What's more important? The LSAT raw score or percentile?

Hey Gang,

I’ll be gone for the next five days. I’m taking the family to Connecticut for a nice ole’ fashioned New England Halloween. All of the Skype BR Groups are already set up. All you have to do is click on the link of the BR Group Conversation you’d like to attend. They’re all listed in previous discussions, but I’ll reproduce them here for your convenience:

DECEMBER TEST TAKERS

Friday, Oct 30th at 8PM ET: PT75

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/qzGIJoSAyLJT

LSATurday, Oct 31st at 3PM ET: PT67

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/tA67DTS6xgqW

Monday, Nov. 2nd at 11AM ET: PT51

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/tLgIUSlQDEPg

FEBRUARY TEST TAKERS

Friday, Oct 30th at 8PM ET: PT70

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/sdiINq0J9AwI

LSATurday, Oct 31st at 8PM ET: PT67

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/C8Yeac0csm8G

If the you-know-what hits the fan, please PM @nicole.hopkins and she will fix it like she always does.

Have a Happy Halloween, everyone! See you next week!

hey y'all.. I am slowly getting out of my post lsat score depression and I am ready to give this test another try - (Should I say a beat down!!). Not sure how unique my situation is but I scored roughly 10 point below my PTs. I got 153 - when I was PTing at 163-165. I bombed the LR (got -11 on each section - was at -4/-5 during PT), games were in line with my PTs and so was RC. I am delaying law school for another year and retaking it. I need some advice:

1. I feel like I am pretty familiar with all the LSAT materials out there. I worked my butt off last go around and really went through most the published exams. How do I deal with that now?

2. The Exam will be my priority and work would be secondary, so I will have time. whats the ideal schedule? I am deciding between Feb and June LSAT. Any advice on that?

Thank you all

So I was averaging 174 in PTs and ended up scoring a 169 on the October test. The only other 169 I scored in the three months leading up to the test was while sitting in the middle seat on a flight. I am confident I can score better but how worth it is waiting an extra year (I would retake in June and apply in the following cycle) to hopefully score higher? Should I apply this cycle and see what happens or wait? Also my GPA is 3.68. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks!

I understand that C is true and is a flaw in the argument, but I still don't understand how you can eliminate A. Here is my breakdown:

Generally, professors grew up in economically advantaged homes (MP). Evidence of this is the fact that professors grew up in communities with average household incomes that were higher than the national average.

What I am looking for: The argument makes a whole to part flaw. Did the professors actually live in the higher income households in the community? What if they only lived in the low income households? This could be true since we are only given an average of the income in the communities. Also, does household income being higher than the national average mean economically advantaged? I am not so sure. High household income is just one part of "economic advantage;" there could be other economic things such as government policies towards rich people that can nullify the high income advantage. In other words, there are a ton of factors that go into defining "economic advantage," not just income.

Answer A: I don't see how this is incorrect. Isn't this pointing out the flaw that "high household income" might not actually mean "economic advantage?"

Answer B: This is consistent with the argument due to the word "generally" in the passage.

Answer C: This is definitely a flaw in the argument since it points out the assumption that the professors actually lived in the "good" households in the community.

Answer D: Who cares about the private sector?

Answer E: Who cares about where they live now. We only care about where/how they grew up.

So I just finally reviewed PT 76 and discovered I missbubbled 4 answers in LR1 and had 2 other questions I didn't erase well enough. My score was well below my median, so I am not worring about hand scoring but if you can tell ever so slightly which one was suppose to be the answer vs the one erased is that something you would use handscoring for?

I know it would not impact the 4 misbubbles, but the 2 that weren't registered by the scantron. Would that be something hand scoring would correct?

If I scored high enough (or heck even not had the missbubbles) those 2 points could have made some serious impact on scholarship opportunities.

I guess I am mainly looking for answers as to if a hand score would be a good move in that case, If I were to make such a disasterous error again.

Hi,

I started studying for my December LSAT in early October. That is when i also wrote my diagnostic test and had 75% in LR, and much worse in LG and RC. I got a tutor for LG and now I consistently score ~90% in LG, BUT... I am pretty much getting 13 questions wrong in each LR section... My score is barely any different than my diagnostic test. I practiced from Pt 41-50 and I did timed sections from pt 51,52,53 and im just doing HORRIBLE! I have one month left and I have no idea what to do. I have all the tests up to PT 70, but I dont even see the point of doing more practice. It's like my brain doesnt comprehend common sense anymore. What should I do :(

Hey y'all, looking to get a few people together (via Skype) to cover 1 PT every weekend leading up to the December 2015 LSAT. The sessions will be on either Saturdays or Sundays, and the time depends on where people are located. Being that there is enough pressure on us all, I'd like to get together a nonjudgmental, yet serious group of people together.

