482 posts in the last 30 days
If LSAC does not process your transcript before the application deadline, are you just screwed? I know you can still submit your application to the school even if your transcript and LORs are not processed, but do the schools consider your application to be incomplete and just not accept it?
I can't see why (E) is wrong. Could anyone explain why (D) is right?? Appreciate in advance
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-2-question-04/
The correct answer to this question is information that would help to evaluate the argument in the stimulus. If the information is taken to one extreme, it will strengthen the argument, and if the information is taken to the other extreme, it will weaken the argument. Under this standard, why isn't (D) correct?
The argument breaks down as follows, imo:
Premise: A nearly complete skeleton of an earlier dinosaur that was not a T.Rex had the T.Rex characteristics (big head, small arms, long legs), but was much smaller in size and lighter than the T.Rex.
Conclusion: The T.Rex's features (big head, small arms, long legs) did not develop in order to accommodate the size and weight of the T.Rex.
I understand why (B) is a question that would help evaluate the argument, but why isn't (D) considered information helpful to evaluate the argument?
If the earlier dinosaur is NOT related to the T.Rex, then wouldn't that weaken the argument by leaving it more vulnerable to the objection that some difference between that dino and the T.Rex explains the counterexample away? And imagine if the dinosaur was almost exactly the same as a T.Rex (so extremely closely related) -- wouldn't that strengthen the argument by strengthening the relevance of the counterexample and making it harder to distinguish it?
Let's go a little bit outside the stimulus to explore this issue -- if we had found a mammal skeleton that had the T.Rex head, arm, and leg characteristics, but the mammal was tiny, would that evidence be just as powerful as the skeleton evidence in the stimulus? If not, then doesn't that prove the relatedness of the skeleton specie and the T. Rex IS helpful to evaluating the argument? And if the answer is yes (that a mammal skeleton would be just as powerful as a dino skeleton as evidence for the conclusion), how?
Thank you for any thoughts.
Hey guys!
So I graduate in may and I'm looking to move to Texas to gain residency. I am going to apply to UT next year, and one of their admissions criteria is geographical diversity, so they're looking for underrepresented areas of texas. I currently live 40 miles away from El Paso, Texas and 600 miles away from Austin. I am thinking they'd pass over someone already living in Austin. Am I giving this too much thought and this is really an unimportant soft factor?
On another note, I'm going to begin studying for the lsat again with 7sage as soon as I graduate. Currently scoring at 156.
Hi there,
I'm beginning studying for the September test and I'd like to focus on logic games. However, I took the February test and have written on all my preptests (approx 36-60). I'd like to go back through the logic games I've done and rework them for practice, but I need clean copies. Any advice on where to fine some?
Thanks so much!
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-1-question-17/
In BR, I realized that the proper interpretation of the occurrence of severe climatic warming (SCW) or volcanic activity (VA) was through the Inclusive "Or", which says and/or. But that would mean one of them must occur. /A-->B. However, in reading the sentence it's clear that neither of those events must happen. After thinking about it for a few minutes, I realized that the presence of "could" alters each of those ideas because we're talking about what's possible and not what occurred.
Temporary melting = TM
Could = c
TM --> SCWc or VAc
If TM, then either could happen, but neither must happen.
So I recently have been considering schools and careers beyond what I originally have thought of doing. I am curious aboutthe University of Virginia's Law School and would love to hear anyone's experience with them (interviews, what they're looking for in an applicant, etc.). Thanks!
Hey 7Sagers, I'm leading another twelve-hour long LR workshop (#4) over four nights (three hours per night) for five students to provide an intensive and comprehensive overview of all foundational concepts and their application to all types of LR questions.
Schedule
Session 1 - April 24, Monday, 7-10pm PST (10pm-1am EST)
Session 2 - April 25, Tuesday, 7-10pm PST (10pm-1am EST)
Session 3 - April 26, Wednesday, 7-10pm PST (10pm-1am EST)
Session 4 - April 27, Thursday, 7-10pm PST (10pm-1am EST)
Cost
Free. But! There's a $150 deposit to reserve your spot. If you show up on time and participate for the entire duration of all sessions, your deposit will automatically be refunded fully at the end of the workshop. Otherwise, it is forfeit. Please make sure you can attend the entire 12 hour long workshop.
