Hi I was hoping someone could answer a question that i have been struggling with. In the question stem what is the difference between "reasoning" and "argument"? Such as Flaw questions 1. "A major flaw in the argument is that the argument".... 2. "The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument"...

Im having trouble finding definitive definitions for the following aspects of the LSAT

1. Reasoning

2. Structure

3. Logical- such as "logically follows" or "logical features"

So. I told my boss yesterday that I would be sitting out this application cycle as my LSAT mark was a 159. My cGPA is a 3.34, L2 is a 3.66.

But… he told me not to. He said I could likely get into a school.

To be specific, I live in Canada. I was going to sit out this cycle, but I’m been perusing some threads and I see people with similar stats who have gotten into USask, Lakehead, Western, Queens, Windsor, and Thompson Rivers. Sometimes with even lower stats.

I am both a competitive bodybuilder and soccer player, I have quite a bit of volunteer experience, I am sponsored by two different companies, and I have worked for a criminal/employment law firm for over 2 years now. My boss is the managing partner and would likely agree to submit a reference on my behalf for Thompson Rivers.

I guess my question is…. should I apply?

I was originally going to retake in June and give myself a lot of cushion room for improvement because my PT scores ranged from low 160s to as high as a 170. I know I have potential to increase my LSAT mark, so I’m also wondering… should I re-write in December?

The worst case scenario, I get the same mark or worse (all schools I’m applying take only your best mark).

The best case scenario, I am able to raise my LSAT by a few points and make myself even more competitive. The drawback of that is not getting accepted and having to wait to re-write the LSAT until December 2015 instead of in June because it would be my third take.

I have been working with @nicole.hopkins on RC and there is still slightly over a month until the December LSAT.

SORRY. So long winded. I’m just on the fence.

How is A a sufficient assumption? I didn't like any of the answer choices, so I pretty much guessed on this one. I thought A was the least attractive answer choice because it lacks the conditional nature that is typical for sufficient assumptions. My understanding of the argument is this:

We can't figure out how effective a certain model cleans simply be looking at how powerful the motor is. This is because the efficiency varies a lot, even with identical motors.

The sufficient assumption I was looking for was this: if efficiency varies (even with identical motor power), then we can't determine how effective the model cleans.

How does A paraphrase this?

*

I am preparing my application (to start LS next year). My question is concerning the addendum: Should I write one? In Peru, I did two years of medical school (1997-1998). Didn't graduate. Students, in Peru, enter medical school directly after high school graduation. Those two years had the equivalent of 22.50 credits of pre-med. My university, here, accepted my credits so I didn't have to take all the credits required for my bachelor degree.

Here comes my issue: First, should I write an addendum about why I chose medical school 18 years ago: I was young and stupid; didn't know what I wanted. Second, during those two years I got most Cs, one A, and one B (GPA 2.5 according my school in the US). I graduated from a FL university with a GPA 4. Do I need to write about why those grades differ so much even though it happened 18 years ago.

My school in FL has the grades and courses from Peru in its transcripts. LSAC also has the transcripts from my Peruvian university (LSAC wanted to do their own evaluation).

Thank you so much for your help

Really struggled with this on the exam, and I still missed it during BR. Specifically, I had a really tough time differentiating answers A, B, C, and D. Can someone help me out with those answer choices? Here is my breakdown:

TV show MOST depend on ad funding

TV show MOST cancelled with no ad funding

Ad funding----->Some people watching buy the advertised products

Most people don't buy the advertised products------>Shows cancelled soon

Thus, person who thinks a show is worth preserving------>should buy the stuff advertised during the show.

What I am looking for: I need something that concludes that people should buy the advertised stuff.

Answer A: This is what I chose, but it doesn't fit the facts of the passage. All we know is that MOST TV shows would be cancelled with no ad funding, and that if MOST people don't buy the products, the show sill be cancelled. This answer choice is too certain about the inevitability of cancellation.

Answer B: I don't understand how this answer choice is that different from A. How do we know about the certainty of cancellation?

