.

So I'm going to UCHI this fall and I just had an interesting conversation with an old friend who is going to the University of Toledo Law and they were bragging about how they have average grades and have a job with Butzel Long. Obviously this is part of law but how big is this?

Sharing this because while eliminating AC E, I was forced to question the difference between causation and sufficiency as well as the danger of using Lawgic as shorthand when you're not actually dealing with conditional statements.

Most Strongly Supported

Argument Summary:

Premise 1: Media rarely cover local politics thoroughly.

Premise 2: Local politics is usually conducted secretly.

Major premise: Local politicians tend to be isolated from their electorates as a result of each of these factors.

Conclusion: Chance of a particular act of resident participation receiving official response is lower, discouraging resident participation.

Prephrase:

Not really sure where they are going with this. MSS questions are difficult to prephrase for anyway.

Answer Choices:

A- Nah. Invalid reversal. We don’t know what is sufficient to bring about a likelihood of official response. Eliminate.

B- A -> B therefore /A ->/B. Invalid. Eliminate.

C- Most important??? Eliminate.

D- The current state of media coverage contributes to the isolation. Improving this coverage would reduce that contributor but would not necessarily cause any change. Correct!

E- Isolated -> Reduced chance of official response -> discourages participation. /C -> Less A. Hm. I think the issue here is with the word “causation”. “Imply” and “Cause” are not synonymous and if you contrapose a conditional statement, I don’t believe we can just switch the direction of causation. “If I am disrespectful to my parents, that discourages them to let me go out on friday nights. But if they were encouraged to let me go out on friday nights, does that cause me to be less disrespectful of them?” We are dealing with terms like "influence" and "discourage". I use Lawgic as a shorthand to deal with these ideas, but that doesn't make them conditional statements and so we definitely can't assume causation. Eliminate.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-2-question-22/

Just found this gem:

https://classic.7sage.com/the-7-stages-of-waiting-for-your-lsat-score/

Does anyone know about private tutoring or recommend any private tutoring?? I am so anxious about my terrible score of pt. Depressed.

Hey guys! I just recently took my LSAT for the last time (out of three times) and I'm giving away some of my unused study materials. I have the LSAC official Preptests booklet for PrepTests 29-38. It is just the PrepTests (no explanations) and a few answer sheets that you can tear out and photocopy to use on other PrepTests if you wanted. I would prefer to give it to someone in the NYC area, so we can just meet up and I can give it to you in person. However, I don't really mind mailing it out to someone who is studying from somewhere else (in the United States). Please let me know if you're interested, and private message me you're contact information and address. :)

Hi guys! I wanted some insight into why A qualifies as a right answer for this question.

The argument is saying that the manager should be blamed/is responsible for the project's delay because he was aware that the contractor often runs late and should have planned for this possibility.

The designated correct answer, "a principle that underlies the argument," is that a manager should take foreseeable problems into account when deciding things.

While I recognize the logic that makes this answer correct, I take issue with its specific language. Saying that a manager "should take foreseeable obstacles into account" does not necessitate that /a manager should in fact be blamed if they do not take such obstacles into account,/ which is the logic piece that would plug the hole. Specifically, the word "should" cannot be reasonably assumed to mean "must, otherwise blame/responsibility is accrued," and it fails to accomplish that on multiple fronts.

Should is an opinion word and does not guarantee certainty of execution, or lack of execution. Furthermore, even if one was to equate "should" with some form of "must," "must" alone would exclude the possibility of an event not happening, making it impossible to address the implications of it not happening.

Is there a LSAT-specific reading of "should" that alters the meaning of the question?

If not, why would it be incorrect to read "should" as "ought to"/"would benefit from," thus making "ought to take foreseeable problems into account" insufficient as a principle that justifies the manager being /blamed/ for not taking them into account?

Thanks for the read :) I really appreciate any thoughts you all may have!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-1-question-19/

I see these PTs discussed in old threads, but I can't locate them. Have they been removed? If anyone knows where they are, please share the knowledge!

Thanks ya'll

This is clearly not a technical problem -- I didn't know what category would be best :D

Very small and perhaps ridiculous suggestion: in my opinion, forums are way more easily navigated when the number of posts per page is limited. I feel like 10-15 posts per page makes it so much easier to find certain comments / scroll to read new ones. Am I crazy?? I might be crazy.

Also I'll add a technical problem -- is anyone else unable to attach polls? When I hit "Attach Poll" I get the edit screen but literally no option to put a poll anywhere.

What are the pros and cons of both? Which is the better choice as a career stepping stone? The reason I ask is because I'm trying to decide between two law schools and the only real difference between them is that one places considerably more graduates in judicial clerkships and less governmental positions than the other

So i am an ABA ( applied behavioral analysis ) paraproffesional. I work with children on the autistic spectrum for 12-14 hours a week. I have been doing this for 5 months and I was wondering if getting a letter from my boss would boost my resume. What are your thoughts?

I have a question about the requirements of extra time. I have bad ADD and in high school, I took each section of the ACT on separate days. If I have documentation that I received this accommodation on the ACT, will the LSAT definitely grant me time and a half or double time or is it still in question? Thanks

I have a question about 7Sage Notification Preferences. As you can see below, I have checked all the boxes, but I never receive emails when people mention/reply to/private message me.

http://imgur.com/uGp6JAN

Does anyone receive notifications when you receive replies/private messages on 7Sage?

I do receive emails for my comments in the Curriculum ("Your comment at 7Sage lsat has a new reply" emails).

Hello! I live in Portland OR and am looking for motivated study buddies who would be interested to study for the LSAT during the weekends. Please feel free to comment or inbox me if you're interested. Best of luck!

Welcome! This week I will be on vacation and unable to lead the call. I've spoken to Daniel and Josh, and they are going to help us out this week since I will be in the middle of some woods without internet or cell service. Thank you both so much!

I will be able to address any questions or concerns up until Saturday evening.

###Test Details:

PT: 57

Experimental Section: LG From PT58

Question review form : https://zach191.typeform.com/to/kIQjD0

Date: Sunday, July 2nd

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

Hello everyone,

I am in the process of drilling 1-2 LR sections per day from PT's 1-35 and am having some issues. I seem to be going right around 20/25 on most sections and was wondering if anyone could recommend any improvements to my methodology.

What I usually do is take each section timed and then go back through and read the questions that I circled for BR over again and make any changes that I see fit after spending more time on each question. I then jot down some reasoning for the answer choices that I am struggling between before choosing one. After this I go back through and check my answers, reviewing further any of the ones that I got wrong. As of right now, I am only at PT 14 so I don't have any of the JY explanation videos to reference.

Also, it seems to me that through the 4 sections of LR that I've done so far (I only just started drilling LR this week), flaw questions seem to be killing me according to the spreadsheet that I'm keeping for drilling LR. I am currently working through the LSAT Trainer while fool proofing games so maybe this will help?

Any advice would be appreciated!

Hey all. I'm just wondering how most people deal with statements with both Group 3 and Group 4 indicators. I realize that one can use either rule and be fine, but in practice do most people just stick with one rule? I find it makes more intuitive sense to use the Group 3 rule, and was wondering if there were any downsides to just sticking with using the Group 3 rule at all times when I encounter a statement with both indicators.

For example, in the following statement:

"There will not be a good show unless there are sophisticated listeners in the audience."

With the Group 3 rule, one would diagram as:

GS --> SL

because one is negating the sufficient (/GS), which turns it into GS. The fact that "not a good show" is /GS makes intuitive sense to me because not should mean /.

However with the Group 4 rule:

not a good show becomes GS

unless there are sophisticated listeners becomes /SL

and therefore

GS --> SL

because one is negating the necessary (/SL) and making the other idea (GS) the sufficient condition. However, this is where I always get tripped up, because I don't think it makes intuitive sense for unless to be a negation. Also, my mind makes me constantly think that "not a good show" has to mean /GS, so leaving it as GS is really difficult for me to intuitively grasp.

What do others think? Is it fine if I just stick with the Group 3 rule for every statement that has both indicators? Are there any cases where using the Group 4 rule would be better?

Winter is coming. And so are LSAT scores.

LSAC often gets them back before their expected release date, and given that the day before is a holiday, I wouldn't be surprised if we got those infamous emails from LSAC sometime this week. My bet is Friday. The night is dark and full of terrors! What is dead may never die. Unbowed, unbent, unbroken.

I was wondering, what do you guys think about UD Sturm? A buddy got full ride. Is it a good back up?

New September Study group! First up: PT 60

This group is for 12 people who are committed to studying and improving their test performance for the September 2017 LSAT. The schedule (which we'll go over on Saturday) is tentative and so you will have a say in the PT schedule and future meeting times. Our aim will be to take at least 10 prep tests from the 60s, 70s, and PT 81. I want the group to be able to tailor the study schedule to meet its specific needs. If you want a say about the date and time that we meet, you need to attend the meetings. Workshops and intensives to eliminate weaknesses will also be made available to the study group. We also have the option to build in a few breaks.

Requirements:

Comment below if you would like me to tag you for our first meeting on July 1st at 5pm EST. We'll be taking care the schedule first, so even if you can't take PT 60 come get your name on the list and then you can head out.

1st Meeting then PT 60 on Saturday, July 1st 5PM ET

Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/992713853

Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.

United States: +1 (571) 317-3122

Access Code: 992-713-853

I've been doing pretty good with LR getting 4/5 correct consistently. However I took prep test 36 and completely bombed section 1 with 7/26 with 3 min remaining. Obviously I was going too fast, but this is pretty discouraging. Any ideas?

Hey everyone,

So I just spent the last hour or so psyching myself out. I feel like there is no chance of getting into one of the better law schools any more. The reason for this is quite simply, I sucked at college on my first attempt.

I went to college, dropped and failed classes and this absolutely destroyed my GPA.

I then joined the United States Marine Corps and took about a 4 year break from school (while acquiring a couple more F's because of deployment....damn.)

After the Marine Corps I went back to school and graduated with a B.A. my GPA after the Marine Corps was a 4.0.

The LSAC calculates my cumulative GPA as a 2.7 (shoot me) and my Degree GPA as a 4.0

Right now I'm PT'ing in the 165-169 range. So my LSAT score is at least helping me a bit.

Will law schools take all this into account? Will the see I am different now with the 4.0 I achieved and the highish LSAT score? Or will they just dismiss me as a failure? Am I doomed to bad schools? I dream of T-15 but this seems unrealistic.

Any advice?

Ciao fellow 7Sagers!

I just started studying for the 4 weeks ago and I haven't made much progress. Specifically: I just began the Most Strongly Supported Lesson. I've given myself a year to study for it since I plan on taking a gap year after I graduate so I'm not presently pressed for time, but I don't want to take anything for granted. However, I am not even able to stick with the assigned study schedule. It seems like an overwhelming amount to get through in a day. I am wondering how one is supposed to make it through the Core Curriculum so fast. How do you study? Here is how I study:

For Lessons:

For Practice Problems

If wrong: I think why it was wrong and try to cement that reasoning in my mind. Then I write out the explanation as to why that answer choice was right ans why my answer choice was wrong.

With this method, I've been studying about 4 hours every day and covering 1 lesson in 3-4 days. Should I be studying like this? This is how I usually study in college so I just applied it here. But I've been reading on the forum and a lot of people are really making some significant progress with the core curriculum. Would you mind sharing how you study on a daily basis? Like do you take notes, do you just watch the video, read the notes and move on? How do you ensure you are understanding and retaining what you are learning? What do you do? Any advice/suggestions will be helpful!

Thanks much :)

Hey all,

So I'm finding myself a bit confused on the LG fool proofing method. Not the actual method, but which games I'm using. I have seen lots of people say the games from 1-35, but I'm not sure where this "packet" of games is on 7sage. What I did was take all the games from the LG section in the CC that J.Y went over, as they seem like a good large sample of the different kinds of games you need to master, and I'm fool proofing those. But those games don't seem to be all games from tests 1-35. Honestly, when I looked online, I couldn't even find the LSAT tests from below 7. I did purchase the 7-12 tests and I'm doing some of those games to mix it up as their style is quite different from the newer games.

So I'm just a bit confused about the 1-35 packet thing. I feel like if I master the games in the CC that that is probably good enough, as well as throwing in some of the games from earlier prep tests to test my ability to handle weird games. I also plan to spend a lot of time with miscellaneous games.

Am I approaching this wrong?

Thanks!

.