I was at a 173~ average for the 50s and 60s, and PT 71 and 69 were 169, PT 70 was 170. I am wondering at what point I should be concerned if my scores don't go back up to 170+. I am mostly concerned because I am only about 5 weeks out and am hoping thats enough time to feel confident for a 170 again...

Hello!

I am having some trouble making a schedule for the coming months. I am shooting for the Feb exam but I am still struggling with timing and certain question types. Since there isn’t much time left, do you recommend drilling entire sections, specific question types, or both?

If I should drill sections, should I be utilizing PTs 17 – 34? If so, how should I Incorporate the question bank? Wondering what use that is if I decide to drill sections.

Also, what is the significance of the question bank? How should PTs 1 - 16 be used? I know there was a post somewhere giving details but I can't find it.

Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Hi All,

I recently reached out to an undergrad professor, with whom I had the closest relationship due to completing a scholarly research project my senior year. Here's the response:

"I could only write a very short letter stating that you were an outstanding undergraduate student who took courses from me more than seven years ago at a former university. I will not be able to speak to anything having to do with xxx law. "

I was bracing myself for the response. It's actually a little better than I initially expected, but...doesn't sound like it will help much?

I'm starting to think that it would be better to reach out to a grad prof, even though Admissions doesn't seem to think that grad school amounts to much? Otherwise, I might have to jump ship altogether and ask a previous supervisor in my industry. Two of the schools to which I'm applying do accept employer letters for non-traditional students. Do you think that this may be the "safer" route?

Any thoughts on the situation? I'm honestly not even sure how to respond to the person I quoted above. Thanks for taking the time to respond, but no thanks?

Hello,

I don't understand why D is correct. I chose B. Could someone please explain why the right answer is right and the wrong answers are wrong? Thank you in advance.

Hello,

I don't understand why E is correct. I chose B. Could someone please explain why the right answer is right and the wrong answers are wrong? Thank you in advance.

I did not have a good sense of how much time I was spending on individual LR questions until I started completing some of the silent videos on here. I understand this may just have been a tool 7sage came up with in response to the recent ban of PDF files. This exercise has actually helped me up my speed on individual LR questions and better gauge when I am spending too much time on any given question.

Would it be useful to have a timer on the 7Sage Up which can be set up for 1-2min geared toward LR questions only? A timer that will send a beep signal at the end of the alloyed time e.g.1:20s and automatically restart? I understand some questions take longer to solve than others but the silent timer was very helpful, unfortunately cumbersome to replicate with iphone or watch.

Any input?

If anyone has Practice exam 1 and can help me with a question that I am having trouble grasping I would greatly appreciate it. Its from Section 4 number 21 and its a must be true question. I can't wrap my mind around D being the correct answer because to me it is logically equivalent to answer choice E so I automatically eliminated both. How is "some" different from "many"?

I've taken about 10 PTs + intense BRs (made an imaginary friend and explained my reasoning to that guy for all of my circled questions out loud) and I've analyzed that I am performing horribly on MSS and MBT, well below other 7sagers' average. When I review my wrong answers, I realize why I got the question wrong, but I end up making the same mistakes over and over again... Common mistakes being: not closely reading the stimulus, falsely equating words, and choosing out of scope answers.

It's rather perplexing because I seem to be performing confidently and proficiently on questions like Para and PF, questions which most 7sagers find relatively difficult.

Needless to say, I've finished the MSS, MBT + Validity lessons. However, I think that finding the "conclusion" on the answer choices is something that I am having major difficulty with at a fundamental level. With MBT, I find relativity extremely difficult to understand, such as Magic Shoes -> Faster also means /Magic Shoes -> /Faster. I feel like that interpretation directly goes against everything I learned in JY's logic lessons and invalid statements. So having that idea, the possibility that negated relativity answers can be correct, really throws me off when I see similar answer choices when I'm PTing.

Could you guys please help me master MSS and MBT? If you guys can guide me to the lessons that could improve my understanding of above topics, it would me really helpful.

Thank you very much... You guys are tremendously helpful...

P.S. Thanks again to those who helped me fight the urge to pick up smoking.

I had a very hard time differentiating D and C, I chose C since I thought D was descriptively inaccurate.

Parents who want to give their kids a good foundation in music should give them a good musical education. Formal instruction is sometimes apart of a good musical education. Therefore, a strong foundation needs to have formal instruction.

What I am looking for: Just because formal instruction sometimes works, it doesn't mean that it is necessary.

Answer A: So what?

Answer B: Who cares about if the kid is interested.

Answer C: This is what I chose after I eliminated D. This says, some people who have formal instruction don't have good musical ability. Knowing that D is correct, I think this would have worked if "ability" were substituted with "education." This would have made this answer choice exactly like D, but my problem with D is stated below.

