Has LSAC given any outlook whatsoever? Or restarted the conversation around administering the test in small, distanced group settings?

PLEASE help! I seem to be missing all weakne questions and I don't know what to do anymore. I tried everything!

Please note that the information below will change to reflect the information we get! Contribute if you can via the official June 2016 LSAT discussion 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.

Real Sections:

LG:

- Team / Leadership Position

- Things made in 1920s

- Recordings / 2 Being Recorded While The Rest Weren't

- Tables at a Fair / Sundial (Table / Vase / Lamp question)

RC:

- High Art / Elite Classes

- CFCs / Ozone

- Legal Matters / Jury Nullification

- Clay / Cuneiform Tablets

LR:

- Brabblers / Birds

- Warm Sea / Jupiter's Moon Europa

- Oxygen Depletion / Levels

- Mayor / Indifference of Voters

- Iron to Prevent Parkinson's

- CEO / Lawyer

- Chocolate Desserts High Calories / Fatty

- World Literature / National Interest

- Hiring Lawyer to Write Will vs. Doing it Yourself

- Sociology / Psychology

- Movie Technology / Recovering Costs

- City of Troy

Experimental Sections:

LG:

- Bicycle Factories / Parts

- Lead Actor Understudy

- Septic Tank

- Fridges

- Oil Art / Gallery

RC:

- Movies made for TVs

- Blues / Musicians (RC)

- Farming Fish / Overfishing

- Computer Simulation in UK Courtroom

- Musical Iconography (?)

- Chem vs. Physics

LR:

- Heme and Non-Heme Food / Nutritional Value

- Hot Cocoa

UNCONFIRMED:

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

- Coffee & Water in Water Heater

- Large Mall Bookstores / Sell Magazines

- Cereal / Whole Grains

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

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/6922/official-june-lsat-discussion-thread

Ahh, ok- so some popcorn takes longer than 3 minutes, I get it now. I think?

Let me first say that I was granted 50% extra time for the LSAT so I'm still getting used to the difference. My last test was a 165 with 23/26 LR, 23/25 LR, 16/23 LG, 21/27 RC. I feel really confident about LR for the most part but 3 of the questions I missed were strengthening questions so I'll definitely drill those. I actually misread one of the logic games that was stacked traits and totally bombed it with 2/7 for that game but I'll also drill those to make sure I don't make that mistake again and if I would've understood the game I'm fairly confident I would've gone 20-21/23 in that LG section. HOWEVER, the RC is screwing me up big time. It is SO difficult for me to get any type of improvement in RC. I am so stuck and not sure where to go even with accommodations I am absolutely unsure how to approach RC passages sometimes. Should I just drill them like any other game? How about Reviewing the RC? I see tangible improvement in everything but RC I feel like.

Edit: I also should note that its mainly Humanities and Social Sciences passages that I feel especially challenging.

I'm in Fredericksburg (Stafford County) and looking to start a study group to meet at the local library. Hildrethshalawn@yahoo.com

.

Hey Guys, I live in ATL near the battery and I am taking the April LSAT. I would love to meet some people in the area that would be interested in potentially starting an ATL study group or just a study buddy that would meet once a week or once every other week.

Looking to meet up a few times a week.

I seem to have a good grasp on these, getting them down to the last 2 possible answers-85% of the time choosing the right answer. But, in my opinion, for more than 75% of the correct answers they never tend to be the comparative answers. Is it safe to say that majority of the time the answers are NOT comparative, unless the subject within the statement has a comparison?

Hey! I have been studying for a few months with my test in October. Lately I have been super focused on getting the LR wrong answers down. I average at -6 with my lowest -3. I usually have 2-3 minutes left to go over my flagged questions, so I do not think timing is the issue. I only get 5 star, sometimes 4 star, questions wrong. What is the best strategy I can use this next month to get my wrong answers down?

I wanted to suggest adding a way for users to see their overall average time spent per question for Logical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension across all drills and practice.

Ideally, this could appear in the analytics section alongside existing stats like total questions attempted, accuracy, questions answered per day, average scores, etc. Having an overall average time per question would make it much easier to track pacing improvement over time and understand how close a user is to test-day timing.

It could also be very helpful to break this timing data down by question difficulty (Levels 1–5). Seeing average time by difficulty would allow users to identify whether they are spending too much time on easier questions or over-investing in higher-difficulty questions, which directly relates to pacing and skip strategy under timed conditions.

Since 7Sage already tracks both question difficulty and time spent on individual questions, this would be an aggregate view of data that’s already being collected. I think it would be a useful addition to the analytics tools, especially for students like myself who are working to improve their timing.

Thanks for considering this.

Is it worth doing if you don't get into the full time program?

Subscribe to the podcast:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify

Being placed on a law school waitlist can feel confusing and frustrating, especially when you do not know what to do next.

In this episode, Jake Baska breaks down what a law school waitlist actually means, how schools use waitlists, and what steps you should and should not take if you are on one. He walks through when to send a letter of continued interest, how to provide meaningful updates, and how to avoid common mistakes that can hurt your chances.

