7Sagers,

I’m David, the editor who wrote the Personal Statement course. Have you written a letter of continuing interest? Send it to me and I might edit it for free, as long as I can use it anonymously in a lesson or webinar in the future.

I’ll be picking two LOCI for free editing altogether. Send them to David.Busis (at) gmail.com.

I know how to sort by individual question but what if I want to take tests with the hardest game section or reading section?

I'm wondering how folks actually organize the physical workspace for LG? How and where do you actually write on the paper? I'm kind of old and have done my current job for a couple of decades. In that context I've come to the conclusion that when I'm feeling in the weeds, it's usually reflected in my workspace. If my workspace feels dirty, I feel lost and underwater. Cleaning up the workspace is usually my first action when I have those feelings.

It seems that in the context of LG, the workspace is the page. How do people keep that page organized?

People often discourage erasures. Frequent copying of multiple game boards seems impractical. People also seem to discourage writing on master game boards.

I see the logic of these ideas, but they seem to crash up against reality fairly hard.

For example, if one is translating the rules as one goes, and then drawing inferences one is likely to end up with rules that are entirely represented on the game board and no longer need to take up physical or mental space in the rules list. One must either erase it, cross it out or leave it, none of which make for neat pages. After "crashing" rules together I often end up with a bunch of crossed out or erased rules and have a hard time recognizing which rules must still be considered. Likewise, I often end up with floaters in odd spaces, which doesn't provide clarity.

JY almost always uses his magical eraser when demonstrating because, I assume, it offers clarity. Other times there are obvious edits where the video has been paused and the rules and game boards re-written to provide clarity. That clean clarity seems to be a factor in his speed.

The LSAT allows neither erasers nor editing of the space/time continuum, so how do you folks keep your page relatively clean and organized?

Likewise, how do you handle questions wherein there are too many game boards to copy in a timely fashion. JY handles this by using his magic copy and paste feature and also his magical eraser. Again, I believe that magic is generally prohibited on the LSAT (?) and thus not an option. How do you handle conditions that are added by question stems without writing on your master boards?

Flaw Intensive (with Sage Jimmy Dahroug)

Wednesday 3/9 at 7pm ET

Sage Jimmy (173) will be taking us to Logical Reasoning: Flaw bootcamp this Wednesday, so get pumped to ramp up your LR skills and join this webinar.

To join the webinar, please do the following:

Flaw Intensive with Jimmy

Wed, Mar 9, 2016 7pm ET

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

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/220506293

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States +1 (872) 240-3212

Access Code: 220-506-293

Note on all webinars: Only the live webinars are free and open to the public. No recordings will be made publicly available, but we do make webinar recordings available to 7sage's students as part of the paid course. So if you want to get some great webinar content for free, be sure to attend the live version. Furthermore, any recording or broadcasting of webinars is strictly prohibited (Periscope, screencapture, etc.) and constitutes a violation of LSAC's copyright. Copyright infringement is not a good way to start a legal career.

I am currently enrolled in an upcoming Blueprint course starting April 6, taking the test in June. I have saved up enough money to quit working for the next three months so apart from school I'll be as free as I can be. I'm wondering if there is anybody out there that can share their experience of pairing these two services. Is it really necessary to purchase the Ultimate+ 7Sage package in this situation? If not then which package in your opinion will supplement my Blueprint course best (starter)?.

I have a question regarding strengthen and weaken questions: If I am stuck between two AC's, could I simply try to put both of them into the argument, one at a time, and see which strengthen/weakens more?

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/introducing-new-drugs-strengthen-question

Looking to get a better idea of the logic on answer choice E, which is an incorrect answer choice.

I understand that A is the correct choice because reasoning from an example which is already the best case compared to alternatives strengthens the argument, given the premises.

Comment from @DumbHollywoodActor was helpful in shedding some light on E's logic:

(E) mixes up the logic. If you take the contrapositive, you can see it more clearly: “if most new drugs shouldn’t be on the market, then the new antihistamine shouldn’t be on the market.” The argument provides the necessary condition, but that doesn’t mean it gets to conclude the sufficient condition.

