How is A a sufficient assumption? I didn't like any of the answer choices, so I pretty much guessed on this one. I thought A was the least attractive answer choice because it lacks the conditional nature that is typical for sufficient assumptions. My understanding of the argument is this:

We can't figure out how effective a certain model cleans simply be looking at how powerful the motor is. This is because the efficiency varies a lot, even with identical motors.

The sufficient assumption I was looking for was this: if efficiency varies (even with identical motor power), then we can't determine how effective the model cleans.

How does A paraphrase this?

Hey LSAT Team,

I am aiming to take the February test. I'm almost done with the curriculum, have about 5 full sections left and some problem sets (I have Ultimate + though so there are a LOT of problem per curriculum set). I plan to finish up the curriculum this week (expect for the entire problem sets).

I wanted to confirm to myself I will not be ready for the Dec test, so I just took PT 52 (it's the lowest test I have in my possession at the moment) and got a 162. The break down is:

-11 LR: Almost exclusively in the "harder parts" between Q's 17-25

-4 LG: missed 2 from silly mistakes

-8 RC: I'd say I got lucky here because I guessed correctly on 2 of 4 Q's

BRed a 168 without even trying to BR the games (I don't know why, I don't find it very useful compared to full re-drilling them after a bit of time but I know I should).

With a full time job, what do ya'll think should I do from here to February? Obviously finish the lessons in at the top of my priority but should I actually go back and do ALL the problem sets by question type?

I have about 3 full month left to the test which means I can get anywhere from 15-25 PT's in between I would say. Depending on how I decide to spend this up coming prep time. SO the question boils down to 25 PT's with thoroughly BRed and basically nothing else or 15 PT's with drills in between to work on my weakest areas? Particularly focusing on RC which I feel complete inadequate at, at the expense or LG which slowly appears to be clicking for me.

Any and all advice is highly appreciated.

Note: I know a lot of people will tell me: wait for June! But no thank you. I honestly feel I work better when under more pressure and closer deadlines. The idea that I am 8 months away from the test I don't think will work well for me. And if anything, June can be my second chance.

What kind of jobs are out there for lower ranked law schools? I'm talking 70+ up to the 90s but no unranked schools. Michigan State University is one example.

I originally planned to knock out each section one at a time. However, the 7sage course syllabus mixes them. I know the 3 sections are all connected (logic reasoning, analysis, etc.), but any good reason for following the 7sage method as opposed to just knocking out all LR, then all LG, then all RC?

Thanks.

I found some pratice tests waaaay back from 1993 and up.

Should I bother taking those or are they too old?

I don't understand how B is the answer. In the lessons regarding weakening, I was under the impression that we were to look for ways to weaken the connection between the Premises and the Conclusion. If the question states that "many human diseases are genetically based," then how does B not just attack the Premises? I mapped out ... human diseases (HD) are genetically based (GB)... HD -> GB. Then some of Cat's (CG) genetics are the same to humans (HG). ... CG(--s--) HG. Then I said Some of Primates (PG) genetics are the same as Humans .... PG (--s--) HG... the conclusion is humans have many diseases (HD) in common with Cats (CD) ...HD --m-->CD

I figured (albeit I now see that it was an incorrect conclusion... I just dont know why) that the question was trying to jump from some cats and some primates genes are the same as humans so therefore Humans have diseases in common with Cats. Answer C could provide a weaker link with the premise/conclusion connection by pointing out that a some correlation does not imply a most correlation.

Any help or guidance would be appreciated.

When I read the question I assumed that the debris hurled into the atmosphere causing the blocking of the sun and extinction of the dinosaurs was only in the Yucatan Peninsula. Which is why answer choice B was attractive and I picked it rather than answer choice E. I understand why E is correct, but can somebody explain why or how I should have assumed the debris from the asteroid was around the world versus just affecting the Yucatan Peninsula?

Anyone from the Chicago area interested in getting a group together for mock LSAT exam?

Did anyone else find these games sections more difficult than usual? I am a pretty consistent -0 to -2 on the games sections, but damn the A, B, and C games sections are brutal. For example, games 3 and 4 on PT A each ate up like 12-13 minutes. I will definitely be redoing these sections in a few weeks. Did anyone else feel the same way about these games?

So I took the October LSAT and came in at a 169. My dream school is Stanford, which puts me on the 25th percentile in terms of LSAT score. My undergrad LSDAS GPA was calculated to be 3.68 which is a little below 25th percentile. The real GPA was a tenth of a point higher, but I suppose that is irrelevant for my purpose. I would call myself something of a non-traditional law student. I have a Master's in Music, as well as some post grad studies, and was a professional classical guitarist/instructor for five or so years and have traveled much of the world. I only list these last things out of hope that they might somehow set me apart on my application, though that may be wishful thinking. I'm looking for a little advice here. Should I apply? or would that be tantamount to lighting a $100 bill on fire?

1. People with long legs make good runners. Everyone in Ashley's family has long legs. Therefore, Ashley would make a good runner. (I think it's a bad argument because just because Ashley's family has long legs doesn't necessarily mean she does, right?)

2.In Los Angeles everyone over the age of 18 who drinks also smoke. But not everyone in Los Angeles over the age of 18 who smokes are drinks. It follows tear among people over the age of 18 in Los Angeles there are more who drink than there are who smoke. (this felt like a bad argument to me)

3. All of the painting in the Janet Collection will be put up for auction next week. Since the paintings to be auctioned next week are by a wide variety if artists, it follows that the paintings in the Janet collection are by a wide variety of artists (This felt like a bad argument to me)

4. A writer's first book will become a best-seller only if it has a romantic setting and a suspenseful plot. Since many author's first novels have neither, it follows that not many first novels become best-sellers. (I thought this was a good argument)

5. Some short poems are thematically pluralistic, since some sonnets are characterized by such pluralistic, and all sonnets are short poems. (I thought this was a bad argument, because I couldn't diagram it)

6. Most of the people in Los Angeles buys gasoline on Mondays only. But almost everyone in Los Angeles buys groceries on Tuesday only. It follows that fewer than half of the people in Los Angeles buy gasoline on the same day on which they buy groceries.

I don't know where else to ask this but I haven't been able to really log in to my account for a couple days now. I'm "logged in" because I can post this but I can't access any of the course material (can't study!!!!!"

This is the error message:

503: Service Temporarily Unavailable

Too many IP addresses accessing one secure area!

Please contact Support if you need assistance.

Plz help!

Feb-ers!!!! Welcome to Group BR!!

Skype is not doing well. I have a pet theory that might work; it involves clicking a link for each individual conversation we’d like to join rather than having a regular group of 25 people in the conversation. It might reduce the needed bandwidth. But if that plan doesn’t work, we may need to change from Skype to Google Hangout. Please PM your Google Hangout email (a gmail account will do) to me. We’re working on trying to make this transition as painless as possible, but there may be snags here and there. Thanks for your patience.

Wednesday, Oct 28th at 8PM ET: PT48

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/w7McAagFN3pf

Friday, Oct 30th at 8PM ET: PT70

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

LSATurday, Oct 31st at 8PM ET: PT67

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

Be sure to click the link of the conversation you’re attending and announce in the comments which group(s) you’re planning on attending.

Note:

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!