Hi everyone, I plan on applying to law school this November and while I wanted to write the LSAT before applying, life kinda got in the way so now I am aiming for the November test too. In my application I plan on indicating that I will write in both November 2025 and January 2026, even though I hope to not have to write in January at all.

But in the off chance that I'm happy with my November score, would the admissions committee wait to consider my application fully until after a January score is posted since I have selected it on my application (even though I may not even write it in January for certain)? Or would they just consider my application with my November score if its posted first and good enough, and not pay much attention to whether I do better in January or not?

I am aware that it would be much more ideal for me to just wait until next year to avoid all of this, but I've been committed to applying this year and figured that aiming for November, and being open to January incase something goes wrong (or I get greedy and want to score higher) would be the smartest option. Any help would be appreciated, thanks!!!

This question asks us to find an answer choice that matches the flaw in the stimulus.

The form of the argument in the stimulus and the form of the argument in the correct answer choice are not at all identical, and this is the difficulty of this question.

The argument in the stimulus says:

Stallworth claimed that [A]

A+B --> C

/C

Therefore, /B

A = Stallworth supported the proposal

A+B = Henning also supported the proposal (the "also" was referencing Stallworth's support)

C = proposal received government approval

Answer choice A says:

TV news claimed that [A and B]

A --> /B

Therefore, /B

A = the traffic accident occurred on Aylmer Street

B = Morgan witnessed the accident from his kitchen window

The TV news made two claims (claim A and claimB), then a not both rule (A --> /B) is stated. Since both A and B can't be true at the same time the author concludes that B must not have happened. However, the author is ignoring the possibility that it was A that didn't happen.

Answer choice B says:

City government claimed that [A]

A private institute claimed that [B]

Therefore, the city government is to blame for A

A = 15% of city residents are behind on their property taxes

B = property taxes in the city are higher than average

The flaw here is that the author assumes B caused A, rather than a number of alternative possibilities such as high unemployment or people being distracted by studying for the LSAT every day and forgetting to pay their property taxes. The other unwarranted assumption is that the city government sets the taxes. Maybe the citizens vote to determine the tax rate. It's even possible that the county determines the property tax rate in this city. It would not be logical to blame the city government for something they have no control over.

Answer choice C says:

According to Kapoor [A]

According to Galindo [B]

Therefore, if B --> /A

A = haz waste site does not pose danger to the community

B = haz waste site is on an unsuitable tract of land

Two different ideas (danger and suitability) are discussed but assumed to be the same idea. We don't know why Galindo thinks the land is unsuitable. Maybe it's because this land is really rocky and it's expensive to dig holes in the ground for burying waste. Maybe the hazardous waste just smells bad and Galindo doesn't want to drive by the waste site on the way to work every day.

Answer choice D says:

According to rivals [A]

B --> C

Therefore, Harris is a poor choice for mayor

A = Harris favors the interests of property developers

B = a good mayor

C = willing to stand up to property developers

This argument assumes that Harris is not willing to stand up to property developers. Again, this is an argument that conflates two different ideas (favoring the interests of developers and being willing to stand up to developers). There is no reason Harris can't do both. Also, even if Harris isn't "a good mayor," he could still be a better choice for mayor than anyone else who is willing to do it.

Answer choice E says:

Latest government figures claim [A]

B

Therefore, /A

A = regional unemployment rate declined in the last six months

B = the region lost thousands of manufacturing jobs

The assumption is that the unemployment rate can't go down in a period when manufacturing jobs were lost. However, maybe it was Amazon that bulldozed a factory in the region and put up an office building. The two ideas (regional unemployment and jobs in a specific industry) are not the same.

Admin note: edited title

Let me know if you’re in the area and wanna meet up for study sessions!

Please note that the information below will change to reflect the information we get! Contribute if you can via the official February 2017 LSAT discussion (linked at the bottom of this thread) without going into too much detail. If you think something is wrong or should be added, please post in the thread and let me know.

Since it is the Feb. LSAT, please be aware that it is undisclosed and, as a result, I will not be updating this thread until I get multiple confirmations on a question.

