Hi, everyone!

I need some help going through questions 16 and 18 of PT 77, Sec 2.

Admin edit: Please review the forum rules. "4. Do not post LSAT questions, any copyrighted content, or links to content that infringe on copyright. "

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-77-section-2-question-16/

A. deleted

Def not - this is not about whether someone should or should not, it is about whether something is or is not harmful

B. deleted

So, I know this is the answer. But I am confused on how.... How do we know that an individual is interfering? Without having the information that "everyone either pursues folk remedies or conventional treatments" then couldn't someone who is promoting a folk remedy actually just be causing someone who would otherwise seek no remedy to at least be doing something about their health? I feel like there is a gap in this answer and I can't push myself to buy into the 'interfere' portion of this... Please help.

C. deleted

Honesty is not relevant to this case

D. deleted

responsibility is not relevant to this case

E. deleted

-again, responsibility is not important here

Perhaps this is one where I'm overly caught up on semantics and should just let it be and recognize that the other ACs clearly are not correct. However, under timed conditions, I kept feeling like a different AC must have been right given the assumption that came with the word 'interfere'.

Thoughts?

Admin note: edited title

Hi, all!

So I’ve noticed that I consistently sit there trying to understand the answer choice for flaw questions “presupposes as evidence the conclusion it is trying to establish” all the time. I also don’t know that I have ever seen that AC be the correct answer, yes each time I waste a solid 15 seconds trying to figure it out/see if the question could fit.

Can anyone help me dissect this and maybe provide some examples? It’s time I stop wasting time on this cookie cutter AC.

Thanks!

Hi,

In the midst of studying, I take some time to draft multiple versions of personal statements so I am not rushed later when I am looking to apply and to remind me why I am doing this studying. It’s helpful!

But, I am torn on the statement vs supplement strategy. I have a very mixed background: I started college at a conservatory for musical theatre and left reimbursed due to harassment by a faculty member, which drove me to consider legal coursework at my new university. However, at my new university, I also interned in the legal field (with a Judge, at a class action nonprofit, with men re-entering public life post-incarceration, at the US Mission to UN) and took several legal studies courses at the undergraduate and graduate level (wrote papers on LGBT asylum procedure, which included an interview with an asylum grantee in the US from the Middle East, Fourth Amendment tights and their protection of Christian religious single cell terrorism in the US; the legality of securitization around drone warfare, etc.). My thesis was very legally focused (exploring how indigenous communities in Alberta might use international norms to subvert environmental degradation and displacement).

However, even with all of this passion for law, I wanted to test the aspects I loved of my studies in different settings to ensure law is the field for me, so I worked in the non profit sector (public health campaigns) and now I work in the private sector (analytics) to address two main facets of law I love (serving the public as analytical thinking and persuasion).

Now, I know I want to do law, as these career experiences have taught me that I can’t do either in isolation nor address public interest needs in as proactive or impactful a way as I desire without practicing law.

So I’m torn on where I start. I’ve written about 3 statements, ranging from very plain Jane to driven by a metaphoric concept.

Is there a strategy, given my story, that I should focus on with what goes in personal versus what goes in supplemental?

Part of me thinks I shouldn’t take up space sharing the details of my transition from musical theatre to academia given I have other more recent and relevant experience. However, I know an ad com will look at my transcript and say “what happened here/what was that semester gap”? Do I mention anything about the research work I did in while in school, or is the fact that I took a class titled "Rights of the Accused" or "International Human Rights Law" enough?

My gut is to write a very direct statement that focuses on my legal interests/studies and decision to test the other career paths I thought might address them (recognizing they did to no avail). Then, I would write a supplement that discusses how I went from musical theatre to law (this would likely have some more metaphor than the statement).

Thoughts on this strategy? Am I wrong in assuming an ad com will want to hear about what happened that early in my university career, even though I ended up with a pretty decent GPA (3.79)? Also, given that I took about 6 graduate-level courses in undergrad, is it worth listing those out in a supplement as well so that they are aware of the rigor of some of the courses I took?

Should I nix mentioning my research work I did in school and instead include something like that in a supplemental? I plan on addressing my thesis work in my resume under the "academic" portion, which might be enough.

Thanks for the help and guidance!

Hey!

