@tapiamsamantha372 said:

How do you think you will approach foolproofing LG with the Starter course? Are you going to set aside some of those PTs for foolproofing games?

The starter course comes with LG explanations for every test. I'm going to follow one of 7Sage's pieces of advice - for every game I can, photocopy it and redo it like 10 times. I have 9 fresh tests left and I'm going to go reorder the book of 62-71tests that I did before I had an effective study plan and before I started the 7Sage curriculum. That gives me 72 games by the end of this new study plan. Plus a bunch of old ones I'll try to redo even though they're marked up.

I'm going to spend two months on Core Curriculum Review, Logic Games and reading (because I think my verbal processing speed is just tarding out because I haven't been enough the past few years), then the last three months do a full fresh practice test every two weeks with section drills in between.

@tapiamsamantha372

155 was my first score 3 years ago. I just scored 160 after getting back on the train this past summer. I too am retesting and starting my study reboot plan for June. I'll probably get the Trainer, start fool-proofing logic games and then get back on to the other sections and PTing again later in the spring. I had been starting to do better on LG before December but bombed my LG section on test day so I know that's where I need to start. And yeah I plan on reviewing most of the CC here.

I can't comment on Ultimate though, since there's no way I could pay that much for prep.

@acsimon699 Luckily the police involvement was not for me. I feel for you though if you do and wish you the best. So it sounds like the Addendum should be rather short and practical. Hm...

@nicolassaw861 Yeah, I think I will. I just found out that even if I were accepted ED, I would have to pay a steep deposit. I guess I really need to do more research and reaching out to admissions offices.

@ivettechow129

No. My target school doesn't allow for them, or at least it isn't discussed in their application requirements.

yeah I think even being on here is increasing my anxiety. My PT scores are so on the fence for what I want to do so it depends on what comes back in January. I want to just plan for June but everyone around me is anxious for me to get on with my life. I'm just going to focus on spring plans and app materials, get them ready to submit the day after my score comes back. If my score isn't acceptable, I'll just set all the app materials aside, get back to drilling and ramping up for June. My guts are all in a bad knot. I feel for everyone else on here.

Ha. Yeah if come January 4 I'm really pleasantly surprised, after I cry I'm going to the beach at night with some marshmallows and...

no. I have Stockholm Syndrome with the LSAT.

@lc829103

I'm curious about how to make a complaint as well. I'll probably be looking into it. We had a proctor messing with some kind of plastic tape throughout most of a section (sounded like opening dozens of werthers).

If they don't know about it and it made a difference it will mess up their statistics. Imagine being on their end and getting results back and, I don't know, the average score is noticeably lower for this site than its surrounding sites. I know there are testing sites that can have more or less students of a particular racial background and that could mess up their demographics further. If its the fault of the proctors, calling them up and asking them why is probably not going to help.

Plus with something as legitimate as that - at least an apology from LSAC to those students would absolutely be appropriate.

I was thinking last night one reason to have revoked that rule is a case like the following: someone took it three times back in 2003-4 when there was no 7Sage and they couldn't afford fancy prep, didn't get hot scores and gave up on their dream of becoming a lawyer. 8 years later at age 30, if they wanted to give it another shot, they'd be stuck with an embarrassing relic of their ignorant past if they wanted to pursue the dream again.

This is where I'm at too. My first diagnostic in May was 147, then the next PT was 157. I've been working part-full time with commutes so my progress has been slow. I stayed within the 152-158 range for a couple months, studying Powerscore, before finding 7Sage. I've been up at 160-164 over the past month. Today's PT, maybe my last before Saturday, was 159. Big outch and feeling stupid all evening, but I'm not giving up. I know i've been learning and I know its good for me, so I'm getting ready to make June/September plans.

I'm in a similar situation. I've been in the 160-163 range for about a month and my goal is 165 on Dec 2nd. I too have been feeling a little burnt out but I'd beware of battering yourself without analyzing your weak points. I think it would be like training in karate and right before a big fight with someone you've never faced before, having a familiar fight partner whose moves you know just wear you out.

I think if you have a missed question that takes over 15-20 minutes to figure out, that is dangerous (and thus worth the time to figure out). But I could be spouting nonsense since I'm not consistently scoring within -5 on LR yet on my timed sections (my review is pretty quick though).

I know i'll be drilling games! As I just experienced on my last PT, a silly rule translation error can ruin the whole section (and test). I'm not PTing as high as you are but improvement in LG has been the lead on my scores. A single game is like a 4-5 point final score difference.

@gregoryalexanderdevine723 :

LR: I've just started getting close to finishing all the questions in the sections. I'm answering 23-24 and getting 18-21 (~ -6,-5). BR has been going more quickly.

RC: I can score anywhere from 16 to 22 (-3 to -10) in a RC section. This is where the year would benefit me the most, if not just for the test, for an easier transition to heavy reading loads.

