Hi everyone-I consistently practice tested from 158-161 right before the Oct LSAT and somehow drastically bombed to a 152. I am quite upset. However, I feel like I did everything right-tons of practice test with full review, timed sections etc. It may have been test anxiety-who knows. How can I better prepare for Dec, assuming I have done everything right up this point and am just not performing when it counts most? Also, I have exhausted most of the recent preptests which may be problematic...

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.

Do the people here practice taking a PT in a noisy/distracting environment in order to prepare for the worst on test day? I noticed an almost 10 point drop from my average today when I took a PT in a noisy-ish setting today (some students felt the library was an appropriate setting to conduct a large group project). It's probably a waste of a fresh PT to ever try again in that sort of setting. At the same time though, it feels unrealistic to expect an absolutely silent administration on test day.

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

Hi 7sagers,

I am currently attending and pursuing a bachelor's degree from a foreign school(outside of the U.S./Canada). Meanwhile, two years ago, I have studied for one semester at a university in the U.S. as an exchange student through a study abroad program at my home school.

From what I have understood, I need to submit two transcripts from both my home school and the school in America. However, since my school is an international institution, those two GPAs will appear separately on different reports and will not be combined together. The thing is that my home school GPA is good - but apparently law schools will not care it much because it's not from a domestic one - whereas the other from the America school is not(3.59/4.00), which worries me as it being the U.S. school and my future law school would see it carefully. If it were a cumulative GPA, those grades from the U.S. school would be smoothed out a bit, but it turns out that's not the case.

Is there anyone who has a similar issue with me? How will law schools consider this situation?

Hi all, I just got back my Oct score yesterday, which turned out to be very disappointing157, 6 points below my average score, 163. I've never gotten below 162 on my PTs for the past two months, so this was devastating and unexpected. I don't know what happened, but I guess I was especially nervous during the first section, RC, on which I got almost half of the Qs wrong, twice as many as what I typically get. On LRs, I typically range between -7~-10 and I got -15 on the real one. Usually, when I do well on the RCs, I do poorly on the LRs and vice versa so it balances out. This time, it appears that I under-performed on almost all the sections. I'm considering to retake in Dec but with barely a month left to prep with full-time schooling, I'm afraid I will make the same mistake and get a similar result. Re-taking in February would be better because I graduate this December and I'll have two months to prep for the LSAT full-time at home. However, this would mean that I'll have to possibly wait a year and apply next cycle since my dream school fills almost all of its class before the February LSAT results are released. If I decide to apply next cycle, which I prefer not to, I'd like to save up my LSAT attempts and take the February and June exams.

My target score is 166, but anything more than 160 would guarantee my acceptance to all the schools except my top-choice school. I've never thought I'd get anything below 160 and looking at my score on the real one, I'm uncertain whether to see it as a true reflection of myself or just an outlier. Since I felt that I put in a decent amount of time and efforts into studying for this exam, I've never thought I'd be worried about not getting into any of the schools on my list. I spent the entire evening yesterday thinking about whether I have the capability to do well on a standardized exam or go to law school. My fellow classmate who spent much less time than me studying for the LSAT pulled off a 170 even though he said that he "bombed" it. It's quite discouraging to see that this entire process is slow and that I haven't seen much progress even in my PT score. It's really difficult to keep out the negative thoughts.

Sorry, if this post makes anyone feel uncomfortable. Any advice on how to tackle the issue and when to re-take would be appreciated.

PS - I took the 7sage ultimate course and studied with the Trainer book...

I got my Oct score last night while waiting for my luggage at the airport. That was fun.

I wanted to say a hearty "thank you" to everyone who kindly responded to my various posts during my six-month stretch of studying on 7Sage.

I earned five more points on my scaled score this time around compared to my rushed Dec 2013 LSAT, so it is true that you can improve your score, even though the experts usually say it's not and that you might actually do worse.

Even though my score isn't HYS-material, I'm going to run with it this time because I have a strong uGPA, leadership history in my industry, and perhaps most importantly - an interesting (hopefully convincing) story to tell about how I can bring more to the healthcare industry as a lawyer and/or compliance leader.