I am wondering whether folks have any advice on a strategy I am trying out, which I am hoping could be helpful/successful. I'm taking the June LSAT and have been studying since early January. I'm through all lr in CC and am slowly working through lg. I am doing a dual-prong approach of learning new lg material while focusing in on my weaknesses in lr (mainly N.A. and Flaw questions). So, my first question: is it an okay strategy to weak lr types while working through lg? For context, lg are my strongest section (even prior to doing any CC lessons on the section). My hope is that, by doing these both at the same time, I will give myself more time to let the drilling lessons learned from lr soak in, since lg comes quick to me.

My weekday studying generally looks like the following:

6-8 a.m. (focus on CC, lg at this point)

8:30-9:15 a.m. (while on commute to work, complete at least 4 lr problem sets)

9:15 a.m.-7:30p.m. (work, commute home, cook dinner and watch an episode of a 25 min TV show)

7:30-10:00 p.m. (drill 6 more lr problem sets if possible and then do any cc I can fit in that time)

Daily study time total: ~5.25

Daily study time for cc: ~2.5 (I watch videos on 2X+ speed and can follow, so the content moves faster than prescribed)

Daily study time for lr weaknesses: ~2.75

I do take off 1 or 2 days a week from studying given how many hours I put in each weekday + weekend.

Note that any questions I get wrong and/or br incorrectly in both the cc studying or the drilling, I cut out of the piece of paper and insert into a folder that says the date I am to go back and review the questions on (+7 days from the end of the current week). I currently hold Saturday's as my day to work through any questions I answered incorrectly from that weekend's labeled folder. I take as much time to do this and also re-watch cc lessons for any reoccurring issues. If I get a question wrong again, I move it into the following week's folder and keep doing so until I am understanding the question.

Once I am done the cc doing this method, I will go ahead and dedicate weekends to PTs and readjust my schedule from there.

Would really appreciate any feedback here! I'm not forgetting about rc, I'm just holding off on focusing on it until my lr gets a bit stronger as I already know my lr "room to improve" is what is holding me back from scoring consistently well in rc.

In full disclosure, I took PowerScore's course 3 years ago, though I didn't pay attention or complete assignments as I wasn't yet sold on law school. Two weeks ago I took PT 62 as a diagnostic (I had already taken June 2007), and scored a 163 (-5 rc, -4 lr, -8 lg, -9 lr).

Today, after going through 7Sage for one week (only up through their basic logic core curriculum, so no games or rc or advanced lr), I decided to blind review my PT 62. Admittedly, I only went back and wrote down all questions I got wrong (not the answer I selected originally). Then I took that piece of paper with the section and numbers I had gotten wrong and redid the problems. I ended up with a 174 (-2 rc, -3 lr, -0 lg, -3 lr).

If I continue to study hard (about 20 hours per week, ~20-25 full timed PTs), does it seem feasible that I could take the June LSAT and score a 169+? After this blind review, part of me wants to aim for scoring a 172+ on the LSAT, since I was able to understand the concepts in my quasi-blind review. It seems like I just need to work on solidifying concepts strongly so that I can work at a more diligent pace while doing PTs. Is that crazy out of reach? Thoughts? How do you manage expectations between blind review and timed tests?

My feeling is that I would like to see my timed tests and blind review margin shrink over time (ideally with timed and br growing in score).

Hi!

Is there any way to pre-download the videos through the 7Sage mobile app? This way you could watch them should you use public transit to work (I live in NYC and have a 45 minute subway commute where I could be easily focusing on videos; thats 1.5 hours more study time per day)?

If not, how could we go about suggesting such an app development to the creators? Anyone else want this feature, if it doesn't already exist?

I almost quit this week from studying. I had a major personal change happen that left me unmotivated and distracted, fearing I couldn't get back into this studying regemine. I got so sick that I ended up in the emergency room. As a result, I was unable to study for a week.

I decided today was it, take a PT after a month of hardcore drilling and studying and, if my score didn't at least stay flat, I would need to reconsider how to find motivation or whether I should continue. I took PT 41 and ended up scoring significantly higher than I have before, at a 166. For this PT, each additional question answered correctly at this level equates to +1 on your score, up to 171. I went from a 158.5 PT average (from 3 PTs) pre-drilling, up to this actual score. I feel like I have hope I can tackle this.

