@ I just applied for the February cycle a few months ago and was approved! Based on what you have written you should be good. Just make sure you submit all the documents you can, I got my family doctor to write a written statement about my disorder, my psychiatrist's original diagnostic report, and a letter from my university regarding accommodations that I had received in the past.
LR!!! In December I nearly died with RC first followed by an experimental RC. Just a wonderful combination :)
Hey guys would really appreciate some help with this question
I chose C during my timed test and blind review and I'm pretty confused as to why its incorrect and I've searched all over for an explanation that makes sense to me but haven't found anything
Thanks in advance!
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-4-question-03/
Hey 7sagers,
So I took the December LSAT and it went okay, but I know I probably didn't reach my goal. I'm registered for February, took a week or so off and have been studying again now. So my 7sage membership was almost up and I decided to upgrade to Ultimate. Ultimate is amazing, I'm happy with my decision the problem sets are awesome. I was done all the CC before but now that I have ultimate I'm only 65% done and have to finish the new PSs. I've been working on them but of course they're time consuming to do and properly BR, so I haven't been able to do any new prep tests. What do you guys think I should do...prep test while still completing the new PSs, or finish them all first then start my prep tests again. It's almost January! Where has the time gone I'm starting to panic a little right now. Any advice would be appreciated!
Oh and HAPPY HOLIDAYS!
When I was doing this question during the test and BR I chose D because I figured that "mere existence of blahblah" means that there's only this existence and no critical thinking needed, contraposing back our chain and thus must be false. Is that an accurate way to think of this question?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but during BR I saw this argument as a causation/correlation argument
Our argument is suggesting that snow and ice cause allow more light to be reflected back into the and the effect of this is lower atmospheric temperatures
Using this relationship I wanted to find something that showed that when the cause (snow and ice) was removed, the effect (low temperatures) was also removed. Alternatively, I wanted to find an answer choice that eliminates some alternative phenomenon that could be contributing to lower atmospheric temperatures in the presence of snow and ice.
A. This to me suggested a reverse causal relationship, as it is showing that the correlation we tend to find between snow/ice and low temperatures actually is the result of low temps causing snow/ice to form. This would at best weaken our argument.
B. Other factors - okay but what are these other factors? Are you trying to convince me that snow/ice are not causing this lower temperature or trying to convince me that the argument is weak by pointing to another source? At best this weakens.
C. Perfect. This answer shows us that in the absence of the absence of the cause we do not find the same effect. When we take away snow/ice and replace this "cause" with oceans and land we will find higher atmospheric temperatures (do not find the same effect).
For causation/correlation arguments, showing that in the absence of the cause there is no effect, will strengthen our argument.
D. As mentioned by JY when I read this argument and drew a little picture illustrating the reflection process with ice/snow I too questioned whether this process would, according to this answer, actually cause higher temperatures and weaken the argument. Thus I eliminated it.
E. Okay? Why are you talking about soil, are you trying to relate light coloured soil to ice and say that the reflection process with light soil is similar to that with ice? This does nothing for the argument, if anything it reaffirms the fact that light coloured surfaces like snow and ice are highly reflective and if we take the causal relationship as given this would imply that these surfaces do in fact lower temperatures. At best this answer choice weakens.
Ahhhh they totally try to bait you into thinking that the demand did not increase, did not see that and I have a degree in economics :O
Okay so the largest gap here was when I read the stimulus right away I said WTF how can you say something is immoral just because it may be inefficient....that is a huge assumption that the argument is making. Usually these flaw questions will say something like the argument takes for granted that .... when the author is assuming something insane, so here I was looking for "the argument takes for granted that if something is inefficient then it must also be immoral". A was really similar, as it says that something that may not be as desirable as an alternative course of action can still be moral, challenging the huge assumption that the author is making here. Hopefully my thoughts were correct!
Totally missed the gap during the test but during BR it literally dawned on me through the "his or her" in answer choice C. It's so subtle and easy to miss, but it makes total sense because we should be comparing students on an individual level in order to prove or disprove our hypothesis.
