@ said:
Mostly everyone will just use the same ones, the opinions of those who wrote the letter will likely not change at all in just a few months. You only need new ones if you waited multiple years to apply again
That's pretty much what I figured then, thanks for the comment.
Hello everyone, I'm wondering if I should re-procure letters of recommendation for the up-coming cycle. I applied extremely late last cycle (like mid-post march), and I plan on re-applying this year. Would you recommend asking for new letters of recommendation, or will my letters from earlier this year be sufficient?
Looks like everyone gave a pretty good explanation, but I'll give my two-cents as well in case it helps. The argument is based the advantages presented to the people that would be buying and using the bulbs. The author says there is a ton of advantages, so you should go into the answer choices, in this case, looking for the statement that has no bearing on the perceived advantages by the consumer. All of the other answer choices discuss relevant aspects to consider when determining whether those advantages really outweigh the costs overall, EXCEPT for B, which only talks about maybe the benefits to the lightbulb companies. If you were buying lightbulbs, or rather, thinking about people who buy them, would you consider what the company cares about when you buy that lightbulb? I, for one, could give zero fucks for what the lightbulb company's profits when I'm buying a product, and I would base it solely on the benefits to myself, and the goals of the lightbulb company would simply have no bearing on my decision. This is why B is correct, because the interests of the lightbulb company or salesman or whoever is irrelevant to the argument, because the argument is predicated on the /consumer's/ perceived benefits and advantages.
Hey Shrek, its very inspiring to see your posts as I've continued to go through the 7Sage course, and then seeing your progress and advice in later discussion posts. I want to say thank you for inspiration you give me toward improving my score, and the methods you used to achieve that improvement. If you don't mind me asking, did you find the "fool-proof" method for logic games to be effective? I've been studying LG for about a week now, maybe slightly less, and I am getting so frustrated with how long it takes me to get through some of the games, or how lost I feel when I miss inferences. Do you have any suggestions for spotting inferences yourself, or should I save my worries till after I get through the core curriculum games and problem sets?
@ said:
Thanks for the explanation, but I'm thick headed and I'm still not understanding completely. If I could ask another question?
For example: Let's say a single LR question has a question difficulty of 1/5 bubbles (aka easiest) and also has a "Psg/Game/S/Difficulty" of 3/5 bubbles (aka medium). Now, in this instance, would that mean that this specific question is a 1/5 difficult level question that lives within a 3/5 difficult level overall section?
I'm pretty sure that's exactly it. The question difficulty relates to that question alone, whereas the Psg/Game/S/Difficulty is the overall difficulty of the section as a whole.
Assuming that not sharing an opinion is the same thing as outright disagreement seems really unfair, but I guess it is what it is. I assumed that none of the candidates had any disagreements with Kay. They could have very well just not had an opinion at all, and no opinion is not the same thing as holding the opposite of an opinion. I understand the reasoning the LSAT apparently wants for this question, but I think it requires a really poor, unfounded assumption.
@ said:
I think the LSAT hasn't done enough to level the playing field for people from disadvantaged socioeconomic communities and that they think they can get away with this by adding in more diverse names in the LG section. First of all the LG is the most dependent on studying, so it's going to favor those who have access to top notch study tools. I can't explain how much of a difference it's made having the unlimited data on 7sage. Second, they've only made the LG section worth more since eliminating the second LR section. If they really wanted to level the playing field they'd let everyone who signed up have access to every prep test previously offered. Rough analogy here: Imagine you spend 200$ to sign up for a class and then the teacher offer proportionately more study material to those who give more money. All the while the teacher is profiting directly from whoever buys more material. Open to any feedback on this but I think the LSAC is so damn greedy
Monopolies tend to be that way, and its disgusting.
I spent so long on this question, more confused than on any of the others, all because I didn't read C correctly.
Might just be random
Changed my answer to B during blind review after selecting C under timed conditions. I struggle to see how it is strictly necessary to assume that the TB proteins are exclusively the things that cause the reaction. The reaction could easily be caused by all manner of different proteins and infections, so long as the TB proteins were the only thing injected, you could still conclude that a person had TB by eliminating the other factors. Somebody please explain to me, if you would, why its necessary that the TB proteins must be the only proteins capable of causing the reaction.
I hate questioning the LSAT questions, but some of these older questions, even the apparently super easy ones do not seem to be fair in some cases, and questionably correct in others.
No matter the question type, my brain shuts down so hard at the mention of art its comical.
C is not left out of the final chain. J.Y. was just showing two ways to do it, and stopped half way through the first way. C→/M→LST→H is INCORRECT however. If you start with C, you need to take the contrapositives of the statements as you move down the line, and you have to be sure to translate them correctly initially as well. It should look like C→M→/LSD→/H OR, the contrapositive, which is H→LSD→/M→/C.
Don't even bother trying to guess. If you add on analyzing question difficulty and comparing their legitimacy to "normal questions", you're adding on way more work for your mind for something that overwhelmingly unlikely to help your score. All you really get to know is what kind of experimental section you had, but not necessarily which specific section it was.
I think the best thing to do is fool-proof and try again. I'm in a similar boat. It seems like everyone says logic games get super easy at some point and people start to see rapid improvement, but this simply hasn't been the case for me. I don't know how many games you've done, but I wouldn't give up yet. I have looked everywhere on how to improve, but I think the reality is literally just to keep practicing them by doing more. Repetition and volume are probably key. For something as alien as the logic games, there simply isn't any way around good old-fashioned time consuming and mentally frustrating practice. Some people will get them games quickly and intuitively. But for the rest of us, we have to take the long road. Good luck!
You need to put in the question number
There is no shame in being thoroughly prepared. A year gap to refine the skills necessary for the LSAT is likely to benefit you in the long run so far as law school goes. 3 months is not that much time to study for the LSAT, and if you know you can improve, you should take the time to do it. I am in a similar boat to an extent. My GPA was not quite so high as yours, but I scored a 156 after only a couple month's study myself. I know I can do better, having not even attempted one of the logic games on the section, and leaving unanswered questions on both that last game and the end of my reading comprehension section. I don't know the adverse effects of taking a gap year to study and prepare, but the benefits to your LSAT score would, in my personal opinion, be worth the time to get it right. Good luck on whichever decision you make.
I've heard a lot about the "loophole" book for LR. If you haven't already, maybe that could be worth reading?
As the other commenter said, be strong. Remember that the LSAT is unlike probably any other test you've ever taken. It doesn't test blanket knowledge about subjects, but skills that must be refined over hours of practice. Pretty much nobody starts out at the top like many prospective law students are used to, simply because its a different kind of test. Know that you will get better, and take the time to carefully review every question. Improvement doesn't come all at once, and it doesn't come from 2 sets of questions, it comes from hundreds of questions being meticulously reviewed. Don't feel bad about missing questions that seem obvious on review, instead focus on how you can do better next time. For the ones that you don't understand, try seeing if a different approach or way of thinking will get you closer. The first part of the journey is hard, but if you're consistent then one day you'll realize how far you've come.
Go to the LSAT questions tab, click on problem sets, and then just select all the questions from a section.
Question 5 is lame