@ Glad to help!! Now go get some rest and try not to think about it too much :)
I had a dream last night that I went in to take the test and next thing I know I was at a yoga class where for some reason the teacher had everyone's test booklets (not scantrons though) and was reviewing how we did even though scores weren't released. When he got to me everything was okay up until the RC 3rd section and the last coupe of questions were left blank on the page. Then he flipped to the next section which I guess was supposed to be LG and it was entirely blank. At that moment (in the dream of course) it hit me why I couldn't remember anything from the test. Apparently I fell asleep towards the end of the RC section. I thought the LSAT dreams/nightmares would stop after taking the test! And yeah the bubble thing... don't get me started.
@ I can assure you there was no LR section with 27 questions. To my knowledge, there has never been an LR section with more than 26 questions, and if there has been it is EXTREMELY rare. If someone said that then they misspoke or confused that with the RC section, which did have 27 questions on this test (not 28 as it sometimes does). Hope that helps :)
I got this one right because I thought that E was more false based on the text than A, but I am still confused how A is a could be true. The last sentence of the stimulus indicates that no single species of dinosaur lived throughout the entire Mesozoic era, so wouldn't A also be false since it says that dinosaurs inhabited the northern region throughout the entire Mesozoic Era? I was hoping the video would help answer this confusion but it didn't really touch on that. Again - I get why E is correct but I'm having a tougher time understanding why A is a 'could be true'
Thanks!
Anyone know if some accommodated test takers who take it several days or so after the real one are given the same test? I heard from a friend who tutors that one of her students took it a week later in June because of accommodations and had the same test, which seems kind of weird to me. Just curious if that is one of the reasons for the code of silence pertaining to talking about specifics.
@
Virus game rekt me; I'm finding solace in reading everyone else's rage about it. It was my last game, and I took a few minutes during the writing sample to redraw the whole game. Found out how to solve it but it was way after the fact.
@ if I can ask, how did you figure it out after? I was trying to do the same but couldn't.. not sure if that's something that can be discussed in general terms but I'm racking my brain trying to figure out that game still...
The phrasing in C wasn't connecting for me first time through but I kept it because I couldn't find anything specifically wrong with it. The other four were pretty easy to eliminate so yay for process of elimination!
Getting extra time is pretty tough if you didn't have them previously, and if your only issue is ADHD. I wouldn't say it's impossible, but it is much harder than someone for example who has dyslexia or something else in addition to ADHD. I got accommodations for this LSAT due to bad ADD, but instead of extra time I requested a private room since my real issue is with noise. I never had accommodations in the past for this but I wrote in my statement that there was never a need since tests were never timed so strictly in undergrad making it an issue. So I guess it really depends on both how helpful your doctor is and how convincing you can make your personal statement. Please know though that if you get extra time they have for this test onward made it so that all accommodated test takers do have to take the experimental section as well. That means it could be a SUPER long test day. Just things to consider. Hope that helps!
anyone know a comparable game to the computer virus one? someone mentioned zephyr airlines from PT 40 . . . feel like it's an issue when a rule seems weird/hard to interpret and keep having to go back to see, like is that what they're saying? or is this what they're saying? lol Thoughts?
wow that's fantastic! congrats and keep it up :)
I started laughing when JY explained E because that is exactly why I chose that answer when I did the PT. So hilarious the way he puts it.
Let us know how it went once you're all done with the BR!
This question isn't too bad if you just realize that the conclusion is giving a solution and saying it's possible to do the solution. If you keep that in mind then E makes a lot of sense because if none of the ships could actually maintain proper stability as they say earlier they need to be able to do, then the argument falls apart because their solution is no longer feasible and it rests on them saying it is in fact viable.
I just did 10 people in each group and then for the Skilled Banjo (SB) I put 6/10 = skilled at guitar and for Skilled Guitar (SG) I put 4/10 = skilled at banjo which makes the totals: 14 SB since 4/10 + the 10 then 16 SG since 6/10 + the 10 for that group. Just more of a numerical version if you were wondering what that might look like. I also like to use 10 since it's easy to add with fewer potential mistakes (math ain't my friend).
With A, what if it said instead that Anyone who is 65 years old has worked at least 40 years? I'm thinking still wouldn't work but it does bridge that link better than the reverse since it can be said the author is assuming that those who would work beyond 65 have worked at least 40 years given the premise about it not being fair for those who have worked 40+ years to deprive others of opportunities. Just curious what others think since answers for NA questions could come from random language shifts and it's good to be prepared for any of them.
wouldn't another issue with E be that 'various sleep-related ailments' is too wide in scope for the argument, which is specifically about insomnia?
I think this is a great question to illustrate the importance of not eliminating on the grounds that an answer doesn't match exactly with what you thought it would be. POE gets us to B, and it's the only one that hits the language shift in the conclusion. I was too quick though in eliminating it my first round through because it didn't seem like what I was looking for. Lesson - only eliminate that which is obviously wrong or what you can conclusively say is wrong for at least one reason, not just because of a hunch that it doesn't match what you expected.
When the stem said "trade on the ambiguity" I immediately thought of equivocation. This question could easily be a flaw question with the answer hitting the equivocation issue either by stating that type of flaw or by describing what he interpreted risk to mean.
So in reviewing the lessons on weakening I came across the one about the Olympics and it made me curious about attacking the support for the Sub Conclusion versus attacking the support for the Main Conclusion from the Sub Conclusion in these types of questions. Does anyone happen to know if on the more challenging questions whether or not it is more common that the correct ACs attack one more frequently than the other? Or is there not really a pattern?
Can we pretty much say at this point that it won't happen today if it hasn't happened already? Fricken hate this wait!
Cambridge just stopped making the PDFs of all the Practice Tests available a few weeks ago. I was going to send a friend the link because that's where I got a lot of mine, but couldn't find it anywhere on their site. I called them up and the guy confirmed they discontinued selling them because LSAC is cracking down. Would be nice if LSAC would make these available through their website at the very least... I feel bad for all of those who missed the boat on this one.
That being said, does anyone know of other companies that are still able to sell PDF downloads of the tests? I think people would find it helpful to see an updated list since it seems this kind of thing is changing rapidly. I know there are some books out there besides the 10 Actuals and Superprep that have some of the PTs not covered but the one's I have found are very expensive.
I just wanted to put this out there for anyone who might have done/is doing what I just did in my study process. Just to give a small preface, I'm generally a pretty impatient person and I also set extremely high standards for myself. Sound familiar?
That being said when I started 7Sage I was so eager to get through it and start cranking out PTs to see how I was performing, sure that as soon as I knew some of the material that would somehow manifest in immediate and remarkable improvement. Needless to say I quickly saw the huge flaw in making that kind of mistake. Even though I initially did see improvement from my diagnostic (152), after about the 6th PT of getting the same score (160, 159, 161, etc), I realized I must be doing something wrong. What I did wrong was that I rushed through a lot of the Core Curriculum. Because many of the concepts made sense to me I didn't see it as necessary that I really spend time drilling them into my brain to make them second nature. The impatience got the best of me. I now realize there is a reason to spend your sweet ass time on the curriculum - it actually makes you better at this test. Who woulda thought?!
I know this all seems logical and for many of you perhaps it would seem ridiculous I would do that, but I figure that if I did it there are probably others who have or who are doing it as well, and keeping themselves from a true opportunity for growth simply because of a lack of patience. I stopped taking PTs because I saw it as pointless to waste precious tests if I wasn't getting out of them what I should, and went back to the CC. I started to review lessons I skimmed over and really did the drills in full. Instead of just answering the questions (kind of doing BR but not really), checking my answers and then moving on, I began to do the questions, BR them, then watch the videos - and this is important - EVEN if I got the answers right. There is so much in these videos that helps in solidifying being able to recognize the patterns of this test that anyone who has invested in this program would be doing a huge disservice to themselves to not take advantage of. Before I only watched the videos, if I did at all, for the questions I got wrong. I missed a great opportunity in doing that to learn so much valuable information that can be gained from different question types.
Again I'm putting this out there because even though I it's embarrassing to admit not doing something the way it's meant to be done and thereby making the mistake I made, it's something that I'm sure plagues many eager students who want to see quick and big results. All I can say is go to a yoga class, take a few deep breaths and say Goose Fraba - it'll all be okay. Learn as much as you can, soak in the CC, then march into those PTs and start getting the scores that are more reflective of your potential. The only reason you would not be scoring where you'd like is because somewhere along the line you cut corners (or at least that's what I think).
Hope this helps someone out there struggling with the same issues I have been struggling with.
Hey guys,
I was just looking for some specific PTs, mainly the newer ones, that are available for download and discovered that Cambridge is still licensed to sell PDFs of every PT. They also have some awesome Bundles including one for all Logic Games from PTs 1-70 for $90 (instead of $295 for purchasing them separately). If you don't need all of those but want to do JY's method for the games using PTs 1-35/38 they also have a bundle for that, which is only $42.
Just wanted to share this since I was driving myself crazy using the copy machine every time I wanted to make extra copies for a game from one of the 10 Actuals books I have, which incidentally don't include PTs 1-6, 8 or 17.
Hope this helps!
Happy studies :)
Quick update - took PT 74 this morning after drilling on pacing the last couple of days and brought my score up to a 168. Hopefully can keep that up! Thanks again for all the encouragement and suggestions. Happy studys!
what really tripped me up on this is the subtle wording in the conclusion of 'is no mark of success' to imply not successful, since there are a few answers that also trade on this ambiguity. I didn't pick up the first time through that that meant those things = unsuccessful. I just thought that it meant they aren't good indicators for whether or not a group is successful. Tricky question.
@ @ and @ Thanks for all the input. I think those are solid suggestions on the timing strategies and trying to figure out where my weakest areas are. I imagine, just as for everyone else, it's about finding and then sticking with and a strategy and I think I tend to skip around trying to figure out which ones work without staying consistently with any particular one, which at this point isn't helping. I also think I do tend to spend more time than I need on the easier ones checking to make sure the answers I didn't pick are for sure out. I guess it's a confidence thing perhaps. I will definitely put all these great suggestions to practice this week while doing my remaining PTs and BR. Again, thank you!
Thanks @.k13.0 I'll give those a shot. I have checked the analytics but it seems my weak areas are pretty spread apart and vary pretty significantly from test to test, but maybe that just means I need to do some more question-specific drills in general to solidify my process.
Forgot to mention that my BR I'm getting max -1 total so usually 179/180
Hey there,
I'm set to take September, and at this point postponing isn't an option. I've been studying for a while and PTing under simulated conditions for around 3 weeks now. I've hit sort of a plateau it seems around 166 and just wondering how to push through to break that 170 mark or even if that's possible between now and the September test? I was going consistent -0 on games for a while then hit a slump for some reason started getting -4, now back to a good -1/-0 range but it seems when my games are good my RC slips. I've been able on individual timed sections test to get -2 in LR and -3 in RC so it seems it's a matter of putting it all together, but I'm just struggling in getting to that point. Any input/advice would be greatly appreciated. Timing does seem to be a hurdle sometimes depending on which questions I get stuck on and still trying to figure out how to get better at skipping.
Thanks in advance!!
So I started doing my PTs after finishing the core curriculum and while I initially saw some improvement (started with my diagnostic at 152, then started getting high 150s now low 160s), I don't feel like I'm really improving. In fact, while before I wasn't running into time issues and was able to finish on time for the LR and Reading Sections, I'm now finding it harder to finish those sections on time. The games is the one section that is consistently getting better but that's just about it. I'm averaging somewhere around -11 to -15 total in LR and around -5 in Reading
Any suggestions? I'm wondering how much I should expect to be improving with each test. My goal is for a 172/173 but if I'm in the low 160s now with a high score of 169 (untimed though) I'm worried that between now and the June test I won't be able to reach my goal. So far I have done 6 timed PTs besides my diagnostic and 1 untimed. My Blind Review is in the high 170s.
Any input is appreciated.
So they couldn't access the same data (I mean of course they couldn't it was ancient times and we're talking modern technologies) - that means that they had their own reasons for coming up with the prohibitions, which makes sense then why the conclusion says we can't know the ORIGINS of the prohibitions, in other words, how the prohibitions came about. Maybe they saw a bunch of people get sick from some food or like JY said in the video, certain animals were too economically valuable. But, is it really possible for us to know the exact context of how the prohibitions came about? No, unless there is some document where they wrote that stuff down, like "okay so we saw that when the such and such group ate the purple plant they all got fevers and died in a couple days so in order to protect the rest of the population we are going to ban the purple plant," the data alone can't explain the origins. Perhaps we can now understand that the purple plant is super toxic and hey look, this group of people prohibited it, good for them! But how did they know it was toxic? What was their reason for prohibiting it? We can only know the origins if we were somehow able to know their motives for creating them, yet their motives couldn't have been exactly the same as the reasons gleaned from the modern data because they had no way of knowing any of that info.
Sorry for the ramble, I just thought if anyone else had been struggling to wrap their head around this one that might help clarify a little.
For mastering the logic games, from what I've gathered, it's suggested to do JY's method for each game by watching the videos and repeating the inferences on blank copies until a firm understanding of each game is reached. However, in doing so won't my scores be affected on my PTs leading up to the test because I will have already seen the games and know how to do them? I'm worried that on the one hand this wouldn't give me a good indication of where my score would really be than if I hadn't previously seen the games, but I'm also worried that if I wait to drill on those games until after I've taken the PTs to which they belong I won't have enough time since it will be closer to the test date at that point.
Hypothetically speaking, if I plan to take PTs 41- the most recently available one (giving me 30+ PTs), should I drill those games before taking the PTs or wait until I take them?
What's the suggested practice for approaching this? I'm definitely aiming for a near perfect score on the games section come June and just want to make sure that whatever prep I do is as effective as it can be.
Anyone else find that doing PTs is a literal pain in the neck? After more than three hours at a desk using my right hand to bubble answers I had the worst neck and shoulder pain. I do a ton of yoga and stretch, and have pretty good posture so I'm wondering, is this avoidable? How are you guys doing these PTs in terms of desk etc..?
Back in the late 70s, my dad was trying to figure out what to do as far as careers go and his brother had casually suggested law school as an option. Not knowing much my dad reached out to his Uncle Stan, a successful trial lawyer in New Jersey, for advice. The following is the letter that Stan wrote by hand and which to this day is very insightful and I thought, relevant, to so many of us who are contemplating this intense future. I hope you find it as interesting as I did.
Saturday 9/7/77
Dear Robbie,
How are you? We are all fine. And so without further adieu, as the say, and in response to your recent letter.
An old law school professor of mine stressed that there is no such thing as “the law.” What he was trying to bring out is that the law is dynamic. It mirrors life. It is not static, it changes. True it’s always ten years behind what ought to be, but that’s another story.
The law has been likened to a seamless web, and by that is meant it has many facets, many areas of interest and at the same time is interesting and without end. There is no limit to the time that can be spent studying, applying, analyzing, interpreting. And for that it is also called a jealous mistress. You can keep your options open and gravitate towards that which interests you - contract law, corporate, criminal, trial work (which I find most interesting and rewarding), estates, tax, labor, to name only a few areas - and in each you can spend a lifetime and still continue to learn new things every day.
In the practice of law you live by your wits, and by that I mean it’s a thinking man’s profession. It takes time to learn the tools, which is true in any field of endeavor you choose, and these are blended with life’s experience. The student who graduates with all A’s may not be prepared for this if his time has been limited solely to books and libraries. The graduate with experience in assorted life’s jobs, with a feel for people, will do better as he’s better equipped.
Before considering the law as a profession ask yourself if you are willing to pay the price. Sacrifices have to be made. Three years of constant study are gruelling in the sense that the work is cumulative, continual, absorbing but sometimes tedious, all with a view towards making the student realize that each incident in life has many issues and how to evaluate them. No one day is terribly difficult, yet the total sum of all studies is burdensome. Along the way about one-third will drop out, if not more, and of those who graduate only about one-third will become full time practitioners, and of those who do last it will take each about three years of actual practice before he becomes worth something and can command a decent salary or be able to strike out into private practice.
Is it worth all that time, effort and money? Absolutely! It’s stimulating, fascinating, challenging, rewarding, gratifying, ego inflating and financially renumerative. As you get older and stay in the practice, the value of the attorney increases - as opposed to other non-professions, e.g. salesmen. But one has to be ready to make the sacrifices in the beginning, to desire, to want it.
Should you attempt to do it? I think it’s a great idea, but don’t count on instant rewards. Project ahead a steady growth for each year, improving your prospects, and of knowing that the cream will rise to the top, and if you can demonstrate that patience and motivation you will be guaranteed the eventual exhilarance of the practice of law, and I know you’ll do well.
Love,
Stan
P.S. you can see lawyers tend to talk a lot especially if they are asked a question and have a captive audience that they love.
Seems like the whole aspect of saying 'support' and then 'subsidy' was just a means to confuse you so that you completely miss A in thinking that because theirs had a slightly different albeit synonymous meaning, that the answer choice would also need to reflect that level of detail.