Hi all. I am looking for some input on a realistic timeline to prepare for the LSAT. I am currently active duty Army with about 8.5 months until I start ETS leave and transition into a full time student. Currently I attend a university part time near my post so that is added in along with my full time job. I will have approximately two years of college left once I exit the military. I see this upcoming period to be my best chance to focus on the LSAT and would like to aim to take the LSAT June 2016 or September 2016 if that is more realistic.

My work schedule is the normal military schedule with my day ending around 1700. I have my own office to spend breakfast and lunch break studying which could add about 1.5 to 2 hours of study time throughout the day. Along with this I will have a few classes but nothing too hard or time consuming and after February I will not have any classes at all to worry about. However classes are accelerated.

I am contemplating purchasing the Premium, giving myself right at 6 months of study time to nail concepts and take as many PTs as possible. Then if I am not averaging 170+ over the last 10 PTs look at extending and aiming for September. I already have paper copies of 17-38 and 52-71.

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

December LSAT is LESS than a month away. AAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

Don’t go it alone! Group BR! :)

Wednesday, Nov. 11th at 8PM ET: PT 70

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/wGTZaVjudu5m

Friday, Nov. 13th at 8PM ET: PT B

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

LSATurday, Nov 14th at 8PM ET: PT71

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

MONDAY, November 16th at 11AM ET: PT53

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

Be sure to announce in the comments which group(s) you’re planning on attending.

Note:

I really don't like any of these answer choice, but I was pretty confident when I eliminated D. Can someone explain how D resolves the paradox? In my mind, it makes it weirder.

Right after the war, the area that had been subject to oil fires and oil spills had less contamination than prewar surveys indicated. The surveys also indicated that PAHs were low compared to those in more temperate oil producing areas.

What I am looking for: If the land had been contaminated with all of this bad stuff during the war, then how was their less contamination after the war than before? Maybe the survey was wrong? Maybe some people cleaned up the land?

Answer A: Who cares about the effects. We want to know how there was more contamination.

Answer B: I think this makes the paradox weirder. Shouldn't there have been more PAH compared to that in temperate regions?

Answer C: This is what I chose, but I didn't like it all that much. Even if this is true, this explains why PAHs were low compared to temperate regions, but it doesn't explain anything about before the war levels and after the war levels. What if after the war levels of PAH were higher than before the war, but after the war levels were still lower than the Baltic Sea regions? It fits the facts and makes the paradox weirder.

Answer D: I felt 110% confident eliminating this one, and I can't figure out how this does anything but make the paradox weirder/do nothing. If peacetime oil production results in high levels of PAH and oil dumping, then this could mean two things: 1.) this answer choice is talking about the period of time after the war (which definitely does not help the paradox since we want to know why all of this bad stuff was lower than before the war) or 2.) this is talking about before the war. But if this latter case is what this answer choice is talking about, then wouldn't we need to have the relative contamination effects of oil dumping, oil fires, and oil spills? So yes, during the war, oil production declined (line 4), but a ton of bad contaminating things still happened. How is it OK to assume that the contaminating things in answer choice D (prior to the war) had a greater effect than the stuff that happened during the war? What if they actually had a lesser effect on the environment than the fires and spills during the war? This is a plausible occurrence, consistent with the facts in the passage and facts in the answer choice; this would make the paradox weirder, right? I used this same type of reasoning (coming up with a scenario consistent with the facts) to eliminate C.

Answer E: OK, but why was the contamination less after the war? Wouldn't this imply that the damage wasn't as bad as it could have been, but there was still an increase in damage?

I see why A, C,D, and E are incorrect, but I cannot figure out how B doesn't resolve the paradox. Here is the video explanation: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-4-question-26/

Smoking in bed is the main cause of home fires. Fewer people smoke now than did twenty years ago. But, the number of people killed in home fires hasn't declined.

What I am looking for: What if fewer people smoking decreased smoking related home fires, but another cause increased over that time? What if former smokers substitute smoking for playing with all of their extra matches? Also, there is a difference between people who smoke in bed and smokers in general.

Answer A: This is what I chose, but it is pretty subtle why it is wrong. This is suggesting that smoking related home fires aren't actually deadly, so it's actually not a paradox that the number of deaths didn't decline. It never was a big deal to begin with.

Answer B: If you see what A was doing, then this is the answer you are left with after POE, but I am really struggling to see how this doesn't resolve the paradox. JY is certainty correct in saying that this answer choice presents smoking in bed as a very risky thing: you might fall asleep when the fire starts and die. But, doesn't JY's explanation resolve the paradox? If smoking in bed is an inherently riskier activity, then doesn't it make sense that the number of deaths didn't decline?

Answer C: This definitely resolves the paradox. Just because there are fewer smokers doesn't mean that the right type of smoker has stopped smoking. What if none of those that are most susceptible for starting a fire didn't quit?

