This may or may not be a discussion usually placed in the threads. But is there a right or wrong way to interact and connect with study buddies? So far I have only been able to connect with one but I feel like I just can't seem to get it right. We are all over the place and cannot seem to find the right way to interact to better help one another. We video chat, as we live very far from one another, and we are on two different levels in terms of our understanding of the material. Any advice on how to improve this?

Hi All,

I am trying to get accommodations for the September LSAT. I was diagnosed with ADHD due to attention in high school and I have issues with processing speeds/short term memory. I recently got re-tested since the first testing is over 12 years old and I'm going to submit psychologist's report. My question is, does the psychologist also have to fill out the "Statement of Need" or is her report enough? I tried to ask LSAC today, but they wouldn't tell me over the phone and then I e-mailed, but it might take a while for them to get back.

I received accommodations in high school (well I have a 504 plan) but I didn't really take any (that I remember at least) in college. I've been scoring consistently 154, but then around a 163-167 when I BR/go back and answer the questions I ran out of time to answer.

Thanks!

Hey guys, I just posted a

It's a difficult in/out game that can be made easier with a better game board. Have a look!

Given how much weight YouTube places on likes/dislikes, would you guys mind "liking" this video on YouTube if you actually find the new approach helpful?

Related: I also posted a

How much consideration does law schools place on academic performance in graduate school?

Can someone please help me with this question. Been sitting on it for 2 hrs

Especially considering LR and RC.

In a parallel q: does the order of the premises have to match the AC?

In PT11 S4 Q22 i diagrammed,

P->/L

/P->S

/S

/L

And AC 2:

/M->P

P->/C

/M

/C

So i see that they are identical but it came in a different order.?

Hello,

I got a 170 on the June LSAT and want to try to retake it in Sept with a 175+ ideally. I burned through all PTs studying for June, averaged around 173 from the 26 most recent tests reaching 178 twice, but it seems like I need a new game plan to really get to that next level consistently.

As for the breakdown for the June test: I missed 5 in RC (usually I miss around 0-3 - I was not expecting how hard the June RC would be), 2 in LG (I should not have missed those given how easy that section was, in PTs I miss around 0-1 but I am afraid the next test will have a harder LG which might stump me so I will definitely try to drill games until I can 100% stop making stupid mistakes), and LR I missed 1 each (usually I miss around 0-2 per section).

So far all I am planning is retaking PTs 60-81 and doing a better job blind reviewing and analyzing the questions re: making sure I know my thought process and that I can eliminate every wrong answer. Does anyone have any other ideas or how I should focus based on the info above? I'm definitely open to suggestions and what has worked for people. I'm just kind of stumped at how to make a study schedule at the moment to get what I'm shooting for.

Thanks!

Hi all,

Having trouble with 2 questions in pretest 55, and I'd love to get some further explanation if anyone would be so kind!

In the second passage(s) in RC, for question #9, I chose C. Is this wrong because of the "most"; I see why B is also right, but can't figure out how to distinguish between the two. Is it simply because passage A doesn't explicitly address the issue of whether eradication advocates are genuine (though it is certainly implied, in my view)?

And for the last passage, can someone explain why #23 is D rather than C? Is it because "cheap substitute parts" are not a perfect analogue for tulips (as it suggests inferior quality) whereas book don't lose their quality when simply reproduced?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-2-passage-2-passage

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-2-passage-2-questions/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-2-passage-4-passage

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-55-section-2-passage-4-questions/

Hey guys,

I'm currently in the BR phase of my routine and I have questions: I often find that among the questions that I circle I almost always go with my original answer, which is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. I've noticed that when I BR I have a hard time finding the correct answer for some of the tougher questions and in frustration I turn to solutions online.

I try my best to get the right answer but I just can't - any tips to actually crack the code and find the correct answer/any tips on how to read online material to better understand the question rather than just FIND the answer?

Thanks

So i am of the opinion that taking pt after pt is a waste of time and resources. I also dont believe in setting dates for my next pt, rather take it when i think i will see improvement. with that said, i took my first PT last week, after foolproofing, and RC was my biggest issue along with NA SA and some flaw types. I spent this past week going through the CC and the trainer on all these issues and drilling abit. I think i dealt w the issues in NA SA and probably the things i was missing with flaws. I also spent some time creating a notation strategy and went through a bunch of untimed RC drills. My question is should i take another PT now? I dont think it is possible to completely master RC in a week let alone months. But i feel like i have to get more exposure to see if i have any other weaknesses that i have to focus on. Thoughts?

And it's a logic game....

