I'm very eager to ask the question below when I attend this Thursday's personal statement webinar with 7Sage's resident expert, @david.busis. But I wanted to throw it out to you all, as well, to get your thoughts on the matter.

Which approach to writing my personal statement (PS) is preferrable:

OPTION 1: Crafting my PS alone, revising the hell out of it, then obtaining PS edit(s) from David or another expert.

OPTION 2: Reaching out to David or another expert for help BEFORE I begin writing my PS so that I have assistance in selecting a topic, drafting, revising, etc.

OPTION 3: Some other ideas that you brilliant people have done that I have yet to think of.

I know which option I'm leaning towards, but I won't say because I'd definitely like an unvarnished opinion from all of you first.

Here's some helpful context: I am not taking the LSAT until September and if a December re-take becomes necessary, I won't be applying to schools until January. Yet as David says in the initial video to his awesome "PS Intro. Course", it's always a good time to "stop fucking around" get started on the PS because "revising is the essence of writing".

Moreover, law school consultant Mike Spivey that the vast majority of people have an underwhelming PS that fails to differentiate them among their fellow applicants.

With David and Mike's advice in mind, I want to get a jump start on making my PS as strong as possible. Thanks in advance to any of you who aid me in this process.

Talk to your heart’s content at Group BR

Thursday, Feb 11th at 8PM ET: PT 74

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

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

NOTE: I front-loaded the PT 70 - 75 because I believe that people need to get eyes on 70s sooner rather than later. We’ll still have PT 76 and 77 available to PT in May. Trust me when I say it is worth it to do these tests twice. And if you don’t feel comfortable hitting the 70s yet, don’t worry. We’re going to repeat this cycle of PT 70-75 at the end of February just in case.

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

Note:

I've noticed that I've been getting 100% on logic game sets that have a difficulty of 1/5 or perhaps 2. I get 1-2 wrong on anything above 3....

The bright side is that I'm getting sets correct but I'd like to ask what the usual distribution of difficulty is on actual logic game sections? Like... 1 easy, 2 medium and 1 difficult or is it always random?

I noticed that, every now and then, I would bubble in 1- 2 answer choices that are different from the booklet. It is, of course, my carelessness, but I am wondering if there are any tactics I could use. I often make the mistake of circling the adjacent letter of my intended answer, or bubbling in the previous answer choice.

Thanks!

When I'm going through the course (particularly the problem sets) and I notice I'm not doing well, should I go do more practice problems from the question bank or move on to the next chapter on my syllabus after finishing all the practice problem sets?

Just curious if anyone has noticed if there is a correlation with the law schools that are soliciting you post LSAT to apply with fee waivers with acceptances?

Proctors: Pretty good overall. Stuck to time, no errors with the alarm (had my own watch so it wasn't really an issue). Friendly and gave clear instructions. Had spare pencils as well.

Facilities: OK. Pretty old building and the layout is somewhat confusing. Could only find one bathroom (can fit maybe 7 people at the same time).

What kind of room: auditorium with those swivel desks.

How many in the room: 25ish or so.

Desks: swivel type, not that much space. leave the booklet on your lap.

Left-handed accommodation: didn't notice any.

Noise levels: none, dead quiet.

Parking: Unknown. Looks like there were some street level parking. I took public transit.

Time elapsed from arrival to test: 15 minutes. Proctor wanted to wait a bit for people to show up, we had about 1/3 absentee.

Irregularities or mishaps: none

Other comments: This place ran slightly cold. This was summer so AC was probably on full-blast. Pack a light sweater if testing in June.

Would you take the test here again? Yes because its easy to get to.

Date[s] of Exam[s]: June 2015

Proctors: Pretty good overall. Stuck to time, no errors with the alarm (had my own watch so it wasn't really an issue). Friendly and gave clear instructions. Had spare pencils as well.

Facilities: Excellent. This looks like a relatively new building and was very clean. Plenty of bathrooms/water fountains.

What kind of room: Classroom lecture style, seats 100+.

How many in the room: 40ish or so.

Desks: 5 or 6 feet long desks, plenty of space. Chairs are steel case office type chairs (these are around $750 retail) with a lot of options for adjustment.