My plan is to apply to Loyola Chicago and probably Chicago Kent, which both either have a certificate or concentration in Health Law. Depending on my fate, maybe I can try to transfer after 1L to get back into the NU system, but then again, they don't have a Health Law concentration. :)

I don't think that cramming for the Dec LSAT will help boost my score by much, and so I'll have to make some tough decisions when it comes to how much funding is offered to me - if/when I get in.

It's been quite the journey, and it's not over yet. Thanks again to all who responded to my cries for help. And best of wishes to all of those shooting for the stars, and to those of us who think that the horizon is plenty fine. :)

I was just curious to see if anyone had taken 66 today (to be BR'd as a group on Wednesday night). I like to review the LR sections one question at a time before the group session just in case I miss something with the group--I've found it to be very helpful in the past. Message me if interested!

Can someone explain how A is the correct answer? I got this question correct by POE, but during BR, I just can't figure out how A is explicitly correct.

Stats guy: Changes in the sun’s brightness correlate with land temperatures on Earth. Clearly, and contrary to what meteorologists think, the sun’s brightness is the main cause of land temperature.

Meteorologist: You are wrong, dude! Any professional meteorologist will tell you that climate is really complicated. There is no significant part that is controlled by one thing.

What I am looking for: The stats guy makes the typical causation/correlation flaw. Plus, even if the sun were to be a causal factor, the stats guy hasn’t given any evidence that the sun is the MAIN cause. The meteorologist is making an appeal to professionals, but it is actually pretty weird that he is doing this. The stats guy says that meteorologists can’t be trusted, so the meteorologist citing other meteorologists won’t do anything to convince the stat guy. I was expecting that the correct answer was going to talk about this idea (an irrelevant appeal to authority).

Answer A: This is it simply by POE. That’s really all I got because I don’t see the “specific case” nor the “invoking of a relevant generalization” in the meteorologist’s retort.

Answer B: What single counterexample? What generalization is false?

Answer C: I think this must be false. The meteorologist seems to be arguing the opposite of this idea: there is no single cause because climate is very complicated.

Answer D: Experimentally tested? He doesn’t bring this idea up.

Answer E: What unfavorable evidence? Systematically neglected? This just isn’t done.

I don't understand how A is the principle. Here is my breakdown:

The use of space satellites to study the environment is important. Problems can be identified well in advance, so people can act early. It makes sense that environmentalists don't think about the fact that the satellites may harm the ozone layer and lead to serious environmental damage.

What I am looking for: The principle I thought the answer choice was going to say was "sometimes doing something that has some beneficial consequences can have so severe negative consequences that it warrants not doing the action."

Answer A: How is this the correct answer? I really don't like that it is talking about "people tend..." How do we know what people tend to do? The argument is only concerning itself with the environmentalists.

Answer B: This is what I originally answered, but I see why it's wrong. The author I think is arguing the opposite of this. The spaceflights are so bad that we should discontinue them. If this answer choice flipped the words "negative" and "positive," then I think this could be a right answer choice.

Answer C: What do we know about technology in general?

Answer D: Are we solving the problem? Were the satellites even well intentioned? What if the passage is describing an accidental positive consequence? Lastly, the passage is saying that a separate problem (ozone layer damage) is being made worse.

Answer E: Often? We don't know this. Also, were the consequences "unforeseen?" The author implies that the environmentalists are "failing to consider" the possibility of the damage; to me this implies that they are ignoring/discounting this effect.

Frustrating question.. The first line states "Mammals cannot digest cellulose and therefore can't directely obtain glucose from wood.."

I chose answer A, which states that "mammals obtain no benificial health effects from eating cellulose."

I understand the explanation for the other correct answer choice, HOWEVER in explaining why "A" is wrong, Jon says that "it may be the case that it (cellulose) strengthens their (mammals) teeth." This could be a plausible explanation, if the answer choice didn't read that mammals obtain no benificial health effects from "EATING" cellulose. How can you attain health benefits from eating something, but not being able to digest it?