Hey! So I haven't come across anything exactly like it but try preptest 10 game 3, it's another unconventional game that kinda does like a trade off type thing. Preptest 11 game 4 is another one thats similar. I'll keep an eye out for more!
Really confused by this question, I chose the right answer and I can see how it is correct, but is it just me or is this very different than the mechanical SA questions we are used to seeing? Is this common in the modern LSAT?
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-76-section-4-question-14/
Omg it was the weirdest section. I did it a few days ago, but once you drill it, it's not too bad!
@ - (take the one's you hated the most and show them no mercy, heehee:)
Great advice! I will definitely do that this week! I'm definitely going to focus more on LG after December's horrible real estate game :)
@
Nice to see a post about Feb.
@
What do you mean by 90s? And do you use 50s(or later) to drill on LG?
I meant the early 1990s! So prep tests like 7-18, there were some tough/super weird games. I feel like the trend has been to throw us off with the second last, or last game...something really odd and so I found looking at those helpful because they had some really weird games back then. I was focusing on the earlier games the last few weeks, but this weekend and from then until the test I'm going to drill the recent games and focus on the earlier ones that I found the hardest!
Also for anyone else taking in Feb I started looking at logic games from the 90s and they really force you to think outside of the box so I would highly encourage you guys to look at those. The last games on the last few tests have been pretty wonky so it's refreshing to attempt some really weird games and actually get them right before the big day.
Hey guys!
Ok so... I wrote in December and I actually went from a really low diagnostic of 144 to 160 (YAY) but I know I can do better and have been averaging higher so I'm writing again in February. Because I wrote it recently, I focused a lot on the modern LSATs and took every preptest from 50-79. I'm focusing on my shitty areas and have been doing prep tests as well, but because I've done most of the modern ones I was working on the 30s and 40s, and I don't know how useful that is. For the last few weeks here, do you guys think I should just retake some of the more modern ones that I have already done and BR those...or attempt old ones that I've never done?
Thanks for all the help guys, couldn't have improved so much without 7sage!
So my LR is pretty decent, LG is definitely one of my strongest sections, and my reading comp score is really quite sad. I think my best bet before the December exam is to nail down my LR and LG as best as I can so I really want to practice the hardest questions of all time. Any recommendations of which logic games to focus on and maybe even some tough LR questions?
Hi guys I would appreciate it if someone could review my reasoning for this question and let me know if this is correct. When BRing I realized that I made a mistake and chose A rather than E which is correct.
Basically if negated, A says something along the lines of less than 51% of those people who abandon the use of chemical fertilizers will periodically grow alfalfa. Now this may be tempting but it doesn`t really do much, our argument doesn`t say that every person needs to make this switch, just that in order to improve the soil structure we need to ditch chemical fertilizers and begin growing green manure crops.
E is a much better answer because it tells us that we can`t use chemical fertilizers AND grown green manure crops, so we have to ditch chemical fertilizers as stated in the argument
When negated it sounds somewhat like, some farmers in the region will grow green manure even if they do not abandon the use of chemical fertilizers, suggesting that we do not need to ditch the fertilizers in order to grow green manure, and ruining our argument.
I also struggled a little with answer choice D, but here`s my reasoning
I think its incorrect because when negated it just says chemical fertilizers themselves do not have a destructive effect on soil, this can be true because the argument is assuming that its the switch from green manure to chemicals that has deteriorated the soil structure, it doesn`t need to be that the chemicals themselves are destructive.
Let me know what you think!