However, I would like to understand this statement better: The argument provides the necessary condition, but that doesn’t mean it gets to conclude the sufficient condition.

We must accept the premises and the conclusion as true for LSAT questions. I get that if we accept the premise as true, that is affirming the necessary condition of the logic in choice E. But, if we accept the conclusion as true, that also satisfies the sufficient condition of the logic.

Put simply, after reading the argument I am left with these two true pieces of information:

P: antihistamine should not be on the market (A)

C: these new drugs should not be on the market (B)

then E gives me this logic of "these new drugs should not be on the market" --> "antihistamine should not be on the market"

So, I'm left looking at that B--> A statement, and holding A and B in my hands, with no understanding of where to plug them in. If I plug B in, then I get A, but apparently that is not the correct answer.

Is it because the reasoning in this argument is inductive (that is, moving from a specific example to a general rule) and so it isn't helpful to say that "this general rule is the case" therefore "this specific examples is the case," since the argument is not applying a rule, but rather trying to support one?

For the modules like the strengthen and weaken question types, should I power my way through all of the problem sets I have available or should I take a more gradual approach (one to two sets per q-type per day)?

I have found the one star and two star questions to be very easy but the three star are very challenging and the four star seem out of my league entirely. Just curious if there is an ideal method to go through them. Thank you in advance.

Hello all,

I am really stuck on how to decide which school to attend. My top choice school is not giving me a lot of money but is in the top 50. My other schools which are way lower ranked are giving me either a full tuition or a little more than that. It is a question of debt or no debt?

Should I look at the amount of money the school is giving me, OR should I care more about the school’s ranking, reputation, alumni network etc?

Please give me any thoughts, advice, suggestions! I would really appreciate it :)

So I scored a 151 on the Feb LSAT; I did about 11 weeks of self prep with moderate effort. I admit, the LSAT was tougher than I expected, and that's why I'm here. I know that many people prep for the LSAT for months, and sometimes years. This is just not realistic for me. I'm curious, in this community's opinion, what amount of time do I need to dedicate to raising my score into the mid to high 150s? Really aiming for a 157. I know LSAC says their data indicate that most 2nd timers improve 2.8 points, and 3rd timers 2.2, on average. I'm looking to realize those improvements on my second run. Thanks for your input.

Hey 7Sagers, our wonderful editor, @david.busis, has just released a new class - Résumé - in the Personal Statement Intro Course. It's got nine lessons to help you craft an ideal resume.

If you're already enrolled in the course, you can start with the lessons here: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/overview

If you're not already enrolled in the course, you should enroll!

Here's an excerpt - Lesson One

How Important Is Your Résumé?

The average admissions officer spends all of thirty seconds looking at your résumé. Nevertheless, she’ll probably look at it before she does anything else, and it may prime her to read the rest of your application more or less generously.

Keep in mind that (1) judges and lawyers put a huge amount of stock in small details, and (2) you want to signal to the adcom that you’ll be employable when you send your résumé out after law school. Thus, it’s incredibly important that your résumé is error-free, legible, and indicative of good judgment.

What Sections Should You Include?

Most résumés should have four sections:

1. Experience

Include both jobs and internships. Note promotions and other accomplishments.

2. Education

Include degrees, distinctions such as magna cum laude, and academic awards. If you’re still in college, Education should be your first section.

3. Activities

Include community service and other extra-curriculars.

4. Personal

Include skills (e.g. computer programming, piano), languages (other than English), and interests or hobbies.

You might want to give your sections slightly different names and emphases. For example, instead of an Activities section, you might have a Post-College Activities section.

Length

Your résumé should be one page unless you have a very good reason to go longer. The vast majority of applicants do not. Here are some examples of reasons to add a second page:

I recently received my acceptance and scholarship notice via email from my first choice school. (Thank you 7Sage)

Is it recommended that I return a thank you email to both emails?

Thanks!

I scored a brutal 144 last October without much preparation, and English being my third language didn't make it any easier. :( Then I picked up 7sage and couldn't let go for the next 5 months, I spent about 30 hours weekly going through all the lessons, PS, timed PTs and explanations. Just checked my score today for the February exam, got a 160. I'm quiet satisfied tbh. Thank you 7sage for helping me get closer to my dream, I couldn't have done it without you.