#Frequently Asked Questions
Q: How will you select which five students will participate?
A: Lottery. If you are interested, please comment below in this thread within 48 hours. If selected for the lottery, you'll have another 48 hours to place the deposit to reserve your spot.
Q: Who should take this workshop and what will be covered?
A: Beginners. This means you haven't finished the Core Curriculum yet and you're not starting to take PrepTests yet. Imagine the workshop as a fast paced overview of the entire Core Curriculum that pertains to LR. We'll cover theory and we'll apply that theory to actual LSAT questions. It will be highly interactive and hence the limit of four students. Wherever you are in the Core Curriculum, this a great way to solidify the concepts covered.
Q: Can I sign up even if I'm not a beginner?
A: Yes, you can. I'm certain that it'll benefit you to return to concepts covered in the Core Curriculum. I'm also certain that you will find it very slow at times since I will be speaking to students on the assumption that they are beginners.
Q: Do I need to have a paid 7Sage account to sign up?
A: Yes, you do. If you have an expired account, message Dillon and see if he's willing to reactivate it for you.
Q: What materials are used in this workshop?
A: The workbook that you will be provided with will contain LR questions from PrepTests 54, 55, and 56. Yes, we will be "burning" those PrepTests in order to get a closer look at the modern LSAT.
Q: What do I need to do to prepare for the workshop if I get in?
A: You should print the above mentioned workbook. You should be in a quiet space where you can talk freely. You should have a fast internet connection. You should have headphones or earphones ready.
Q: How do I attend the workshop?
A: The workshop will be hosted on Amazon's Chime. Instructions and meeting location will be sent to you once you've successfully registered.
Q: Will there be more workshops in LR / LG / RC in the future?
A: Yes. This session accommodates east coasters who work during the day. Future sessions will accommodate others.
Hello everyone,
While going through my last few practice tests , I have noticed that I have two consistent problems regarding LR sections.
I tend to re-read the stimulus at least twice, and sometimes more than twice, which wastes a lot of time. How can I fix this? Is there a way to make sure that I understand the stimulus well with one read? Also, how do I keep myself from being obfuscated?
This problem is similar to the first one. A lot of the times, when I get a question wrong, it is because I read the stimulus wrong, or misunderstood, or missed an important phrase here or there. How do I improve paying better attention to the finer details?
Thank you for your help!
Hello, all:
Just so you don't have to bring up the curriculum or your notes, argument form six is as follows:
A → B
A → C
B ←s→ C
I don't have a question about why we may infer "B ←s→ C" from the premises above, but rather, I have a question about the inferences we can make from the individual premises themselves, inherently.
From what I understand, without a background in formal logic (or informal logic, for that matter), it seems we assume that universally quantified statements imply the existence of their subjects on the LSAT. This is what allows us to infer "most" and "some" from "all" on the LSAT - correct? If this is the case, then can't we infer "/B -m→ /A" and "/B ←s→ /A" from "A → B" (or /B → /A) and "/C -m→ /A" and "/C ←s→ /A" from "A → C" (or /C → /A)?
I'm not sure whether we'd be tested on these inferences if we're indeed able to infer them, or if past LSATs have tested them at some point, but I thought I'd ask. Presumably, LSAC is testing our ability to see that the premises above, "A → B" and "A → C," allow us to infer "B ←s→ C."
Thank you all for your time! Best wishes to you all in your studies!
**Edited this post because this is the internet and therefore I need to be extra careful that the intended meaning is conveyed.
This is an email I received today from a law school. I've received several emails from law schools daily since writing for the LSAT last December. The problem is that I didn't reach my target score, so every successive email serves as a reminder of my formerly misguided prep (I immediately unsubscribe). But this email alarmed/amused me.
This is a Tier 8 law school apparently so desperate to fill their classrooms that they don't even ask you to take the LSAT (or the GRE). It's alarming because I regard this sort of email as predatory -- particularly for students who may not know better or are feeling down about a poor score. And it's amusing because, well, it's just so absurd! It's absurd because here is a school whose sole premise for why we should apply there is that we don't need to take the LSAT.
