I am no expert in personal statements, but from an objective standpoint it looks like you have a lot to work with. I certainly would not discount the struggles that you've been through. It sounds like you have overcome a lot to get where you are, and that alone shows determination and heart, to say the least. It seems like you can use your story to talk about your accomplishments, while also pointing to the barriers to success that you overcame to accomplish those things. Sure, a lot of people may write about their struggles, but yours is your own and it reflects much more than just personality - you can prove that in your statement. If you believe that you're a cookie-cutter applicant with a cookie-cutter struggle, your essay will reflect that. Instead, convince them why you will make a good student and be a good fit for them because of XYZ. If people can write a great narrative about working out, then you can do that with your experiences. With enough time you can frame it in a way that makes it relevant to your qualifications and your interest in law school. Good luck!

I'm no longer enrolled, but I still use the Problem Set tool. I just go to "create problem set" tab and organize the list by whichever question type I want to practice. It doesn't let you group them and drill on the tool, but it's good enough for a reference. It's a bit different than the above link. It's more specific in that it pulls only the question type you want, and then it lists the corresponding PT and number chronologically.

I was going to purchase a stand that hovers over my test, but I was able to cut up a cardboard box in a way that sits on my desk perfectly. I basically flipped it upside down and cut off the front and back to where it made a simple U-shaped frame. I just cut a hole in the top of the frame and let the lens of my camera hover over it.

Awesome, and good luck!!

P are the only places the record X. Because of this, they can easily identify Y. C: P utilizes direct mail marketing more effectively. X -> Y C: PDMM>ODMM

I originally split the premise into two different premises, which I think made it a little harder for me to process the stimulus. Overall, I think I definitely considered more details of the stimulus than I should have. If I had recognized the cookie-cutter mold, I would have made it easier on myself.

SA – What I’m looking for: X&Y require direct-mail marketing (P->C)

A. /Y -> /X This does not connect to the stimulus

B. DMM –s-> Y.

C. This does not connect either of the premises to the conclusion

D. The conclusion is about how they utilize it more effectively than others, not how beneficial it is to them

E. X -> DMM this looks like what we’re looking for

Evidence suggests that we can manufacture a car that does X, and it has been shown that we can produce a car that does Y. C: We can make a car that does both X & Y.

PFMOR – What I’m looking for: X , Y . Therefore XY

A. No DW does X, No DW does Y. Therefore, no DW is Z

B. The language in the stimulus is absolute, this AC is more probabilistic

C. This does have the same structure, but these two are correlated with each other. If it is snowing, then it’s cold. They are also talking about what people say, whereas the stimulus is talking about what has been proven or has been done

D. This seems like a winner. It is basing this conclusion on two things that have happened or are possible. And then it concludes that they can both be done at the same time

E. The sentence at the end is not necessary

C: Consumers should buy from IBS rater the C. P: IBS offer a wider selection MP: because C threaten IBS, they reduce the variety of books available.

Gap: Assumes that consumers care more about variety of books available than any other factor

PSA – What I’m looking for: Argument assumes that the variety of books is the leading factor in who the consumers decide to buy from.

A. This has nothing to do with who the consumers choose to buy from

B. If accepted, this would lead to the conclusion that they should only buy from independent bookstores, but it also assumes that IBS do not reduce the variety of books to consumers. Not necessarily airtight, but seems like the best fit.

C. The stimulus is not talking about the best interest of the bookselling business, this is out of scope

D. “deliberately” seems a bit too extreme, also does not mention the variety of books

E. This is too extreme

H contains more C&M than S. C: People who drink more S have a higher risk of X P: People being treated for X tend to have lower levels of magnesium

Weaken – What I’m looking for: Argument assumes that low levels of M cause X, want something that weakens this assumption.

A. We want something that weakens the idea the low levels of M causes X, this answer does not say anything about people suffering from X

B. This is too out of scope

C. Stimulus isn’t talking about age, this does nothing to the argument

D. Who is taking these supplements? How many is "many"?

E. This would shows that X existed without drinking S while also explaining the low levels of M, easy to spot given the other answers.

I agree, the earlier the better. I have access to the tests provided in the starter pack, but am willing to purchase if necessary.