Left-handed accommodation: Not applicable since these are desks.

Noise levels: none. Room appears to have some sort of noise dampening material, no windows in the room so I assume it wasn't facing street or anything.

Parking: Unknown. Looks like there were some street level parking. I took public transit.

Time elapsed from arrival to test: 10 mins or so from advertised start time to actual start time (getting people seated, in the right place etc).

Irregularities or mishaps: none

Other comments: The room I took the test in was very bright; however it was slightly warm and I rather have it a bit colder since you can layer up.

Would you take the test here again? No -- because it is too far from where I live, nothing wrong with the place though.

Date[s] of Exam[s]: Oct 2015

We're so excited to be bringing you five (yes, five!) FREE webinars this week, including one special panel event.

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.

Skip It! Skipping Strategies Panel (with JY Ping, Allison Gill Sanford, Corey Janson, Jimmy Dahroug, and Nicole Hopkins)

Friday 2/16 at 9pm ET

One of the hottest topics around, this all-start panel will explore each of our methodologies for skipping questions. This is not to be missed!

In preparation, get this song stuck in your head:

To join the webinar, please do the following:

Skip It! Skipping Strategies Panel (w/ JY, Jimmy, Allison, Corey, Nicole)

Tue, Feb 16, 2016 8:00 PM - 9:30 PM CST

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

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/311603285

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States +1 (408) 650-3123

Access Code: 311-603-285

From the lessons we learn that "the only" indicator falls into the category of Group 1 to support a sufficient idea, whereas "only" clauses support necessary conditions. This is really confusing to me.. could someone elaborate on the difference by drawing on examples please? (The Jedi->Force example didn't get me any clearer..)

Here is my take:

Only human beings can have souls = Have souls -> Human beings

The only human beings can have souls = Human beings -> Have Souls

I know the lawgical translations are correct mechanistically, but those two sentences sounds more or less identical to me. Thanks for your help!

While working on main point of argument i noticed that some do not have conclusion indicators but i might see counter premise indicators (However is one that i see) i noticed in some videos that but was also a indicator.. are there any videos or can anyone on here help explain what to do when you comes across these types of words.

Thanks!

What condition indicator is ONLY IF?!?!?

Check the first figure and what Bernie actually said. Free tuition --> most educated nation

NPR: most educated nation -> ~free tuition

it's half mistaken reversal

http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/02/17/466730455/fact-check-bernie-sanders-promises-free-college-will-it-work

Finally finished the curriculum today, (except when upgrading to + this week, may have a little more coming) I know it took a while, I was just really trying to make sure to build a strong foundation before jumping into drilling and PTs, well, good thing is finally finished first part of the race.

But here is my concern; I have attended a few webinars (which was great btw) and I realize that all those experts seem to be on the same page with one thing when it comes to drilling, that is drill the "whole sections" and "timed", instead of doing the same question types. Only doing the same question types during curriculum period when you are learning the question types, but when you move onto drilling period, drilling the entire section with different question types and timed. This is the message I think I have gotten from everyone If i'm not mistaken.

I wasn't fortune enough to have access to the "bundle" 7 sage used to offer before the PDF regulation, therefore I went and purchased the Cambridge bundle instead. I now have all PTs from 40 to 77, 5 sections, and 1 to 38 grouped by types and difficulties, but this seems have become an issue in complying with the valuable drilling advise given from those heartwarming, helpful LSAT experts from our forum. Because I won't have the "entire section" to drill from 1 to 38 since they have already broken them down into types and difficulties, and I know I shouldn't waste PT 40 and above as drilling material either, therefore, what should I do? I double checked the Cambridge website just to see if they offer alternative options, but they seem have broken them down into types and difficulties for "all" bundles involving 1 to 38. There wasn't an option for older PTs having the "complete, entire sections" without being grouped and rearranged..

It would be greatly appreciated if anyone could be so kind pointing me to the right direction.

