Hello,

I've been thinking about canceling my February test score (I took the international one on the 19th) for a couple of days now and can't seem to reach a decision by myself.

It was my first time taking the test and as feared, I ended up panicking as soon as I opened the first section (to the point of my hands shaking uncontrollably), which was usually my favorite section, the logic games. I usually finish with about 5 minutes to spare on average on my PT but on this test, due to wasting the first few minutes freaking out, I actually ended up guessing a few questions (which I've never done before). The next few sections I calmed down but the shaky start really did not help me focus on the harder RC passages, which I also ended up rushing on. In short, this test wasn't optimal for me.

On my fully 5 section timed PTs, I range from 170-174, which I know is quite a big gap. Judging from how awful LG felt for me, I predict that it will possibly be lower than 170, counting in some possibility of panic answers in the RC section too. Now I have such strong urge to cancel this score because I'm aiming for the top tier law schools, and especially with my top choice as Yale, I don't want a score below 170 to hurt my chances. I know Yale likes neither cancellation nor retakes, but I wanted to hear from you guys what looks better - a cancel and a higher score or.. a (potentially very) low score and a higher score?

I'm confident that in my next test I can reach my PT potential by doing more timed tests and working under pressure. A downside though would be that because I took the February (undisclosed) test, I'll never be able to a slight sense of what I got. So what would be best for me?! Thank you all for the help.

Hi,

If you are in Seoul and seeking to take LSAT in June 2017 who wants study buddy, please message me

I hope I can find good study partners!

These are by far the hardest and most difficult type of LR questions for me. As soon as they turn into 3/5 stars in difficulty or greater I start missing them regularly. What is the best technique for tackling these question types? I've gone over the CC multiple times and it still doesn't explain it.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-56-section-2-question-20/

I'm having trouble understanding why (C) is wrong in PT56.S2.Q20.

I negated the statement as follows:

It’s not the case that psychotherapy should never be provided in a context in which there is any chance that the therapy might be of less than high quality.

= Psychotherapy can sometimes (or always) be provided in a context in which there is any chance that the therapy might be of less than high quality.

I thought the negation of (C) wrecked the argument because it indicated that psychotherapy can be provided when there is any chance (1%)....Is my negation wrong?

I understand why (E) is better, but I want to fully understand why (C) is wrong.

I'm on the MSS section and I'm trying to answer the question before the silent video ends (1m24s). Is that a good estimate for about how much time I should be spending on each questions for the real test?

I had a slip of the wrist and hit "Mark All Viewed." This isn't totally life shattering but is there a way to undo this? I like seeing the distinction between threads I've read versus threads I haven't read. TIA, but really, it's no rush.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-3-passage-4-questions/

I got all the questions right in the timed portion and in BR, EXCEPT #27.

I found it myself between AC’s B and C..

I did not chose C because I saw an underlying assumption that Amelia Wallace Vernon is a historian. Is that a reasonable assumption to make? The first paragraph said “while historians once” thought this… AWV now has research to say otherwise. I thought C was a trap as it was referencing to the historian’s theories that propagated the wrong myth. Directly from the text, the historians were the ones with the preconceived idea of the theory, not the new theories presented by AWV.

Now, I knew that B was wrong when I chose it, but I could not get myself to satisfy this assumption. Maybe it is just pure stubbornness, I am not sure.

What are your thoughts?

Riley Curry keeps her eye on the prize. Be like Riley Curry.

Saturday, February 25th at 5PM ET: PT 63

with LSAC Superprep II explanations!

Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/617377325

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 (872) 240-3212

Access Code: 617-377-325

The Full Schedule

And if you’d like to see the full schedule for upcoming sessions, here it is:

https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=aWw1aWEzYTRkbWdoaDZsa3U3YjBsaDBlZDBAZ3JvdXAuY2FsZW5kYXIuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbQ

Note:

I am really struggling with this question type. It is the most often question I get wrong in LR.

My current scores are

(-3 to -4) RC & LG

(-5 to -6) LR

If I can get 2 more flaw questions right - they are very common and I always miss 1 or 2 - I could increase my average LSAT from a 163/4 to a 166/7.

I watched YJ's video and the two step video. I also have practiced many questions. I keep narrowing down the final two and keep picking the wrong one....

Please help!

A pivotal point to reach higher score bands is to implement skipping strategies and those concepts have helped elevate my score potential. If you can grab the “low hanging” fruit of easy questions, then you can “bank” time to return to the curve breaker questions. However, putting undo pressure on myself to answer the first 10 questions in less than 10 minutes didn’t quite work as I had planned... i.e. PT62 shows that LSAC will throw in level 4/5 questions in the first 10 & have a level 1 question in the midst of a 4/5 stretch which supports the 25 questions in 25 minutes strategy.

