I'm fanatically refreshing my email every 15 minutes now that we have hit 4:30 EST. It doesn't look like it's today, sadly. Commiserate with me, fellow February testers!

I know that the University of Chicago has a fairly conservative undergraduate campus and I come from a pretty conservative school. What are some other well-known conservative campuses?

Hi all,

I have a question on answer choice C.

I understand the flaw of the survey: how it fails to distinguish the residents who dropped out in its own schools and those who dropped out of schools from somewhere else. But, after contemplating the answer choices, I am reluctant to accept answer choice C as the correct answer (the part where it says: those who had received their schooling elsewhere).

To my understanding, if you "received your schooling elsewhere," this meant that you did NOT dropout. To "receive something" would be to finish in the transaction of getting that something. So, answer choice C would be pointing out a flaw of distinguishing that was incorrect. If the answer choice had said having "attended (which opens up the possibility of dropping out" instead of "received," then I would have no problem with the answer choice.

Any take on this? If my understanding of "received schooling" is incorrect, any explanation (or examples that can show the usage of the word/phrase) would be great!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-15/

This is my biggest problem at the moment, and I don't recall this being in the curriculum. Could someone point this lesson out if I'm missing it? Seems like a pretty big part of the test.

I had a hard time understanding why (A) is the right answer. After thinking about it for a day on and off, I came up with this reasoning. Please take a look if my logic behind getting the right answer is correct.

I wonder if this this question can be viewed as Resolve Reconcile type; the premise says the land-dwelling whales needed hind limbs capable of supporting its weight, and conclusion says the fragile limbs of whale found in the fossil is the remnant of whale once lived on land. But I tried to solve it as strengthen question.

This question talks about whales from three different periods; ancient whale (lived before fossilized whale skeleton), fossilized whale, and modern whale.

Premise:

Conclusion: The fragile hind limbs are remnants of limbs that land-dwelling whale once had.

I initially misunderstood the conclusion as the fragile hind limbs found in the fossil is the remains the whale that was living on land. So land-dwelling whale having fragile limbs is contradiction within the premise... but the correct understanding is the fragile hind limbs newly found in fossil is how the ancient whale evolved to be. The key was a correct understanding of the word "remnant."

So, to summarize it... whale evolution is like this chronologically.

Ancient Whale (ones lived before the newly found fossilized skeleton)

Fossilized Whale

Modern Whale

So, we need to strengthen the conclusion that the fossilized whale skeleton that has fragile limbs is the evolved form of whales limbs that lived on land at one point.

(A) is correct. The confirmation that ancient whale had a full pelvis would strengthen that by evolution it became a partial pelvis (as found in fossil) and now only bare remnant of pelvis.

(B) This weakens the conclusion

(C) irrelevant

(D) I initially chose this answer and that was because I misunderstood what the conclusion meant precisely.

(E) irrelevant.

It became a quite long explanation... I wonder if I am overthinking when it is really a simple question. I would appreciate any confirmation or correction on my reasoning. Thanks!!

I just saw that there was a new video that showed a very good student working through an LSAT logic game in real time, with JY providing color commentary. (could you imagine a TV channel that did nothing but this?). http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-3-game-4/#comment-30736.

I also remember seeing @"Jonathan Wang" doing an LR section in real time (25 questions in 25 minutes no less--- bows and incants “we’re not worthy!!” over and over again) on the boards, but I can’t find it anymore.

I think there are even more out there, but I’m having trouble finding them. Is there a way we can organize finding these videos in an easier fashion? I guess this is more of a question for LSAT Forum guru and all-aroung awesome guy, @"Dillon A. Wright”

I’m at a place now where I really understand much of the LSAT. I just don’t have the most efficient process to execute the LSAT in the time allotted. I think watching people knock it out of the park could really help.

If you guys ever feel at a loss for a reason to go to law school, John Oliver can help you.

I could keep posting but I think you guys get the point. YT channel here: https://www.youtube.com/user/LastWeekTonight/videos

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!

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!

I know most of you are still preparing for the LSAT, so I apologize if this post is stressing you out/distracting!

Soooo, the time has come.... I have to decide where to attend law school now. So far, I've narrowed it down to Michigan Law, USC Gould, and WUSTL. I'm still waiting for decisions from Duke, Northwestern, and UCLA.

USC and WUSTL gave me the same amount of scholarship, but the net cost is lower @WUSTL. I didn't get any merit scholarship from Michigan, but I think I will try my luck with their international student financial aid (I am an international student!)

My priority is to have decent employment prospect post-grad around the country and internationally.

Please share your experience/thoughts with me! I'd really appreciate any insight/advice you are willing to give!