Thank you so much in advance.

http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/lomio_etal-rp20.pdf

I've been stuck in the mid-150s for the last 6 months and I just don't know what to do. I've taken a Blueprint Prep Course, gone through the PowerScore LG and LR Bibles, and read through the LSAT Trainer. I don't want to try another LSAT prep course because I feel like they'll just do the same thing BluePrint did and give me some short-cut tricks that don't help at all.

I have significant problems with RC and LR; missing -9 to -12 on RC and -7 on both LR sections. I've gotten better on LG thanks to 7sage's full-proof method, and have gotten it down to -6. Unfortunately, LG is what's bringing up my score. I Blind Review every RC and LR section, but it's beginning to seem like I'm wasting my time because I'm not learning anything. I can eliminate 4 incorrect answer choices under untimed review, but I just can't seem to finish any sections during timed prep. This test is beginning to stress me out.

Thus far, I've taken the LSAT once (scored 155) after pushing back the test like 3 times. I postponed the February test after, again, scoring 155 on PT59. I hear stories and read posts about people going from my score range to high 160s or even mid-170s after a few weeks, but nothing is working for me. Makes me feel like I'm defective or something. What am I doing wrong?

We're so excited to be bringing you three more FREE webinars this week:

Active Reading in LR and RC (with Sage Corey Janson)

Friday 2/16 at 9pm ET

Back (and expanded!) by popular demand, Sage Corey (176) will delight and inspire students at all stages of prep as he shares his strategies for active reading in LR and RC. This webinar was extremely popular when he offered it for LR, so we've asked him to share those LR strategies as well as strategies for RC. Do NOT miss out on this free, live event. Corey will be taking your questions so get ready to learn from one of the very best.

To join the webinar, please do the following:

Active Reading with Sage Corey Janson

Wed, Feb 17, 2016 8:00 PM - 10:00 PM CST

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

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/401513101

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States +1 (872) 240-3212

Access Code: 401-513-101

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.

Proctors: 3 Japanese proctors. I believe they all spoke English quite well. They were friendly and professional.

Facilities: A large classroom on the third floor of their downtown Tokyo campus building. Well lit and quiet. Toilets literally a few feet down the hall from testing classroom. A nice break room/lounge/cafeteria sort of space for the break time. It had several long tables, a few vending machines and a couple couches.

What kind of room: A large classroom.

How many in the room: 20-30

Desks: Standard three person wide desk/tables, with 2 students at each desk separated on either end of the tables. More than ample space.

Left-handed accommodation: Large desks so would definitely not be a problem. Not sure if you would get a specific side of the desk or anything if you asked though.

Noise levels: Very quiet. The building seemed closed except for test takers and perhaps a few students who knew about the back entrance and had business on the weekends. Only saw one other person during the test day there.

Parking: None. Being Tokyo most people came by train or were dropped off by someone or a taxi in front of the school.

Time elapsed from arrival to test: Seemed quite speedy compared to my U.S. test experience. Think we actually started moving around 8:35-8:40 and then the test soon after the pre-test materials were finished.

Irregularities or mishaps: None whatsoever.

Other comments: Like most things in Japan; it was professional, well-run and went off without a hitch.

Would you take the test here again? Yes and I am next weekend. I can update this if anything changes.

Date[s] of Exam[s]: Dec. 2015 / Feb. 28th, 2016 (future)

Hi All,

I'm happy to report that I received an email on Friday that I was accepted to one of the schools to which I applied. I'm waiting to hear on another, and I'm considering applying to another one or two.

I decided to go the mental check-out route after submitting my apps, meaning that I didn't allow myself to think much about it or obsess over receiving an answer. The good news is that it only took about 10 business days for my first answer.

That being said, this is where I feel like sh*t gets real. I have to look at the annual sticker price of ~$44k in the face and decide how I'm going to figure this out. I'm at a point where I feel like it's not worth doing this, unless I cover at least half or two-thirds of tuition with scholarships and fellowships. I've already paid (cash or fed loans) nearly $100k for my bachelor's and master's (yay for free community college associate's).

I'm in the process of submitting for a health fellowship (which was the meat of my personal statement), as well as other internal/external scholarships.