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-2-question-20/
Hi guys
So I am reluctantly applying for accommodations for February. Three years ago I began exhibiting symptoms of OCD and I've been receiving treatment for it ever since. I took the December exam, but didn't apply mostly because I was really anxious about it, and also because after reading up on the accommodations online I realy didn't think that I would get approved. I am registered with my university's program for accommodations, but I haven't had to use them. This is mostly because my condition was diagnosed only a year ago and I've taken very few classes since then. I have been approved for extra time if needed by the university, but I just didn't feel like I needed it in the past. Well that changed in December. During the break I had a minor anxiety attack. I felt like I couldn't read when I opened up the first section...lol, and my OCD was off the charts. I think it's just because I've never taken an exam that has been this stressful. The LSAT triggers anxiety for most people, and having an actual anxiety disorder made this experience horrible. I want to see if I can get approved for February so I have a fair shot at actually finishing the exam without losing control of my mind. Basically wondering if anyone with a similar condition was approved and, if so, any recommendations for documents I should send in with my request. Just filling out the form right now and I'm hopeful I'll get approved without an extensive history of accommodations.
Thanks guys :)
Also for everyone recovering from December, how are you picking back up and studying for Feb? I took a week off (not really I had to submit my final thesis for my undergrad), and now I'm going to start with some LR questions to warm up. Maybe I'll do a PT in a week or so to see where I'm at.
@ hey! tons of great advice above, I just wrote my PS about something similar so I thought I'd chime in.
First of all congrats, your journey is incredible and I think you should share it if you feel comfortable doing so. I have OCD and it definitely has impacted my gpa, it was undiagnosed for most of my life and I suffered the brunt of it during the last few years of my undergrad. I was unsure about including it in my PS but honestly it's a part of who I am so I think it's necessary. I wrote a lot about when I first started suffering from the anxiety, the toll it took on me, my personal life, and my academics. But right after writing about how challenging it was, I shifted towards how much I've learned from it. I'm honestly such a happier, healthier, and stronger person now (as I'm sure you are :)). I wrote about how my OCD has challenged me in so many ways, and how proud I am for seeking treatment and feeling better.
People are often scared to talk about these things because, well it's scary, but this is reality. I think your journey is what sets you apart from everyone else, so I would encourage writing about it and about everything you've learned from it. Talk about how it motivates you.
Hope this helps!
@
How do you know it's time for Vancouver? Asking because I'm also waiting here!
@
STILL WAITING THIS IS AGONIZING
ugh same. WHEN WILL IT END
Ok so I'm doing my blind review, and when I initially did the test I chose the correct answer even though I wasn't happy with it because it seemed more like a sufficient assumption to me. I don't have the ultimate package so I don't have the explanation for this so if someone could help me out that would be much appreciated.
When I read this question I immediately found the gap between choose more wisely and emotions unchanged
I was hoping for an answer that bridged the gap ever so slightly without being obnoxious and of course E bridged that gap but the only if really annoyed me
I interpreted E as an SA in my BR because I diagrammed the following:
human emotions unchanged --> humans unable to choose more wisely
contrapositive: humans able to choose more wisely --> humans emotions have changed
This is precisely what E does and so I went with D thinking it was a little better (now I see why it fails)
I guess D when put to the negation test says something along the lines of "humans do not always choose on the basis of their emotions" and in the conclusion it says: "humans are GENERALLY unable to choose more wisely" so the not always wouldn't really be good enough because the conclusion isn't always saying that it's the case that people do not choose more wisely today, it just needs to be true in at least one case.
When E was put to the negation test it seems like it would be something similar to: it's not the case that humans would now be able to make wiser choices than in centuries past only if an essential change had taken place in their emotions, so we can choose wisely without a change in emotions
Overall, really annoyed by this question...would appreciate any input/feedback on what I mentioned above
Thanks!
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-2-question-12/
I feel like puking. Goddamn mercury
@ I received an email from a law school promoting their program just now. The email said that their record shows that I have taken the December LSAT. Does that mean that the December score has already been released to law schools?
I just received the same thing what the hell is happening!