Real Sections:

LG:

-Gold/Silver Vases/Plates

-12-Week Class Schedule

-Transcribing & Preparing for Interviews

-Different Libraries

RC:

-The Bumblebee's "Waggle Dance"

-Hindus and Romans / Patriotism

-Civil Courts / Judges and Juries

-Liberal Environmentalism / Ecology

LR:

-Speed Limits for Different Vehicle Types / Vehicle Emissions from 1967-1990 / Smog

-Global Warming/Climate Change

-Charles II

-Napoleon

-Meteorite and Nano-Diamonds

-Supernova and a King's Birth

-Ravens/Crows and Worms / Dropping Pebbles in a Tube

-Children Estimating Half-Full Beakers

-Plate Tectonics / Size of Planet

-Skilled Writer Politician Makes a Speech

-Company Criticism / Debt

-Government Sending Letters Across Country / Connecting People

-Middle-Aged Coffee Drinkers / High Blood Pressure

Experimental Sections:

LG:

-French/Russian Language

RC:

LR:

UNCONFIRMED:

If you can confirm that these are real / experimental, please do so by PMing me or posting in the main thread.

None yet!

This thread is closed for discussion. Official post Feb LSAT discussion here:

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/10331/official-february-lsat-discussion-thread

Hello friends,

It sounds like 8pm EST works for folks (since we're doing the new BR cycle at that time) so I took a leap and changed the time of tonight's BR group to **8PM EST**.

1. PT65. Time it. Do it. Review it (if you can).

2. Join us at 8pm EST on Skype.

**PM me with your Skype handle**

Extra credit: Meditate upon this quote.

Has anyone saved a list of medium-difficult referential phrasing LR questions (especially forward-pointing referents) and/or multi-clause sentences that use referential phrasing? I'm trying to hone this skill and would love to help put together a list so others can do the same.

51.3.23 is a good one for starters, would love the help, thanks!

Proctors:

They have 3 proctors and they are very quiet throughout the whole process. They are not super familiar with the rules but you can tell that they have past experience as proctors for LSAT and are very very nice people.

Facilities:

Bathroom is very close to the classroom and is large enough to accommodate the test takers.

What kind of room:

Normal size classroom with AC on (Taiwan is still hot in September).

How many in the room:

They scheduled it 8*7, but about 30-40% of people didn't show up. So about 30 people in the room.

Desks:

Classroom-size desk and chair.

Left-handed accommodation:

Not sure.

Noise levels:

Quiet. At 9:30AM there were some noise because another test administered by ETC is happening downstairs. Didn't bother me that much.

Parking:

I walked to the test center, but, well, it's Taiwan. Why would you want to drive to the test center in Taiwan?

Time elapsed from arrival to test:

The test takers were split into two classrooms so the waiting time is not very long. I think we started before 9.

Irregularities or mishaps:

Didn't notice.

Other comments:

I like this test center a lot. Taipei in general is a relaxing place and the locals are super nice. There are also a lot of good food in this area, so I enjoyed staying there.

The classroom located in the International building, which is on the right side when you enter the main gate. You have to go all the way down the hall to the elevators. The location of the classrooms for LSAT won't be posted until the morning of the test, so don't worry.

And an very important notice: don't mistake National Taiwan University of Science and Technology from National Taipei University of Science and Technology. They are two different schools and located in different part of the city.

Would you take the test here again?

Yes, definitely. I also recommended this test center to my friends.

Date[s] of Exam[s]: September 25, 2016

.

I was browsing youtube in my daily routine to relax before the test when all of a sudden, I got hit with a deja vu moment. For those who remember the RC passage about the ultraviolet catastrophe:

Enjoy~

Planning on taking the November LSAT, scoring around 165 but aiming higher. Looking to create a study group, I am currently in University so I think evening time 7 PST would be best or early morning. Looking to meet around three times a week and focus more on LR and RC. Also for support through this. Planning on going through PT 62+

Hey everyone, is the best way to follow the CC just to go from top to bottom ?

And if so, are some of the topics laid out in the wrong order ?

I have routinely encountered videos or topics ( Parallel method of reasoning ) for example. Where JY says its the last or highest section of LR. But, I still have many other question types etc still to do below it. like necessary assumption question type. Did they rearrange the video order or something ? Im honestly confused and want to be learning the question types in the proper order, due to the fact that the topics snowball together ! Please help or advise !