Maybe if it read that Mammals received no beneifical health benefits from "chewing" cellulose I'd understand the strengthening of the teeth example cited, but it explicitly states that the mammal would be "eating cellulose." So can someone please explain how you could possibly receive health benefits from something you eat but can't digest..? I doubt the LSAC counts illicit drugs like shrooms to be of a health benefit. Thanks

Hi guys,

I've heard around that since it's Halloween people aren't planning to BR this Satruday night. Is anyone planning to attend the BR call on Friday then (for the Dec group, PT 75)? Let me know!

Can someone please explain to me what the Cambridge packets are? I have seen them referenced in several posts on the discussion board and mentioned in the BR call I participated in. I went to the Cambridge site through a link provided on the call but couldn't find what was listed as a packet. I already have exams 19-75 I think, so not sure if it is just more copies of exams or a breakdown of question types etc... Thanks in advance.

I wanted to put my "LSAT Journey" up here as I think it might help other members of the 7sage community. If you want my perspective on this process and some tips for those just starting, read on!

I started prepping for the LSAT in June of 2014, using Barrons and Kaplan, planning to test in September 2014. This was an ineffective way to prep because of the quality of the materials I was using and I quickly switched to Powerscore, using both the bible books and an online prep course (live classes). I went into the Dec 2014 test feeling OK, but bombed logic games in an early section of the test and literally didn't have the mental stamina to finish. Read: I may have had a breakdown.

In retrospect, my 2014 test prep was insufficient. I hadnt done enough prep, specifically fresh prep tests, and I hadnt mastered Logical Reasoning and Logic Games methods. I started studying with 7sage around February 2015. 7sage definitely helped. However, I took the June 2015 test but was disappointed with my score, a 162. I had been PTing in the mid to high 160s and my original goal had been to break 170.

I buckled down after the June test and kept studying. It was really painful. I worked with a tutor outside of 7sage to keep me focused and committed to a study plan. I kept consistent PTs in the high 160s and low 170s, although at this point repeated content was a problem. This past LSAT, October 2015, I scored a 167. I wasn't disappointed but I wasn't happy either, pretty much neutral to the outcome and relieved I didn't bomb the test. It capped off a study process of ~16 months.

In sum, this process is a beast. I spent thousands of hours (and let's be honest: dollars) doing prep and didn't achieve the original results I set out for. That said, I did get through it. I did break 165, and I did improve my score between the administrations. If I had to boil down my advice in the long-run it would be something along these lines:

1. Don't skimp on prep materials - go straight for the best material and prep available for you. Put the work in to figure out what type of prep you need at the beginning of this process and stick to that prep. If that means working with a tutor or taking a class, start doing that as soon as you can.

2. Make an overly-detailed study plan and stick to it. Working full time, traveling, being in school, etc. whiles studying for this test is hard. As someone working in consulting who travels (on an airplane) every week, I struggled to stick to a study schedule. Ultimately I recommend getting out an excel sheet and make a day by day plan to get you through the next 3, 6, or 12 months to your test administration. Show the schedule to your peers, study buddies, etc. and get feedback on whether your goals are realistic. Include things like exercising, napping or "free time" in your schedule if that is what you need to make sure you can take a break and not get burnout.

3. Play the mental game. Don't let this (awful) test get the best of you. There were definitely times when I was mad, when I thought I was going to go to a dumpster-fire/non-LSAT required law school, or when I wanted to give up on this whole process entirely. None of those thoughts werre helpful or productive. Being good at the LSAT means, well, you are good at the LSAT. That's it. There's poor correlation at best between L1 performance and the exam. When you get mad, try to repeat that yourself and take deep breaths.

In summary, I'm not glad we go through this awful experience to get into law school. But there are some ways you can make it less painful, and knowing these tips and tricks from the start will help you out.

Best,

Lorax

For the morning people who’ve felt ignored, here is your chance ...

...for Group BR

MONDAY,October 26th at 11AM ET: PT50

Note: That 9 AM start time is EASTERN STANDARD TIME. So if you’re on the west coast, that’s an 6:00 AM.