Answer C: We don't know if the TV show is ACTUALLY worth preserving, only that someone "feels"/believes that it is.

Answer D: What makes this one incorrect? If B is correct, how is this one incorrect?

Answer E: "Feel most strongly?" This was the only one I could confidently eliminate since we don't care about the degree of caring.

.

Hi all, I'm posting so as to ask for help in regards to how I should be interpreting my PT scores. When I take the LSAT this coming December, I'm aiming for a 169+. If I don't get that, I'm retaking. Also, come December I intend to have taken at least 35 PTs. I'm working towards that goal now, and am about 2/5ths of the way through.

I don't know what to make of my PT scores. I've been told that people generally score lower on the real test than they do on PTs, which is worrying to me, given that my current average is roughly a 170. In any case, I'm curious as to what kind of PT scores people who have taken the test and who have score at or about my goal were averaging. I'm wondering basically whether the fact that I'm not doing better, or the potential that I might not do substantially do better as I work my way through the rest of my PTs, is a problem.

Thanks

The February Test. The Undisclosed Test. The Sloth of LSAT family.

If you have no idea what I’m talking about, you need to drop that logic game in your hand and go watch The Goonies. It’s a classic, and you’ve no right being a lawyer if you’ve never seen it! Go watch it. :)

Wednesday, October 28th at 8PM ET: PT48

DON’T FORGET TO CLICK THIS LINK: https://join.skype.com/w7McAagFN3pf

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

Note:

What kind of jobs are out there for lower ranked law schools? I'm talking 70+ up to the 90s but no unranked schools. Michigan State University is one example.

Hey LSAT Team,

I am aiming to take the February test. I'm almost done with the curriculum, have about 5 full sections left and some problem sets (I have Ultimate + though so there are a LOT of problem per curriculum set). I plan to finish up the curriculum this week (expect for the entire problem sets).

I wanted to confirm to myself I will not be ready for the Dec test, so I just took PT 52 (it's the lowest test I have in my possession at the moment) and got a 162. The break down is:

-11 LR: Almost exclusively in the "harder parts" between Q's 17-25

-4 LG: missed 2 from silly mistakes

-8 RC: I'd say I got lucky here because I guessed correctly on 2 of 4 Q's

BRed a 168 without even trying to BR the games (I don't know why, I don't find it very useful compared to full re-drilling them after a bit of time but I know I should).

With a full time job, what do ya'll think should I do from here to February? Obviously finish the lessons in at the top of my priority but should I actually go back and do ALL the problem sets by question type?

I have about 3 full month left to the test which means I can get anywhere from 15-25 PT's in between I would say. Depending on how I decide to spend this up coming prep time. SO the question boils down to 25 PT's with thoroughly BRed and basically nothing else or 15 PT's with drills in between to work on my weakest areas? Particularly focusing on RC which I feel complete inadequate at, at the expense or LG which slowly appears to be clicking for me.

Any and all advice is highly appreciated.

Note: I know a lot of people will tell me: wait for June! But no thank you. I honestly feel I work better when under more pressure and closer deadlines. The idea that I am 8 months away from the test I don't think will work well for me. And if anything, June can be my second chance.

Not looking for a pity party, just some advice from others who have shared similar experiences. I was doing well, scoring in the low160's for the majority of PT's in the 50's... But as I got to PT 58, 59 and 60 I noticed a considerable drop... especially in LR. With 5 weeks left, I'm starting to panic a little.. Should I go back and review some weaknesses or should I just keep trucking through with practice tests/ BR ? My logic games and RC seem to be OK, but now I'm second guessing myself left and right with LR -- I get the answer down to two possible choices and, what it seems like, that I always manage to choose the wrong one. I know I need to tweak the skills of my weak question types, but I feel like nerves are starting to play a factor... I'm much quicker to get flustered and throw my hands up in there ready to say fuck the whole thing. It's been three tests in a row now where I haven't been able to crack 160.. and now I'm about to take another (161). Ugh, the psychological mind fucks on this exam are unparalleled to anything I've ever come across in my life. Any advice is appreciated, cheers!