You will also learn how to manage expectations, how to make decisions while waiting, and how to stay proactive without being pushy. Whether you are on one waitlist or several, this episode will help you move forward with a clear plan.

For statements with if and only if, does it matter which variable I write first?

Example: V is selected if and only if P is selected

the if and only if here is referring to P so the solutions in the book show

P (--) V

not V (--) not P

but if I wrote it out as

V (--) P

not P (--) not V

Would that be correct since this is a biconditional statement? if past would make P sufficient condition and the only if part would make P the necessary condition. Am I thinking of this correctly?

Also, can I think of biconditionals as implying that the two variable must always go together meaning that PV will always be together in the "in" group or in the "out" group. There is never a possibilities where one variable is in and the other is out. So, I could show them as a block in my diagram.

Proctors: All the proctors were really nice and courteous. The only issue we had in our room was that a lady miscounted the people in the room... twice!! We had to sit there an extra ten minutes for them to figure out what the heck what going on.

Facilities: The building is beautiful (restrooms and testing rooms). Nothing to complain about here.

What kind of room: Law Classrooms

How many in the room: I don't remember the exact number, but it was in the range of about 20 - 30.

Desks: The desks were in good condition and pretty sturdy. They are the standard long desks a few people share as they face toward the front.

Left-handed accommodation: N/A

Noise levels: Other than the other people sitting around you? Nothing out of the ordinary... except I had a guy blowing his nose every 5 min...

Parking: Parking is a breeze. It's right next to the building. I'm actually not sure if I had to pay for parking, but I did it anyway. It was $5, the last thing I wanted to worry about that day was whether I had to pay for parking.

Time elapsed from arrival to test: About 30 min.

Irregularities or mishaps: I briefly mentioned this part above.

Other comments: Nope.

Would you take the test here again? Sure!

Date[s] of Exam[s]: Dec. 7th 2015

Any strategies/tips/advice on closing BR gap?

My accolades are above, but here's a few more: students of mine have gone on to break into the 170's, and have been accepted to Colombia, The University of Chicago, Stanford, and Harvard.

I was where you are now: I had a test to crush and a gulf between my skills and achieving that T-14 goal score. Well, I did what any person would do who didn't know what they were doing; I went searching for advice from people who had already achieved success. I read for hours and hours, the accounts of people who had received perfect and near perfect scores. Their advice had a very few common threads:

-Find a major prep company and completely work through all of their strategy lessons and drills

-Take many sections and tests both in untimed and timed formats

-Blind review all timed tests (taking them again entirely without a timer)

-Carefully dissect all incorrectly answered questions

At the time, the LSAT was still on paper and so explanations for LSAT questions were scarce. This was to my benefit and it can be to yours as well. That means relying on the explanations of 7Sage should only be done after you've exhausted considerable effort trying to dissect the questions yourself, given the correct answer. If 7Sage's explanation doesn't make sense or you are curious to hear a question explained in a different way, well that's what a tutor is for! I'll add just one bit advice to that which I found in my research: learn and understand any vocab word related to argumentation that the LSAT uses, which you are unfamiliar with.

If you'd like a tutor to help you through the rough patches and plateaus, I'm eager to join you where you're at on your LSAT journey. I use an "I do, we do, you do" approach to new materials. I'll model the appropriate techniques, whether that means stem analysis, argument analysis, passage annotation, answer prediction, answer choice selection, or trap answer analysis. From there I'll check to see if you've got the basics and ask you to take the next step at various points. Then it will be your job to walk us through an example. Finally, I'll only observe as you begin a new example and work through it beginning to end, giving my analysis or commentary at the end.

Sessions are typically two hours, once or twice a week depending on availability and the student's timeline. We'll often spend the first third/half of the session reviewing any questions that have been flagged for review by you. From there we'll jump into new materials.

My hourly rate changes based on whether you buy a package of hours or seek to pay session by session. It is as follows:

20 hour package - $70/hr

10 hour package - $80/hr

Session by session - $90hr

For moderator use only: Apologies for the repost, I think the initial one was in the wrong room. 1 per week, I know.

Okay I had a lot of trouble with these two strengthening questions lol so to see that they are only 2/3 star difficulty is slightly concerning. I ended up getting them both right under timed and BR without understanding fully why they correct. It did throw me off during the section but I'm trying to build confidence in eliminating to get AC's right.

I'm going to include my thoughts on each AC as I'm trying to build a habit of articulating what each answer choice actually does when it interacts with the argument to build my reasoning skills (ie: strengthens, weakens, does nothing). I will include this in my rationale below and would appreciate if someone could take a once over and let me know 1) if the way I am interpreting an AC to interact with an argument is wrong (ie: if I think it does nothing but it actually strengthens) and also 2) if there is anything else you notice in my reasoning. I am really trying to hone in on reasoning skills so don't be shy to critique mine if there is something I am missing or assuming!

