Such a huge milestone, kudos to you for the continued perseverance and never giving up. Best of luck with everything that follows!

Is there anything within the law programs themselves at either schools that interest you?

Just commenting to follow along. I plan on FPing 1-35 because I've heard other users doing that exact method and it really helped pay dividends to them ending up being -1 or -0 on LG. Curious to see what others say!

I've been using "The LSAT Trainer" by Mike Kim in conjunction with 7Sage. 7Sage is my primary study tool, the Trainer is something I do in addition to receive an additional perspective and to find another way to continue practicing.

Keep in mind that using two sources might employ slightly different methods that can be confusing. But generally, what I like about the Trainer is that it takes a far simpler approach. I think "simpler" would scare away many 7Sage users and personally I far prefer 7Sage to the Trainer. That being said, why I recommend it is that it offers a refresher on the fundamentals of LR that may be beneficial to you. Certainly worth checking out!

Interested!

Interested!

Interested

Interested

J.Y. has said before (on a Podcast I believe) that you don't have to do all the problem sets in the core curriculum and that including all of them is a means of testing your abilities with certain question types. They're meant as reinforcers. If you feel good about a certain question type and haven't done all the drills, great. If you're not feeling confident, that's what the drills are for. Keep in mind that the drills in the core curriculum progress from easiest to most difficult. Practice set 1 will be far easier than practice set 10 and so on.

As for the second part, I'm not too sure the direction you mean when you say "remember all of them." The best way to utilize questions is to evaluate what you did well on them and what you did to lead you to an incorrect answer. You can find posts on how to use a "Wrong Answer Journal." The WAJ allows you to document what went right, what went wrong, how to change that in the future and so on. So I would advise less about remembering questions but rather the procedural steps that contribute to each question type and then finally what you can do for improvement. I hope that helps!

Congratulations! Any advice or wisdom regarding studying, routine, habits etc. that you can share?

Yes there are. The cycle stays the same each year unless otherwise noted by LSAC (ahead of time traditionally). You can’t sign up too far ahead in advance. I’m not sure what the actual parameters are for when you can sign up, but you’ll be able to eventually.

I just took the June exam this past Friday so I hope I can answer your question.

My desk was cornered against two windows, once of which ran nearly floor to ceiling. They asked me to shift my desk so that it wasn’t in full view. I then was also asked to close the blinds in the windows as I was reminded of the rules.

Similarly, part of my desk/testing environment was in a semi open space (I took the exam at home, it was the best I could do), and they asked me to shift my entire space so that I wasn’t in a completely open space. I just told them I can’t do that it is not possible. Wouldn’t recommend disputing everything that they ask but just to put into reference

You can take the LSAT five times in a calendar year, and seven times during your entire testing lifetime. There are very specific circumstances where you may be granted an additional test (you can find those examples in forums), but generally the rule is five times in a year and seven times total. Hope this helps!

Unfortunately the April 2023 test is not available. There’s no telling if or when it would be available.

For context, the most recent test that LSAC released was June 2020 (PT 93). That was released this past November. Over two years of tests have come and gone with only one release.

Located in Boston, I'll shoot you a message

Overall the test seemed pretty reasonable, the only two moments that had me really questioning things were the musician game and the Skepticism passage.

I'm interested

I don’t know where you are at in the curriculum (and how long you’ve been going at studying for the LSAT), but my own experience had me leave PT’s until after I was done with the CC. I think having the core foundations is extremely important prior to jumping into PTs.

I know 94 PTs seems like a lot (and it certainly is), but those 94 go very quickly when you start to account for those using in the CC, those used for personal drilling, and those you’ll use to study with. I’d focus first on understanding the CC and when you’re ready, jump into PTing.

Have you confirmed that there are spring semester starts? I’m not sure where you’re looking to apply (country and region) but at least in the U.S., it seems that most schools are fall starts because of the uniform curriculum they put their cohorts through. Do you have any schools you’re looking at that start in the spring.

I’d also suggest looking at transfer stories. My advice to you would be to first focus on the LSAT and preparing your application as best you can. I would agree with others who have told you it’s not worth attending a semester if your entire goal is to transfer. Stick through with your current plan, you got this!

I'm not sure retaking the same PTs over and over again will add considerably to your studying and score. Ultimately, if you've used all of the PTs in the 80s-90s, you'll have to move down. Traditionally, it is recommended that you save the most recent PTs for right up until your test date. That way you get the most recent exposure right before the exam. That being said, the other PTs have a tremendous amount of value. While newer PTs have changes (for example, new RC has the comparative passages while older RC did not, newer LGs have the substitution question while older PTs did not), there is still so much material and content that will be useful to you and your studying. I would highly recommend going through older PTs and gaining exposure to that content. Remember, they are a finite resource. LSAC only releases so many PTs and there is a limited drilling pool out there. If I were you, I would utilize PTs 1-35 for drilling (as 7Sage does) and then use 40 and up for PTs.

These are definitely two convoluted sentences. Translation/simplification advice that I received that always stuck with me was that when you're struggling, try to go word-for-word. I know that the odds of having that luxury of time on test day or during timed PTs are slim to none, but while you have the practice time it can certainly make a difference.

Similarly, in my wrong answer journal (WAJ), I always try and note questions that I struggled with because of a word or phrase in the stimulus that had me questioning the meaning. Even for questions that you get correct, it might be helpful to take note of those kinds of questions. I believe the results of learning new words and challenging phrases can be cumulative in trying to study and get better at reading and understanding.