Answer D: This addresses the thing that I anticipated. What if another cause of fires increased?

Answer E: This definitely resolves the paradox. If there are more people living together, which can increase the cause of death, then sure, the there hasn't been a decrease in deaths.

On PT 58.1.13, we have one of the harder main point questions. I got this one correct, but I want to make sure I am understanding the passage correctly.

Does the phrase "it is a given" introduce a premise? Also, does "for such" introduce a premise?

EDIT: I got rid of the "always introduce" since there are probably exceptions. I am more wondering if they tend to introduce premises.

...for Group BR

MONDAY, November 16th at 11AM ET: PT53

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

Note: That 11 AM start time is EASTERN STANDARD TIME. So if you’re on the west coast, that’s an 8:00 AM.

Be sure to announce in the comments which group(s) you’re planning on attending.

Note:

I'm notice that doing the questions timed I tend to get them right but when I go back for the blind review I tend to get them wrong. Its like I look for reasons for my 1st answer choice to be wrong and then start to psych myself out and proceed to choose a different answer.

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?

I was wondering how you would translate an embedded conditional if the conditional in the necessary condition is negated. For example, A--->[Not (B--->C)].

My best guess would be to say that it is A--->(B Some Not C), but I don't think that is a very helpful notation. Is there a way to make this is into an "easier" to visualize conditional chain?

EDIT: Added some brackets to make the embedded condition easier to see.

I don't really see how B is supported in the situation nor how D does not. Can someone evaluate my reasoning?

The question stem is pretty weird. My best guess is that this is a MSS question or a principle question. According to Google, proposition means "a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion."

Industrialists address problems by simplifying them. In farming, this tends to lead to oversimplification. To illustrate, industrialists think water retention and drainage are two independent/unrelated things. That isn't true. Thus, more farming farming problems are created than solved when industrialist get involved in farming.

What I am looking for: My best guess for a principle would be that farmers shouldn't listen to industrialists when they suggest things about farming issues.

Answer A: Most important? No.

Answer B: This is the correct answer choice, but I don't understand how the passage illustrates this proposition. Viewed in all of their complexity? Where is this idea in the passage?

Answer C: Anyone else? No.

Answer D: I I felt pretty good about this one during the exam, and I kept it during BR. Isn't this pretty much verbatim stated in the final sentence of the passage?

Answer E: This was difficult to eliminate, but it is too broad. We know that industrialists oversimplify things, but we only know that it creates problems in the realm of farming, not everything. Plus, you would have to assume that oversimplifying something is fundamentally flawed. Maybe it is or maybe it isn't.

Hey guys! So two of us were discussing this question on the BR call last night. I chose D, which is the correct answer, but I want confirmation for why E is wrong.

The question asks for a characteristic of "games that are intentionally commodified." The pertinent lines in the passage read: "By contrast, tax doctrine and policy counsel taxation of the sale of virtual items for real currency, and, in games that are intentionally commodified, even of in-world sales for virtual currency, regardless of whether the participant cashes out."

So we know we are looking for instances of in-world sales, or virtual to virtual, with perhaps the possibility of conversion into real money. With this we can eliminate A, which concerns real to virtual; B, which describes pure barter with no virtual currency component; and C, which does not directly address in-world trade.

I chose D because the first sentence of Passage B explains that a way in which some games encourage real-world trade in virtual items is by granting participants intellectual property rights in their creations. This aligns with the "intentional commodification" aspect.

But why is E wrong? It's talking about virtual to virtual, and I don't think it would be a stretch to assume that you could convert one of these currencies into real money. Currency conversion is, in a strict sense, a "sale," so converting one virtual currency into another would be an in-world sale. Is it because the passages never talk about different types or trade between virtual currency and as such this is new information? Or because the word "exchange" in answer choice E alludes to a barter rather than a sale?

I would appreciate anyone's help on this!

Help!! Can't do more than 16 LR Q with 80% accuracy. Tips?? I want to touch 20

As I am working through the games, I find myself going over the ideal time and I miss a few of the answers. However, when I redo the games, my speed increases and I get more answers correct, sometimes perfect score.

When I take the LSAT, all of the games will be new to me, so I am worried that my speed and accuracy may be hindered. I am worried!

Should I be worried about this, or is this a normal process when introduced to unfamiliar games during this program?

3 weeks away, people!!!!! Let’s do this!

LSATurday, Nov 14th at 8PM ET: PT71

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

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

Note:

I don't know if I'm overthinking it, or the diagrams truly represent different ideas. Logically, they both seem equivalent to be, just diagrammed differently.

What's the difference between these two ideas?

1. Either F or L, but not both, will go before M

2. L will go before F or G, but not both

Are these the same ideas? or represent different concepts?

