you score even better. :)

Let's say there is a total of 10 doctors. 6 believe they are not influenced. 6 also believed their peers are influenced. There has to be an overlap between the two, meaning one or more of the doctors who believes he is not influenced, is also believed by most of his peers, to be influenced. You cannot have both at the same, thus C is correct.

The question asks to weaken his explanation for the drop in crime. Whether or not it was 20% or 30%, that does not affect his explanation. The way D affects his explanation is that, maybe crime would have fallen no matter what in your city because as a nation we are becoming safer with less crime. Saying that maybe crime fell only 20% because of his techniques instead of 30% does not reduce the fact that it still happened because of his techniques. That's at least how I see it.

Trusted member means he can be trusted....?

The 2 choices are not mutually exclusive, so disjunctive is not the proper word to describe their relationship.

B is relevant, JY, because if organisms did not exist until way after the formation of the earth, when the scientists say petroleum was created, then there is no way that biomarkers are part of the original petroleum creating process, as they did not exist.

This question is bullshit, to say the least.

You are making a ton of assumptions in arguing for this hypothesis. And you are doing so because you know the answer already. Maybe approach as a student for the first time when explaining.

The correct answer is almost like an NA because it so weakly supports the argument.