First time reading this through, my first point of contention was with the word, "metaphorical." Meta is a common prefix (I always think metamorphosis as my go to example word), but I still wanted to be sure of my understanding. I know what a metaphor is, but I decided to search for a definition of metaphorical. In essence, it is figurative, it's related to how a metaphor applies a phrase or meaning to something of which it is not literally applicable. Thus, how I read the first sentence is that a group of people (extremists) claim that all uses of language are applying an idea (or meaning) to something that it can't actually be applied to.

Second sentence starts pretty simply with a refute of the previous idea. This sentence is going to counter the extremists' idea that all use of language is metaphorical.

But as you mentioned, the "for unless" is what makes this challenging. Unless is a group three translation, so it would be Negate, sufficient. Similarly, after the comma it contains "No," which is Negate, necessary. If we were to translate that into Lawgic, we would get:

SUWL representing "Some uses of words are literal" and TCBNUAW representing "There can be no nonliteral uses of any words

/SUWL->/TCBNUAW

The contrapositive being: TCBNUAW->SUWL.

As I worked through this in Lawgic (and I do believe I'm correct although I would welcome any corrections if not!), I think this is one of those instances where it might be easier to understand that particular phrase intuitively.

The extremists' argument is countered by stating that unless there are some literal uses of words, then we cannot say there are nonliteral uses of words. Meaning, if even a singular word is used literally, then not all language can said to be metaphorical because a word can be applied to something that actually maintains its meaning. The extremists' argument relies on all words being metaphorical, which makes all language metaphorical, and that is countered by explaining that this cannot be the case because even if a singular word is used literally, they we can't say there is no nonliteral meaning.

I do hope this helps a little bit! I tried to break it down as I understood it. I think really parsing through the language is what makes the difference. Similarly, understanding the extremists argument makes the counter a little easier to understand, even if not fully understanding at first.

My exact diagnostic and you far surpassed a score I could dream off. A massive kudos and hats off to you. Congrats on your success and much more in the future. You deserve all that will come along.

Any advice for studying, routine, tips, etc.

I just drilled this question the other day so I'll explain my reasoning and hopefully it can be of some value!

Important to start with the argument: Hunting was banned eight years ago. Now the deer population is six times the size it was before the ban. With more deer, we have incidents such as damage of property and motor vehicle accidents. Since there were never any hunting related injuries, the ban is unnecessary and has created a danger to the public.

It's important to recognize that the ban is being described as dangerous because of the aforementioned incidents of property damage and motor vehicle accidents involving deer.

We need to support/strengthen this argument.

It seems you were able to get rid of C D E relatively quickly, which is important. All of them are irrelevant to the argument. Who cares about shrubs, neighborhood feeding habits, or the health of deer herds.

That leaves A and B.

Why A is correct? The author of our argument is directly linking the increase in deer population as a result of the ban on hunting as being a danger to the public. We need to strengthen that. The way I got to understand A as being correct is looking at the contrapositive (I use contrapositive liberally because it's not a traditional conditional statement) of that statement. What would happen if in the surrounding counties that are mentioned where hunting is still permitted, the deer population are running rampant just like in Greenfield County (our county)? That would show that with or without hunting, deer are growing exponentially. If the deer population continues to grow with hunting, that would be a huge flaw in our author's argument. That would show that the hunting ban can't be the reason for the increase of deer related dangers because it would've happened with or without the hunting ban.

B. I had also narrowed it down to A and B. Like you, I noticed immediately that it was restating what is already mentioned in the stimulus. That to me was immediately odd and I went first to A. Just doing a quick scan over the AC's, I'd rather spend more time with the ACs that are introducing new information to the stimulus than the ones that are restating what is already known. B is just not relevant to strengthening the argument. The author is directly correlating the ban with an increase in danger, and B wouldn't do anything to dispel that.

In terms of how to select the correct AC (A) and avoid B, you were right there with recognizing why A is important. You saw the need to solidify the link between hunting and non hunting and subsequently the increase (or lack thereof) in deer population. If I can offer any of my own personal advice, I like to give the "time of day" to the ACs that are bringing in new information or circumstances to an argument. Especially for NA and Strengthen questions. B we had seen before, A we hadn't. After reading B and recognizing that it was restated information, I immediately wanted to go to A. I also like to channel my inner J.Y. "Who cares?" monologue with ACs. If they appear largely irrelevant or just have fluff information, who cares about them? That helped me eliminate C D E. Lastly, running the opposite of ACs is what is particularly helpful in Strengthen and NA questions? For B, what if Motor vehicle accidents involving deer don't often result in damage to the vehicle, injury to the motorist, or both? Does that change the argument? Whereas with A, what if in surrounding counties, where hunting is permitted, the size of deer population has increased in the last eight years? All the sudden, can we link hunting at all with the deer population? That is what the opposite of A would introduce to the argument, and subsequently why A being true is important in strengthening the argument.

This was a long winded response and I hope it helps a little (with answering the question and seeing how/why to chose the correct AC). It was largely a stream of my consciousness when answer this question. For these types of questions, I'd say don't be afraid to eliminate when necessary but to take the time of day to evaluate the ACs and with this particular question type, see how the opposite scenario would work the argument. Best of luck!

Interested

Congrats on the score! When you say drill old question sets, are you talking about any type of question set (LG, LR, RC)? Or was there a particular type that worked best?