I diagrammed these ideas in different forms. Can you let me know if my diagramming is merely aesthetic or it symbolizes some other idea

DIAGRAM 1:

1. F---M

L---M

F---M---L or L---M--F

DIAGRAM 2:

F----M

L---M

F----------M

F----------L

or

M--------F

L-----------F

I've been reading the LSAT trainer and am a little confused about the diagramming of the bi-conditional.

One question was: L will go before J if and only if L is after G. I diagrammed this as follows: L--J (----) G---L--J. However, the answer sheet has two different answers This:: L--J (----) G---L--J. and this: J---L---G. I don't understand the later. Is this supposed to be the contropsoitive or something?

In my opinion, this is the hardest question on PT 58. I missed it because I didn't understand what B was saying. Can someone help me translate it/evaluate my translation of B into English? Here is my breakdown for this one:

There are eight craters in a straight line somewhere. Some of these craters have rocks that have undergone high pressure shocks. These shocks could have been caused by meteors or volcanoes. Since the craters are in a straight line, it isn't likely the existence of the craters is due to both meteors and volcanoes. Since the craters are different ages, it must have been volcanoes.

What I am looking for: We need to strengthen the argument. The argument seems to be making an either/or but not both argument. In other words, the craters were caused by either volcanoes or meteors, but not both. The argument is assuming that saying something about the ages of craters is evidence that it was NOT meteors. That's the assumption.

Answer A: This is what I chose, but I really didn't like it. I think this does actually strengthen the conclusion because it provides some evidence that volcanoes can actually create a "similar" line of craters. However, I don't like this answer very much because the line was "shorter" and the craters were the "same age." This doesn't address the assumption that age matters since it controls for that factor. So although this does strengthen the conclusion, it doesn't strengthen the argument.

Answer B: This is the correct answer, but I am having a very tough time translating this into English. This is saying that there is no known natural cause that could account for 8 meteor craters of different ages in a straight line; I probably should have chosen this answer in hindsight since it is the only answer choice that even talks about a relevant case of different aged craters. I think we can assume two things from this answer choice: volcanoes are a natural thing and meteors are a natural thing. Here is my translation:

1.) There is no known volcano that would likely account for the craters being from a meteor. To me this is like a "duh?" statement. Volcanoes and meteors are independent things. Of course volcanoes wouldn't account for the meteor craters.

2.) There is no known meteor that would likely account for the craters being from a meteor. I think this is the reason why this answer strengthens the argument. Does this flat out deny the chance that meteors were the cause? I think at best it only sort of does since the idea of "known" isn't all encompassing. There could be cases that we don't know about. So, in my mind, at best this is a pretty weak strengthener. It depends heavily on the idea that what is "known" is actually a reliable thing to use as evidence in this inductive argument.

Answer C: I think this severely weakens the argument since it suggests that it was neither meteors nor volcanoes. Definitely don't want this one.

Answer D: This is similar to C. This weakens the argument since this suggests that volcanoes were not the cause.

Answer E: This is another trap answer choice that I had a tough time eliminating during the timed exam. I think this answer is very similar to A in that it does strengthen the conclusion, but not the argument. This answer choice suggests that a single meteor shower couldn't have created the craters. However, what about meteors from different showers at different times? Being from the same meteor shower implies that the craters that would have been potentially created would be roughly the same age, which wouldn't create an analogous situation to begin with.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-58-section-4-question-23/

LSAT Party time, that is!

LSATurday, Nov 14th at 8PM ET: PT53

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

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

Note:

I am pretty clueless on this one. I had the answer down to C or D, and I chose D (kept it during BR). I am completely lost as to how E is the weakener, so help would be greatly appreciated. Here is my breakdown:

This is a weaken question.

Few graduate students are aware of the attempt to unionize (some are aware; most are not aware). From there, I diagrammed the rest:

Grad students MOST not aware

Grad students SOME aware‑m→believe union would not represent their interest or do a bad job pursuing those interests

Therefore, grad students‑m→disapprove. Therefore, grad students shouldn't unionize.

What I am looking for: A lot wrong with this one. First, the argument assumes that if most of a group disapprove of something, then that thing shouldn't be done; this is sort of like an appeal to the crowd fallacy. What if it is in everyone's best interest for everyone eat their vegetables, but most people don't want to do it? Second, the argument makes an invalid inference. We don't know if MOST grad students disapprove. We only know that SOME of them are aware and Most are not aware (does no awareness mean disapproval? What if they are just ignorant?) Along the same lines, the argument is assuming that believing the union would not represent their interests/believing that the union wouldn't effectively pursue their interests is the same thing as disapproval. Lastly, the argument seems to be making a pro vs. con flaw by ignoring the potential benefits/pros of unionizing. The argument only talks about the possibility that the union won't have some people's interests in mind or won't be effective. What if there are things that outweigh those potential cons? The argument doesn't even address that relevant concern.