To anyone out there frustrated with their first, second, or third take, your score doesn't define you. The 7Sage community is here to support us all in our LSAT pursuits so that when it's all said and done, we're left without regrets. But for some of us, despite our wishes, dreams, hard work, or expenditures, Law School may not be the best option. If you are even considering a school such as the one who sent me this email, please, PLEASE contact a Sage, Mentor, or Tutor in this community and chat. I promise there will be no shortage of knowledgeable people ready listen and share feedback.
"Instead, it considers an essay test that the school itself has developed and most importantly, it is read and graded by a full time MSLAW professor who, based upon years of practical and academic experience, is well qualified to assess an applicant's ability to think and write well. The requirement of a mandatory interview, the review of an applicant's entire record in school and the work force, and the essay aptitude test enable the Admissions Committee to identify worthy students who would be denied admission to traditional law schools simply because of their LSAT scores.
Applications are still being accepted for the Fall 2017 Semester. Apply Today!
Best,"
Interesting article.we don't need care much on requirement.
I'm high beginner/low int. in french and I got a 174 on the LSAT. We can skype/zoom? @"Dillon A. Wright" Sorry if this isn't allowed. Just delete me into non-existence.
565
I am going through the trial material right now and have already decided to postpone my test until the fall. What I am wondering is how intuitive is the material? Will it walk me through some of the more (seemingly) complex lessons in regard to practice tests, etc.? I have a little bit (lot) of anxiety regarding this and wanted to see if someone would mind sharing some of your experiences and advice you would give to a new user to the site.
I'm starting to confuse myself. Can someone clarify how they would do a logical negation of this for the NA Negation Technique?
"Any candidate whose visual image does not evoke many positive feelings in votes will not be elected."
Any candidate whose visual image does evoke positive feelings in votes will be elected.
Or
No candidate whose visual image does not evoke many positive feelings in votes will not be elected.
I am about halfway though the CC and all of these indicators have really turned into second nature for me.
Although this is the case, I would really like to see “caused by” added into the Group 1 indicators, as it has really messed with my head. A clear example of this is on LSAT #25 S4 Q12. This question would have been an easy one have I would have known earlier. Lesson learned!
What are other people's thoughts? Is group 1 even the correct rule?
So I'm brand new and 6 months out and cruising through the core curriculum at about 2.25 to 3 hours a day and I just came across the optional diagnostic. I've got to be honest, the idea of taking a test cold right now seems a little silly as I've only learned the basics of argument and grammar. Is there a serious benefit of taking a cold LSAT test prep-test? Any thoughts either way? My intuition is saying I rather learn everything I can before I start drilling prep-tests and blind reviewing.
Struggling with this. I'm stuck between how D is correct over C. See below for a break up of the stimulus.
1970-now --> Oil use decreased by 40%
Why? 2 reasons:
1. Increases in the price of oil
2. Government policies promoting energy conservation
Because of this, many people switched to natural gas for heating, which required investing in equipment.
Because of this investment, it is unlikely that a significant switch back to oil in the near future will occur.
So the argument is relying on this idea that an investment in natural gas equipment is enough to deter a large switch back to oil. If we were to take away that "investment" element, we would weaken the prediction, no?
C- I confidently chose C during BR because C takes away (or at least severely weakens) the "investment" aspect and allows for natural gas equipment to be cheaper. (Keeping in mind that the cheapness of the equipment is not why people will continue to use it. The investment made in the equipment is why. If we were to make it so that investment no longer was required, then this supporting premise would no longer be sound). Furthermore, it also takes away reason 1 presented above for why people shifted to natural gas in the first place. With the truth of C, we are only left with one supporting premise about "government policies promoting energy conservation" to support the conclusion.
D- Just to recap: the "investment" aspect of natural gas is WHY people are committing to long term usage of it. D says that oil equipment is cheaper, so that "investment" aspect is not present for oil. Therefore, if anything, all the first part of D suggests is that there are no widespread commitments to oil, at least in the same respect as there is for natural gas. Furthermore, with the second part of D, we know that the price of heating with oil is NOW cheaper than the price of heating with natural gas. Admittedly, this does challenged reason 1 for switching from oil to natural gas. However, we don't know that the investment put into the equipment for natural gas does not exceed the current savings of switching to the now-cheaper oil over gas.