PTA S4 Q3

A) Neither strengthens nor weakens; so what if both F and M pit vipers have these sensors while also exhibiting aggressive and defensive behaviour? The hypothesis we are trying to supports that the sensors serve to assist in judging the SIZE and DISTANCE of predators.

B) Strengthens; okay so if pit vipers do not differ in their predatory behaviour from the way non-pit vipers behave (ie: they both act the same way towards prey) but they do differ markedly from non-pit vipers in their strategies of defence against predators; then this would strengthen the claim that the pits assist the viper. Ie: sort of like an experiment, take one with pits and one without pits and see how they act in terms of defending themselves from predators.

C) Neither strengthens nor weakens; this seems totally irrelevant, distinguishing pit vipers based on their pits and other chemical features in no way strengthens the hypothesis about how the pit vipers use pits primarily defend themselves in specific ways.

D) Neither strengthens nor weakens; okay but this still doesn't indicate how they use the pits and if the hypothesis is correct? How can anything supplementary help us when aren't sure about the hypothesis.

E) Neither strengthens nor weakens; at first glance I thought that since this indicates they do have predators it could help, but it's just about another defence mechanism and it still doesn't strengthen, in any way, the hypothesis that the infrared sensors serve a specific purpose (which is to judge the size and distance of predators).

I thought this one was a little tricky because if you don't stay clear on what the hypothesis is, it's a little easy to get lost.

PTA S4 Q5

A) Strengthens; Okay so if official persecutions were preceded by propaganda campaigns in order to vilify the groups being persecuted - this seems to indicate that they were not taken on reluctantly and that it was not their only goal to soothe popular unrest? Because why would they have this propaganda with a distinct purpose if otherwise?

B) Does nothing; The opposing view is geared towards being reluctantly persecuted AND a single purpose of persecution for various minority groups, this seems to miss the point there in terms of the direction for the purpose of persecution and how it reluctantly/not it was carried out. I think it is trying to dispute the fact that various groups were persecuted by telling us that 'they were protected', but either way I don't know anything about protection of official institutions and it doesnt seem fair to assume that because they 'often' existed under direct protection that they couldn't still be persecuted - how strong was this protection? did it stop them from physical harm?

C) Does nothing but if anything weakens (?); okay so this says that SOME groups of people accused of witch craft were victims of mob violence (indicating the hostility) and that they were also occasionally officially persecuted (this seems to cover the soothing popular unrest). But either way I don't know how strong SOME is in terms of this group in order to strengthen the opposing claim, the conclusion is about 'various minority groups' not some or one. Either way, it definitely does not strengthen the argument that the scholar's belief is questionable, I just wanted to analyze what it was doing in terms of the whole stimulus.

D) Does nothing; this seems irrelevant, many leaders didn't authorize spread of information that misrepresented religious practices? So what? How does that tell us anything about why the first belief is questionable.

E) Does nothing; this is about convicted felons being excluded and that being a form of persecution. I don't know what kind of society this is but assuming that convicted felons count as a minority group, the conclusion we are trying to dispute is about VARIOUS minority groups, not solely being persecuted, but how the persecutions were taken on reluctantly and with only one goal in mind.

Thank you for anyone who took the time to read my analysis and I hope there are some valuable points in there! Please don't hesitate to correct me on anything if you see any errors.

I applied to all my schools by March 1st/4th but haven’t received a decision from several schools (they just say they’re completed/in review).

Should I contact their admissions office or does it look bad to ask them to look at my application?

!

Hi everyone, I’m looking for someone to blind review with for the sept. Exam. I have PTs C2, 84, 85, 87 to do so we would be doing these. Looking for 1-2 people. I can skype and/or if you’re in LA id be happy to meet up.

I’m scoring in low 160s and BR mid to high 160s.

Thanks!

I'm 100% supportive of 7Sage and I believe the law school prep will be well worth peoples' time and money. Aren't there already books to prepare you for law school, such as the Short & Happy Guide to (torts, property etc)? Does anyone have experience using these books?

I'm interested in knowing if people have looked into alternatives and if those are already great resources, or if they're missing some critical points of the law.

Anyhow I'm going to the 7Sage course anyways and thank you 7Sage for providing another resource for us :)

Before I started focusing on improving my LG/RC I was averaging about ~8-10 missed on LR sections combined. Spent around 2 weeks bringing my LG/RC to a point where I'm getting ~2-4 wrong on LG and ~4-5 wrong on RC. I just took a full PT and missed 10 on a single LR section... any tips for getting back into the groove of things without seeing my work with LG/RC suffer?

I found myself second guessing a lot of my answers, especially when I was between 2 answer choices on LR, and of those questions many were either NA or SA questions. Any tips would be appreciated! I'm signed up for the September LSAT so the pressures on lol

When an answer choice says “it is a statement that the argument provides grounds to accept and from which the overall conclusion is inferred”, is this essentially the premise.

Or is the premise “it is a premise offered in support of an intermediate conclusion of the argument “?

We the people want to know