Answer D: I don't see how this is the answer since it is descriptively inaccurate. The question stem asks us to point out something that the argument "fails to consider." Doesn't the argument consider the fact that formal education isn't sufficient for a good musical education? Isn't this what sentence 2 (the premise) explicitly states? How does the argument fail to consider this? I understand that the conclusion is way too strong given the premise (the premise is a SOME statement and the conclusion is conditional), but that to me is a totally separate flaw than simply "failing to consider" what answer D states.

Answer E: Good musicians is a totally irrelevant idea.

When will video explanations of the Oct. 2015 test be available on 7sage?

Hi,

On this question I narrowed it down to C and D. But even though I've read a couple explanations on it, I don't see why D is glaringly wrong. I feel like C isn't fair enough because it has words like "chance" and "try to identify" which means that either way, some people will probably be left out and it still won't be fair. But in D, if everyone gets denied the rebate, then no one gets it, which means no one has an unfair opportunity.

I just couldn't find a helpful explanation because everyone just rules D off as "obviously unfair," and I guess I'm feeling kind of blind right now!!!!

I'm looking at PT44-S2-Q20 and the explanation for why A) and D) are wrong raised a question for me. In the explanation, it sounds to me that just because A causes B, A can happen sometimes without B happening.

JY gives the example that smoking causes lung cancer. But just because you smoke doesn't mean that you get lung cancer. Normally if B is a necessary condition of A, then A always guarantees B. But from what he's saying it sounds like for a causal relationship, B does not always have to happen when A happens? Is it because there is a distinction between "tends to cause" and "cause" ?

Thanks!

Julia

Hi, this is the first time writing anything on the board, so I'm a bit nervous, so bear with me.

I am preparing for December LSAT.

Last week, I have finished going through PTs until 70. And I would say I was averaging some bumps up and down occasionally from 163 to 166. I planned to go through from 51-73 twice until December LSAT ( a bit more than a month left).

I am taking two PTs every two days (of course BR afterward), and for the last 10 days, I am planning on taking two PTs everyday.

Yesterday, I've taken 59 and 60. So far, I am averaging about 170-ish, a couple 167+ and a couple 173+.

I am planning on taking fresh set of 71, 72, and 73 at the end of each cycle.

My question is:

How important is it to repeatedly practice already-taken-PTs?

I know that taking already-taken-PTs is useful in general and it's pretty much the only thing I can do right now, but when I get a good score on my second round, instead of being happy about it, I'm more skeptical of the score (but of course, I am happy). And when I get a poorer score, I'm just really distressed. From reading lots of posts, I know my schedule is probably something nobody would recommend, but since I am not attacking any new PTs, I get constantly nervous on whether my logic foundation is improving or not through these second round PTs. Although I do try going through every single question as thoroughly as possible as if I'm doing the new test, I constantly doubt if I was solving it out of my logic ability or from a bit of memory left in me. Consequently, I just decided to keep myself busy by keep doing PTs non-stop, so that at least I wouldn't have any regret afterward as to "I could have done A and B and blah blah~"

I know about the burn-out as well. I recently got out of it about a month ago, but I still feel like I would have some regret if I don't really try my 200%. If you ask me whether this plan has been exhausting for me or not, I would say there is exhaustion after going through 8 sections every two days, but it's pretty manageable until now. Add to that, I would say mental exhaustion from doing 8 sections every two days would feel more manageable than anxiety from not studying (although I haven't experienced it yet).

So, I just need a bit of advice on how effective it would be for me to keep following this plan. Or, any advice.

Hello,

I chose E and can't really understand why it is wrong whereas C is correct. Can someone please break down the logic or reasoning behind this argument? Thanks in advance

Hello,

I'm having a hard time understanding why B is incorrect but A is. I chose B because it though it was implying that the children's preexisting condition made them more vulnerable to OPV than kids who don't have that. And I eliminated A because of the phrase "at least a few" because that sounds like a weak defense given they're only taking about "some"

So can someone please explain why B is wrong but A is right? Thank you

I took a few PT tests prior to starting the 7Sage course videos. I am not all but done with the course videos and ready to hit the PT tests heavily. After the first test I did not see my score go up. My question is... after watching the videos, is it typical to see one's score increase only after BR of the PTs? I guess I am just worried that the videos didnt have a redounding affect, and am looking to confirm my thought that it will take many reviews of tests to implement what I have learned...

Thanks for anyone's thoughts ;-)

The writer of the Toni Morrison Jazz passage is this guy,

who then got to have beers with the arresting officer and these two guys!!

Wednesday, October 28th at 8PM ET: PT66

DON’T FORGET TO CLICK THIS LINK: https://join.skype.com/wGTZaVjudu5m

IF YOU DON’T CLICK THIS LINK YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE BR GROUP

Note: