What differentiates a "strong" application/essay from a "stand out" one, and how should we go about framing our experience/building a narrative that makes sense? // should there be a strong "this is why I want to be a lawyer" thesis throughout your materials, or is it dependent on the applicant?

Would love advice on crafting diversity statements; what is the purpose of those essays/what characteristics or perspectives are admissions offices are trying to glean from them? Similarly, for school specific essays (like the Yale 250, for example); what is the goal/purpose of these kinds of essays?

I look at both but prefer video bc I find the lightbulbs don't always address the part of the question or AC that caused me confusion, and being able to follow the full thought process and breakdown of a question via the videos is rly helpful for identifying what I overlooked or got confused over in my thought process. Seeing and hearing it explained via video helps it click in a way that isn't quite the same when in writing.

If after watching the video and reviewing the lightbulbs it still hasn't clicked, I'll usually then go to the discussion page to see if anyone else got it wrong bc of a similar thought process/point of confusion and if I'm still confused I'll then go to lsathacks or some other source to see if a different explanation is helpful

@MichaelWright non-exhaustive brainstorm by question type:

main conclusion: 

• contradicted 

• premise

• intermediate conclusion

• misleading/not supported

• false/misleading inference

• out of scope/not stated

• too strong 

• too weak

most strongly supported/supported except: 

• out of scope/irrelevant/no evidence

• too strong 

• too weak/merely consistent

• unwarranted assumption trap/bait

• anti-supported/contradicted/implied false

• supported

point at issue agree/disagree:

• both no opinion 

• one no opinion

• neither disagree

• both disagree

• unwarranted assumption trap/bait

inference and must be true: 

• out of scope 

• too strong 

• not supported 

• inference trap/bait 

• conditional logic bait

  • Stating a necessary condition doesn't mean there aren't others

  • Stating a sufficient condition doesn't mean there aren't others

• confusing sufficient and necessary

• causal logic bait 

  • Identifying a causal factor doesn't preclude other causal factors.

  • Identifying a causal pathway doesn't preclude other causal pathways

resolve, reconcile, explain

• unwarranted assumption trap/bait

• unclear impact 

• attempt to deny a fact

• incomplete explanation

• introduces irrelevant information

weaken, strengthen, evaluate (causal and not causal)

• out of scope 

• no impact 

• too weak 

• unclear impact/irrelevant  

• unwarranted assumption trap/bait

• weakens/strengthens

• logical fallacy  

pseudo sufficient assumption/rule application: 

• sufficient condition not triggered 

• confusing sufficient and necessary

• invalid conclusion/wrong conclusion

principle

• unsupported 

• too specific 

sufficient assumption 

• wrong direction (confusing sufficient and necessary)

• irrelevant/out of scope 

• sufficient condition not triggered 

• invalid conclusion/wrong conclusion

necessary assumption

• too strong

• wrong direction (reversing or confusing sufficient and necessary)

• too weak 

• irrelevant/out of scope 

argument part/role

• inaccurate description

• contradicted

• misleading/not supported/patently false 

method of reasoning 

• too strong 

• out of scope

• wrong/inaccurate conclusion

• inaccurate premise

• insufficient evidence

flaw/descriptive weakening

• unwarranted assumption trap/bait

• irrelevant/no impact 

• wrong direction (reversing or confusing sufficient and necessary)

• out of scope 

• too weak 

• too specific

parallel/analogy

• wrong direction (reversing or confusing sufficient and necessary)

• wrong shape/form