I also registered for the June exam today, hopefully this time I will crack 165+! The major concern I have is that will my 144 score hinder my overall law school application?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-3-question-13

I can't see the difference between the flaw in B and the the flaw in the incorrect answer choices....

See here: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/the-embezzler-weaken-question

The Embezzler (weaken EXCEPT question)

This question gave a lot of people trouble, particularly regarding why answer choice (C) weakened the argument. After reflection, I believe I may have unpacked the reason why this is a clear cut wrong answer choice. However, I am wondering how C does not straight up contradict the conclusion of the argument, which we are not supposed to do in weaken questions. I am grateful for any input or feedback on this attempt. Let's begin!

minor premise: embezzler had special knowledge and access

sub-conclusion/major premise 1: embezzler is an accountant or actuary

major premise 2: an accountant would probably not make the mistake which revealed the embezzlement

main conclusion: it is likely that the embezzler is an actuary

Answer choice (C) states that there are 8 accountants and 2 actuaries

This is where things got dicey. Many people felt that the premise that "an accountant would probably not make the mistake" affected the probability that answer choice (C) was hinting at. However,there seem to be two major assumptions made to jump from the premise that "an accountant probably would not make the mistake" to the conclusion that "it is likely an actuary is the embezzler." First, the assumption that, because an accountant probably would not make the mistake, that therefore an actuary probably would make the mistake. Second, and this is a huge unstated assumption, the person who made the mistake is the person who committed the crime.

For example, even if we accept that an actuary has a greater likelihood of making the mistake that led to the discovery of the crime, is it not possible that an actuary could make the mistake but not have committed the crime? Therefore, the likelihood of committing the mistake and the likelihood of committing the crime are separate and distinct from each other. Conflating the two is a major assumption of the argument and a major reason for confusion on answer choice (C).

If we separate the assumption that the person who committed the mistake is the person that committed the crime from the conclusion that an actuary likely committed the crime we can use simple probability in looking at answer choice (C). Granted, this requires us to assume that of all accountant and actuary employees at XYZ Corporation, each person had an equal chance of either committing or not committing the crime. However, this lets us avoid introducing confusion of who was more likely to have committed the crime versus who was more likely to have made the mistake that led to the discover of the crime. Then the answer choice weakens the argument by stating that we would have to concede it seems there is greater probability that an accountant was the person who committed the crime.

That solves it for me.

However, I would really appreciate insight on how this answer choice does not both (1) directly contradict the conclusion and (2) avoids the assumptions that provide the support from premise to conclusion.

Regarding (1), C in English becomes It is likely that an accountant is the embezzler; this is in direct contradiction to the stated conclusion in the stimulus that "it is likely an actuary is the embezzler." Maybe it depends on the definition of "likely?" In other sources, I see it means, possible to be true, but I also see at as being used as probable (that is, in probability we could not say that it is probable if there was actually only a 20% chance, as is the case of actuaries being the culprit in answer choice (C)).

We accept the premises and conclusion as true, as we must for weaken questions. Now if I told you that there is an 80% probability of an accountant being the embezzler, how could you seriously hold on to the truth of your conclusion that "it is likely an actuary is the embezzler?" Unless likely is meant as "could be true?"

Regarding (2), the support provided by the major premise that an accountant would probably not make the mistake ties into the conclusion by (a) assuming the person who commits the mistake also committed the crime and (b) that the actuary is more likely to commit the mistake. Answer choice (C) doesn't go after any of these. It instead focuses on the probability of the person who committed the crime, which seems just attacks the conclusion directly and changes it's outcome.

In other words, looking at the unstated assumption which conflates those who made the mistake with those who committed the crime, the main conclusion really just states a probability that has no relation to the rest of the argument except via extreme assumptions. Then answer choice C directly changes this probability.

After further parsing this, I would actually say the major conclusion does not follow from the premises and that the argument has made the flaw of confusing likelihood of committing the crime with likelihood of making the mistake. The detective spent all his time discussing the likelihood of the mistake but then expressed his conclusion as one of likelihood of committing the crime (which we know nothing about). C introduces information about the likelihood of the occupation for those who could have committed the crime. But this entirely shifts the detective's erroneous conclusion.