I'm posting cause I need to make some more written commitments to myself that I can do this and will do this, as support helping me feel like I could outside of 7Sage is no longer available. Thanks for reading, if you do!

So, I've seen on here quite a few times that it is a good idea to use a sheet protector for logic games. I've been doing the same for logical reasoning and loving it (~save the trees~). When I went through the lr cc at first, I was a "starter" level 7sager. So, I missed out on anything but easy questions. Now, I upgraded and I'm going back as I begin to fool proof sequencing games (I want to have those down 100% before I move into grouping; it is also a good opportunity to delve into the tougher lr problem sets).

I've ended up doing something I haven't seen yet (though I'm sure 50 people have already had this idea and posted it) for lr. I'm not br'ing these very intensely, as my focus is purely on getting it right, not on timing (that can come later in my opinion). When I get a question wrong or am not confident in how I got it right, I watch the video explanation and then (as I've seen in other posts) cut the question out and (lightly so I can't see through the paper) write the answer on the back. Here's the actual point of this post:

Starting on Monday, I put all of the cut outs throughout the week on questions I got wrong into the plastic sleeve (be it 2, 10, or 20). On Sunday evening, I write on the sleeve the dates I am allowed to/must go back and solve all of the cut out questions I had previously gotten wrong - the following Saturday-Sunday.

So, the weekdays become days to go through new problem sets in the morning before work (I work full-time) and on the commute to and from work (for once I love MTA delays as it gives me more time to go through questions). The weeknights become the time to move forward in the cc on new topics and the weekends become time to go back and retry questions and work at them. If I don't answer a question correctly or confidently that was already a cut out, then in it goes into the next week's plastic sleeve.

Just an idea! Hoping this helps me not let any question go unattacked from the cc. I also think this is an easy way to keep up my lr even as I move into the lg portion of the curriculum.

Also would love to hear advice from other folks on this! I'm approaching lg similarly and will begin to balance this out once I wrap up the cc and move into the stage of PT and br.

Hi!

I'm new here and am considering purchasing a full course for 7sage. A few years back while in undergrad, I took PowerScore's in-person LSAT course. Admittedly, I was not sold on law school at that point in time and did not make the most of the in-class time. Apologies in advance, this is a mish-mash post of someone looking for some thoughts/advice.

Now, nearly two years out of undergrad, I'm looking at applying in the 2018-2019 admissions cycle for a Fall 2019 start date. I took my first timed LSAT in over two years and scored a 163 (December 2010, as I had taken the June 2007 LSAT previously; -5 rc, -4 lr, -7 lg, -9 lr). I felt generally good about the test, which I took at a noisy cafe/deal with distractions while timed. I hesitate in calling this a diagnostic score, as I recognize I did technically take a course. But, 2 years later, it feels like I'm restarting the process.

I'm looking at taking the June LSAT with the goal of around 169-172+ as a final score. Does that seem feasible? Thoughts on using 7Sage given my diagnostic score breakdown? I currently do advanced analytics for a large retail company through a global ad agency, so I suspect my reading comprehension is a bit off given how little reading I do on the day-to-day.

Undergrad was in International Affairs/Journalism and I received a BA w/ Honors (3.79 GPA) and led University government for a year. I took several graduate-level courses in undergrad and held internships/jobs throughout (legal internship under Federal Judge in NYC, paralegal intern at a class-action litigation non-profit, intern at US Mission to the United Nations, global strategy intern and part-time consultant at a global advocacy non-profit for young people). I also received some distinguished awards (student leader award out of all University students, inclusive of graduate students and humanitarian award upon graduation). I worked my first full-time job for 1.5 years at an LGBT non-profit developing health campaigns for NYSDOH and, as mentioned, now conduct advanced analytics for a leading advertising agency in NYC. I'm on a young professionals board for a legal non-profit outside of work and lead LGBT volunteer events at the agency I work for in the city.

I have quite a mixed background, all of which have been tests helping me decipher whether legal practice is where I feel I can contribute most to the world, and I'm now decided that it is. So, here I go.. Taking the LSAT for real.

Thoughts on my ability to get up to a 169-172 given my 'diagnostic'? Thoughts on my getting into a top law school (wanting to get into NYU or Columbia and dreaming of Harvard or Yale) given my background?

Thanks in advance for all of your help.

Hey, everyone!

I'm putting together my resume for applications and am wondering how other folks have managed to handle their experience.

I have been working for 2 years FT post-graduation, but had internships throughout my undergraduate career (every semester and summer) that were all relevant to pursuing law.

If I include my two full time jobs and 5 internships (one includes being hired as a research consultant part time while still in school), I quickly take up one page with experience. The internships were - Global Attitudes Research Assistant (consultant position hired out of Global Strategy Internship) for an advocacy organization, Host Country Affairs Intern (this was with the State Dept. at the US Mission to the UN), Public Policy & Affairs Intern at a LGBT health org, Paralegal Intern at an impact litigation organization and Legal & Public Policy Intern at an alternatives to incarceration court.

Does anyone have any feelings on this? Is it fair to include each of these and maybe just limit the bullets to 1 or 2 for the internships?

Hey!

This is a quick question, but I'm curious to hear how other's have approached this. I have some LGs where I get within 30 seconds of the "recommended time" with -0. My gut is to lower the number of times I redo this question to 3 or 5 (depending on how confident I felt) rather than 10 times, to help me ease up some time in my studying for games that give me more trouble (any game that takes me more +~1 minute or that I get -1+ on, I note to do 10X.

Thoughts on if this makes sense? How have you handled such questions?

Hi, all!

I switched to Ultimate + (7Sage got me, I realized I had to take the plunge to be able to really deep dive into the reviewing of PT's). I'm planning on taking the July '18 test date and think it seems feasible that I could work my score up to my goal by that date even though I work full-time.

Any suggestions on pacing of PTs/which PT to start on? It seems that nearly everyone has to take the LSAT twice (at least, the friends of mine all have), so I'm wondering if it makes sense to start further back and not aim to take up to the most recent LSAT before the July sitting? Ideally, I'll do July, get the score I want, and be done. So, I'm also wondering if I should instead set a minimum number of PTs I want to take and then work backwards from there (I'm thinking 35... The curriculum is saying to do nearly PTs 3X a week so that I come out at 48 PTs at the end of all of this and that seems too aggressive if I also want to ensure I'm doing quality blind review)?

Thoughts on this? I could start with PT 47 this week and do at least 2 PTs a week up until the exam date, which seems more feasible. This way I reach PT 82+ on time.

I'll also be doing PTs starting now, while still wrapping up the LG (then rc) portion of the CC. I'm decently solid in rc and can get to -0 or -1 in blind review of LG, so I think I want to start now to have as much time as possible getting used to the length of the test. Further, the actual PTs and blind review help me build more confidence and challenge me to push through mental blocks (aka, when I get a score I'm not super happy with) more consistently, which I think could be good for me.

Does this sound like a good strategy?

Hi, folks!

It's been a while. I was on vacation and took a much needed break from studying - now I'm trying to find the motivation to jump back in and attack my weak spots before June.

The 3 folks writing my letters of rec (2 academic, 1 professional), have asked to see my statements in June so that they have time to meet with me to discuss and then also write my letters. My current dream is to hit "submit" in September or, latest, October.. So, timing is important with all of this.

I have a Personal Statement, GPA Addendum and Diversity Statement. Would anyone be willing to read through any/all of them? If so, please let me know and I can send you the Google Doc link! I think they are in a good place, but want some eyes to read them who do not know me before I send them to those writing my letters of rec.

Thanks!

Hi!

Has anyone tested at the Fordham test center in Manhattan? If so, what was your experience like there?

I live off the ABCD in Harlem, so it would be amazingly convenient to hop on the train and take it a few stops down to Columbus Circle (versus going to CUNY in Queens or Pace downtown).

Thanks!

Hello!

Quick question - when you are fool proofing and make a silly mistake by reading a question incorrectly that you then fix in blind review, do you take the time to add that to your "must full proof" list? Or, do you just move on?

Further, do you look at each game individually and try to get it under the time restrictions 7Sage suggests, or do you calculate your overall timing on a section and see what time you came in at and go from there?

Thanks!