@ @ looked it up and the following came up:
Do Not Have Plastic Surgery or Other Elective Surgery When Mercury, Venus, and Mars Are Retrograde
Shit I was gonna go get plastic surgery today...probably not a good idea
I didn't choose B on the basis that when we contrapose the relationship back all we can say is that some of those species of plants and animals will not be maintained in the forest, but who's to say it's the endangered species that suffer the brunt of this? Maybe only all the plants die off and some random other species, but not the MOST endangered animals. We cannot make such a specific claim from such a broad conditional statement. A is much more subtle and much safer, at least some could mean one plant dies or one animal dies in the forest because of this failure to intervene and based on our conditional that is all we can really say (one plant/animal dying would definitely imply that the forest is not able to maintain it's full component of plant and animal species, thus failing the sufficient condition).
Can someone elaborate how to eliminate D?
our stimulus tells us:
/diff --> most realistic would be the best (realistic = truthful)
many most realistic are not the best (fail the necessary)
--------------
therefore, beauty and truth are different
gap: we know realistic = truth, but we need best = beautiful or something along the lines of that to make this work
A: phrases it nicely, just as they phrased that the most realistic are the most truthful now we know that the most beautiful are the best
D: beautiful --> the best
This doesn't do much for our relatioship, in terms of the lawgic ... how do we even link this up to what we have? Also it doesn't need to be so strong it's just a necessary assumption question. We can't take anything away from this because our premise is that many that are the most realistic are not the best, and I don't even know how that would apply to this.
In BR I chose A because I felt it matched the language of the stimulus more and it did more for us in terms of the conditional lawgic used....don't know if this is the correct reasoning.
@ I woke up this morning feeling a little off also, don't worry like everyone else said you're not alone! If you haven't already tried anything else one thing that always helps me is oil of oregano. It's really disgusting but you just have to take 5 drops every few hours as per the instructions and it doesn't make you feel drowsy or anything at all, but it helps with a sore throat/sniffles.
@ @ I was thinking the same thing!
@ Hi! Ok thats great to hear, I wasn't sure if it would be the same test all across the board or different one's for those of us writing at a different time/date. I will probably be on here creeping the boards because I feel like it would be way too challenging not to!
@ It's definitely a good thing! I'm taking more this time around myself, I just stopped myself because I wasn't sure the first time. Just watching her made me a little nervous that's all ;)
To everyone writing on Saturday let this be your motto! I was granted accommodations and will be writing on Sunday (superbowl Sunday like come on LSAT REALLY), jk I'm really fortunate that they were so accommodating! I wrote in December so for the newbees, make sure you chill out all day tomorrow and mentally prepare yourself, do NOT DO ANYTHING CRAZY! Also need some advice from you guys...should I refrain from checking the forum before Sunday? I know we are allowed to discuss very few things after the exam, but in December I was obsessively checking the thread on Saturday evening and it helped to hear I wasn't the only one who struggled with the games etc. Since I am writing it a day late I don't know if it would be the smartest idea to psych myself out beforehand by reading anything about it. Let me know what you think! WE ARE GOING TO DO AWESOME! It's really not as scary as it seems.
Hey guys I'm having a hard time with this one
For anyone who is willing to try it out can you show me how you diagrammed it and came to choosing A over the others.
Thanks in advance!!
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-3-question-22/
LOL I took 4 but I saw a girl with like 20 sitting across from me, no one said anything to her, but just looked at her funny
So....just went online to submit the final copy of my personal statement and it looks like the site has crashed. I've tried it from multiple different computers, asked my friends to try from home but they're also getting the same internal error message. Called admissions, no answer. Anyone else experiencing this?
I felt like a huge gap in her argument was the jump from public unwillingness or inability to "lead to foreign policy disaster". Really Lorraine...a disaster? I mean maybe the public would not really care, but how could we just make such a bold statement. So I was looking for something that made it more apparent that the referenda would really just lead to super shitty implications for France overall, and I think C really nails it. C shows us how, in addition to the lack of public interest, holding a referenda on foreign policy issues would complicate everything by influencing the opinions of other countries. This answer choice really just tells us more negative implications associated with a referenda of this type, thus proving why it would be a "disaster".