I've been reading through the 7sage admission course, and have reached the strange conclusion that I'm 1. more diverse/weird than I thought, and 2. I no longer know which diverse/weird part about myself should be relegated to the PS or the DS.

For the DS, I'm 100% a non-traditional student. I was primarily homeschooled (unschooled?... google it), but am also non-traditional in that I'm an older applicant. I'm only a few years above the "average" starting age for LS (26 when I would actually start), but am applying to LS as a career change. I got a master's in one field, have worked in that field for a few years, and want to get away from it. I know I need to address the career change in my application, but I'm not sure if a quarter-life career shift is more of DS topic, or a PS. I feel like I could finesse being homeschooled or doing a career change/being older could be a DS or PS.

Thoughts?

Hey guys quick question. I want to write a diversity statement on my occupation. For the past 3 years I have coached my highschool's debate team, started a coaching company, and coached a college team (volunteer). I want to tell schools that I will be actively involved in whatever form of debate they offer, even if it means coaching their undergrad teams/clubs.

Any ideas on how to structure this? Its a huge passion of mine and all over my resume, but wanted to give the admissions committee more information about the person I am.

Thanks

.

Hey friends,

I was wondering if anyone either has experience or knows anyone who has founded their own firm right out of law school? I would go to TLS but I'm not really interested in hearing the backlash of all the biglaw-obsessed elitists that one finds there.

I have always had a love for criminal law that runs deep. I know that a popular starting point in criminal defense is with the local Defender Association or in the local DA's office. Politics are not exactly my thing as I'm very blunt and I will say what needs to be said. In addition, I want the opportunity to say 'no'. On the other hand, I don't want to have to control my zeal in the courtroom while defending my client because the witness whom I'm impeaching has a sister who's high up in the DA's office and I'll get fired if she doesn't like my brazen nature.

I understand I might not be eating too much for the first year or two but, well, this feels right to me. I understand there will be a while where I'm really just learning how to do the job at a high level and people may be more reluctant to want my representation being fresh out of law school until I have a reputation.

Hey everyone,

I'm wondering what people's opinions are for the LSAT Trainer. I hear a lot of people talk here about it being a complimentary book for 7Sage material, but I'm wondering how necessary it is. I've been using 7Sage for the past 7 months and planning to write in September. I utilize both the CC and also listen to all the webinars and read many of the blogs and discussion board comments here. With all that, I wonder if the LSAT Trainer is really going to add anything I haven't yet gleaned from the content available here. I mean if it is just one more thing to read to drive home some points I already know, or a slightly different way of looking at some questions, I wonder if it is worth the time and investment or if my time is better spent at this point just drilling and doing PTs and Blind Reviews till test day.

Any thoughts appreciated!

Hi guys! I wanted to get some clarification on the logic that makes this answer E rather than D.

The stem is that the argument relies on the assumption, but my current understanding is that neither answer accomplishes this, though E has more issues than D.

The correct answer, E, is saying that the argument /relies/ on the assumption that many of the farmers wouldn't grow green manure unless they abandon chemicals. I believe the argument is still in tact if this is false.

Even if this was untrue, meaning that few or none of the farmers will only grow green manure if they abandon chemicals, the argument could hold for a variety of other reasons. E's reasoning could justify the argument if true, but it also has the potential to not justify the conclusion if true. Just because the farmers won't grow manure without ditching chemicals, doesn't mean they will grow manure if they were to stop using chemicals. I think the test makers designated E as the correct answer with the thought process that "in order to significantly improve the soil structure," the soil must be "rejuvenated," and they /must/ be "rejuvenated" by growing manure, which relies on and will happen if chemical fertilizers are abandoned.

None of the steps in that logic sequence are supported by premises in the passage. "Significantly improving the soil structure" does not to rely on "rejuvenation." "Rejuvenation" does not rely on the growing of green manure. Abandoning chemical fertilizers doesn't guarantee that the green manure will be grown, not to mention that the diction of E states that the principle applies to "many" farmers while the passage refers to simply "farmers" which implies all farmers, or possibly a mere plurality of farmers (neither of which necessarily matches reliance on the actions of "many" farmers.)

D has inconsistencies as well, though fewer than E does, in my opinion.

In order to conclude that chemicals must be removed to increase soil quality, we must be certain that "farmers" not removing chemicals absolutely inhibits "significant improvement in soil structure." D purports that chemical fertilizers "will have destructive effect on soil structure of farm fields." It does not say that there's a chance it will or that it will contribute to destructive effects, but that it will cause destructive effects. If the /end/ effect of something is destructive, it has not shown significant improvement.

