Discussions

sakinasohail01555

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

Study Groups

•

Wednesday, Jun 18 2025

sakinasohail01555

Study Group for LSAT/Applying in fall 2025 cycle

Hi friends!

I sat the LSAT three times in 2024 (August, September, and November) and got a 163 each time. It wasn't my goal score, however I applied to law schools in the fall 2024 cycle anyways and I did not get accepted.

I am planning to resit the LSAT this September, and aim for a score in the 170's. I will apply to law schools in the upcoming cycle as well.

I was wondering if anybody is in a similar boat and would like to study together, or even just exchange numbers so we can support each other while we collectively suffer through the LSAT and admissions cycle. I have been scoring an average of 168 in my PT and 172 after BR. I am really hoping by September I can score in the high 170's. My GPA in my undergrad was not great, so excelling in the LSAT is really my best chance of getting into a good law school.

Lessons · You Try - Coffeehouses and Restaurants

sakinasohail01555

Monday, Jun 09 2025

Think of it like this:

The negation of comfortable = not comfortable. (and not comfortable simply means uncomfortable).

Not comfortable could mean you are neutral or uncomfortable:

not comfortable = neutral or uncomfortable.

So when we negate "not comfortable" :

not {not comfortable} = not {neutral or uncomfortable}

So not "not comfortable" (not uncomfortable) would mean you are not "neutral or uncomfortable" meaning that you are certainly comfortable, just given how negations work.

Try to analogize with:

negation of pink = not pink (could be red or blue or any other non-pink color)

negation of "not pink" = not "not pink" (not being "not pink" means you are certainly pink, because you are not anything that is considered "non-pink color").

I know it sounds weird, but thinking of it like that helped me understand! English is so weird :(

Lessons · Quantifier Inferences

sakinasohail01555

Friday, May 23 2025

In theory yes, I think your grammar parsing is off.

some dogs like bacon = some of the beings that like bacon are dogs

hope that helps clarify!

Lessons · Motivation Break꞉ Brad Carney

sakinasohail01555

Thursday, May 22 2025

I love these motivation breaks! Would love to see more :)

Lessons · Bi-Conditionals

sakinasohail01555

Wednesday, May 21 2025

In my opinion the best way to explain/understand a bi-conditional claim is how it is taught in Math. It is taught as an 'iff' claim aka. an if and only if claim.

All an iff claim means is that each element implies the other:

Iff A then B, means: A --> B, and B --> A.

It is helpful to differentiate an iff claim from a regular conditional because of LSAT questions as so:

an animal is a zebra if and only if it has white and black stripes. (our biconditional claim in an argument on the LSAT)

Jerry is an animal that has black and white stripes. (an assertion made as part of the argument)

What inference can you make? (LR question on LSAT)

That Jerry is a zebra. (Answer derived by understanding that it is an iff claim, so both elements imply each other)

Lessons · Group 1 - Sufficient Condition Indicators

sakinasohail01555

Saturday, May 17 2025

Yes, there are many other factors that can result in the market crashing..The zombies is just one of them. Zombies implies market crash, as our premise states. However, that is not the same as market crash implies zombies!

When the zombies attack, we can be certain that the market crashed. However, if the market crashes we cannot infer that it is certainly because the zombies attacked. What we can infer is that if the market did not crash, then certainly zombies did not attack NYC. (because our premise clearly states that when zombies attack, the market will crash, so there is no possibility that zombies attacked and the market did not crash)

Lessons · Group 1 - Sufficient Condition Indicators

sakinasohail01555

Saturday, May 17 2025

Yes it can. The statement does not attribute the fact that the market is not crashing to the fact that zombies are not attacking NYC.

All the statement says is that since the market is not crashing we can be certain in inferring that zombies are not attacking NYC because when zombies attack NYC, the market will certainly crash.

Lessons · Sets v. Conditions

sakinasohail01555

Friday, May 16 2025

It is so interesting to see conditional logic explained this way! I majored in Math and we were taught set and conditional logic in one of our core math courses (MATH 220: Mathematical Proofs). While it was taught in a slightly different way, it seamlessly applies to the LSAT.