Thanks!

Proctors: They were friendly. Did their job well in keeping everybody separated by one chair between each test taker and verified materials that were brought into the room.

Facilities: Test Center was located off campus in a small strip mall in a small building owned by the school. Clean and comfortable but kind of chilly. Take a sweater.

What kind of room: it was a big open room with various long tables as opposed to desks. There were about 5 test takers at each table with a chair in between each.

How many in the room: I think there were about 25 people

Desks: None, just long tables.

Left handed accommodations: Not sure what this means but, ok,sure.

Parking: ample parking.

Time elapsed from arrival to test: about 20 minutes

Irregularities or mishaps: I initially thought the test was on campus so I was wandering around campus looking for the test center. When I finally arrived to the testing center, they said it was off campus. I was almost late. Another thing that happened was that some guy showed up without a passport photo. He wanted to leave to go get a picture as required and they would not let him because he would have been late. He was unable to test that day.

Would you test here again?: no, I took my LSAT the first time here and the second time I went about a half hour further to get to another testing center. I'll review that one later.

Date of Exam: June 2015

Proctors:

Friendly, but didn't give 5 minute warning

Facilities:

Fine

What kind of room:

Small Classroom

How many in the room:

20 something

Desks:

small individual desks with attached chairs

Left-handed accommodation:

N/A

Noise levels:

Fairly quiet

Parking:

N/A

Time elapsed from arrival to test:

A little over half an hour

Other Comments:

I was placed in one room and after I got settled I was moved to another

Would you take the test here again?

Only if I knew I'd have better desks

Date of Exam: 06/8/2015

Proctors:

Friendly, but it wasn't very organized so it took a very long time to get everyone sorted into classrooms

Facilities:

Fine

What kind of room:

Large Classroom

How many in the room:

20 something

Desks:

Long table with 2 or 3 people, plenty of room and comfortable chairs

Left-handed accommodation:

N/A

Noise levels:

Fairly quiet

Parking:

N/A

Time elapsed from arrival to test:

Nearly 3 hours

Irregularities or mishaps:

Nothing, besides the late delay and having to count the tests a couple of times

Would you take the test here again?

I would if I knew they'd be more efficient

Date of Exam: 10/3/2015

Who was questioned? Who confessed? Who is Keyser Soze?

Find out tonight on BR group!

Tuesday, Mar 8th at 8PM ET: PT 53

Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/219480381

You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.

United States +1 (571) 317-3112

Access Code: 219-480-381

June BR Group Schedule: http://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/6171/june-test-takers-group-br-schedule-updated

Hope to see you there. I’ll be there at 9pm.

Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

Note:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-02

Hey! Can someone explain to me why for (section 1 Q2) the answer is B? Frederick does not comment on representing genres at all......or did I miss something?

I am planning to take June and JFKU is one of the few centers nearby. However, I heard the seating at JFKU law in both Oct and February was very bad and multiple people were seated on the same desk.

If you took the test at JFKU recently, can you describe how seating was for you or message me?

I am have now completed my personal statement. I know it needs a lot of improvement and I would like for someone to please revise it for me.

Please and thanks in advance!

Hello all: Scored a 151 on the Feb exam with moderate self prep-perfectly average-I'm aiming for a 157. I know it seems that so many people who post on LSAT sites bemoan their mid 160s score. I've come to believe that there are a lot of score fibbers out there, or the top 10% of LSAT takers disproportionately post and complain compared to all LSAT takers. Either way, we in the 148-153 range have the numbers-the overwhelming majority. As such, I'm working, like most of you, to get out of the "middle" and into the 154-158: 60% to 75% range. Anyway, my question is about the curriculum itself; I'm a bit unclear about the approach, do you recommend sitting for all of the lessons via video before attempting the sections in PTs 1-35? Could you advise?

.

I have my mind set on going to law school in the Fall of 2017 and i want to know if i should be taking the test in september or december of 2016? Will this even make a difference? I dont want to take to test for June because i feel i can get better but i dont want to pass the deadline for next years admission.