That said, if we are supposed to assume (an unfair assumption in my opinion) that the destructive effects are merely a contribution to the net structure of the soil, then the assumption that chemical fertilizers are disruptive is not necessary to conclude that farmers should ditch chemicals to significantly improve soil structure.

Now, I know the culmination of my thought processes lends to the idea that I may be merely overthinking/overanalyzing the text; I don't disagree. I follow the logic that leads one to select E, even though I think it's flawed logic.

I guess the real implication of my question is to find out where and how the line is drawn between relevant logical inconsistencies and their irrelevant counterparts. Unless the LSAC lays out exactly which factors can be considered for assessing logic, there will be an inherent gray area of subjectivity. I won't claim that this question falls in that gray area, but it must exist somewhere.

Any thoughts and opinions are welcome! Thanks for reading :)

This is what I would like to call my Achilles heel of reading comp. These questions destroy me about 50% of the time. I am here for guidance! What can I do to attack these questions better. How do I get inside the head of the author, and more importantly, what clues me into this in the RC passage? What are guide posts that I can look for to help me here?

I thought this was an interesting article and a good read so I wanted to share. It was great practice finding the premise(s) and the conclusion. Any thoughts about the SCOTUS' decision?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/06/how-the-supreme-court-gutted-a-historic-civil-rights-remedy.html

Does it matter if the bag has the ziploc or other company logo on it? Exam on Sunday so urgent!

Hey,

I was wondering if there were any people in the Chicago city area that would like to get together to be study buddies? Ideally it would be someone who is still going through the CC and wants to have and be a support system. We would all exchange resources, help each other gain insights to concepts, and overall work together to reaching our goals. Inbox me if you are interested.

Hi 7sagers,

I feel like I'm in a bit of pickle. My first choice for law school is the University of San Diego and they do not require any LOR's. I've been out of under grad for 5 years now so I'm wondering if I should even bother with getting a LOR at all? I have a GPA within the acceptance range and I'm shooting to score slightly higher than their average on the LSAT. Not sure if my GPA + LSAT score will be enough to get in if I can manage that above average score. Any suggestions? Also, I'm not exactly sharing with my employer the law school plans (since it would mean having to tell them that I would quit to start school - and if I don't get in I wouldn't want to hurt any chances of a raise or promotion in the meantime).

The first few nights after sitting for the LSAT, I dreamed of having absolutely bombed the exam. But my dreams more recently have been even worse. These days I dream that I got a super high score (last night a 179) and then as I start telling my family, I say to myself..."or did I dream that score last night?" Then I realize I didn't actually get my score back yet and I wake up in a panic. Has this happened to anyone else?

Hi guys! I wanted to field opinions on my course of action for preparing for the September LSAT.

I've been studying for a little bit under a month, and as of today have finished all 80 LG sections without time constraints. Now, I'm unsure whether I should immediately redo all 80 LG sections with full testing conditions, or if I should move on to something else and come back later.

I worry that I'll lose a lot of the skills I've accumulated if I put it off, but I also don't want to burn myself out on logic games early and potentially weaken my abilities closer to test time. If I were to put off LG, I'd probably move onto LR, but it's already my strongest section and I don't know how I should approach it. I've finished 6 sections of LR without studying as part of diagnostics, and I'm consistently getting -2/-3 per section with around 10 minutes to spare. Approaching LR from the basics is probably what I need to improve, but I have a feeling it's going to be a plateau for a very long time, and this raises concern regarding motivation.

RC is definitely where I need to improve the most, as I've gotten in the -5/-6 range in my diagnostic.

What do you guys think I should do next? I know this is a very specific situation, but I would be tremendously grateful for generic/anecdotal and specific tips alike :)

Hey all,

So I've narrowed down my main LR weakness to MSS questions. I was thinking of using the Question Bank to filter all the MSS questions from PTs 1-35, and then print them all out to create a drill packet (since the Cambridge packets are now going for $$$$). Has anyone ever done this? I notice that there's no option to print these out when using the Question Bank, as we're given videos of the questions.

I'm wondering what the best way to go about this is. I was thinking of just screenshotting the videos and then put all of the screenshots in a Word file and then print. Anybody have a better/more efficient idea?

Admin edit: You can now print questions in PDF from the Question Bank:

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/18378/new-feature-print-pdfs-of-custom-drills-from-the-question-bank

Howdy! I'm kinda iffy about what constitutes prescriptive. Could we say that "can be" is prescriptive? Or, is it just specifically what "should" be or what "ought" to be?

Ex. PT32-1-19

There is no genuinely altruistic behavior (descriptive). Behavior that appears to be altruistic can be understood as being motivated by the desire to reinforce that belief (prescriptive).