Hi,

I recently look a weekend LSAT course, and I wanted to share some info that maybe supplements this course? Or maybe I just missed some aspects in the lectures, but I found it really helpful.

For NA questions, there are two types obviously. But there is a distinct way of solving both type.

NA Bridging. For bridging questions, it was kind of lost on me how to solve them, because I was never writing out the conclusion and stimulus. I was just kind of rushing through them. But I was also getting caught up in the..... you have to negate the answer choices, so instead I would just write the conclusion, start negating the answers and I would get lost.

For bridging, I was now told that you solve them strictly by writing the conclusion and the premise and find the missing gap. Just like SA.

An example of this is this question:

"Lines can be parallel in E systems of geometry, but the non-E system of geo that has the most empirical verification is regarded by prominent physicists as correctly describing the universe we inhabit. If they are right, our universe has no parallel lines."

Premise - E system, parallel lines. non-E system, the most empirical verification.

Conclusion: Our universe has no parallel lines.

What premise is missing? That there are no parallel lines in the non-E system that has the most empirical verification, which is the right answer.

No negation of the answer choices necessary. Just birding the information and finding the gap. Which, probably was being done by all of you, but was completely lost on me.

NA Shielding, in contrast, can be solved by negation. However, i think we were told to solve it strictly by negation of the answer choices, but I was taught that it is more effective to negate BOTH the conclusion AND the answer choices and make them match up, which works perfectly for me now.

An example of this is in this question:

"Novelists cannot become great as long as they remain in academia. Powers of observation and analysis, which schools hone, are useful to the novelist, but an intuitive grasp of the emotions of everyday life can be obtained only by the kind of immersion in everyday life that is precluded by being an academic."

Premise: (basically) that you can only get an intuitive grasp of emotions through everyday life and not through academics.

Conclusion: Novelists cannot become great as long as they remain in academia.

Negate the conclusions: Novelists can become great ... as long as they remain in academic.

Which means that the premise, that they need emotions through everyday life, is irrelevant.

The negation of the answer choice: "Novelists CAN be great if they stay in academia. They don't need an intuitive grasp of emotions."

Negate the conclusion. Negate the premise. Make them match.

Seems so easy now, but before I was so lost. Hope this helps some people!!

Hello All,

I am thinking about the taking the LSAT Exam next year. If you would like to join me, please comment below.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Jimmy Rivera.

For those that chose to have your recommenders send a paper letter, how long did it take for it to show up in CAS?

My recommender sent the letter 3-4 weeks ago and it still hasn’t showed up.

I want to know why answer E is wrong. In Manhattan Prep. It says "everyday food" is irrelevent to the question. However, couldnt water be part of everyday food? Is this also making assumptions?

Admin note: edited title

What's up guys! After finishing the CC, how did you approach studying for the logical reasoning section? What worked? What didn't work? Thanks in advance.

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

Can we lay the tablet flat on the desk/table? It makes a big difference for me in reading comprehension.

With every flex preptest I take. there is a leftover LR section. Is there a way to do these as a separate timed sections?

I'm trying to improve my LR, but I'm really struggling under timed conditions. What advise do you guys have to get -5 or less consistently?

Does anybody know why AC C is incorrect?

I am hoping to submit apps sometime in the next week. I haven't spent a minute thinking about my resume until now because it's relatively inconsequential when compared to other factors. Also, I'm a few years out of college and have switched jobs so I already have one drafted. The problem I am running into with my "law school resume" is that I have what I believe to be relevant experiences from undergrad and I'm not sure how to include them such that it is 1) easy to follow and 2) recent work experience and older college community involvement both shine. Can someone look at my resume and critique my organization (and provide any other general feedback/criticism that you may have)?

Thanks!

Hi,

I am looking for productive people who are willing to study with me in the Metropolitan Area via in person or online. If that's you, then lets make our DREAMS come true!

Hi - I was looking for someone to sit down with to review score/GPA and evaluate admissions prospects in NYC. I want to understand both prospects for JD and JD/MBA admissions. Any recommendations? I used 7Sage for studying for first exam and love the site, so I am coming here with this question.

Thanks in advance,

Joe