Did anyone take the March 2018 LSAT? It was only offered in Puerto Rico, and I hadn't seen a discussion on it. LSAC is advertising a less than two week turn around time for scores.

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!

According to the LSAT Analytics for LR, the question types with the highest priority for me are question types with a higher accuracy rate than the average. (They are higher priority because they are more frequent.) I then have question types with lower than average accuracy with lower priority (because they are less frequent).

I'm trying to decide which of these two kinds of question types to really focus on. On one hand the "higher priority" questions would afford me more points if I corrected the problem, but on the other hand I would move up the curve more easily by addressing types of questions that are less frequent but nevertheless being answered more accurately by other test takers. I'm thinking that while there may be more opportunities to fix the "higher priority" questions because of the greater frequency, those missed questions might be the top tier of difficulty if I'm already answering them with above average accuracy.

For perspective, my high priority questions show me losing 1-1.5 points a test on that question type with 10-20% higher accuracy than average. The lower priority questions might be several question types that each show me losing .4 points a test with 10-20% lower accuracy than average. The latter seems to be lower hanging fruit, despite being less frequent.

(This post is about the "Babies who can hear and have hearing parents" stimulus) I was doing a "contradiction" challenge question and overlooked the correct answer because it said "depends primarily on", which the stimulus didn't directly say anything against. I didn't preclude the possibility that the stimulus used the example of deaf babies as more of an exception. I initially chose E, which I noticed didn't feel correct, and I now understand why it's wrong. My problem is that answer choice B still doesn't seem right to me. It just feels like the best out of a bad bunch. Could someone help explain this to me, please?

@"Alan Cheuk"

YAY to collapsing lessons! Foot in the door phenomenon, I hope it's a real thing...

Regarding the questions for there are not yet explanations for, in the new test sets, I know we have the option to click discuss, which opens up the option to start a blank new discussion on it... but if the video could open up to a separate page, so we can discuss the question below the video? In its current state, we have to open up a new discussion, then cite to the test/question # (and depending on how motivated we are, type out the question again) but it would be nice if we could post our questions/observations/thoughts right on the same page below the displayed question?

I don't know if this interferes with new LSAC licensing requirements.. but thought it was worth asking anyways?

Hi,

I am wondering if anyone has any good suggestions for specific drill templates that can be effective similar to the 15 LR in 15 min template J.Y. suggested in the core curriculum.

Thanks!

Hi,

I am currently attending University of Chicago for a one year MA and plan on applying for law school next year. My goal is taking the october Lsat. My Lsat study has been on and off. I did study a bit for the test and got 155 on a diagnostic, but then I decided to go to grad school so i shifted my focus to GRE. I started it over since summer and have been working on logic game and LR. I am current working on logic game by type (Cambridge's categorization) and assumption family questions. Skype is preferable but if you live in Chicago or even go to UC or near UC we can meet in person. My email is cnguye15@gmail.com. Thanks

Cuong

Hi everyone,

Now this was a weird parallel flaw question because I feel like there are so many different answer explanations for the answer choices on this question all over the web, and I am not sure which ones are the most reliable. Thus, I felt maybe listing what I thought here would help clarify stuff, and I want to know what people here think (is my reasoning here look correct or not correct?)

What I thought was the flaw: transferring a non-transferrable trait from X to a reproduction of X

A-- right because it matches the flaw (crossed out A during the actual timed test because the trait isn't the same in wording like we see in the stimulus)

B-- wrong because this is a conditional relationship, not an argument

C-- wrong because this is a conditional relationship, not an argument

D-- wrong because we want to see some trait transfer from Jo to Layne, and we don't see that

E-- wrong because being similar is not the same as imitating/reproducing (chose E during my PT because I didn't realize this)

Any feedback would be very much appreciated!

thanks!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-36-section-1-question-21/

Does anyone know if you can purchase the Edit Once option twice, as in once for a resume and once for a personal statement??

Hope everyone had a wonderful Christmas!!!!

Talk to your heart’s content at Group BR

LSATurday, Dec. 26th at 8PM ET: PT32

Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/239503069

EVERYBODY GETS A GOTOMEETING! YAY!!!

June BR Group Schedule: http://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/6171/june-test-takers-group-br-schedule-updated

I’ll be there for a while. :) Hope to see you there!

Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

Note:

Absolutely clueless on this one. I've probably watched the video 5 times, and I just don't see how B weakens the argument that is in the passage. Also, can someone look at my reasoning for A?