If you want a fun puzzle that is something fresh from the LSAT try it out.

https://www.brainzilla.com/logic/zebra/einsteins-riddle/

Hey friends,

So I've been suffering from a crisis of confidence for about the last week because of my RC score. It's atrocious, disgusting, and infuriating. I've tried so many methods and I just haven't been able to get the hang of it. It's gotten to the point where it's negatively impacting my other sections because I can't help but think about it. My LR scores on PTs have gone from -1/-2 to -4/-5 per section and I have been much less in control with games. I was a rock solid -1/-2 per section and was quickly and efficiently handling the more non-traditional games. Now, I've been getting bullied around by those weird games, like the stone game from PT 60. I'm not really sure what's going on. My RC performance basically has me like that sad emoji, not the one with the tears but the one that looks both disappointed and sad. It's like my RC score is so awful that during the other sections I'm subconsciously saying "Ah, what's the use? I'm just going to go -11 in RC anyway..." This is easily the hardest part of my LSAT journey thus far and I know that the path to LSAT greatness lies in improving the RC score...but my problems go beyond a notation webinar or tracking things within the passage. I believe that my problems lie in being able to interpret what's true based on the passage even though it is not explicitly written. I have always been awful at this. I remember pretty much all of what was said, the arguments, viewpoints, but can't make RC inferences to save my life given the extreme time constraints under which we find ourselves. So many times I've read each passage with such diligence and check my answers with confidence that this was the 'aha' moment...only to go -9..-10. Obviously, the RC struggles have zapped a good deal of my confidence in the other sections and we all know that confidence is essential for LSAT success. For example, games that were taking me 6/7 minutes are now taking 9/10 because with every answer I'm like...uhhh hold on am I right?

Has anyone else ever gone through this? Even with the monstrosity that is my RC score, I'm still scoring 165+.

Please help!

-Frank

Hello! I didn't see any prior discussions on this question, and it's confusing me a bit so I wanted to get some outside opinions!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-4-question-17/

We have an underlying principle/SA question which means that our answer needs to fill the logic gap pretty much completely.

Background info says that confidence of a testimony has little correlation with the accuracy of said testimony.

Support says that factors can alter the confidence of a testimony without changing its accuracy.

Conclusion says that police officers shouldn't allow situations where witnesses giving testimony can hear other witnesses giving testimonies.

The designated correct answer for gives us the principle that the confidence in one's testimony is affected by seeing other testimonies. To me, this leaped out as a wrong answer choice because the passage seems to suggest that confidence in one's testimony doesn't really matter, so there would be no incentive to prevent it.

D, on the other hand, seemed to fill the gap using unusual, but plausibly correct logic. If the police, for some reason, cared about confidence more than accuracy, factors that change confidence would want to be controlled. I don't know why Police would want to know about confidence rather than accuracy, but it's not our job as test takers to question the likelihood of a gap-closer to occur in the real world; we want to know if that gap closer, taken as it is, would bridge the support with the conclusion.

D does it in an ugly fashion, but I don't think A does it at all. Knowing that viewing other testimonies can alter confidence doesn't give us any logical reason for police officers wanting to prevent it. We can't bridge the gap between evidence and officers stopping testimony exposure without understanding the criterion based on which an officer would want to prevent testimony exposure. Even if you make the least extreme assumption and consider that police would want to stop something that alters the accuracy of a testimony, (since accuracy of evidence is important to court cases) answer A becomes more flawed in that it gives the support an attribute that the police wouldn't care about, or use in a decision for policy.

Any help is appreciated :) Thanks guys!

When the LSAC CRS information asks for enrollment date, if I plan to start in Fall 2018, do I put 2018? Or because I'm applying in 2017, do I put 2017?

Creating this thread to quell some of the anxiety. ;) Will be updated when it's actually Grey Day.

Feel free to chat here about it.

Hi friends,

This is sort of a weird question, but I'm sure some of you have had similar experiences, and any advice would really help me out!

I guess I'm a nontraditional applicant in that I graduated in 2015. Since then I've been working, traveling, and making sure I actually wanted to apply to law school (I do, hooray). I was pretty successful in college, but I sort of distanced myself from my school after graduation because I was turned off by several political and social decisions being made by the administration. This is to say that I didn't do a great job of keeping in touch with my professors.

The problem is, I spent a year and a half working with one professor on my Honors History Thesis, for which I ended up winning the highest departmental awards. I viewed it as an accomplishment for both of us! He has since left my undergrad, and the school has no idea where he went. I ended up emailing one of his colleagues who asked him if it would be okay if I got in touch with him, and he said yes. I've emailed him four or five times over the last three months, to no avail. Aside from worrying about him, I'm selfishly frustrated because he was the person who knew me and my work best, and I'm afraid it will reflect poorly on me if 'honors thesis' is plastered all over my resume and then no recommendation from my advisor appears.

I have a great employer rec coming in, as well as one from a dean with whom I worked closely, and I've asked another professor who I feel pretty good about but perhaps not great. I'm aiming for a T14, and I think my GPA and softs stack up (I'm sitting in September). I would hate to miss my shot because I can't find this one guy!

Has anyone else lost their best recommender? Is this something that would be worth trying to explain, or would that be seen as making excuses/make me sound insane?

Thanks team, and seriously, good luck to everyone out there, especially those of you who've taken weird convoluted paths!!

Sup y'all,

So just got my score back (159), but I really wanted closer to a 165 so I def plan on retaking it in September. My weakest section was Reading Comp, and I was wondering if I could get some input on how I should go about studying these next few months. I was thinking about getting a power score bible for reading, and doing that 4 days a week,then doing 2 days a week LR and 1 day a week LG.