14. Critics claim that the power of the media to impose opinions is too great. MP: this is not true P: This would be true if their opinion was narrower than that of their audience. C: because of this assumption is not true, the critics claims are false.

Flaw- What I’m looking for: Sufficiency Necessity?

A. It does not attack the critics, rather an assumption that they supposedly made

B. There is no way to tell how much exposure they should be given based on the stimulus. The author does say that the critic's claim would be correct if their range of opinion were narrower than it is. But even from that, we cannot tell what is "at least enough".

C. Maybe. He is saying that their claim would be true if X were true. But X is false, therefore the claim is false.

D. Does not mention the opinion of a group in the stimulus. This may have been true if he said some critics claim X, but many more claim Y. Therefore Y is true.

E. Author does not give an opinion on whether or not this is desirable.

12. L claim that the public finds many violent movies to be MO. C: Legislators misinterpreted that decision. P: MG did a survey in which 17 % of respondents found movies overly violent, and 3 % found any recent movie to be MO. The respondents see far more movies than the average moviegoer, so these percentages are telling.

Flaw – What I’m looking for: Survey not representative

A. If this did happen, he would attack the legislators ad hominem rather than trying to present evidence.

B. I think what this is saying is that the surveys are subjective and he should be using evidence that qualifies a moral offense and comparing it to the movies? If I am correct, this is not necessary because what people believe to be morally offensive can be pretty subjective. So what the author would be doing in that case is saying something like “these people believe that it is morally offensive, but a movie is only morally offensive when they cut someone’s head off. None of these movies do this, therefore they are wrong.”

C. Stimulus isn’t talking about antisocial behavior. It’s trying to prove that movies aren’t actually morally offensive.

D. This matches my prediction. Author says that respondents see movies more often than the average moviegoer. We don’t know whether or not the public are average movie goers

E. Flaw is that survey is not representative, this AC is saying that the flaw is with how it was conducted.

11. According to CD, separate continents were part of one large land mass. The plates under the land mass moved to form chasms. It is hypothesized that South America was once joined with the west coast of Africa.

Strng – What I’m looking for: There was not a land mass attached to wc of Africa and ec of South America

A. This is a bridging answer choice and would further strengthen the hyp that they were linked

B. People are mobile, they are genetically similar everywhere. This is saying that a subgroup of South America is related to many Western Africans. We don’t know how many “many” is, and it requires further assumptions to reach validity.

C. This requires the assumption that the weather would be similar if they were linked together.

D. Again this is similar to B in talking about a sub-group of people. We can’t quantify “some” and “various”

E. And there could be several plants resembling South American plants in Canada, this does not do enough to strengthen the argument that these continents were once linked. To reach the conclusion, we could make this more like A and say that a very rare, flower that is only found on the east coast of South America has recently been found in western Africa.

7. In PS, social roles were few and easily predicted, interpersonal relations were stable and predictable. MS has many different social roles. TC requires us to fill different niches, differentiating quickly.

What I’m looking for: MS is different from PS in some way

A. There is no way to infer this, given the stimulus

B. This could be a winner. It is using previously stated characteristics of PS to explain how it is different from MS

C. This is too extreme. There is no way to tell what the most important difference is

D. This is out of scope and does not even mention PS. Stimulus does not talk about predicting other’s actions

E. There is no way to determine this given the stimulus, we don’t even know what is required of a society to provide this

6. P: Ancestors had fewer dental problems C: Early humans had different diet than ours

Strng – What I’m looking for: Diet is the only thing determining dental health

A. This assumes that early people were eating a healthy diet

B. How many they have is irrelevant, it is included in the statement that they have fewer dental problems than we have

C. Kind of diet is irrelevant, stimulus just says that it was better than ours, so we don't need to know how it varies

D. This would weaken the argument that they have a better diet. Stimulus is only talking about dental problems in general, not just serious dental problems

E. This is a blocking AC; eliminates the possibility that there is something more important contributing to dental health. Connects the conclusion (diet) to premises (dental health)

5. There are other theories that explain and predict more accurately human behavior that Freudian theories. Therefore, all F theories should be abandoned for these other theories.