Note:

It’s BYOC (Bring Your Own Coffee)!!!! Are you ready to do the first ever Group BR in the AM? We’re making history here, people!

Monday, October 26th at 11AM ET: PT50

Note:

Having some trouble identifying when I should move on from a question. My current pace is not getting to around 2 problems per section. I am looking to hear what you guys/gals do so I can get some ideas.

Hi, I was looking at PT27 and found out that question 17 in Game 3 seemed quite odd. The answer is "E" here but I did not understand why it is so. The question asks " which of the following must be true" and "E" i think is only "partially" correct... Although it is true that G and L gets to see different films, L and M COULD see the same film. Thus, it's wrong to say that G, L, and M do not all see the same film.

Any thoughts here??? Help me!

This has probably already been hashed out somewhere, BUT, I can't find it, so...

Is there somewhere on 7sage (or elsewhere) that ranks the difficulty of all the PT's? - or maybe ranks the sections? It seems like I've see this somewhere before, but not sure where.

So for example, I just took PT 72 this evening. I want to know where this test ranks overall, and/or the difficulty of the sections. Was the RC on this PT considered, easy, hard, average etc? Was the LG section easy, hard, average?

I want to compare this information with what my feelings are about the tests, as well as use this info to make decisions about how to best spend my studying hours.

I'm hoping PT 72 is considered "hard" compared to other PTs, because I scored my highest score yet, and that would make me feel like I'm getting somewhere with all these hours and hours I spend studying. If it's "easy", then I won't put too much weight into the higher score.

I took the October 2015 and did not receive a score that I am satisfied with. I actually ended up getting the same lsat score as I did the first time. I registered for the December Lsat and this will be my 3rd time taking it.

For those who took the October exam and are retaking in December, what are some strategies you plan on implementing in order to raise your score? Being that essentialy we have one month to study, how many hours do you plan to study a week?

Lastly, I scored a 156 both times :(. I'm trying to be as realistic as possible and want your opinion as to whether or not I can raise my score to at least a 160 by December? Is that unrealistic?

Thank you so much in advance. :-)

I've been trying to find an answer to this question for a few days now. I know that all Ontario schools have an application deadline of November 1st, but does anybody know if this extends to supporting documentation (transcripts, LORs) as well? I phoned the admissions offices at Queen's and Ottawa to ask this very question, but my call hasn't been returned yet. I know schools like UBC have separate deadlines (Dec. 1st for application, January 31st I believe is the deadline for supporting documents), but I'm not sure if that's a policy that only some schools have that the Ontario schools do not share. Thanks!

A tall tulip is not a tall plant. (eg. compare a tulip with an apple tree or pine)

no (only tall tulips) does not equal (only tall plants.)

It is not necessary to know for the question, but gorillas are very large, three times or more the size of a human, monkey or chimpanzee.

(C is correct). All the Gorillas are small, but it is flawed to saw that they would all be small primates.

[only small gorillas] does not equal [only small primates]

even a small gorilla is massive compared to a lemur or monkey.

Evidence -> Not Guilt

but now Evidence --> Guilt

Evidence must have changed.

A = B

now A = not B

A has changed.

(Answer B): Train = not Nantes at 11.

But now Train = Nantes at 11

Train has changed

E is the answer.

This conclusion is: CPUE number same -> shark numbers are same

To weakedn the conclusion, we need to establish that the way to reach CPUE somehow has changed since 1973.

This question defines the CPUE carefully.

E is the only answer that could address catches 'per hour' and the other answers are not relevant.

E: (Technology improvement -> sharks still easy to find EVEN THOUGH numbers have dropped -> maybe shark numbers not equal)

Tough. Choice (E) is correct.

You can tell by using the

contrapositive on both of these statements:

If not (prices fall as rapidly as/more rapidly than

competitors),

then not (production costs fall as rapidly or more rapidly).

if NOT (production costs fall AS rapidly), then NOT (not slower to adopt new tech)

= as fast as competitors to adopt new technology.