Community Profile

PT145.S2.Q18

verewill93

Wednesday, Apr 13 2022

Your comment here helps me a lot and I think this is more precise than JY's explanation which pretty much amounts to "A and B suck, no way those are right!"

Actually, you helped set off a light bulb for me that helped me rip A and B basically to shreds. Check it out!

A, presumes that A CLAIM (ie, literally ANY claim, not just the Shakespeare claim) cannot be true if those who advance it are motivated by snobbery. So that would be a massive statement, and it was Waaaaaay beyond what this Historian is claiming, which is very specific. Like maybe all people who buy a yacht say yachts are great, and they are motivated purely by snobbery in that claim, then does that mean yachts are not great? Answer A is basically addressing every single argument in history (past, present and future) that makes such a claim motivated by snobbery—even the yacht statement. I think we can agree that is completely not what the historian is claiming, and that he speaks nothing to yacht owners and their claims.

B, Pretty much same story as A but slightly more qualified, ANYONE who is motivated PURELY by snobbery cannot also be motivated by legitimate historical evidence. So basically this flaw would be that the historian claims ANYONE in the history of the universe (past present and future—including neanderthals and people yet to be born in 2025, etc etc) cannot be motivated in this way. But in reality, the Historian is making a highly qualified claim that ONLY applies SOLELY to those who claim Shakespeare did not write his plays. So B is extremely overbroad. Not to mention, this flaw internally contradicts itself because how can you be PURELY (ONLY) motivated by snobbery but ALSO motivated by historical evidence. That would be more like an “Impure” (not sole) motivation—which includes an “impure” mixture of both snobbery PLUS something else.

E and C were throwaway answers.

And D perfectly addresses the argument in context because we are ONLY talking about the motivations of “those who reject Shakespeare’s authorship”—a highly qualified and accurate statement.

4

PrepTests ·

PT137.S4.Q8

verewill93

Friday, Nov 19 2021

I always appreciate JY's videos.

That said, I think a much better, simpler, and easier to understand explanation for why B is wrong (note: I originally chose "B") is that it says road maintenance is PRIMARILY funded by local sales tax.

I personally disagree with JY that "deicing roads" does not fall under "road maintenance." The more simple explanation here is that we don't know if THIS PARTICULAR POLICY CHANGE will be funded by LOCAL SALES TAX.

Road maintenance is simply funded PRIMARILY by sales tax--not TOTALLY by sales tax--therefore it leaves plenty of room to destroy this AC by thinking, wait, what if this particular policy is funded by the Salt Association of Centerburgh which is a filthy rich association comprised solely of super wealthy/elite Salt Business Owners. (Or literally ANY other funding source that doesn't affect low income people, which would completely nullify this answer.)

Since we have ZERO factual evidence on how this particular policy will be funded, it is nullified by the much stronger AC D. (I was waffling between B and D originally.) Doesn't this totally make much more sense than just assuming "deicing" is not included in "road maintenance"?!?!!

47

General · Technical Difficulties during November 2021 LSAT

verewill93

Friday, Nov 12 2021

I want to encourage all of you. I had the same issue. (My friend had a similar issue with the October test for which the server crashed in Section 4 and he was given the opportunity for a free retake several days later.)

Because I knew this happened to my friend in Oct, I asked him what to do. He said call LSAC. Up to this point I was extremely frazzled. (The "unresponsive" popup hit me somewhere between 30 to 100+ times during Section 4.)

However LSAC was already aware of the issue. The rep promised me I am eligible for the retake later this month. I told her this was extremely stressful and she apologized deeply/kindly. I felt much better after that.

So I encourage anyone who is frazzled as I was to contact LSAC and discuss your options. They are well aware of the issue and I believe they can help you with some sort of resolution (although not ideal because of the stress and strain involved in every sitting, I personally will likely go the retake route).

0

PrepTests ·

PT150.S2.Q13

verewill93

Monday, Nov 08 2021

Excellent! Watch starting from around the ~21 minute mark!!!!!!!! "Wing-assisted incline running"!!!!! Thanks!

1

PrepTests ·

PT145.S3.P2.Q10

verewill93

Monday, Aug 09 2021

With all due respect, this seems like a huge stretch specifically because the question directly references the "reaction of the art critics mentioned in line 13" of the passage.

Line 13 reads in full, "embarrassment of the critics, van Meegeran revealed...."

Literally the ONLY reaction of the critics in line 13 is "embarrassment." Where are you reading another reaction in that (very short) line???

Even if I take what you say to be true, that I should be looking not for an emotional response, but for the "response it elicits from the critics" (your words) - where are you seeing another response IN LINE 13???

So basically if I read what you are saying, you are saying what the question makers meant by IN LINE 13 was specifically their reaction, NOT IN LINE 13. Right?

5

PrepTests ·

PT142.S2.Q16

verewill93

Saturday, Aug 07 2021

This is an interesting thought that helps somehow. Thanks~

2

PrepTests ·

PT145.S3.P2.Q10

verewill93

Saturday, Aug 07 2021

For Q10, the answer still doesn't sit well with me. The question asks for the analogous REACTION, not the analogous SITUATION. The reaction referenced is embarrassment. Clearly AC D is the most "embarrassing" situation - the critics are basically found to be complete hypocrites. Heck, finding out the master chef is gone might not even be embarrassing at all! They might be more amazed than embarrassed: like, "Wow, that master chef sure trained his team well!" Like anyone who knows anything about restaurants knows that the underling chefs do all or virtually all of the work. The master chef is just concocting the recipes and teaching the proper techniques, and might well not even be there most of the time??? Here's a link I googled in like 5 seconds to explain this phenomenon: https://www.mashed.com/112416/restaurants-celebrity-chefs-actually-cook-kitchen/ Like how many Wolfgang Puck restaurants are there? Would you be shocked or even more extreme, embarrassed if you found out he wasn't in the back of the kitchen? Now I understand that basically even though the word REACTION is in the question stem, we are actually looking for the analogous SITUATION. How in the world would I know this, especially under timed conditions? What am I missing here? #help

19

PrepTests ·

PT145.S3.P2.Q10

verewill93

Saturday, Aug 07 2021

Wow this explanation is so much more helpful than the one in the video. I understood it perfectly now. Thanks!!!

(Originally chose D timed, D on blind review, and B on review of the BR miss. And still couldn't figure out what the heck is going on even after watching the video explanation.)

0

PrepTests ·

PT139.S2.P4.Q25

verewill93

Saturday, Jul 24 2021

Thanks!!! Got it now! After reading this and looking back at the passage 1st paragraph it makes a whole lot more sense (1st paragraph mentions "lawyers' services" and "lawyer's risk of financial loss" which both align well with AC B).

0

LSAT · My Unorthodox RC Timing Method That Just Might Work For You

verewill93

Saturday, Jul 24 2021

Thanks for sharing this! Will try!

1

PrepTests ·

PT137.S3.Q24

verewill93

Friday, Jul 23 2021

I agree with you that 1) this question is super hard and 2) the first sentence is the key. For me it's super counterintuitive that "no mark of that group's success" = "unsuccessful" but that is the logical equivalent they are going for with AC B.

But when I think it through deeply (not sure how this could ever happen under timed conditions, huck..... T.T but never say never), I guess what they are saying makes more sense (somehow).

What I would naturally think is "no mark" of success means, it could be successful or it could be not a success. But what they are saying is "no mark" of success means, NOT a success which translates to, UNsuccess. And the proper word for UNsuccess would be Unsuccessful.

I actually think I kind of disagree with LSAT that "no mark" of success means UNsuccess. That's why this is so confusing and challenging. Anyone can help me sort this out in my mind? #help

3

PrepTests ·

PT137.S3.Q22

verewill93

Thursday, Jul 22 2021

I actually disagree with JY's explanation here.

I drew the argument out as

P1: Gov Policy--> Increased CONSUMER demand

P2: Increased DEMAND [key point, notice they didn't say CONSUMER here] --> Increased gas price

C: Gov. responsible for increased gas price

---

The missing link here is to connect CONSUMER demand with DEMAND [presumably with CONSUMER demand being a subset of ALL demand].

If the Gov. cannot be responsible for an INDIRECT link [ie, the impact of CONSUMER demand on ALL demand and then ALL demand on prices] then it short circuits the whole argument.

I personally (respectfully) disagree that if the P2 said increased CONSUMER demand, it wouldn't be a valid argument and therefore a direct responsibility of the Gov. What makes it indirect is the lack of connection between CONSUMER demand and ALL demand. There could be all types of demand such as COMMERCIAL demand, INDUSTRIAL demand, that have a way bigger impact on the price, to the point where CONSUMER becomes a unnoticeable blip. In that case the Gov cannot be directly responsible for a price increase of all gas when their policy only impacted the CONSUMER segment.

I believe my explanation here better explains AC A than JY's explanation (props to him though for answering thousands of LSAT Q's and massively helping us all out). This also better explains why AC C is wrong. Even if CONSUMER DEMAND directly increases the gas price, this still does not resolve the issue with the missing connection in the original argument. The original argument is that ALL demand increases the price. Thus this AC falls into irrelevancy.

---

This is my conclusion after I flagged this question, missed it in timed conditions, then proceeded to miss it in blind review (by sticking with my original answer D). And then to miss it again in review of the blind review miss LOL (by going with AC C).

6

Admissions · My admissions experience + waitlist advice

verewill93

Monday, Mar 22 2021

@21588 said:

Hola all I'm Mark I got a 169 in October and had around 20 apps ready to fire away as soon as I got my test results back. I'd like to share my results so far as well as some waitlist management advice. I've been obsessing about getting off the waitlist and have done a ludicrous amount of research (research sounds better than obsession).

I am what the Dean of admissions at Yale called a "super soft" aka military veteran and my ugpa was 3.42 which is notably low for t14.

Accepted with scholarship: Uga, Emory, Notre Dame

Denied: Harvard, Chicago, Cornell, Berkeley

Waitlist: UCLA, Georgetown, Northwestern, Penn, Michigan

My top choice is Northwestern and I'm doing everything in my control to get off their waitlist. Ultimately it will come down to how their class looks after their first and second deposit deadlines and what they class needs in terms of student demographic composition, and what the school's/Dean's goals are for that class (based on interviews I've listened to from Deans admissions officers etc).

Here is my waitlist advice I've gleaned from Harvard and Yale Deans, Michigan ad com officers, Harvard as com person, Michigan person, + my personal interactions with adcom.

Waitlist: do whatever the school asks in their waitlist email. Every 3-4 weeks and especially just after/before their deposit deadline write a letter of continued interest loci. You can print and handsign then upload as a PDF. Some schools don't care about loci format others may. In loci you can specify certain clinics, work programs, professors, courses that you're interested in. It really looks good if those are linked to a topic you expressed interest in in a PS or resume. Show how you love the city / want to live in the school's area. If you have a specific reason you like the school mention it. If it's your #1 pick and you would attend no matter what, say so. Be careful mentioning other competing offers - comes off as threat.

That's not exhaustive but it's a pretty good start. Best of luck!

I read somewhere that you also want to give them new information in your LOCI. Like "since my application, I have [received some award/retaken the lsat with a higher score/been in some relevant internship/etc]."

1

Admissions · anyone every re-applied the next year to same school?

verewill93

Monday, Mar 01 2021

I applied recently and am still awaiting responses. So please take my suggestion with a grain of salt.

Reading your post, my thought is if I were you, I would tell them your story and try to negotiate. What I would do is use what you said above, like take almost take this exact forum post (minus the LSAT part) and tell them and see what they say.

Like say, basically, "You are my first choice regional school, and I am really grateful for your scholarship offer, and yet I am considering to apply again next year instead of accepting this scholarship because I think I can hit your mark to get even a 100% scholarship, which I actually need because of XYZ reasons. Alternatively, if there is any room that you could offer at least (xyz number like 90%) scholarship, that would help me a lot and that would move the needle for me and I would go ahead and accept your offer.

That's what I would probably try. Worst they say no, I seriously doubt they would pull the 50% offer. At best they give you 100%. I would think it's possible they give you something in the middle. Or they stand firmly on their initial offer, in which case you have that clear info as the basis of your decision.

1

General · Please clear this confusion - Too many people with high LSAT's?

verewill93

Thursday, Feb 25 2021

@sakethsaran1998111 said:

I think you missed my point that the ratio of high scores to applicants only gives you half the equation. Not everyone who takes the test and scores high applies.

If 1,000 people in an average year (this is only an example number) score 175 and only 50% apply that year, with the rest deciding not to apply at all or to wait but this year there were 1500 high scorers, of which 90% apply and another 50% of those who did not apply the last two years but scored well apply, you're going to have numbers that seem like a huge percentage of people scored highly in a given year. In this case, 50% of 1000 ( 500 each of two years) plus 90% of 1500 this year. That adds up to, in this hypothetical, 2350 people with high scores applying, or 470% of normal. That's an extreme example, I would guess more than 50% of high scorers apply each year, and 175+ scores obviously aren't up 470%, but it makes my point clearly. We don't have the information to claim there is a different curve or ratio this year at all.

I will say that math dictates a greater tendency towards individual swings with fewer questions that may throw the curve off small amount, but assuming the highly skilled, highly experienced people at LSAC who's whole ability to exist is based on charging us for a successful, objective assessment on a given curve have decided to throw that mission out the window completely is hardly logically in their interests and humans and their organizations usually try to pursue their best interests.

This makes a lot of sense to me. So perhaps a lot of people were sitting on their high scores due to the pandemic, and unleashing mass applications (re-applications) this year. Of course these are all speculations with very little practical application (no pun intended!), but I am quite satisfied reading this explanation! Thanks!

0

General · Please clear this confusion - Too many people with high LSAT's?

verewill93

Friday, Feb 19 2021

@vickieldo124 said:

@sakethsaran1998111 said:

More high score applications does not mean more people getting a certain score on a given LSAT. Think of it like an LR problem you're trying to solve. What assumptions are you making?

One assumption is that everyone that takes the LSAT and scores well applies to law school that year. Another is that they only take the test once.

I can't say if the curve has been relaxed, but it would defeat the whole point of the LSAT if they did it more than a little. It's an assessment written by very smart assessors. They create it very deliberately to differentiate between people and relaxing the curve too much would make it utterly worthless.

I'm really disagree with you here. The previous poster got this data directly from LSAC. The data is headered: "Applicants' LSAT Scores."

The data reads:

"Highest LSAT:" and the jump was from 711 applicants last year to 1,420 applicants this year for the 175+ range, roughly double or in percentage terms, 99.7%

"Total" applicants only jumped 18%. Therefore, conclusively there is a much higher ratio (in addition to a much higher total number) of 175+ applicants this year, compared to last year. Meaning, the curve was relaxed significantly.

(Another explanation could be that there were many test-takers with the exact same number of missed questions. Similar to a tie-breaker in sports. Let's say there were 20 swimmers with a 50.0005 second race result. Suddenly there are 20 first-place winners, since they only measure down to that decimal. Perhaps this is what happened? With less questions overall, more people were likely to fall into the exact same number for raw scores?)

2

General · Please clear this confusion - Too many people with high LSAT's?

verewill93

Friday, Feb 19 2021

@vickieldo124 said:

Not everyone who takes the test necessarily applies to law school.

@vickieldo124 said:

@kostyaterekhov110 said:

As compared to one year ago, current year applications are up 32.9%. As compared to two years ago, current year applications are up 34.3%.

Highest LSAT Last Year Current Year Percent Change

( 140 1,232 1,400 13.6%

140-144 2,323 2,458 5.8%

145-149 4,733 4,876 3.0%

150-154 7,335 7,792 6.2%

155-159 8,022 9,090 13.3%

160-164 6,920 8,675 25.4%

165-169 5,300 6,690 26.2%

170-174 2,637 4,042 53.3%

175-180 711 1,420 99.7%(/p)

According to Justin Kane this is the most competitive law school admissions cycle in 20+ years. How competitive? You could fill every single seat at the T50 with a 165+ scorer right now.

Stumbled onto this post, and at first glance, this doesn't seem to make any sense at all.

If the test is graded on a curve, then can law school applications be up ~30%, but 175+ scorers be up ~100%? How accurate is this data?

"Please note as defined in this report, an applicant is a candidate who submits one or more applications for any academic term."

This is the data that LSAC reported on.... So those people who took the test and didn't apply were not counted.

2

General · Please clear this confusion - Too many people with high LSAT's?

verewill93

Friday, Feb 19 2021

@sakethsaran1998111 said:

More high score applications does not mean more people getting a certain score on a given LSAT. Think of it like an LR problem you're trying to solve. What assumptions are you making?

One assumption is that everyone that takes the LSAT and scores well applies to law school that year. Another is that they only take the test once.

I can't say if the curve has been relaxed, but it would defeat the whole point of the LSAT if they did it more than a little. It's an assessment written by very smart assessors. They create it very deliberately to differentiate between people and relaxing the curve too much would make it utterly worthless.

I'm really disagree with you here. The previous poster got this data directly from LSAC. The data is headered: "Applicants' LSAT Scores."

The data reads:

"Highest LSAT:" and the jump was from 711 applicants last year to 1,420 applicants this year for the 175+ range, roughly double or in percentage terms, 99.7%

"Total" applicants only jumped 18%. Therefore, conclusively there is a much higher ratio (in addition to a much higher total number) of 175+ applicants this year, compared to last year. Meaning, the curve was relaxed significantly.

2

Admissions · Letting a School Know your Level of Interest

verewill93

Friday, Feb 19 2021

@68834 said:

@verewill93 said:

For what it's worth, I did this. (I didn't let them know I would withdraw other apps though; conversely, I implied I am applying to other comparable schools.)

Not sure yet how it will go....

May I ask how you did that? Did you email admissions or made a notation of it in your PS?

Both. I just tried to be as smooth as possible. I know doing so is a risk, however my application has various deficiencies so I felt I probably need to take some additional risks to have any potential hope to reap the reward. Also my personality tends to be more aggressive in this type of area, so I felt I was being authentic in attempting this approach. This strategy is not for the faint of heart or those who are more conservative on the risk-taking front.

0

General · Please clear this confusion - Too many people with high LSAT's?

verewill93

Friday, Feb 19 2021

@sakethsaran1998111 said:

I feel this "high scoring bubble" will deflate since an experimental section is being added. But according to Spivey the medians of most schools will be increasing by a point or two for sure.

Well I think this all boils down to competition. Even if the medians increase for a season, they will all increase at a similar rate. They will also deflate at a similar rate later if the so called bubble pops. However, during those seasons where the medians increase, that would indicate there are more high scoring candidates for the schools to choose from. Which is where the limited number of seats would effectively crunch candidates. The other thought is with so many high scoring candidates, whether the schools can increase the number of seats offered. (Thus potentially increasing their income significantly as well.)

1

Admissions · Letting a School Know your Level of Interest

verewill93

Thursday, Feb 18 2021

For what it's worth, I did this. (I didn't let them know I would withdraw other apps though; conversely, I implied I am applying to other comparable schools.)

Not sure yet how it will go....

0

General · Please clear this confusion - Too many people with high LSAT's?

verewill93

Thursday, Feb 18 2021

Also, another question, how could it be possible that I scored in the 84th percentile with only a 162? According to my back of the envelope calculation, on average this cycle, a 162 should be closer to the 64th percentile. Would that just mean that the particular test I took was either more difficult or less competitive?

0

General · Please clear this confusion - Too many people with high LSAT's?

verewill93

Thursday, Feb 18 2021

@kostyaterekhov110 said:

This is LSAC https://report.lsac.org/VolumeSummary.aspx?Format=PDF

Edit. As compared to one year ago, current year applications are up 32.9%. As compared to two years ago, current year applications are up 34.3%. (US Applications to ABA Law Schools by Region/State)

As compared to one year ago, current year applicants are up 21.1%. As compared to two years ago, current year applicants are up 20.3%. (Applicants from Region/State of Permanent Residence)

Wow. So I just calculated it out:

175+ last year = 1.8% of test takers

175+ this year = 3.0% of test takers

This calculation alone shows they significantly relaxed the curve. And this seems to be the case across the top score ranges.

1

General · Please clear this confusion - Too many people with high LSAT's?

verewill93

Thursday, Feb 18 2021

@kostyaterekhov110 said:

As compared to one year ago, current year applications are up 32.9%. As compared to two years ago, current year applications are up 34.3%.

Highest LSAT Last Year Current Year Percent Change

( 140 1,232 1,400 13.6%

140-144 2,323 2,458 5.8%

145-149 4,733 4,876 3.0%

150-154 7,335 7,792 6.2%

155-159 8,022 9,090 13.3%

160-164 6,920 8,675 25.4%

165-169 5,300 6,690 26.2%

170-174 2,637 4,042 53.3%

175-180 711 1,420 99.7%(/p)

According to Justin Kane this is the most competitive law school admissions cycle in 20+ years. How competitive? You could fill every single seat at the T50 with a 165+ scorer right now.

Stumbled onto this post, and at first glance, this doesn't seem to make any sense at all.

If the test is graded on a curve, then can law school applications be up ~30%, but 175+ scorers be up ~100%? How accurate is this data?

0

Discussions

Please help!!! Missed admissions deadline by a few minutes for target school, how to negotiate!!!!

Confirm action