I found some pratice tests waaaay back from 1993 and up.

Should I bother taking those or are they too old?

So I took the October LSAT and came in at a 169. My dream school is Stanford, which puts me on the 25th percentile in terms of LSAT score. My undergrad LSDAS GPA was calculated to be 3.68 which is a little below 25th percentile. The real GPA was a tenth of a point higher, but I suppose that is irrelevant for my purpose. I would call myself something of a non-traditional law student. I have a Master's in Music, as well as some post grad studies, and was a professional classical guitarist/instructor for five or so years and have traveled much of the world. I only list these last things out of hope that they might somehow set me apart on my application, though that may be wishful thinking. I'm looking for a little advice here. Should I apply? or would that be tantamount to lighting a $100 bill on fire?

Hi 7sagers, I just had a confusion cause by PT 68 section 2 question 24. JY's explanation is if Hormone causes Stress, then reducing Hormone can reduce stress. However, I always think if A causes B, then it works like conditional logic A--->B, \A does not mean \B. Is A causes B necessarily equal to A--->B? Thank you so much.

Can't understand this question for the life of me. Might be because I don't have a good science background.

The author says explicitly in lines 34-42 that because the "magnetic fields of basalts in NA are aligned quite differently from rocks formed in the same epoch in Europe" this supports the theory of continental drift.

Doesn't (C) undermine this since it talks about some being the same magnetic field alignment? And how is (A) the answer? The seafloor spreading supports contintental drift since it shows that the plates move. Isn't (A) just something additional that we were able to figure out?

A and E were easy to eliminate, would appreciate an explanation for why A is right and C and D are wrong. TIA.

I don't understand how B is the answer. In the lessons regarding weakening, I was under the impression that we were to look for ways to weaken the connection between the Premises and the Conclusion. If the question states that "many human diseases are genetically based," then how does B not just attack the Premises? I mapped out ... human diseases (HD) are genetically based (GB)... HD -> GB. Then some of Cat's (CG) genetics are the same to humans (HG). ... CG(--s--) HG. Then I said Some of Primates (PG) genetics are the same as Humans .... PG (--s--) HG... the conclusion is humans have many diseases (HD) in common with Cats (CD) ...HD --m-->CD

I figured (albeit I now see that it was an incorrect conclusion... I just dont know why) that the question was trying to jump from some cats and some primates genes are the same as humans so therefore Humans have diseases in common with Cats. Answer C could provide a weaker link with the premise/conclusion connection by pointing out that a some correlation does not imply a most correlation.

Any help or guidance would be appreciated.

When I read the question I assumed that the debris hurled into the atmosphere causing the blocking of the sun and extinction of the dinosaurs was only in the Yucatan Peninsula. Which is why answer choice B was attractive and I picked it rather than answer choice E. I understand why E is correct, but can somebody explain why or how I should have assumed the debris from the asteroid was around the world versus just affecting the Yucatan Peninsula?

Did anyone else find these games sections more difficult than usual? I am a pretty consistent -0 to -2 on the games sections, but damn the A, B, and C games sections are brutal. For example, games 3 and 4 on PT A each ate up like 12-13 minutes. I will definitely be redoing these sections in a few weeks. Did anyone else feel the same way about these games?

I don't know where else to ask this but I haven't been able to really log in to my account for a couple days now. I'm "logged in" because I can post this but I can't access any of the course material (can't study!!!!!"

This is the error message:

503: Service Temporarily Unavailable

Too many IP addresses accessing one secure area!

Please contact Support if you need assistance.

Plz help!

I've been PT and BR the last couple of weeks and I want to know if there are advantages to BR on the same test I PT or do I need a separate PT to do my BR? I want to make sure I'm studying the right way.

Hello,

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

Anyone from the Chicago area interested in getting a group together for mock LSAT exam?

I originally planned to knock out each section one at a time. However, the 7sage course syllabus mixes them. I know the 3 sections are all connected (logic reasoning, analysis, etc.), but any good reason for following the 7sage method as opposed to just knocking out all LR, then all LG, then all RC?

Thanks.

Hello,

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