For example, if we spent $10,000 on natural gas equipment, and natural gas cost $15 per month (making this up) and, according to D, the cost of oil is now $13 per month, it will take a very long time for the switch to be worth it.
Another point on D, we have no idea how expensive the oil equipment was BEFORE this sharp decrease. The stimulus gives us no information regarding whether the investment in oil equipment was more or less than the investment in natural gas equipment. All we know is 1) oil was expensive, 2) the government wanted us to decrease our usage and 3) the investment in natural gas equipment was significant. It could very well be that the oil equipment was EVEN MORE expensive than the natural gas equipment, but that, the increase in oil price was enough to warrant a switch. So that brings me to my second issue with D...D says the cost of equipment for oil has fallen sharply...okay? Are we supposed to assume that it is now cheaper than natural gas equipment? Are we supposed to assume that this fall in equipment price is substantial enough to convince people to revert back to oil?
Thanks in advance.
Hey 7Sagers, I'm leading another twelve-hour long LR workshop (#3) over four nights (three hours per night) for five students to provide an intensive and comprehensive overview of all foundational concepts and their application to all types of LR questions.
Schedule
Session 1 - April 11, Tuesday, 7pm - 10pm EST
Session 2 - April 12, Wednesday, 7pm - 10pm EST
Session 3 - April 13, Thursday, 7pm - 10pm EST
Session 4 - April 14, Friday, 7pm - 10pm EST
Cost
Free. But! There's a $150 deposit to reserve your spot. If you show up on time and participate for the entire duration of all sessions, your deposit will automatically be refunded fully at the end of the workshop. Otherwise, it is forfeit. Please make sure you can attend the entire 12 hour long workshop.
#Frequently Asked Questions
Q: How will you select which five students will participate?
A: Lottery. If you are interested, please comment below in this thread within 48 hours.
Q: Who should take this workshop and what will be covered?
A: Beginners. This means you haven't finished the Core Curriculum yet and you're not starting to take PrepTests yet. Imagine the workshop as a fast paced overview of the entire Core Curriculum that pertains to LR. We'll cover theory and we'll apply that theory to actual LSAT questions. It will be highly interactive and hence the limit of four students. Wherever you are in the Core Curriculum, this a great way to solidify the concepts covered.
Q: Can I sign up even if I'm not a beginner?
A: Yes, you can. I'm certain that it'll benefit you to return to concepts covered in the Core Curriculum. I'm also certain that you will find it very slow at times since I will be speaking to students on the assumption that they are beginners.
Q: Do I need to have a paid 7Sage account to sign up?
A: Yes, you do. If you have an expired account, message Dillon and see if he's willing to reactivate it for you.
Q: What materials are used in this workshop?
A: The workbook that you will be provided with will contain LR questions from PrepTests 54, 55, and 56. Yes, we will be "burning" those PrepTests in order to get a closer look at the modern LSAT.
Q: What do I need to do to prepare for the workshop if I get in?
A: You should print the above mentioned workbook. You should be in a quiet space where you can talk freely. You should have a fast internet connection. You should have headphones or earphones ready.
Q: How do I attend the workshop?
A: The workshop will be hosted on Amazon's Chime. Instructions and meeting location will be sent to you once you've successfully registered.
Q: Will there be more workshops in LR / LG / RC in the future?
A: Yes. This session accommodates east coasters who work during the day. Future sessions will accommodate others.
We are searching for people who can explain complex ideas in simple, accurate, and engaging ways.
Top 7 finalists will each receive cash prizes of $350. Top prize will receive an additional $3,500. All will be considered for a longer-term video creation contract with 7Sage.