The Official LSAT SuperPrep II, LSAC provides a 1-5 ranking of difficulty for every question for PT 62, PT 63 and previously undisclosed PT C2. (will add C2 graph soon)

Hope this helps:)

[Edited to change title]

Hi All,

Any help with this question would be appreciated. This is a resolve the discrepancy question (arguably a strengthen or PSA).

I'm going to present the stimulus below, accompanied by my train of thought, so someone can point out to me where I am erring in my approach to the stimulus. I am definitely misinterpreting/overthinking something.

P1: Earlier estimates of the distances of certain stars from Earth indicate that these stars are about 1 billion years older than the universe, which is impossible.

P2: My estimates of the distances indicate that these starts are much farther away than previously thought.

Okay so, at this point the discrepancy is introducing itself. Early estimates indicate that the stars are too old, yet the astronomer is now asserting that they are farther/not too old. What changed between early estimates and the astronomer's estimate? My natural assumption is that the farther the star is, the less bright it is. It seems as though the astronomer is about to call that assumption out.

P3: The farther away the stars are, the greater their intrinsic brightness must be, given their appearance to us on Earth.

Okay so this must have been the change. The early estimates probably weren't educated with this new fact, so they were off in their distance estimates.

C: So the new estimates of these stars' distances from Earth help resolve the earlier conflict between the ages of these stars and the age of the universe.

Okay so the stimulus draws a correlation between brightness and distance, and then infers from that that the age discrepancy is therefore resolved. In order for this to be the case, we need an answer choice that creates a correlation between age and distance.

I was able to select C because it was the only answer choice that directly had to do with the stars' age, but I am confused because C draws a correlation between brightness and age. We don't need that correlation...we need a correlation between age and distance. I have learned from much LR practice that if there is an established correlation between A and B, as well as a correlation between B and C, that does not necessarily entail a correlation between A and C. Likewise, we have a correlation between brightness and distance, C gives us a correlation between brightness and age, so how then can we infer the needed correlation between distance and age?

Thanks in advance.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-20/

/Q-->/D D-->W in the 7sage lesson, the teacher said /Q-->/D and /W-->/D, thus, there's no inference made. However, isn't we also can do it like D-->Q and D-->W, thus, some Q are W?

Hi!

I'm finishing up my PS and optional essay, and I'm realizing the two are pretty connected. My PS (on the topic of why I want to go to law school) is centered around a problem affecting students that I experienced as an educator and how I want to become a lawyer to combat that problem.

My optional essay (why I'm applying to X school) is mostly about how I want to attend this particular school because they have such a strong program for students who want to practice education law. I'm listing certain courses, faculty, a practicum program, and journal as specific reasons.

I guess my concern here is whether or not I should reference my PS in my optional essay? And to what extent? My PS talks about how I worked in education for the past several years, do I mention it again in my optional essay?

Hope this makes sense and isn't a reiteration of a question that's been asked a million times before! Any advice on overlapping personal statements/optional essays would be welcome!

Hi folks,

If you're an international student and you didn't receive a full ride, how did you fund your studies? Have you come across any good loans options?

I just talked to someone who took a graduate research position in law school and they waived his last two years of tuition. Anyone heard of similar opportunities at any law schools?

I know @"Dillon A. Wright" has offered a list of googled options already, but I was hoping to hear from international students who have already started their JD.

Cheers!

Hi everyone! Sorry if this is redundant. I have been going at the fool proof method for about 2.5 weeks now and here is what I'm finding and where I am struggling:

Thanks!

Hello all, just dropping this quick question by you.

As you go through your studies, is it more efficient to knock out each section of the LSAT one at a time, or to kind of jump around so you do not burn yourself our on one section or waste too much time learning one section and not enough on the other two?

Thanks!

I am currently using 7SAGE as my primary self-study trainer for the LSAT, I am also supplementing 7SAGE with PowerScore's LG, LR, and RC Bibles. Basically, anytime I finish a 7SAGE section, I will then go back and read/complete the section in the PowerScore Bibles. I have found this to be very helpful except for the Conditional Logic section where I understand 7SAGE's program and mechanistic approach far easier than PowerScores. Does anyone think this supplemental study technique is a bad idea in case I mix up learning techniques, has anyone else attempted to use a similar method?

June'17 Weeknight Study Group | Blind Review PT 63| Wednesday, February 22 @ 7:00pm EST

Gotta love Sea Otters:)

https://media.giphy.com/media/73v1HppfeWkEg/giphy.gif

Seriously, we need to understand this???

https://media.giphy.com/media/7uSayTid2Qgg/giphy.gif

We will start with LR as usual and if time permits we can talk about the RC:)

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

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/531150645

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States: +1 (872) 240-3311

Access Code: 531-150-645

Note:

Any study groups in Atlanta GA?

Hi All,

Super confused by this question, mostly because I probably don't understand what the correct answer choice is actually saying.

The argument is as follows:

P1: The flagellum is what bacteria uses to swim.

P2: The flagellum needs many parts before it can even propel the bacterium at all.

C: Therefore, any evolutionary ancestor of bacteria who only had a few of these parts would gain no survival advantage from these parts.

The question is asking for a sufficient assumption. I cannot understand what (B) is saying or why it is correct.

This is what I think (B) is saying: "At this point in time, all of the parts used for survival would have had to help the bacteria swim." So say there was Part A, Part B, and Part C. Part A helped the bacteria to eat, Part B to procreate, and Part C to sleep. (B) is essentially saying that, in addition to these functions, Part A, Part B, and Part C also help the bacteria to swim. Again, we are talking about bacteria NOW (not the evolutionary ancestors that the conclusion brings up).

So present day bacteria have Part A, Part B and Part C (as well as others, since there are "many"), each of which help them survive but also are utilized for their swimming abilities.

The conclusion talks about evolutionary ancestors that only had a few of these parts. So lets say that an ancestor only had Part A and Part C (pretend they morphed from being asexual to sexual creatures-- clearly not a scientist, but go with it). From my perspective, we need more information that (B) does not give us. For example, why would the functions of Parts A and C have no "survival advantage"? Parts A and C still allow the bacterium to eat and sleep. Is swimming necessary for survival? We are told that they need many parts to swim, but if they CANNOT swim, why would that render their other parts useless when it comes to "survival advantage"?

We know that there needs to be "many parts" in order for the bacteria to swim. We also know that the ancestors in question had "few parts," so we can infer that they could not swim. But the conclusion is very strong in that it is saying there are NO survival advantage to ANY of its existing parts. I just don't see how (B) gives us the information we need to arrive at this conclusion.

I believe I must just not be understanding what (B) is actually saying.

I chose (C). My thought was that, if all the parts of flagellum are vital to each of its functions, then it makes sense that, if an ancestor didn't have certain parts, they wouldn't be able to do anything. For example, Part A, Part B, and Part C are all necessary for ANY of them to function; therefore, if an older ancestor didn't have Part B, then Part A and Part C would provide no survival advantage because they cannot perform without that third part. So unless all of the parts are present, then none of the parts would provide a "survival advantage". (C) provides a very broad and strong claim, but I am seeing it fill a gap that (B) isn't.

Thanks in advance.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-3-question-18/

Yesterday I took the LSAT (the test was offered in Asia on Feb 19), and on one section the proctor forgot to give a 5 minute warning, and instead gave a 1 minute warning. In every other section he gave a 5 minute warning, so this threw me off. I had my own watch and noticed at about 3 minutes left that he hadn't given the warning yet, which distracted me. I ended up guessing on the last 3-4 questions on the LR section, which is unusual for me. Does anyone have thoughts on whether I should report it to LSAC? What would happen if I do report? Is there a chance they would automatically cancel, without giving me (or other test takers) the option to see our scores first? I definitely want to see my score. Thanks for your thoughts!

Hey 7sage Community!

I am currently looking for a study buddy to meet once or twice a week. I am preparing to take the June LSAT and looking to get in as much practice as possible (BR/Drilling). If you are in need of someone to keep you accountable and motivated please message me!

I'm generally free weekday evenings (except Tuesday/Thursday I can meet anytime) and weekends. I am also willing to meet halfway if you are located in SF or South Bay area.

Thank you!

Hi all,

I am hoping to get some input on a skipping strategy (not really for LG). RC is my weakest section (seems like almost everyone says this). When I BR I an able to get 4-5 more questions right because I had made stupid mistakes rushing to get all the questions done. I want to try to practicing skipping questions throughout my next several PTs.

Was hoping to learn some of the strategies y'all use! I REALLY want to maximize my potential on RC- the process has been very rough thus far.

:)

I have a question about "almost every Wednesday" in PT55 S1 Q15.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-1-question-15/

When I read this question, I thought the statement "almost every Wednesday" prevented having free poetry readings on every Wednesday.

So I diagrammed like this:

Wednesday --M--> Free Poetry Reading (FPR)

Wednesday (--some--) /FPR

But JY's explanation says:

Wednesday --M--> FPR

Most can include all, so it does not exclude the possibility of having free poetry readings on all Wednesdays.

What does "almost" mean on LSAT?

Got this one right by POE but had a tough time being OK with A. It is definitely something I considered as a flaw in the reasoning. However, the use of "the identity of the practical joker" in the stimulus (which we accept as true and cannot contradict) means we have to accept that there was one single person who was the joker. A tells us there was more than one joker. How does A not contradict the stimulus?

Am I missing some way of reading "the identity of the practical joker" to mean that there could be more than one person?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-40-section-3-question-14/