Good question. A related question: whether schools consider total GPA across all schools you've attended?

Ha. I too started out this way and felt like it was a sign I could be a good defense lawyer one day. Every tough problem, where I felt like I was on a faulty question, I loosened up and slowly wrote out my thoughts on each answer choice. Eventually I had to walk away with my tail between my legs and admit that once again, LSAT won. It's been humbling.

They really are just tricks, but they are universal. A beauty of the LSAT: your training is highly useful post-exam.

These days I mostly just deal with speed issues.

Ah, this one was a killer. I'll paste my analysis below. (its against the rules to post LSAT questions so I'm only including answer choices and my analysis)

Breakdown:

1 supplier

various manufacturing locations

field inspectors [at/went to?] locations and sent back samples of products

20% of these samples were found defective

our contract says the supplier must not let defects account for more than 5% of production

therefore,

supplier has breached contract

A. bases its conclusion on too small a sample of items tested by the laboratory

NO.

The sample size is not discussed. It might be a healthy sample size (e.g. M&Ms - easy)

B. presumes, without providing justification that the field inspectors were just as likely to choose a defective item for testing as they were to choose a non-defective item

NO.

If the inspector is not biased, such a presumption would be that 50% are defective and 50% are not defective?

C. overlooks the possibility that a few of the manufacturing sites are responsible for most of the defective items

NO.

If the 20% is comprehensive then maybe all the defects came from one place and skewed the inspection results.

Suppose there are four sites and three send 25 samples each and one sends 60. Suppose only one out of each of the first three is defective but 24 out of the 60 from the 4th site are defective. Over all that is 20%. Something’s going on at the 4th site. And maybe that’s why they sent more samples, because they know something’s up and thought that the defects would be a smaller percentage of a larger sample. However, remember that the conclusion is that the supplier breached contract: not the manufacturer. Regardless of how the dispersement of defects across manufacturers occurs, its still 20% for the supplier.

D. overlooks the possibility that the field inspectors tend to choose items for testing that they suspect are defective

Possibly.

But then we are not supposed to assume a field inspector is defined as one without bias and there is nothing in the argument to suggest that the field inspectors could have a bias.

Suppose that the inspectors DO choose items they suspect are defective. Is their suspicion well founded? What if these are some kind of rocket canister or other part of a rocket and the inspector has no knowledge of rockets and is choosing samples based on their weight. This may have nothing to do with whether the sample is actually defective or not.

E. presumes, without providing justification, that the field inspectors made an equal number of visits to each of the various manufacturing sites of the supplier

NO.

Their making an equal number of visits to each site could only more remotely have to do with these results. What about the number of samples? And what if they are visited an unequal number of times but the same number of samples are taken?

I get the humor in this example and am enough of a GOTs fan, but I'm not laughing. Poor taste. Growing up without one parent or as an adopted child is absolutely nothing to joke about.

@akikookmt881

I've been facing the same pattern. In my early practice tests RC was my best section. I was finishing all the passages and getting section scores 18-23. That's steadily gone down. I also have been trying to notate more than I did in the beginning. I took a PT this morning and only scored 14 in my RC section (seriously feeling dumb - like maybe I should study another a year), but just two days ago I did an untimed RC section and scored 25/28 in 39 minutes. I have two months until the Dec. LSAT. I'm thinking to take a couple weeks break from PTs, drill LG and LR and read journal articles and see if the break does any good. Not sure though. I have about 20 PTs left and only 8 weeks to Dec.

@katieshuter1737

I used to work out early in the mornings too and would have a terrible afternoon slump and would often take an hr+ nap. You might try a light afternoon caffeine boost (light! do not put yourself through a caffeine adrenal rollercoaster - my mistake these past couple weeks) AND/OR a light afternoon work out. Short jog or calisthenics. If you haven't already. It is not worth it trying to plow through. If you aren't too sleepy in the morning you might try doing evening work outs instead. I find it nice these days waking up early after a good workout and shower the previous night, having some tea or coffee and getting to work.

@tristandesinor505 said:

@6400 said:

@tristandesinor505 said:

@6400 said:

Liar Liar with Jim Carrey.

Greatest legal film of all time. Not opinion, just facts.

It is a magnificent work of art.

Jim Carrey is a national treasure. He's a weirdo nowadays, but back in the day, he was churning out hits on the reg.

Oh my gosh so weird. Did you see he's an artist now? The art is actually really good but it's still like... wut. ?

Anyone can make good art. The art market is just an aestheto-political value machine with limited space behind the reigns.

Jerry Seinfeld does a Riding in Cars With Comedians episode with Jim Carrey - it's nice. (btw he also does one with former president Barack Obama)

@tristandesinor505 said:

I started watching the West Wing randomly and laaaahv it ... if you're interested in Con Law it's a good respite from studying that will still keep you in the game while being entertained.

I've never watched West Wing. I've watched House of Cards. That's saucy Anti-Law.