EDIT: Room has been taken.

Hey All, I was planning on going to UVA’s Open House but unfortunately my plans have changed. I booked a hotel room that is not refundable at the university hotel (literally walking distance from the school). If anyone is interested in going and wants my room, I will give it to you for $60 (I’ll call the hotel and change the name on the room to yours). PM me with your email address if you are interested.

Subscribe to the podcast:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify

Tajira McCoy and her crew of law school admissions deans return for their most recent monthly discussion. This time, they dive into all things related to the written aspects of an application.

In your personal statement, do you have to write about why you want to be a lawyer?

Should you tailor your personal statement for every school?

When the instructions say “two pages max,” what happens if you go just a bit long?

How do you stand out on your statements (or is it even advisable to try and “stand out”)?

All that—and more!—in this month’s discussion.

While it’s not the day of the show, it’s very close...

...for Group BR

MONDAY, November 30th at 11AM ET: PT76

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.

Note: There will be an additional BR group discussion on Tuesday (12/1) @ 8:00pm EST.

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

Note:

Hey guys thought we could start a list of different/unique ways we've seen this common flaw described in the answer choices. These flaws are so easy to spot sometimes the challenge is wading through how the answer choice obscurely describes them. One that I came across for the first time was the following:

the conditional statement was

A-->B

B

therefore A

the correct answer choice was worded: fails to consider that there are conditions necessary for A in addition to the presence of B

If you guys have any others, please share!

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.

Hello,

Just wanted anyones input on top Part Time Evening Programs in NYC.

I would be going for entertainment law with focuses on Music and Film/TV.

Its hard to find info and would appreciate any help!

Hey guys, can someone give their own explanation regarding how they arrive at the correct answer for this one?

For me, it is clear why A, D, and E are wrong, but I got hung up between B and C. I choose B both during the actual PT and during BR.

I initially chose B because it seems that it can be true given the information in the stimulus. While the stimulus states (in short) that is it unlikely individuals can adequately provide funding and the necessary skills, the unlikeliness of those possibilities does not seem to eliminate the possibility that some founders are adequate at providing both funding and skills.

After seeing that the answer is C, I was able to justify (somewhat) why B is incorrect. While some founders could be adequate at both funding and skills, it is not necessary. It also seems to contradict the stimulus because if some members can have both the adequate funding and skills, then you can challenge that having a group is more likely to be successful v. an individual.

Any other explanations on how to arrive to C? I am having a difficult time articulating exactly why C is correct without simply eliminating the other four ACs.

I had a well known law professor I worked with offer to write me a letter to my dream school... I have already submitted my app and used the max number of references. Is him writing a letter a good or a bad idea? I haven't had a response from the school yet. He's also taught at the school before. I know I should have asked him to be one of my LOR's, but I honestly didn't think he would.

Hey everyone-

I've been using start class rankings for sometime but I'm getting an error today and info the site no longer has the law school info.

Was anyone else using this and any ideas what happened?

http://law-schools.startclass.com

PSA: The Judicial candor passage from PT 82 is in my opinion one of the best comparative passage to learn from. When done properly, you could conceivably eliminate 80% of answer choices before moving onto passage B.

Would somebody please help me. I am having an awfully hard time with the RC questions and I feel that some answer choices can be debated as opinionated.

I am finding the RC questions much harder than the LG.

Please help. Question #'s 1, 5, 6, 7, & 8, especially #'s 1, 7 & 8.

Thank you.

Admin note: edited

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-1-section-1-passage-1-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-1-section-1-passage-1-questions/

—deleted—

I read a post last year about one student who scored in 150s and successfully transferred to CCN. I did not bookmark the post (s/he said something about the new school that does not have transfer stigma and etc).

In the post, s/he mentioned that s/he did something intensive preparation before law school and talked about a few books and supplements s/he used.

I know people are against intensive preparation before law school. But I am an international student (did BA/MA in the U.S. though) and nervous about law school.

I have a not-very-demanding-tutor job and want to read some books besides GTM or Planet LS.

Anyone who happens to remember the post?

To be considered for merit-based scholarships, admitted students at UW must complete a 500 word max scholarship essay. Here is the prompt: "Please submit an essay that describes how you strive to be a leader in the community and what contributions you plan to make at the University of Washington School of Law. You may also provide information about past meaningful achievements, special attributes, and any personal or family circumstances that contribute to your financial need."

Does anyone have any advice for this essay?

I have a few questions when it comes to logical reasoning so please bare with me. So I know how to pick the correct conclusion and premise and I can do the lawgic translation but I am having a problem translating the lawgic back into English and yes I have reviewed the lessons. Its like when I translate the lawgic back to English what I think the translation is saying is not what the answer choices are saying which then throws me off when its comes to picking the correct answer.So since I was having a problem with this I would paraphrase the conclusion and premise and try to piece together the answer which works for some questions but its not effective in mastering every question as opposed to the lawgic translations. I also get confused when it comes to the group 4 translations so I will add a link in for a question where you can see my thought process.

When should you be doing lawgic translations for logical reasoning questions? When do you know if conditional logic is being used in the stimulus? Is lawgic and logic the same thing?

Are there any tips when it comes to paraphrasing the stem for the lawgic translation? Sometimes I have a little trouble trying to figure out exactly what letters that I should use that will grasp the whole concept of the premises and conclusion. For example, I know that my paraphrase with letters will not be the exact same as JY's but I must admit that his paraphrase captures the whole concept and mine seems overly complicated which then throws me off because I be having the correct premise and conclusion,. What can I do that will help me with the paraphrasing and confusion from the lawgic translation to the English Translation?