NA – What I’m looking for: Assumes that because their explanations are different and they are better at predicting, they should be favored over F’s

A. Stimulus does not say that they are false, just that others offer different explanations and are better able to predict behavior

B. This could be a winner. Premise: Other theories have better predictive power Conclusion they should be favored over F. This condition connects the premises to conclusion. When negated, it renders conclusion invalid.

C. Stimulus doesn’t talk about the degree to which it can predict behavior, just that other theories do it better.

D. This says that you have to consider other theories in order to measure the success of another. Even if this were true, it doesn’t explain why we should favor one theory over another.

E. Stimulus is not concluding that either theory is impractical, just that one should be accepted over the other

A: Halley’s comet flared bright enough to be seen This is unusual bc no comet has been observed to flare so far from the Sun before.

S: No one bothers to observe them so far from the sun, this was only seen because they were tracking Halley’s Comet.

MOR -S is saying the comet isn’t unusual for A’s reasoning, but because no one pays attention to what they do past a certain point.

A. Not pointing out that it is vague, just saying that no one has ever tried to observe it at that point

B. This would be saying that she is contradicting herself in her argument, S is giving a different explanation for the premises given

C. Her evidence is consistent with A’s

D. This is correct. She is using the same evidence as A, just a pointing out something that A was not considering

E. S disagrees with A’s conclusion and agrees with evidence. Simply comes up with a different explanation

3. MBT – R has no conception of what is right and wrong, just what is legally permitted and what is not. When he committed an offense, he did not know that it was morally wrong, even though he knew it was illegal.

What I am looking for: Not sure

A. Contradictory of what is in stimulus

B. This is a restatement of the premises

C. Cannot infer this, given the stimulus

D. Given the stimulus, there is no way to tell this

E. There is no way to tell his potential for change, given the stimulus.

I previously used Powerscore before I came across 7Sage. The thing I noticed the most when I started learning JY's methodology is that the shortcut methods that are often pushed by PS curricula are not conducive to an understanding of the theoretical aspects that underlay each question. This is why these methods can prove useful for some questions, but can be problematic with more complex stimuli. The thing that I like most about 7Sage curriculum is that it provides a foundation for understanding of every aspect of an argument. It then helps us use this understanding to create an approach that can easily be applied to each question type, rather than having different shortcut methods for different question stems that don't necessarily require an understanding of the argument structure.

For LR - once I started typing up the questions, it really helped me weed out some of the bad habits that I had developed. Writing everything out in the stimulus helped me clearly see how the premises supported the conclusion. Once I read the question stem I write down what I predict to be the AC so that I'm able to know what I'm looking for. As I go through the ACs, I type up the reasoning for eliminating/choosing them. I know people push this kind of practice all the time on here, but it was extremely helpful for me because it made me really slow down and actually think about whether or not I understood every part of the stimulus and AC's. In doing all of this, I was able to apply the new stuff I was learning while also restructuring my foundational principles.

That being said, I didn't necessarily "switch over" methods. I think that there are parts of my previous curriculum that I use to supplement my studies with 7Sage.

2. MOR – Pride accounts for AS producing more winning racehorses than competitors. BM has the same pride that allows us to produce more winning automobiles than our competitors.

What I’m looking for: Argument by analogy

A. Stimulus does not mention their customers at all, just the quality of products.

B. This matches my prediction

C. This is mentioned in the stimulus, but it is not the conclusion that is being argued; it’s being used to support the conclusion.

D. Explicitly states that pride accounts for their success. It does not say to what degree, so we can't infer this based on the stimulus

E. This is not stated, only says that it has existed for generations

1. RRE - MT is SC. Few people know that SC writer, most people know that MT was one

What I’m looking for: People don’t know who is SC is

A. They don’t necessarily have to have read someone’s writing to know who they are.

B. Everyone who knows SC could account for “the few” mentioned in the stimulus. The paradox is about people who know MT but don’t know SC.

C. This shows that you can know MT and not know SC

D. What are these conflicting things? We just want to know why they don’t know SC. It’s irrelevant that some people think that Nicholas Sparks is a vegan and some do not

E. This just shows that some people know that MT is Sc

I'm interested, count me in.