Answer A: What long standing practice?

Answer B: Fails to exclude alternative explanations? Why does the argument need to do this? We presumably have a few reasons why the students don't like the idea.

Answer C: I had it down to this one and D. I eliminated this one because something not being a good idea isn't mentioned in the passage. Just because something "shouldn't be done" doesn't necessarily imply that that thing isn't a good idea. I think this answer choice would have been better if "not a good idea" were substituted for "not be done."

Answer D: I was pretty confident with this answer choice, and I kept it during BR. Doesn't the argument do this? The argument is limiting it self to the potential cons of unionizing: it might not represent the interests of people or it might do a bad job representing the interest of people. What if there are other reasons to unionize that outweigh those concerns?

Answer E: This is the correct answer, but I felt 100% confident eliminating it. Does the argument equivocate on active disapproval and lack of approval? I don't see where it does this. Sure, it blurs the distinction between active disapproval (assuming that those who are aware of the union and believe that the union won't have their interests at heart/think the union won't do an effective job disapprove) and lack of awareness, but I don't see where the argument conflates active disapproval and mere lack of approval.

Hello folks,

Here it is me whining again. When I BR, I score in the 160s but when I do timed PT, I can't pass the 146-147. I did most of 7Sage's video twice, and I am redoing The Trainer again now. I really don't know what to do any more. I feel (which probably wrong) that I know the material. Currently I am doing two PTs a week, and I BR after every PT.

I improved by 10 points since I started last December. My diagnostic was a horrible 130's yet my current score is still horrible!

Please, I need your advice :)

Hey guys, just wanted to let you know I got PT 76 this morning - I ordered in Sept when I ordered my 10 actual LSAT series books from LSAC, so if you ordered & haven't gotten it yet, it should be coming soon. Now to decide if I go ahead & take it or save it for a week or two before the Dec exam.

For those of you who have hired a consultant, or know of someone who has and are familiar with their experience. How was your/their experience working with the consultant & would you do it again? Was it worth it? How did you/they find the consultant? What did the consultant do (advise you to make changes to your personal statement, give tips on how to edit your essays or diversity statement , or help you get scholarship money etc.)? How expensive is it to hire them? Thank you in advance.

If AC "C" only said "children tend to have more acute tastes: therefore, they zero in on foods with the most distinctive tastes" I would have seen it as being the correct AC right away, but instead this answer goes on to state they get sick more often than adults do? I thought we were not supposed to make assumptions or add things that aren't there when dealing with MSS question types? Although every other AC seemed no good, what popped into my head when looking at AC "C" is how do we know... children become sick more than adults do -where does it state this or is it even allude to it in the stimulus? Any insight would be nice. Thanks!

I changed my answer to A during BR since B-E are really bad, but I am not seeing how the company president "takes for granted " (assumes) what answer choice A states. Here is my breakdown:

For the new job, we are only going to interview people who have worked for the best firms. Therefore, when we choose someone, we will surely have selected one of the best people.

What I am looking for: This is a classic whole to part flaw. Maybe synergies or something creates the emergent property of being in the "top 1%." Also, is being in the top 1% even considered the best? What if the top 1% are very good, but only the top .01% are considered the best? The author's metric for "best" could be bad

Answer A: I confidently eliminated this one during the timed exam, which caused me to spin my wheels on B-E, which caused me to miss this one. During BR, I eliminated B-E first and chose this. But, I don't really understand where the author takes this idea for granted. To me, this isn't describing the "whole to part" flaw nor attacking the author's "best" metric. Specifically, the conclusion talks about "selecting one of the best." But, I don't see how this idea is limited only to the management consultants at top firms. Couldn't the author think that there are also some of the best at not top management firms? The author doesn't say anything to the contrary, so couldn't it be true? In my mind the word "only" is too strong; if this word was replaced with "sometimes," then I think this answer choice becomes more apparent. In other words, I just don't see where the author erroneously presumes this answer choice.

Additionally, say that there 200 firms. He is limiting is search to just the top 2 firms (the 1%). The company president makes no claim about people in the other 198 firms. Why couldn't a member of a top 4% firm be one of the best?

Answer B: What sample?

Answer C: This is what I chose during the timed exam, and the only reason I chose it was because I had to pick something (I had already eliminated A). This answer choice is backwards. It describes a "part to whole" flaw. If this answer choice were reversed, then I think it would work.

Answer D: Accepting? Irrelevant idea.

Answer E: Competent at every task? Irrelevant.

Don’t wait to hit the 70s in January! Be prepared!

Friday, Nov 13th at 8PM ET: PT71

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

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

Note: