Hi, i received 170 on the 3rd LSAT last October. As of April i have requested for a deferral for 1 year.

Recently i heard the news that LSAC removed the restriction to take tests for 3 times in a 2year time-frame.

I am planning on working as a paralegal and retaking the LSAT for re-negotiating my scholarship option.

I have two questions and i will greatly appreciate assistance if anyone can give me 2cents.

Is it likely that i may receive higher amount of scholarship from the school i have requested for deferral, assuming that I score higher?

Anyone with an idea of strategy from 170 to 172+? my track record has been 164->170.

I believe I have almost completed my cycle for this year. And I am glad that I have secured a school that will give me a very good opportunity to start my career as a transaction lawyer.

I was able to boost my lsat score from 149 (cold diagnostic : PT no. 69) to 170+ (2016 official score).

Unlike some crappy online forums, 7sage discussion forum has been precious resource for me.

I firmly believe that this test is learnable, even for those who are not perfect with the language. (For the record, English is my second language and I started learning English at the age of 10). I guess the hardest part is not letting go of such belief.

These are the resources I found especially helpful

There are some talented people who are able to finish preparation within short span of time. I was blessed to have them as my friends.

Yet I have to say I was not one of them and it took me more than a year to reach the point I wanted.

For those who are on the struggle bus, say June LSAT or whatever,

I know how much it sucks (I am a 3rd time LSAT taker) and I hope that you hold onto the belief that you are going to get through it.

And if there is any question let me know! Thank you!

So I heard the rumor that applications are divided into batches submitted before thanksgiving and after.

Is it true?

I got my October score and was wondering if I should speed up the entire process to enhance my chances or wait a little more...

Hi, I am a senior student applying for this cycle.

I am currently a dual citizen of US and South Korea. I will be graduating from a college in South Korea.

I believe my overall stat will be

superior(yet to be determined by LSAC)/170(September2016).

I know general wisdom for international applicants (students with non-US/Canadian GPA) is to apply in accordance with median LSAT scores and to expect good chances only when the LSAT score is above the median.

Here are my questions

1. Despite my citizenship, will my application be reviewed in the international applicant pool?

2. If so, should I apply and expect chances of receiving admission from schools with the median LSAT score that is the same or below 170? I hope that I have a shot at CCN...

Thanks in advance!

For the purpose of ruminating on my mistakes after reviewing few recent (post 65) PTs before February LSAT this Sunday,

I would like to share my thoughts on some noticeable tendencies in newer reading comprehension questions.

(For the record, I was usually scoring -3~-5 on reading comprehension sections during 40s~lower 60s PT,

and dear God I am scoring -7~-11 in newer PTs.)

1. There is more wiggle room for choices of words in answer choices.

Particularly among those newer suggestion/inference questions,

i found that answer choices that might have been easily regarded as wrong or overstretching inferences

getting to become an answer choice after the process of elimination.

In addition, some answer choices in non-inference questions are sometimes themselves written in a twisted way,

forcing me to take another step to see them as valid answer choices.

2. For reference questions that ask the purpose or meaning of certain parts in a paragraph,

answer choices are starting to make INTRA-passage inferences.

Previously on eariler LSATs, i guess it was safe or generally correct to focus your choices of answer on a specific paragraph for reference questions. However on recent questions there have been few instances where the answer choices were inferences made outside a specific paragraph but made within specific passage, connecting ideas from other paragraphs in a passage.

As a non-native English speaker i have felt that these changes in a more pronounced way, but I have to admit that I may have been wrong since I do not have a firm grasp on every nuance of the language. And some recent passages like Dodo extinction and mirror reflection have been brutal on me regardless of shifts in questions.

Any feedback is welcomed!

Hi, as I was prepping for February LSAT in Asia, I am seeing subtle twists and turns in the trend of reading comprehension passages and questions in recent 70s PTs (and small drops in points as well).

These are some points that I felt were obvious in recent RC sections

1. Passages are exhibiting some non-traditional structures that are hard to be classified into

Argument A v. Argument B structure.

(Yeah I know not all of RC passages fit into this 'scale', but I believe such structural predictability was more obvious in older PTs)

2. Questions are getting more abstract and question stems are getting shorter.

For example, instead of a questions stem that reads 'what can be inferred from LINEXYZ or Author's opinion from ABC', i am now seeing question stems like 'what can be inferred from the passage' or 'The author suggests which of the following?')

I have seen a lot of posts on difficulty changes in recent PTs,

but I have not seen many on differentiating or modifying the game plan on attacking those changes.

Anyone with idea on changes in recent RC? Or even idea with other sections i will be glad to discuss!

(Ah! For those who want to suggest that the difficulty feels only personal and that LSAT is the same exam as it was 20 years ago, let me politely decline your comments because TO ME there are subtle yet obvious tweaks that are present only in recent PTs. Thanks in advance:) )

LR LR LG RC Score Date

54 1 2 1 5 171 24th July

55 2 2 3 6 167 11th Aug

56 4 7 2 8 163 12th Aug

58 168 24th Aug

59 4 3 5 6 167 26th Aug

60 168 28th Aug

61 3 6 7 1 166 31st Aug

62 6 5 4 6 165 1st Sep

I am having a difficulty in adapting my study strategy to more recent PTs!

As you can see I think i am experiencing a drop in scores in recent prep tests.

(During PTs before 40s I was occasionally scoring 170+)

As a non-native speaker in English, I used to employ strategies in attacking LR questions by looking for answer choices through symbolic understanding of stimuli (for example, looking for specific keywords in conclusion and matching them in answer choices),

and i find it that i have to maintain more room for flexibility in attacking these questions.

Anyhow,

1.

is there anyone who has been stuck for 165~168 band for long time and finally broke above 170+?

I guess i am stuck in this score band over 2 months.

2. in consideration of the fact that i am running out of fresh PTs, would you recommend me to take older or used PTs instead if i want to score 170+ in longer term?

Thanks in advance!

I have a question in terms of dissecting the conclusion-premise structure of the stimulus.

So here is my question in relation to identifying/dissecting the premise-conclusion of this stimulus.

To me it seems that the author is providing his/her own explanation of weight and surface area in explaining the observation of squirrels and larger animals.

In that sense it seems much more logical to regard the entire observation of squirrels and large animals as the premise part and to consider the author's explanation as conclusion. I think it is much more natural to see the whole argument originating from one observation and reaching a particular conclusion that the author deems logical/plausible explanation.

Therefore I believe that it is better to put the stimulus as

Premise : Small animals run up a tree trunk fast while large animals slow down upon running uphill.

-->

Conclusion : Weight proportional to energy output and surface area to energy output

I would be more than glad if you could clarify on this.

Thanks in advance and excuse me for English not being my first language.