When looking at the answer choices for SA questions would it be OK to immediately eliminate those that begin with only, always, no, etc.?

Hi all — I have a question on the admissions process. I took the September exam and received a terrible score (in the low 140s), so I am planning on sitting for the November one. Ideally, my November score would be higher, but regardless, I’m committed to applying this cycle and given my career goals and situation, I am fine with going to a lower-ranked school. A little background about myself: I graduated from a strong liberal arts college in 2018 with a 3.8+ GPA and worked as a paralegal at a big law firm in downtown NYC for about a year following graduation — stopping early this summer to dedicate full-time studying for the LSAT.

Now to my question: am I allowed to apply to a couple of schools where I have a high chance of securing admission (Roger Williams, New England Law, Vermont Law, among others) with my September score right now — and then wait for my November score to apply to a different set of schools, assuming that my score is higher? The rationale for applying right now to lower ranked schools would be to take advantage of getting my app in early and to get a couple of acceptance letters, which would give me the peace of mind that I will be going to law school next fall. Does this rationale have merit or upside? (Would I even hear back from schools before December?) And will admissions at schools like Roger Williams frown upon that or not at all? Moreover, would they delay rendering a decision on my app since they know that I am taking it again and do not want to immediately accept me knowing full well that I won’t likely attend if my Nov. score is higher? As you can discern, I am in the process of processing my September performance and am concerned about admission. In addition, if I apply to a school right now/before my November test, will they wonder why I am applying at this moment, as I assume that they can see that I’m registered for November? Further, I plan to write an LSAT addendum, but if I were to apply before the November test, how would schools interpret that? Will they think: “Why is he writing an addendum when he only took it once and seems to be settling on such a dismal score?”

Any advice and insight would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks.

Hi there! I am from the Milwaukee area and plan to take the LSAT in April. I was wondering if anyone in the area wanted to meet in-person to become study buddies so we can teach and learn from each other!

Hello everyone,

I was wondering if anyone had any information as to how long it takes LSAC to receive and process letters of recommendation sent through the mail. My recommender put his letter in the mail on November 13th and I still have not gotten an update from LSAC. I checked to make sure that they sent the correct form with the letter and they confirmed that they did. Should I be worried?

Thank you!

People who have taken previous test, please let me know how the test centers rank. (if the location has flip-up desks, noisiness/quietness of the test center environment/proctors)

Any information would be helpful - thank you!

Hi everyone I'm looking for the 180watch or any other similar watch that has a button that resets it. Message me if anyone is selling or knows of a similar watch I could buy. Thank you all!

Hi there! Looking for a study partner in Upstate NY for Sept. 2014 LSAT.

Still new to studying for the LSAT, just started in April/May.

Subscribe to the podcast:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify

The leaves are turning, decorative gourds are everywhere, and the law school admissions cycle is in full swing. We break it all down, from the statistics regarding enrolling 1L classes (up), to LSAT numbers (up!), to a look ahead at what this likely means for application numbers (UP!).

Also see if you can spot the error regarding the year in which Cecil Fielder hit over 50 home runs for the Detroit Tigers!

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.

Hi everyone. As i got closer to test day my scores kind of dipped for various reasons. Also i had struggled with timing for most of my process especially in RC and LG(for some reason). Timing was the biggest deterrent to my score, and so i attempted some tweaks that seem to have helped me out (along with a lot of repetition in LG types and RC sections). For the Logic games i started doing the 3rd game first, then the fourth, then the second, the thirst. This is risky for multiple reasons, but I havent struggled to finish a section since i picked it up, and my accuracy is usually -0. The RC solution is really a suggestion predicated on my experience and that is trying to answer most questions without referring back to the passage. I realize this may seem obvious and a lot of you probably do this already, but i realized that i spent way too much time trying to verify answers that i suspected to be right, in most cases, if im not sure, i eliminate wrong answers and go with my hunch and comeback to it later if time allows. All in all im sure this isnt too enlightening. Anybody else have any last second tweaks? and Good luck to Sept LSAT takers and future LSAT takers in general.

Hey All!

This may be a long shot, but if there is anyone in Kuala Lumpur studying for the LSAT and would like to join forces please let me know.

I can't wait to input my answers and get a detailed analysis of my performance. When will 7sage release the grader for PT 72?

Anyone from the area (UNT, TWU, etc.) want to get together?

