Curious to know what you all are doing to combat burnout!! Not looking for general advice about burnout, I just want to know what YOU are doing! You're my motivation :)

I am taking June so I have ~10 wks until the test and I feel like every second of studying counts but at the same time I am currently feeling heavy burnout. I am trying to take frequent breaks (a few hours or so) throughout the week to deal with it but today I feel like I need the whole weekend off. I just want to meditate and online shop haha

I'm assuming at least a few of you are in a similar position - whether it's feeling burned out, feeling guilty for taking breaks, or just generally feeling the weight of the coming test (lol I'm calling it dooms day).

What's your plans for the next 10 weeks to maximize learning/brain space and avoid burnout??

Can you take the inverse of a positive correlation? For example:

The more cholesterol we have in our blood, the higher the risk of heart attack (increase one, increase the other)

Can I infer a decrease in cholesterol correlates to a decrease risk of heart attack?

June LSAT takers (especially all you studying LSAT full time) -- what is this last month of studying looking like for you?

How many hours studying

Wake up /bedtime

Gym routine

Time for other stuff

What you're focusing on

etc.

I'm type A, I love to plan so I want to create a plan for this last month of work. I study full time (hence I'm super curious about others studying full time) and idk just want to get ideas for what a healthy routine looks like.

Also as I'm writing this I'm like damn is it normally to be building my life around one test... share your thoughts pls, merci (3(/p)

Hi everyone. This is a kind of specific questions but I'm wondering if anyone has knowledge about this. I'm not sure if I want to live in the US after law school. If I do, I'm staying in California but I'm slowly thinking about moving to another country for adulthood lol. Because of this (I'm really not sure one way or another) I'm not sure 1) which schools to apply to and 2) what type of law I should study to "cover my bases".

I'd like to stay in California for law school because I think it would be really beneficial to have an American degree. However if you are like no Ham, you have to go to this school because 90% get jobs outside the US I'd love to hear (even if outside California). And of course, any law schools in California besides Stanford, UCLA, USC that would be particularly good for my situation?

What type of lawyers get jobs outside US? What do they study and what are their respective fields of work? Diplomatic and non-diplomatic suggestions?

Thanks guys!

ALSO if your suggestion is for me to google please let me know what to google!! I don't know which stats I should be paying attention to for my questions.

I recently watched the "Post CC Strategies" webinar and something that he had mentioned as apart of the first phase of taking PTs is that we should be going back to the curriculum as we are studying our BR answers. I recently took a practice test, BRed, and now there are a handful of questions that I got wrong and need to review. I normally just watch the videos and review where I went wrong, and then move on to another PT. This isn't working for me, I want to dig deeper.

My question is - how should I be reviewing the CC while I'm taking PTs? For example, I missed a Necessary Assumption Q. Should I go back through the entire NA lesson or just watch the broad lesson videos (before specific Q examples)? Or should I be drilling and while I'm drilling, what should I be looking for?

Right now this concept seems super overwhelming so I'm wondering if anyone can share their strategy. Thanks!

Also.. what is a cookie cutter review????

I have some questions about this Q. Some of the information I'm presenting about this question I've only understood after reading forum boards (I don't have access to JYs explanation for this PT) but I still have a question.

Here is some background/how I see the argument:

P: Many people would agree that anyone who opposes higher taxes will make a better leader than someone who supports them.

P: Thompson opposes higher taxes, his opponents support higher taxes

C: Of the ppl running, Thompson will be the best person to lead the nation

So the flaw is an opinion vs. reality flaw; the author presents a view that some people hold and then makes his conclusion based on that opinion.

Therefore the assumption is that either 1) "many people would agree"... these "many people" actually hold the truth which leads me to assumption 2) there is a positive correlation between opposing taxes and being a good leader.

The answer choices I was stuck between:

A) Opposing high taxes isn't a factor contributing to good leadership

b) Being opposed to high taxes isn't sufficient for good leadership

My question:

At first this is how I read it:

Many people would agree [[that anyone who opposes higher taxes will make a better leader than someone who supports them.]]

Conditional: oppose high taxes --> better leader [[subscript - many ppl think this]]

The argument goes on to "satisfy sufficient" and then concludes the necessary condition

But it clearly also reads like a comparative

Many people would agree that anyone who opposes higher taxes will make a better leader than someone who supports them.

So between ppl opposing high taxes vs ppl supporting high taxes, ppl opposing "win" the better leader award lol ...

The confusion I have above (parsing out that statement) is why I have so much trouble still understanding the relationship between the two answer choices. Can someone explain to me, based on the confusion I have above, why A is right and B is wrong. Also, when a comparative also reads like a conditional what do you do??

Thank you, I hope that all made sense! Let me know if you need me to clarify... I'm very in and out with my understanding of this question and would love some help (3(/p)

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-80-section-1-question-19/

Admin note: added link

Hi everyone! My name is Hamaseh and I was a 7sage student and also purchased the Comprehensive Consulting admissions package. I am here to give you an honest review of my experience.

First off, I am heading to UC Irvine in the fall (cries from excitement). UC Irvine was a target-reach school. I was accepted to all my target-reach schools with super generous scholarships (expect Irvine). Irvine was the only school that did not offer me a hefty scholarship. After multiple asks, and David and Margaret's guidance, I successfully matched my scholarship. I was denied from one reach school and I am waitlisted to the other. I found a lot of success in my admissions. I was a splitter (low GPA, fine LSAT), I sincerely attribute my success to my essays. I had no interest in attending based on ranking and did not apply for any of the T10s. My goal from the outset was to get a great scholarship from a great school. I was able to reach this goal because I purchased this package. Here is why:

My 7sage advisors were Margaret and David.