Send us your videos in one of these subjects
Test Prep: SAT, ACT, GRE, GMAT, Bar Prep
Law School: 1L Exam and Study Strategies, Civil Procedure, Contracts, Criminal Law, Torts, Administrative Law, Property, Constitutional Law, Legal Writing
The talent search ends on September 1, 2017
Frequently Asked Questions
**Q:**What subjects should the videos be on?
**A:**Test Prep: SAT, ACT, GRE, GMAT, Bar Prep
Law School: 1L Exam and Study Strategies, Civil Procedure, Contracts, Criminal Law, Torts, Administrative Law, Property, Constitutional Law, Legal Writing
**Q:**How many videos can I submit and on how many subjects?
**A:**We ask that you limit your submissions to one video per subject but you are welcome to submit on multiple subjects. For example, you're welcome to submit one video on the SAT, one on the GRE, and one on 1L Exam and Study Strategies.
**Q:**What are the specifications of the videos?
**A:**We request that the videos should not be longer than 15 minutes. You can, but do not have to, imitate 7Sage's style of voice over a digital whiteboard. You should try to pick a subject containing sufficient difficulty to showcase your explaining skills. If you're submitting a video for Test Prep subjects, you can go narrow and pick a particular question to work through. Or you can go broad and talk about an underlying theory tested by many questions. If you're submitting for Law School subjects, you can work through specific cases and rules, specific study strategies and exam strategies, or general legal theory.
**Q:**What are you looking for in the videos?
**A:**First, factual accuracy. Second, instructive elegance. We like videos that break large, challenging ideas into simple digestible pieces. Third, conversational tone. We like videos that sound like your smart and helpful classmate is explaining something to you at the library during a study session. Students should come away from the videos feeling like they have an intuitive understanding of the topic and a sense that it wasn't as daunting as they thought it would be. We are not looking for high production value. It doesn't hurt but it's not something we're weighing heavily.
**Q:**When will you notify the finalists?
**A:**Finalists will be selected and notified on a rolling basis. Submitting earlier is advantageous.
**Q:**Why are you holding this talent search?
**A:**We want to bring down the cost of education in all the subject areas listed above and we believe the way to do that is to find amazingly talented instructors and empower them to create video content. We've learned a lot about how to provide online education through our LSAT course and we're eager to share that knowledge and apply it to other subject areas.
**Q:**What does a video creation contract with 7Sage look like?
**A:**7Sage will offer you a contract to help create lessons and videos in one of the above subjects. You will receive resources and training and have access to our technology to reach thousands of students. You will be able to work on a flexible schedule from wherever you are with highly competitive pay.
Wasup 7sage community. So I took my LSAT in February... had been studying for 3 months at that point, but did not feel like I was at my peak. There was definitely room for improvement in all three sections. I still took it, and although I got a solid score, I know I can do better. So I'm deciding to take again and get it right this time...
The thing is, I am taking a two-year gap before law school. Ideally, I want to get solid work experience during this time. I am debating between taking it June or September... and am leaning towards September because the last thing I want is to rush myself again and put myself in a tough situation if I don't perform in June. However, I do not see myself full-time studying for 6 months... I want to look for a full-time internship/position. If I am giving myself 6 months, + the time I have already spent with the exam, is it feasible to hit my goal score range? Basically, is it necessary in the months leading up to the exam to be zeroed in on the LSAT or can solid prep allow for a more relaxed schedule? If anyone has been in a similar situation or can lend some words of wisdom, I would truly appreciate it.
I see them mentioned on here a lot, but, aside from @"Cant Get Right"'s webinars, I rarely see them discussed or practiced much. Could someone explain what they are and how you use them?
Thanks!
Are we allowed to have a water bottle, or a drink within a bottle, outside of our plastic bags and within arms reach during the duration of the test? In other words, are we permitted to drink our beverage in the middle of a section or can we only drink during the brief intervals between sections and during the 15 minute break?
Ok, so I am almost done with the NA portion of the CC and I am lost. I am hit and miss on the "assumption" made in each question. While understanding the conclusion helps, I still can't consistently connect the dots each time. I'm not even timing myself at this point and am still missing theses questions. My mind either can't seem to make even remotely close predictions of what the assumption may be or I just overlook answer choices that I want to hit myself after checking for the correct one because they are so obvious.
Any tips that helped you overcome NA questions?