Is it better to take the September LSAT if I want to enroll for the fall of 2015? Or would it matter if I change my test date to the December LSAT? Do schools give all of their scholarship money to their first applicants?

It can be in person or online..

I hit a wall early in my prep. I logged every wrong answer religiously in the notes section. But after a month, I realized I wasn't learning; I was just hoarding my failures in a list I never wanted to look at again.

I was spending hours managing data when I should have been fixing the underlying logic flaws and rewiring my old ways of thinking. I realized that re-reading the same question wasn't helping—I was just remembering the answer, not learning the rule.

The inefficiency was driving me crazy. About 70% of my journal was stuff I had already learned from, but it was buried in with the difficult concepts I still needed to work on. I was wasting an hour a day reviewing a massive wall of text just to find the few questions that actually mattered.

I eventually built a tool to fix the workflow. It filters out what I already know and uses AI to verify I actually know the pattern of the difficult ones by generating new variations. If I got it right, it schedules review for longer. If I get it wrong, it shortens the review period so I can focus on the questions that trip me up most. I went from a 157 to a 173 in a few months, and I really think it's because I used this as a "hyper efficient" wrong answer journal to find the signal in the noise.

Does anyone else have a good system for "pruning" their wrong answer journal? Or do you just let the list grow forever, or skip out on using it entirely?

Hi guys,

For question #2, we are asked to break down this argument into premises, conclusion, and context.

The common procedure for determining whether a food additive should be banned from use is to compare its health related benefits with its potential risks. Yellow Dye No. 5, an additive used to color lemon soda, might cause allergic reactions in a few consumers. For most consumers of lemon soda, however, the coloring enhances their enjoyment of the beverage. This particular additive should not be banned, therefore, because its benefits greatly outweigh its risks.

This was my answer:

Context: The common procedure for determining whether a food additive should be banned from use is to compare its [food additive] health related benefits with its potential risks.

Premise: Yellow Dye No. 5, an additive used to color lemon soda, might cause allergic reactions in a few consumers.

Premise: For most consumers of lemon soda, however, the coloring enhances their [most consumers] enjoyment of the beverage.

Premise/Sub Conclusion: because its [Yellow Dye No. 5] benefits greatly outweigh its risks.

Main Conclusion: This particular additive [Yellow Dye No. 5] should not be banned.

J.Y.'s was different. Can people explain to me why my answer is wrong? It makes sense to me since the first two premises explain why the sub conclusion (Yellow Dye No.5 benefits greatly outweigh its risks) which then in turn supports the main conclusion. Thanks!

Admin note: This is the lesson:

http://classic.7sage.com/lesson/quiz-context-identification-1-answers/

The video explanation was a bit murky here. I'm not so sure why the answer choice is C. I have a good theory on why people likely mistakenly pick C even though it is the right a/c. There are some issues I have with it.

1. its trying to say that if the number of science and engineering students in university programs has increased in the last 5 years then that is somehow proof or strengthening the idea of there being no shortage of scientist and engineers. This is a problematic shift, it requires us to assume they stay in that program, graduate it, AND work in that field. There is no evidence that these people have even graduated never mind ward off an IMMINENT and CATASTROPHIC shortage. Imminent means about to happen, how can people who entered university 3 years ago and are not even employed ward off and IMMINENT shortage? we don't even know when in the last 5 years this increase happened. We just know generally

2. It is also using a raw number to address a question about a total proportion. In otherwords, the correct answer choice here, C, is a percents and numbers FLAW! It would be like saying ok you have a shortage of 90% of workers. C is saying but you have a significant increase in the NUMBER of science grads, so what, you went from 10,000 to 50,000, that doesn't ward of the IMMINENT AND CATASTROPHIC shortage of 400,000 science grads needed. This matters because shortage means proportion it is a ratio not a raw number. It is the amount of jobs to job seeker ratio. You cannot solve this question with a total number.

3. I try to see how C could at least be right, but I have a real problem with it. I suspect most people don't recognize it as a ratio issue and just say yeah more students ----> more grads -----> -more job seekers ----->avert shortage and therefore Strengthen conclusion. There is a problem at literally everyone of these jumps but the worse one is you can have a significant increase of students, grads, job seekers, and still not avert an IMMINENT and catastrophic shortage. Maybe I am just not seeing where he is trying to strengthen correctly.

4. So which a/c would I have chosen? Probably D? Why, it is the only question who addresses the issue in the argument and thus has the POTENTIAL to strengthen. If certain science fields have an oversupply and others have a shortage. That indicates 2 thins. 1) For the oversupply field clearly there is no imminent and catastrophic shortage, supporting the conclusion. 2) For the shortage field there is also no imminent and catastrophic shortage, it is a shortage but its not described as imminent or catastrophic, so it indeed also supports the conclusion.

Hi there! Reaching out to see if there is anyone else in the Jacksonville, NC area studying for the October or future LSATs and would want to get a study group together? I’m a military spouse moving to the area and thought this would be a great way to connect!

I've finally managed to get my accuracy down (the score that I'd like to get in each section untimed) but am having a hard time transferring that over to timed sections and was wondering if anyone else has experienced this and how long it took for you to get your time down.

It's really frustrating and it doesn't help that I'm a risk adverse test taker!!!

PT73 BR Tonight at 8pm ET

Well, well, well. About 2 months out and we're gonna BR us some PT73. Needless to say ...

NOTE: We are meeting at 8pm ET tonight. Not 8:30. Latecomers welcome! Gotta give the East Coast folks a break.

Note on all groups

I know. You're thinking about skipping out on BR groups this week. It's summer, you're having "fun," and October seems so far away. Well, it's not. Don't skip BR groups this week.

Listen to the GIF!

Note: Weekday (Weds/Fri) calls now starting at 8PM ET. We haven't had many West Coasters with schedule restraints on recently and would like to give the East Coasters a break (since we've been on until nearly midnight for them recently).

Please also note: Saturday calls still start at 8PM ET!

Wednesday, August 5th at 8PM ET: PT59

Last PT in the 50's!

(s)Friday, August 7th at 8PM ET: PT74

Frighteningly recent test.(/s) rescheduled for next Friday.

LSATurday, August 8th at 8PM ET: PT60

Did you ever imagine having this much fun on a Saturday night??!

Note on all groups

Hi guys, I am wondering if there is a study group in DC for September 2017.

Hi Guys,

Can you guys please help me take a look if my analysis on B & C is correct? https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-3-question-08/

The question is very much like a SA question. The answer choices can be quickly eliminated by a match principle into the sufficient condition. However, I think we can expand on this problem more.

A is correct. So won't go into detail about it.

B. The sentence is wrong based on 2 reasons. The first reason is by putting the conclusion as the sufficient condition. Even if we were to change the answer into: If election campaigns are to be funded from public funds, it will allow politian to devote less time asking for money than serving the interest of the public, this is still wrong because it is formulated into a C-->P Relationship, while what we are looking for is P-->C relationship.

C is wrong because it talks of a different set that we do not know. Had this question be translated into an Inference MBT Except question, the asnwer choice then is correct.

D. is wrong based on 2 counts. The first count is of the same reason as B by messing up the location of the conclusion into the suffcient condition. But in addition to it that the question steam mix in an unrealted element. Evne if we have deleted that related element from the sentence, it is still incorrect and not 50% correct due to the location issue with the conclusion statement.

If we were to extent this answer choice's analysis a bit further.

Suppose that in this case, the answer choice for A is wrong too. But D is formulated in the following fashion: "if public funding of some activity produces a benefit to the public but also inevitably a special benefit for specific individuals, the activity should be fully funded by the public while the special interest taker group contributes proportionally more".

In this answer choice, iff answer choice is made wrong in other fashion. D will be correct on 2 counts. 1) The sentence is 50% correct. Although it do have irrelevant items in it but part of the argument goes through along with our principle. 2) It is the most correct answer in comparison with the rest of the answer choice.

Had LSAT do this, then the question's difficulty is pushed to a level 4 or 5 difficulty.

E. is wrong because it like C speaks of another different set of population that is above this univerise. Again, it can become a correct answer choice if it is an MBT Inference Except question.

My question concerns the lsac fee waiver. I should be approved without any trouble but I am having the hardest time getting my non filing form from the IRS. I have faxed them the request form and also called a couple times and still no luck. I would normally just wait and not be so anxious but my account is on hold due to it and with scores coming out thos week I really don't want to be stuck SOL waiting for the IRS to mail me the info LSAC requested. Do you guys know if it's possible to cancel the fee waiver to not have my account on hold and see my scores and then re submit it afterward to still receive the fee waivers? Any help is appreciated! Thank yo