After receiving my score for the October LSAT, I am both happy and sad at my result, which is likely to allow me to enter the law school of my choice through the wait list, but it is heavily dependent on the grades in my current term. I'm currently taking six courses, as well as juggling some extracurricular stuff and a job so I haven't studied for the LSAT at all throughout October and I'm unlikely to have any time until the second week of November (I'd probably get a couple weeks of infrequent drilling/PTs). As a result, I'm not sure if I should retake the LSAT in December.

The fact that my 180Watch broke 10 minutes before my LSAT really threw me off for the actual LSAT (I actually ended up writing the whole thing without being able to check time) but I'm worried that if I retake without practicing enough then I'll have wasted my second attempt. I ended up going -8 on both LR sections and -10 on RC which is well outside of my usual scores (generally around -1~-4 for LR, -10 is actually normal for my RC) so I feel the 160 is really not indicative of my actual LSAT ability.

I was PT'ing 163~170 (quite a wide range from what I can tell) prior to the October LSAT, so I'm not sure if waiting the extra year would be worth it. This is the final year of my degree and I'm not sure if I should find work for a year before law school.

Any ideas/advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks :)

Hello,

When I take a PT timed I score around 154-156. I have time at the end of each section, so I am not guessing, but When I BR that same test I score 166-168. What should I do to get my PT timed to be in the 160s. I plan on taking the Dec LSAT. My ideal score is 163-165..Please help!

Are there LR videos here like the LG ones they have?

Hey all,

I purchased the budget course to try out the curriculum. So far it's been great, I'm even considering upgrading. Problem is for now I'm having a small issue with the Study Schedule, it seems convenient as it gives me a reference point to map out how much I would need to study.

But, with the budget option it gives me a bad estimate because it only takes in account the parts of the course available in the

budget option. Meaning maybe 1/4 of the total curriculum. Like I said, I'm considering upgrading but for now I'd like to make an estimate of how much I need to study.

I'm aiming at the 2016 June Test, possibly even next October. Study Schedule says I should be studying 6.5 hours a week. That's hardly enough to take and review 1 PT.

I was thinking 15-20 hours would be appropriate seeing as how I have all the way till June. Comments are appreciated.

Is there anyway to clear all your analytics without having to go through each?

I don't see how D is incorrect. E is obviously correct, but how is D wrong?

Professor V's book is getting people riled up over the origins of glassblowing (really exciting stuff). If V is right, then there would be not enough evidence to conclude that glassblowing started in Egypt (which is what most historians think). This traditional view is still accepted by the majority of historians. If V is right, we must conclude that glassblowing started elsewhere.

Answer A: So what? This doesn't even describe a type of flaw to begin with.

Answer B: The argument isn't circular.

Answer C: We don't need the criteria.

Answer D: Doesn't the argument do this? Isn't what "most historians" claim (line 6) conflated with the "traditional view" in line 8? How is this not the flaw?

Answer E: This is definitely the flaw of the argument, but I can't figure out how it is better than D.

During the exam, A just seemed right, but during BR, I am having a ton of time justifying it. I'd also like some further analysis on answer C.

The government increased the minimum wage. The minimum wage increases the museum's operating expenses, which now are less than the revenues (so the museum is profitable). Thus, the museum will either raise admission fees or decrease services; these hurt the museum going people.

What I am looking for: I couldn't think of a good necessary assumption. All I could think of was raising admission fees or decreasing services is bad for museum goers. I kept thinking to myself "no shit."

Answer A: I was turned off by this due to the word "significantly," but the other answer choices were clearly incorrect. If it is not true that some of the museum's employees are not paid significantly more than the minimum wage, then what does this mean? I take it to mean that the employees are either paid slightly higher than minimum wage, at minimum wage, or below minimum wage. How does this actually wreck the argument?

Answer B: What if the revenue fluctuated? It doesn't matter.

Answer C: I am sure some are, but so what? If you negate this: no one is paid more than the current minimum wage, then this might strengthen the argument since it would suggest that the increase in the minimum wage is going to impact the operating expenses further.

Answer D: So what about the annual number of visitors?

Answer E: So what?

EDIT: I initially mistyped the part of the summary dealing with profit.

Powerscore claims that recently PTs have had a lot more science experiment questions in LR. I've obviously taken a bunch of science classes and know the basics, but I still think it's weird to see these scenarios in the LSAT world.

For example, on PT 71 Section 3 #4, E is the right answer because it shows that there is a control group, and every study should have a control group. Though I know this, I wouldn't think that really counts as strengthening.......but I guess it shows that the experiment is a good one.