So, I have been feeling incredibly anxious with my prep. I was able to move quickly through the logical reasoning CC, because each question took less time and it didn't feel like I was learning a completely new approach to answering a question every time I hit the "next" button.

Moving into LG, I expected it to be even quicker - it is my strongest section in the (4) practice tests I've taken. However, I began and it was a slow journey. Learning each game board and how it worked made me exhausted. I just couldn't do as much in a day. My studying pace slowed down and I felt like I had stunted my progress and was falling behind. I continued to do sets of my weakest logical reasoning question types in hopes of helping out with the anxiety that began to build.

However, I'm finally feeling like it is okay I took that time. I finished the LG CC and am now fool proofing LG 1-35 (admittedly, I'm doing every other PT to help my morale of feeling like I'm doing PTs that are too old; I'll then go back once I get through the odd numbered PTs). After all of the hard work and mounted anxiety, I've been able to get my first 3 sections done with 5+ minutes to spare and -0. I'm finally feeling like taking the time I needed was worth it, versus feeling like I should've continued at a steady pace throughout the entire CC.

So, this is a both a self-congratulatory post (which I recognize and apologize for the obnoxious nature of) and a post on hopefully reminding one other studier to let the material guide your pace, not your stress or anxiety. In the end, I'm so glad I took the upfront time so that I am not bogged down spending hours early on in the fool-proof portion of my prep.

Also, let's be real, I'm sure this weekend I'll hit road bumps. But every learning is worth putting down. I've also found it helps to write these things out or share them so that you can go back and remind yourself that you felt excited enough on one day to share it with the community. So, you can do it.

Hey there!

So, I have a 3.78 GPA from my degree granting institution, but a 3.59 GPA overall due to my first year of school (3.11 GPA at a diff school). I am writing an addendum, as I experienced extreme harassment by faculty at my first educational institution, which drove me to leave/enabled me to leave with my first semester of sophomore year erased from my transcript as well as my tuition.

Year 1: 3.11 GPA

Year 2 (new institution, 1 semester): 3.67 GPA

Year 3: 3.82 GPA

Year 4: 3.80 GPA

I'm really hoping that this doesn't kill my ability to get into some good schools (UofM and NYU primarily). I know it means I'll want to get in their 75%+ LSAT percentile, but do you think that now these schools should be considered a reach for me?

Gah. I'm so upset that I didn't ask them to erase my freshman year too when I left, as I was extremely affected throughout that year too.

Hey,

Any advice on dealing with GPA addendums that address very sensitive topics?

I went to my first uni for freshman year and into November of sophomore year. Verbal harassment (and a video posted online of him doing it in the name of “education”) was so bad throughout my time there, that the school offered to erase history of me having ever been there my first semester sophomore year (grades and tuition) in exchange for me not pursuing a lawsuit. I’m writing an addendum as the freshman year grades were not representative of my ability, given all I was going through in the classroom (this was a conservatory style program, where you have the same professor for a good chunk of your classes).

At my next university, I earned a 3.79 gpa, inclusive of 15 graduate level credits (this was an academic degree versus music).

My plan is to state the facts clearly and succinctly and then reshare my GPA for my time at the second university.

I have hit the most literal plateau, and I take the test June 11 (also signed-up for July 23).

On my past FIVE tests I have scored a 167. No more, no less.

The good news is that this is my first time taking the test for real, so I think that a 167 is a fine score to have on record for my top choice schools (NYU, UofM, UC Berkeley). However, I'm so frustrated that I'm not pushing through to a 170+.

Each test I can feel the one section that does it to me - it is usually the second logical reasoning section... I go into it and feel fatigued looking at the questions/it is directly after break and I feel just out of it (-2 on first lr section, -6 on second).

Whenever I do logical reasoning outside of a PT, I get between -1 and -4, usually -1 to -3.

I feel like, at this point, I should be able to push above 170 for the real test in July (I hope). My blind reviews are consistently above 176. This plateau is just so frustrating. I also am hoping that the adrenaline rush on the day of the test might help keep me focused (usually adrenaline keeps me focused vs distracted).

Hi, everyone!

Is anyone willing to read through and provide feedback on my Statement and Supplement for my applications this fall? I'm happy to do the same for you! I can share via Google Docs.

Thanks,

Storm