Hi all,

Was drilling LR and noticed one of the areas I want to improve on is "formal logic", i.e. Translating into lawgic type questions. I noticed this types of questions most often appear in Must be True, SA and PSA question types. 2 questions:

Am I missing any question types where formal logic predominantly appears?

Is there a way I can practice only these types of questions? (Like a question bank of something or the sort)

I looked at the 7sage question bank and didn't see anything specifically for formal logic, as it's not a question type. Any advice would be helpful. Thanks in advance.

Hi all,

I know that LSAC says to take PT under true timed conditions, which includes a 5th (experimental) section. However JY mentioned in the core curriculum that he didn't think the difference between taking a 4 and a 5 section PT was that big, because on the actual day adrenaline will keep us going.

Sometimes I am short on time and just do a 4 section PT. Am I doing myself a massive disservice? Thoughts?

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.

So I for one am a hyper person when it comes to tests in general. I don't know why, but that mysterious 6th gear always shows up regardless of how prepared I am for the test. I'm making my way through the CC for a second time and I have been trying to knock down one of my biggest problems: my inner clock.

Sometimes it feels like 1 and half minutes have passed on a single problem when in reality it has only been 30 seconds. This would cause me to proceed too quickly, causing me to misread and make bad mistakes (this especially hurts on easy layup questions). I found my remedy to be quite simple.

When I time myself during the problem sets, I have started to make written notes to myself, writing down my time and take notice of how my results relate to it. If I catch in the BR that I made a rush mistake by reading too fast, I make sure to notice the clock as I'm doing the next few questions. I have found that trying to show that time isn't going as quickly as I think has helped me immensely with concentrating and gathering all the necessary details, which has lead to my accuracy going up dramatically. You don't have to do this for every question. But doing one problem set for example, and taking a few glances at the clock while doing the problem can increase your awareness and help reset your inner clock.

I know I'm not the only one out there struggling with this.....and I still do currently. But I have much more control of my inner clock and realize a ton of my mistakes have come from this single issue. I hope this helps those out there struggling with this. Don't look at the clock as the enemy, but as your friend!

Any non-LSAT resources you've found to be useful. I'm planning to write for the Sept '17 test so I'd like to start these habits/practices now. Here are some that I've seen recommended:

Reading the Economist (while practicing Memory Method), Wireless Philosophy YouTube channel, Soduko, meditation.

Idk if ppl are still looking for this but I just ran across this site on TLS. https://180pedia.com/lsat-cambridge-packet-lists/

The packets from all three sections for PT 1-38 are there. Of course you'll have to do your owning printing and/or copying pasting to get one cohesive pkg but it's better than nothing. I haven't really looked over the whole site but there seems to be explanations that link to the original post as well. 7Sage is there! I've only seen LG explanations but I just did a quick browse. There could be explanations from other sites as well for other sections. Hope this helps!

I'm making my trek back into LG and while watching JY's LG Fool Proof Method, he says to get the clean copies and all and to focus on making inferences which I totally understand. But he makes no mention of the questions. Should I include those as well or just focus on the inferences?

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.

So I'm not really sure what kind of law or what kind of firm I'd like to practice yet. However, In House Council has perked my interest a bit.

I've read that many of times, people have obtained these positions by working for a while in big law firms. I'm curious if anyone has heard/read about graduates obtaining in house positions or a lower level version out of school? I'm not completely sold on doing big law but I'm definitely not against it either. Just curious what y'all have heard or seen.

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'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?

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.

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/

I am looking for a local study buddy. I can also meet on Skype, but I'd like an in person buddy too. Ideally looking for an equally motivated retaker who is also aiming for June. I am on a few WL and holds right now, so I need to hit it out of the park in June so I can go T-14. I have room privileges at Downtown ASU, so that could be a great meeting place. I am in the West Valley but willing to travel DT.

https://media.giphy.com/media/ZOhNKz99I4TwA/giphy.gif

What is a Blind Review Call? Why have I heard about it from Sages and other community members saying that it expanded their knowledge of the test elevating their score bands while surprisingly providing a place to build friendships that have lasted beyond their LSAT prep into Law School?

Vanessa and I are here to answer your questions with an interactive experience Thursday night, Feb 16 @7pm EST.

https://media.giphy.com/media/gHrHtU5hORzfW/giphy.gif

Answering some of the most common questions –

BR Calls provide a challenging experience to verbally explain your thought process on any given question – whether it was tough and need another person’s perspective to find that “AHA” moment or to share with someone that is struggling to be able to “really get it” so they won’t make the same error of reasoning in the future. We all have different strengths/weaknesses and learn so much from each other.

To make it a truly interactive experience, please post any LR question up to PT49 for us to be able to provide examples of how the process works!

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

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/314003757

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States: +1 (571) 317-3122

Access Code: 314-003-757