Yes, question types have definitely shifted. I think PowerScore has done an analysis of this. There's been a trend toward fewer cookie-cutter questions, and more odd-ball questions. Fewer questions that can be solved just by diagramming or applying a formula. That being said, I thought in the September LSAT, which I took, the pendulum swung back to more conventional LR questions, so things seem to vary.

Hi,

I'd offer two explanations.

C) is just the stronger answer. The thesis of the paragraph is: "But this reason is mistaken," and the argument of the passage is a refutation of the statement in question.

The argument part isn't really a "possible explanation" for that observation that many teachers fear computers. It is the reason, and that reason is clearly contained in the sentence.

If (A) were to be correct, then the second sentence would be something like: "Many teachers fear computers possibly for that same reason." Or "That belief is one possible reason why many teachers fear computers."

I don't know if that distinction in (2) is really clear, but the answer choice felt "off" enough that I continued down the answer choices to (C), which felt "right."

Are you doing BR the same day, or the day after? I was taking 2, and even sometimes 3, PTs a week, but I found that leaving BR to the next day helped mitigate fatigue.

Personally, this close to the test, I'd consider 1 PT a week too few. I'd try pushing through the fatigue, as long as you're not experiencing burnout (which is different). Preparing for the LSAT is hard. You're going to feel tired. You're not going to feel 100% every day. But, if it were me, I'd want to get more exposure to more PTs. Of course, I'd cut back drastically the week before the actual test, so you're not feeling worn down right before it.

@ said:

What are the target times for each game?

@ said:

The upside is: I’ve learned a TON about my study habits, what worked for me, what didn’t work for me, and know what I need to change to hopefully improve!

@ Hi! Could you talk a bit more about what you learned about your study habits?

Personally, I felt working on Logic Games was like practicing a musical instrument -- it helped to do it every day.

An iPhone ever so precariously perched on an adjustable desk lamp. Used iMovie and iCloud (I think--this process so was annoying and slow, I've repressed my memories of it) to transfer my files to my computer.

Thank you for the post. Do you just receive grades, or do you also get comments on your exams? And if so, did you detect any patterns in the remarks, or what you did well or less well?

Congrats fellow non-trad and 2022er! What an amazing cycle and outcome. So happy for you!

I would like to see a blog post on good examples of how you've seen older/non-traditional students address "why law school, why now" in their personal statements.

Yeah, you're not going to like my answer. I got -1 on my diagnostic and pretty much stayed in the range without much "studying." I never did the RC core curriculum. I did have a little inconsistency during PTs, and the only thing I really needed to do to fix that was internalize the pace I needed to work through a section (sometimes out of lack of discipline I was running out of time). I did find science passages relatively more challenging, so I tried to work through the easier (for me) passages faster.

IME, I found doing whole LR sections from the 20s and before less useful because there are many, many questions that are just written differently from modern LR questions. After doing many later PTs, going back and doing whole early LR sets was just plain weird and didn't feel helpful. I also found that 7Sage has picked out the most relevant early LR questions for the problem sets in the CC -- and what's leftover was less relevant.

It is worth doing early RC sections if you have time, but I did find them to be far easier than modern RC sections. For me, I was lulled into a false sense of confidence and had to force myself to move much more quickly through modern RC sections.

@ said:

@ said:

I'm dealing with the same problem, and it's usually because of oversight - i.e. I didn't double check the rules earlier, or pay closer attention to the rules in the initial setup of the game board. I'm hoping that if I practice enough, I'll make sure to do the above that it becomes second nature so that if I make any mistakes, I'll be able to catch it early enough in the game and not panic. >

Good point I think I'm so focused on the speed, I tend to forget to do things like double check my rules.

Always double check your rules. Always. That should be ingrained in your practice so, so deep.

Re-doing games would not a waste of time, IMO. LG was my weakness, too, and I was drilling and drilling and drilling almost until the very end, re-doing old games multiple times and also practicing full sets in 35 mins. Speed and grace under pressure eventually came with sheer repetition.

My question: could you talk about outlining and exam prep, and what strategies you found worked and didn't work for you?

@ said:

However, the test does vary in that sometimes there will be a harder than average specific section, like a hard RC.

I think this is right. For LG, just take a look at the aggregate of JY's suggested times for games in a set -- they really can vary from test to test.

@ Personally, I found blind reviewing every question overkill.

Also, I found the process of marking questions for BR while taking PTs instructive. If I found myself getting a bunch of questions wrong that I didn't mark for BR, then something was going awry -- whether overconfidence, or approaching a question type incorrectly, or bad test taking tactics, etc. If I found myself circling a lot of questions but then getting them all right, then perhaps I was under-confident and not efficiently using my time.

@ said:

@ said:

@ Thank you! Do you have any links to examples of a sample law-style resume?

bump

https://law.yale.edu/student-life/career-development/students/toolkit-student-job-seekers/resume-advice-samples

I started with the Trainer before discovering 7Sage, so I can offer this perspective:

-The Trainer gave me a relatively quick and useful overview of what the LSAT was all about (faster than what I would have gotten from starting with the 7Sage CC), but in almost all respects, 7Sage is more comprehensive. There's just so much more material there.

-For LG, for me, 7Sage completed superseded the Trainer, and doing both was probably a waste of time because they use different systems of notations, and it's best to learn one and stick with it (you should use JY's).

-The Trainer did have some useful things to say about LR, and there are some very basic logic drills that are different from 7Sage that could be useful if you're starting from zero. But I don't think they're really necessary if you've done the CC or are planning to.

-I didn't really need help with RC, so I can't comment on that comparison.

-The other thing is: the Trainer's drill sets using real LSAT questions dip into some later PTs that you may want to preserve as full PTs (there's an appendix in the Trainer that tells you where the questions are coming from). So keep that in mind if you want the Trainer for additional drills not in the 7Sage CC -- they come at a cost.

What LSAT_Wrecker said. They're used to doing this all the time and consider it part of their job, and they (should) have their old letters they've written for you still on file.

I've reached out to college professors for recommendations 10+ years after graduating, and they still had my old letters available and were happy to update them for my law school applications.

Just offer to send them an updated resume and your personal statement, so they can see what you've been up to since you've been in their class and how you're positioning your applications for law school.

I'm happy to take a look, too!

"Penn Law no longer offers a straightforward "Why X" prompt, but the following essay is still a good example of the form."

Except for the Eagles reference ... Super Bowl champs! :smiley:

@

My take is that in the question stem and in (A), Miller doesn't directly address the argument made by Wu.

In the QS, rather than rebutting the argument that a dishonest person should not be elected mayor, Miller instead makes an argument about why honest people should not be elected mayor.

In (A), rather than rebutting the argument that they should not return to a restaurant because service was too slow, Miller instead makes an argument about why fast service at a restaurant is bad.

In answer choices (B) - (D), Miller directly rebuts Wu's argument by stating why the quality Wu considers a negative is actually a positive.

I'm guessing (E) is supposed to be the tricky AC. Miller answers Wu's argument by stating that the quality Wu desires is actually irrelevant to the case at hand.

@ Will each of these be turned into a podcast like the one from a couple weeks ago?