What are your thoughts on deciding whether or not to go at all, once accepted? The point of going to law school for me is to

a) prepare for a career that I feel better suits me intellectually and

b) alter my career trajectory in healthcare (I've been in allied health for almost a decade now, and would prefer to be on the other side, fixing a rather broken system which affects my patients, and me, as a clinician).

Any thoughts appreciated. I didn't get into HYS, and nor do I think that it's necessary for my career goals at this point. The schools to which I'm applying rank better than whatever #85 is right now.

We're so excited to be bringing you five (yes, five!) FREE webinars this week, including one special panel event.

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.

Blind Review with Sage Jimmy Dahroug

Friday 2/16 at 6pm ET

Sage Jimmy (173) is offering an intensive on the Blind Review process. He will open your eyes to the proper way to do Blind Review (BR), and show why BR is a necessary condition for improvement on the LSAT.

This webinar is for anyone who feels a little bit like Aria at the end of GoT season 5.

To join the webinar, please do the following:

Blind Review with Sage Jimmy Dahroug

Tue, Feb 16, 2016 5:00 PM - 6:30 PM CST

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

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/735993645

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States +1 (872) 240-3212

Access Code: 735-993-645

Hello! I have a very basic question. This is a bit long, but I appreciate anyone who would provide some thoughts on this.

Q: If an argument commits the necessary, but not sufficient flaw, does it also commit the sufficient, but not necessary flaw?

This question came about after I read two examples in the Trainer:

Example 1: "Everyone who boards the plane has to show his or her ticket to the attendant. Since Tom has shown his ticket, he will be allowed to board the plane."

B -> S

S

------

B

The trainer understood this to be a necessary, but not sufficient flaw (S is necessary, but not sufficient for B). But couldn't you also say that B is sufficient, but not necessary for S?

Example 2: "Every time you drink, you end up feeling sick the next day. You say you are sick today. You must have gone drinking yesterday."

D -> S

S

---

D

The training understood this to be a sufficient, but not necessary flaw (D is sufficient, but not necessary for S). But similarly, couldn't you say that S is necessary, but not sufficient for D?

When I first read this, I was very confused by the fact that two identical argument structures have two "different flaws," which is why I wonder if the two flaws are the same.

I then read this for a bit and now think that the two flaws are different. The two arguments seem to have different emphasis. What makes the first example a "necessary, but not sufficient" is the keywords "he will be allowed to board," which is different from "he must board." I think, if you were to make this change, the first example would be more intuitively a sufficient, but not necessary flaw.

"Everyone who boards the plane has to show his or her ticket to the attendant. Since Tom has shown his ticket, he must have boarded the plane."

What do you think? Since this is so foundational, I appreciate any comments about this. Thanks!

Even though the question stem doesn't explicitly say "which one of the following could be a *COMPLETE AND ACCURATE* list of people selected" like what most of other questions do, do I still need to automatically assume that the list needs to be complete? Are they the same thing?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-9-section-3-game-3

Hey guys,

I was just looking for some specific PTs, mainly the newer ones, that are available for download and discovered that Cambridge is still licensed to sell PDFs of every PT. They also have some awesome Bundles including one for all Logic Games from PTs 1-70 for $90 (instead of $295 for purchasing them separately). If you don't need all of those but want to do JY's method for the games using PTs 1-35/38 they also have a bundle for that, which is only $42.

Just wanted to share this since I was driving myself crazy using the copy machine every time I wanted to make extra copies for a game from one of the 10 Actuals books I have, which incidentally don't include PTs 1-6, 8 or 17.

Hope this helps!

Happy studies :)

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-75-section-1-question-19

Hi everyone! I am really confused on this question.. I understand how the correct answer (B) explains why the average in the country as a whole went down, but I don't understand how it explains how the average in each region went up.

Any help would be awesome!

Thank you!

Hello 7sages,

I'm confused about such rules as shown in the title, and I will use some of the examples from the PTs

(Spoiler Alert)

1. Exactly twice as many of the film buffs see the Hitchcock film as see the Fellini film

2. At least many French novels as Russian novels are selected.

3. At least twice as many roses as orchids must be used.

I'm quite confused which one is more, hope you can give me some advice, thank you!