Can "can be" equal "ought" in this scenario? The more I think about it I say no. There was a scope shift. The conclusion states what "is" and the support states what "could" be interpreted, but not necessarily "ought". Do I have this correct?

I've been trying to upgrade my course for the past couple of days and it keeps declining my card and there's no reason why it should decline. Has this happened with anyone else? I contacted Dillon about it and haven't heard back yet. I ust wanted to know if others are having this issue. Thanks!

Redacted

I was just drilling SA questions and noticed that a lot of difficult SA Qs have red herrings (distractions) in the stimulus. How do you identify them quickly? Are there (or do you have) any effective strategies? Litmus tests?

For ex) pt 33.3.21, pt 35.1.20 have red herrings.

Hello everyone,

I am in the process of fool proofing PT's 1-35. I have found that I am able to do about 4 games per day and have gotten through PT 10 so far. My method is pretty similar to the @Pacifico method. My first attempt is without seeing it at all. I then take it the next day and then the week after that.

While I am doing this, I also try to read through some of the LSAT Trainer each day so that I can complete that at the same time that I complete the fool proofing. Should I be doing anything else during this time? Just as some background, I have gone through the whole CC and have a diagnostic of 158, hoping to take in September.

Thanks everyone!

###Test Details:

PT: 54

Experimental Section: LR#1 From PT58

Question review form : https://zach191.typeform.com/to/dblQhM

Also worth noting - I am including the experimental section in the poll. We will review the experimental section at the end of the call if anyone wishes to stick around for it.

Date: Sunday, June 25th

Time: 7:00pm Eastern / 6:00pm Central / 4:00pm Pacific

For our full PT schedule please see the following link : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NqvbW4p83dpFmihrUOeWf6Dx8ETo25rLE1q1nPzOrpg/edit?usp=sharing

Notes:

###GoToMeeting Details:

September '17 Sunday Study Group

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/410064813

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States: +1 (872) 240-3311

Access Code: 410-064-813

First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: https://care.citrixonline.com/g2m/getready

So people seemed to have an easy time with this one , but i am having a rough time with it. I am improving drastically with the games. But does this mean i am weak in conditionality? With seeing contrapositives? I didnt think i had these weaknesses.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-1-game-2/

Hey, yall! Would you say that AC B equals ambiguity? Sometimes I get equivocation and ambiguity mixed up but I eliminated equivocation here because "tax" isn't used differently throughout the passages. B basically says the author extended the meaning of tax to help or justify her claim (US residents pay for health care out of their pockets, whereas the service is paid by tax revenues in the other Western countries so US residents do indeed pay high taxes because they're the same). Does this quite qualify as ambiguous? I understand the ambiguity fallacy to mean that a word or phrase used in the argument is unclear. Is the term unclear or did the author just tweak it to mean what he/she wanted it to mean? I'm trying to get familiar with the different ways the LSAC can construct this type of fallacy as an AC. I didn't eliminate this AC but I also didn't choose it because I wasn't quite sure what it was actually saying.

#1 How do you interpret Not necessarily true & Not necessarily false?

Do you assume that they are the same?

Or

"Not necessarily true" as CBF (could be false) &

"Not necessarily false" as CBT (could be true)???

.

I mean "Not necessarily true" can mean something could be true in some cases but also false in other cases,

and "Not necessarily false" can mean something could be false in some cases but also true in other cases,

which are essentially same in my mind.

.

.

#2 For CBT questions, is CBF an incorrect answer or a correct answer?

I am assuming neither... because I think they can have some kind of intersection for each phenomenon encompassing only part of section (could), rather than whole (must)...

.

.

.

Plz help!!! Thank you!!! (3(/p)

Hi all,

Another admissions question! I'm taking a campus tour in 2 weeks. Should I prepare as if there were an interview? It said when I scheduled the appointment that it would be a tour guided by student ambassadors and/or a possible visit with an admissions officer. Please note that this school does not require or request interviews.

If I should prepare as if for an interview, where do I start?

Hey guys!

I hope everyone is well and enjoying their summer. I just wanted to throw this out there and see what you guys think...

I’m finding diagramming really difficult. (My brain is almost “shutting down” when I see the symbols and arrows.) It’s making things less concrete and turning it into a math problem. I’ve tried it during my practice and going through the lessons, but when I actually go to do problem sets, I find that diagramming really isn’t helping- it’s easier for me to read the stimulus slowly, label the conclusion and premises and then find the answer choice. I feel like I have a better understanding of the text that way.

So what’s the deal? Will not diagramming really cause me issues on test day? Is knowing how to take the negation and contrapositive of something really going to help? The only part of the test I could see diagramming helping would be the LG section….

Thanks!

xo