Either way, whenever a science experiment shows up, should I be checking to see that all/most requirements of a good science experiment are mentioned? I don't know if my question makes sense haha but I'm trying to find a general approach for the future

This could be the day we move everyone over to Google Hangout.

Yesterday, we had some serious trouble with Skype. We’re hoping today won’t be a problem, but just in case, I’d advise everyone to set up their Google Hangout:https://support.google.com/hangouts/answer/2944865?hl=en

Saturday, October 24th at 8PM ET: PT65

Note:

Can someone please be so kind to read my notes from the particular lessons listed below? I do not know which definitions are correct. Different lessons are contradicting each other. Please help!

Logical Reasoning (Lesson 25 of 40, 9m)

Or (3 options) = A is selected, B is selected or both A and B are selected.

Logical Reasoning (Lesson 27 of 40, 5m)

Not both – negate the Necessary, then contropose. In short, 1, A or B must be selected.

Advanced Logical Reasoning (Lesson 2 of 15, 5m)

Or is different because it has (2 options) = A is selected or B is selected. A and B are not selected together.

In-Out Games (Lesson 1 of 20, 5m)

Or is back to the original lesson, (3 options) = A is selected, B is selected or both A and B are selected.

Not both is different because 1, A or B can be is selected or nothing has to be selected.

HI All,

I've been studying since for almost a year now for the december lsat. Completed the trainer and 7sage course thoroughly. Around august i started feeling a little worn out so took a break for 3 weeks. Now I am back and cranking on those Practice tests. My reason for concern is that just before i left my prep i was scoring 164-168 and 170-172 BR, however, now i started of with 154 actual and 160 BR. Should i be worried?

Im wondering if its worth it to retake for December being that their is a possibility of getting a lower score. I received a 160 for the October exam and was hoping to get a 163. My target school is Fordham and I could not find anything on their website on whether they take the highest score or they average them out.

Are schools now mostly taking the highest score or are they averaging them? I now the policy used to be different in the past. Also if you take it in December then the schools wont look at your application until they have your score correct?

If anyone has some knowledge pleasee let me know best of luck to everyone in the application process!

I studied on my own while working a full-time job using the PowerScore Bibles, and I felt fairly confident. I had been doing well on PTs (around 160), but the night before the test I had a lot of unexpected things happen in my personal life and I was definitely distraught the morning of the October 2015 test. I just got my scores back yesterday and I made a 147. So now I'm going to try a different mode of study, 7Sage, and retake the LSAT in February. Any advice or tips? I would be thrilled with a 165, but now that I've done so poorly on the test I'm afraid of making the same mistakes twice.

I scored a 171 on the Oct. 2015 LSAT, below my 174.5 average, which has really dampened my expectations.

I am not sure what to expect after underperforming. Do you guys think I should...

1) retake in December (hard to do with 50+ hours of work each week)

2) push off law school and retake in February or June

3) go for it and see what happens

Let me know what you guys think!

hey y'all, i posted a while back about feeling very uncertain after the oct lsat. y'all helped convince me to keep my score, and i'm glad i did; thanks for keeping me on track! now i'm in another situation i could really use some help with.

i've already taken it two times: a 167 and a 172 (my oct score). i feel like i have a good shot at 175+ if i take it a third time, based on how i'd been doing on pt's and the fact that unforeseen circumstances gave me very little rest the day before the test. i have basically a 3.6.

should i take it a third time?

thanks for any advice

So basically I scored 166 in June and bombed the October one(163). I intend to do my third take in December and I really want to push myself to >168.

I guess I just found myself in some 160s plateau. For LR, I've read both Bible and Manhattan. But I still don't think I've mastered LR. For my practice tests, I usually got from -2 to -4 for each LR section. For my October test, I got 7 wrong for my first LR(ughhh). So I think I definitely need some serious improvement for my LR. The recent PT70s' LR also hit me hard. I think the assumption family questions(and flaws) just became a lot harder.

But unfortunately I have used up all my PTs(except the ones in 90s) I guess I can redo the games but I remember too much of the LR to not be affected by memories.

So is there any good advice to improve my LR in one month and a half? Will drilling packets(PT1-38) help me at all? I am a little desperate now...

Thank you so much in advance!

(I posted this in TLS but apparently there is no response yet : ( )

Does anyone have any suggestions for how to memorize group 1 and group 2 logical indicators.

I really don't understand how the correct answer choice addresses the paradox.