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/self-expression-strengthen-question/?ss_completed_lesson=931

Premise: What they seems to ignore is that, trivially anything we do is self expressive and also their claim isn't interesting

Conclusion: We are not obliged to take their claim seriously.

Translation: /I and T

/S

Answer is /I...S or /T...S

So the correct answer was C but was confused because I thought that when it came to group four terms you have to do the contrapositive after the negation and Jy didnt. So I thought the final answer would have been s...t or /s.../t but it was t.../s

Hey guys,

Has anyone experienced a score reduction when taking the digital LSAT compared to their physical LSAT scores? I am quite nervous about taking the digital LSAT because I am a person who loves to mark up the paper when doing RC and LR. I find that it keeps me more focused.

I have taken a couple individual RC and LR sections digitally and have found that my scores in those sections have dropped a couple points due to (I think) the inability to physically circle/draw arrows/etc. on the passage or stimulus. Any tips on transferring physical LSAT habits to the digital LSAT?

Thanks!

Anyone interested in meeting up to study for June 2015 near downtown area?

Here's my review for Western Washington University. I actually live in BC but this test centre is the closest to my house and it's really good (based on my limited experience) and I'm not really sure I want the word to get out before the next time I have to write haha.

Proctors: There were two women, super friendly and the one at the front was really encouraging, kept telling us how well prepared she thought we looked during the break and after the test was over. They also let us keep water on the desk and reminded people that knuckle cracking was distracting in between sections. Proctors were quiet and I never heard them chatting or saw them moving. One stayed up at the back and the other sat at the front.

Facilities: Restrooms were down the hall, 1 minute walk for slowpokes, 25 seconds for everyone else. I don't know what they looked like because I don't use public washrooms....assuming they were standard, had toilets and sinks...

What kind of room: Small lecture hall (aka higher at the back, lower at the front) with long tables for desks and chairs that were attached by a swivel. Chairs kind of sucked but what can you really expect at a school?

How many in the room: 13 (15 were scheduled but 2 were no-shows). They mentioned to us before the test that they decided to split us into 3 separate groups based on last names so I'm assuming every room had about the same. Plenty of room to stretch out and line up all 15 of your backup pencils. The room was far from being full and I there there was a 3 seat gap in between each person.

Desks: Long tables attached to the floor so no movement. No wiggling.

Left-handed accommodation: No one was left handed in my room but since there were so few of us I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem to move if you needed to.

Noise levels: Super quiet. Literally heard nothing the entire time I was writing. They also had signs posted on the room doors as well as the building entrance/exit doors asking for quiet as testing was in progress.

Parking: Pay parking from a meter. Not difficult to figure out. Walked probably 10 feet from my car to the building. When I did a trial drive earlier in the summer they had a visitor centre that was opened where they told me they would issue visitor parking passes for free but unfortunately the centre was closed last Saturday.

Time elapsed from arrival to test: They were really efficient in getting us all lined up and in the correct rooms. We started the first section at 9:05 but only because one test taker was either super nervous and didn't understand how to complete any of his bubble sheet or didn't pay attention to the instructions and just sat there silently not asking questions. A few people also didn't pay attention when they told us to insert the writing sample form into the last page of the test booklet.

Irregularities or mishaps: One test taker was clearly bubbling in answers after the 5th section ended. The proctor at the rear immediately came down and told him he wasn't permitted to be doing that. The front proctor confirmed but still let him continue after he told them he only bubbled in one hole. I (and probably everybody else except the proctor at the front who was almost right in front of him) saw him the entire time as he as the only person noticeably moving after time had been called. He must have bubbled in at least 10 by the time she told him to stop. He claimed he didn't know he wasn't permitted but we got constant reminders about it so I doubt it.

Other comments: I think that this test centre is underused since it's in such a random middle of nowhere location and I didn't see any other reviews on it prior to writing. The proctor also asked us if we wanted a 10 or 15 minute break before the break started. I wanted 10 but no one else did or maybe a bunch of us did but didn't put our hands up...lemmings.

Would you take the test here again? 100% (sadly that will soon be a reality come grey day...)

Date[s] of Exam[s]: Sep 24, 2016

Does anyone want to review the RC section from PT 84 tomorrow (Saturday, 7/21/18)? I'm looking for someone to review with, so if you're interested, send me a message so we can set up a time to chat about it.

Is anyone in the Edmonton, Alberta, Canada region?

I'm taking the October 2015 test (retake) and I'll be looking for some study buddies on the weekends! Let me know :) you can respond or e-mail me at harrismegan@live.ca.

Could also be a group. Hoping to take the June LSAT.

I took a diagnostic a few weeks ago but haven’t taken any full PTs since then. Right now, I’m only partially through the curriculum, I’ve made some progress in the Logical Reasoning section but haven’t touched Reading Comp yet.

I’m tempted to start taking full-length practice tests to begin building endurance and test-day skills, but I’m also worried it might be too early. I don’t want to waste time on PTs if I’d be better off continuing through the lessons first.

When should I start taking full PTs?

Is it just me or was this section more difficult than most ?

Hi everyone,

I was wondering if anyone knew of some legal studies or law related masters programs/certificate programs off the top of their heads? Since I'm writing the LSAT in June now and won't be able have my score added to my applications for this year, I'm looking for something to do during the year instead of just waiting around for my acceptances to come. I've got a really great resume with some awesome extracurriculars and work experience already. I would highly prefer for the program to be in a distance studies format (online)! Any suggestions would be more than appreciated.

So far all I've come up with is this: http://www.extension.harvard.edu/degrees-programs/master-liberal-arts/fields-concentration/legal-studies

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/