Admissions - I worked mostly with Margaret during this phase. We had a Skype brainstorming session for each essay. She held the space for me while I idea dumped, both on paper and on Skype. We talked about our favorite ideas and once the subject matter for the essay was chosen, she gave me prompts and through many drafts, we finally created a stellar essay. This part of the package was worth every penny for me. I know this is the reason I was admitted to most of the schools because my essays were fantastic. None of it was made up and the writing was captivating. I still always re-read them. The creation of these essays was the most valuable part of the package for me.

If you are not a great writer (like me), hesitate finding value in your ideas, or have no idea where to start, this package is worth it. Margaret does a lot of prompting and grammatical/structural edits. If you are looking for someone to write your essays, definitely look elsewhere.

Post-Admissions (communication with advisors, scholarship renegotiation, LOCIs) - I worked with David a lot after I had been admitted. We talked in depth a couple times about strategy regarding scholarship negotiations and LOCIs. I had a lot of anxiety around the subject of scholarship negotiations. David set my expectations straight but also gave me a lot of encouragement to get on the phone or send an email regarding the same. He oversaw my LOCIs and emails requesting scholarships and also helped me figure out my strategy for negotiations. I think the work I did with David was very specific to my situation (and will be specific for each person), so what I really want to say is that I think David is amazing in acting as a mentor and overseeing the process and strategy pre and post admissions.

I loved that David gave input about my communication and presentation regarding each email I sent to an admissions officer. He will not communicate with admissions officers or ask for more money for you, or prompt you to go after something out of the blue. You need to take initiative and David will help you figure out how to get to what you want. That is exactly what I was looking for.

My experience with Comprehensive Consulting was amazing. Yes, the price tag stings at first but in my opinion, it was totally worth it! I got into an amazing school and I saved tens of thousands in tuition. Highly recommend!

Best,

Ham

PS. LMK if any of you are going to Irvine and see you thereeeeeeeee!!!!

PPS. If we were in the LSAT study group together pls message me and lmk what you are up to/how you are (3(/p)

Can anyone help me with this negation?

The sentence is: “The highest point of any volcanic ash cloud will eventually exceed an altitude of 5 km”

I negated it like this: “The highest point of any volcanic ash cloud will not eventually exceed an altitude of 5km”

I ran into trouble with this question bc I negated the answer choice wrong and it should have been negated as: “It is not the case that the highest point of any volcanic ash loud will eventually exceed an altitude of 5km”

I am having trouble seeing how these two negated sentences differ. Will using the word “not” get me into trouble? I reviewed the negation lesson and “not” was a word used to negate. I thought the meaning of negation (and from what I got from the lesson) was to say the logical opposite of something. But now I am wondering if the logical opposite means the thing you're negating can sometimes happen?

My sentence is saying that no volcanic ash cloud will exceed 5km. But the recommended negated sentence seems to mean that some volcanic ash clouds will exceed and some volcanic ash clouds won’t exceed 5km. Maybe I put the word “not” in the wrong place. If my negated sentence read “The highest point of not any volcanic ash cloud will eventually exceed an altitude of 5km” would that be right? Why?

This is from PT 83, S1, Q17.

Thanks in advance, sorry if this is super confusing but I am right there with you haha

Hi Guys! Wondering if any of you have good study-related podcasts that you listen to while driving? I have 2 long drives coming up and I want to listen to something LSAT studying/learning related... any suggestions?

Thanks

Any good books suggestions that will shed some light into law school, prep, logic, stress, actually anything that might help during this study/pre-law process? Thanks :)

I'm applying next cycle so it's still too soon for this but I'm curious about one thing....

Do admissions consider LSAT scores taken AFTER you've been admitted??

I'm specifically curious about this scenario:

Take LSAT in June (score JUST ENOUGH to get into schools)

Get accepted to school

Take LSAT again with much higher score, ENOUGH FOR SCHOLARSHIP

Submit new LSAT to score already admitted to

---- Do they consider the new LSAT score for scholarships???? ------

So I know sometimes they put apps on hold for people who are retaking but I'm asking if schools consider scores for scholarships after they've sent a letter of acceptance

Just curious, lmk!!

Hi all - Kind of embarrassing to post this but I need advice on how to reply to a rejected request for LOR...

So I've asked on of my professors to write me LOR. I was in two classes with this professor and honestly felt like I had a personal connection to her, so I was really shocked by her rejection. Her response was "I am going to decline your request. I remember you well from the Seminar, and enjoyed having you in class. I could write a generally positive letter, but not a really strong one. I think it’s probably best to ask a different professor. I do wish you well."

Ok first of all, ouch.

Anyways, do you think it's worth it to try to persuade her otherwise or take her offer for a "generally positive letter"? Or is it worth it to ask specifically why she felt like she couldn't write me a strong one? Should I just politely thank her and move on? I have no idea how to deal with this, any advice?

The other thing is that she was my top choice professor (I REALLY didn't think she'd say no). I could follow her advice to ask others but I was not personally invested in their classes... and I'm worried that if she said no then they will too. My other options are strong personal LOR from a lawyer that I volunteer with/practice public speaking with or a professional one from my project manager.