After some people witnessed a fake crime, two lawyers questioned the witnesses. The first lawyer tried top mess them up and the second lawyer tried to correct the inaccuracies. The witnesses who gave testimony that had FEWER inaccuracies during lawyer one's interrogation had the greatest NUMBER of inaccuracies than most of the other witnesses when questioned by lawyer two.

What I am looking for: I was convinced during the exam that the correct answer choice was going to be some bias the accurate witnesses had over the other witnesses. Or, that the second lawyer phrased questions that confused the accurate witnesses/asked questions about different topics than lawyer one. These were not answer choices, so I ended up spinning my wheels a lot on this.

Answer A: This explains possibly why they were more accurate at the start, but why did they have more inaccuracies later?

Answer B: This is a lot like A. If they had better memory, why did they all of a sudden have inaccurate testimony? This makes it weirder, I think.

Answer C: I don't see how this helps resolve the problem. I eliminated it during the exam and during BR since I thought it made the problem even weirder. I think it does explains why they were so accurate to begin with: they were not swayed by lawyer one's bullshit. But how does it explain the fact that they were more inaccurate later? To get this to work, don't you need to assume that either these witnesses became less confident after lawyer one's questioning (which seems bizarre since this sort of contradicts this answer choice's entire point) or that the second lawyer's line of questioning focused on the stuff that these witnesses didn't remember? But how do we assume that this latter case is true? Additionally, wouldn't the "most of the other witnesses" also be inclined to increase their inaccuracy as well? I just don't understand how this makes the paradox anything but weirder, let alone resolve it.

Answer D: This definitely makes the paradox weirder. If they were unsure to begin with, then how were they so accurate?

Answer E: This is what I chose during the exam/BR since it was POE. I didn't really understand how it actually resolved the paradox (which was flag one/the reason why I marked it for BR). I think to get this to work, you have to assume that they gave so many more details, that they got a lot of stuff accurate since they were spewing details out left and right (this would explain the accuracy part). To resolve the other part, you have to assume that the "most other people" started remembering things more accurately, so those people improved over the originally accurate people. This was my line of reasoning during the exam and BR, but I knew I was making way too many assumptions. However, since I could at least think of a plausible reason for this one, I picked it.

I have spent about 30 minutes on this one, and I just don't see how A is correct or how C is incorrect.

Context: lines were crossed between the Jacksons and Sara.

Here was the sufficient assumption I was looking for; I used this to pick out the PSA:

Helpful to Sara and Not difficult for Jacksons to to pass on correct number----->Laudable action by Jacksons

Jacksons do not pass on correct number/Jacksons only tell caller that they dialed wrong number--->Action not wrong by Jacksons

Answer A: Helpful---->Laudable. Wrong----->Led person to believe . How is this the correct answer? Isn't the first condition missing the idea of something not being difficult? Also, -Led person to believe----> Not wrong? Where does the stimulus imply that this isn't wrong? To me, the passage doesn't link this idea.

Answer B: Completely wrong.

Answer C: This is what I chose. Helpful and Easy-----> Laudable and not wrong. Isn't this really good? Sure, easy isn't necessarily "not difficult," but this is a PSA question, not a SA question.

Answer D: Laudable--->Blah blah blah. Laudable should be the necessary condition.

Answer E: Laudable---> Blah blah blah. Same as D.

Hey 7Sagers, I just got an email from LSAC with PrepTest 76 attached. That mean you guys are gonna get your scores soon.

89/101 for a 170.

Got my October score back, and it was more or less what I expected - 172. However, my average for the last 10 full, timed 5-section PTs was 176 and I hadn't score below 173 for at least 15 prior PTs. I slept very poorly the night before test day and was primarily caffeine-powered. I'm shooting for Stanford, and 172 puts me directly on the 50th percentile LSAT. My GPA is 4.03. My question is, if you were in my position would you re-take in December? I have both admissions and potential scholarships in mind. Thanks for the input.

Because this is Texas.

(And yes, this guy's for real. He's based in Ft. Worth.)

p

.

I took the LSAT in Oct for the first time. I had been PTing 156-160 and BR in the 172-173 range. However, I don't think the actual test went well. I am signed up to retake in December. I would really like to get a 166 (that's what I need to get a scholarship).

Here is my study plan for each day:

LG foolproof method

2 new games per day (do each at least twice, watch video between attempts)

Repeat yesterday's new game at least once to cement inferences

At least 2 Reading passages

Drill LR in specific categories identified as weaknesses by analytics

PT on Saturday

BR on Sunday

(Will increase number of PTs per week as we get closer to December)

What changes would you make, if any, to this schedule, to get me ready for a 166 in December?