Open to suggestions though if anyone with more experience thinks my game plan is faulty.

Thanks in advance.

Hi all,

I'm retaking the LSAT in September, and am trying to get together a study plan. I'm thinking I'll take one PT a week, go over one section per day afterwards, and have two days to rest/work on the soft parts of applications. I'm shooting for a 5 point increase, which I believe is doable (I underscored on the LSAT in June). Does anybody else have thoughts/strategies for retaking? I know I should review the CC for the parts of the exam I'm weak on, but I'm not quite sure what to do beyond just the PT per week.

Thoughts?

Hello, 7Sagers!

I'm a bit puzzled with this NA question and wanted to get your input on the matter.

This question states that medical schools are teaching curative medicine and preventative medicine at a 10:1 ratio respectively. It goes on to state that despite this, the use of preventative techniques lowers medical costs significantly.

The claim is that if medical school's have the goal of making medicine lower in cost, they aren't spending enough time teaching preventative medicine.

The correct necessary assumption is purportedly that the amount of time needed to teach preventative medicine thoroughly is greater than one hour for every ten currently being spent on the curative counterparts.

Now, a negation test should confirm this answer, but from my perspective, it does not. Negating the statement results in the time to teach preventative medicine thoroughly being equal or less than one hour for every 10 spent on curative. Now, I assume that at this point the LSAT wants you to assume that because the ratio now favors preventative being taught thoroughly, the argument falls apart because they're no longer spending insufficient time.

But who's to say that the ratio of time spent has anything to do with the actual time spent? The argument has to do with the actual time spent. In fact, we could only be sure that there isn't an insufficiency if we know for sure that the med schools are meeting or exceeding the total amount of hours needed for thorough teaching of curative medicine.

So what if we have a 10:Less-Than-One thoroughness need ratio ? Maybe the schools are teaching 1000 hours of Curative and 100 hours of Preventative, when students actually need 10,000 hours of Curative and 200 hours of Preventative to be thoroughly taught each respectively. (This would give us a 50:1 ratio of time needed for curative vs preventative thoroughness, congruent with the negation of the right answer, but still leaving the argument perfectly in tact.)

If the argument can easily be correct without the designated answer being negated, why can we call it a necessary assumption for the argument? The argument can be just fine without it being true.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-32-section-4-question-19/

It's the company sending out project managers LG,

which of the following if substituted for...would have the same effect

Hey guys, I feel like I've hit a wall...

I just don't feel like I get the LSAT. I understand that it's a learnable exam, but I think there is something wrong with how I'm approaching it. The problem is I don't know what that is - and it's mostly with LR. I scored a 154 on my first diagnostic, and I was aiming to write in Sept, and I'm not sure if I should anymore. I do really want a 170+ (I know it's possible, and that I am capable, I just need to better understand the logical structure of this exam).

Best tips for understanding/applying theory? I'm going to spend this week drilling LR sections and BR each action. Any other tips, or what helped you get to your aha moment? I feel the gears moving, and like I'm starting to get it.....but I'm not there yet.

I was just looking over this past LSAT, which I took, and it hit me that there might be a bit of a trick to make substitution Qs easier. Part of the issue in substitution Qs, at least some of the time, is that once your diagrams, split game boards, etc. have become filled in to some degree, it's hard to unravel that and see exactly what the effect of a specific rule was. But if you check first, before making your diagram, if there's a substitution question, you can keep that specific rule in mind while diagramming and see clearly the effect of that rule. It happened to work like a charm for me while reviewing the substitution questions on the June 2017 LSAT. I'm wondering if anyone has tried this, and if not, perhaps it's worth a try.

So this is a weakening question. I was torn between two answers during the test, and switched from the right answer to the wrong answer.

I see why the correct answer is correct but not why the wrong one is wrong.

The conclusion of the argument is that Neanderthals probably preserved their meat by smoking it.

The support is that lichen and grass were found in the fire places. Which doesn't burn hot, but has a lot of smoke.

Answer choice A says: In close proximity to the fireplaces with lichen and grass are other fireplaces that, evidence suggest, burned material that produced more heat than smoke.

Doesn't that take away the support for smoking? We now see they had the ability to cook meat, which means they didn't have to smoke it.

Answer choice B says; (correct answer) In the region containing the Neanderthal fireplaces in which lichen and grass were burnt, no plants that could be burned more effectively to produce heat or light were available 60,000 years ago.

---- I see why this weakens too. They only had one option for heat or light, so it doesn't mean that they were using it to smoke their food.

I just don't see why A is less correct than B. They both seem right to me, what am I missing?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-79-section-4-question-19/

Hey there I'm averaging -11 on RC. (156) I have done the CC method of RC and my score went up a little, but does anyone have any tips to further increase my score?

Particularly tips for speed. If I skip a passage I get -0 on the passage in which I take a little more time.

Any and every bit of info will be appreciated. Thanks :D