Win democratic elections not fully subsidized--->poor candidates supported by rich. As a result, it could be true that the poor candidates will compromise their positions to win the rich guy's support. However, the proportion of rich people in all of the political parties is the same as their proportion in the population. Thus, the belief that it could be true that poor candidates will compromise their position to win the rich people's support is wrong.

What I am looking for: The premise doesn't support the conclusion at all since we don't know whether being proportionally equal nullifies the pressure to conform to the rich guy's opinion. For example, say that rich people are 1% of the population in all political parties; they must then be 1% of the total population. It might be reasonable to say that the rich don't have that big of an influence on policy. Now, what if the proportion was 99%? The rich might have a huge say in policy! Thus, the premise could go both ways in either providing support for the conclusion or not.

Answer A: This is what I chose, but I still am very unsure why it is wrong. I think the argument does fail to address this answer choice. Maybe it is wrong because of the word "primary?" I'm not so sure though since we are usually supposed to accept the answer choices as true. If it is the case that the "primary" function of a party still may not negate the influence of wealth, then doesn't this paraphrase the flaw very well? To me, this is hinting at the idea that the proportion of the wealthy might be so high (or so influential) in political parties that it doesn't matter which one the poor candidate choose, they will have to conform to the wealthy point of view's party.

Say that the word "primary" is the reason why this is wrong (which I am not really sure why it would be), what if this answer choice said "a function of political parties...?" Would it be correct then?

Answer B: Like I said earlier, I just don't see how this weakens the argument. I do think it weakens an argument, just not the one in the passage. Here is my breakdown of this answer choice: say the poor candidate believes, "Every person who takes the LSAT should get a 180 and full ride to Yale" but the Democrats and Republicans both think "absolutely not" (the positions of the parties is way less varied than the position of the candidate). Then sure, joining a political party would compromise the poor candidate's views. But, that isn't the argument in the passage. The argument is that the "possibility of a poor candidate compromising his views to win the support OF THE RICH [not the political party] is not true." How are these two the same argument? In other words, if this is true, isn't the LSAT equivocating between the views of the "political parties" and the views of the "wealthy patrons?"

Answer C: We don't care about government subsidized elections.

Answer D: We don't care about wealthy candidates.

Answer E: We don't care about other flaws.

Hello everyone! Happy Friday :) I am currently having a problem where I get down to 2 answer choices and pick the wrong one. I just did a problem set where I got 9/20, and there were 6 questions where I was left with 2 and picked the wrong one.

How do you decide from there, which of the 2 answers to pick? To add 6 raw points is crazy! I'm feeling pretty frustrated with this. I'm currently also mainly trying to drill Flaw, Causal & Rule App, Parallel Qs.

TIA!!! Trying to get those right answers between 2!

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/832a22/til_that_the_director_of_my_cousin_vinny_1992_has/

The answer should be D, as the other answers all call for too much. There is no apparent need for real strength. 'To be believed' is the key phrase.

X

Hello,

Yesterday, I received my official June 2026 LSAT score, (147), and lets just say I am both disappointed and frustrated after studying for some months. But, I am not surprised. I didn't test well in the center, I didn't read well during the Reading Comprehension section and honestly, I don't think I studied correctly. Well, not at least until the last month. I had been scoring on my practice tests a 152, and while not great, it was enough to get me into my choice law school in this upcoming cycle.

I have a 3.89 GPA, I published a scholarly legal research article through my University Undergrad Law Review Journal and won several awards because of it. I have volunteered every weekend for 4 years, started my own non-profit, and worked a full-time job in special education where I have directly organized dozens of programs with understanding the compliance requirements in my states. I hold an Associates degree with honors.

I have never been a good standardized test taker, but I do not want that history of poor test taking to limit my opportunity for law school, and perhaps more importantly scholarship money that is on the table. I am unsure where to start.

Listen and subscribe:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Audible

With initial deposit deadlines in the rearview mirror, Reyes Aguilar (a fellow 7Sage admissions consultant) joins us to talk about all things related to the waitlist - why do schools have them, how do they select students from them, and what can you do to navigate them?

I always have a difficult time answering these kinds of questions because

A: I'm not sure how to graph these kinds of questions, and

B: The clock is ticking down, so I wouldn't have time to graph anyway.

The assumption is obvious in both questions, it's just that when I get to eliminating all but 2 answer choices, I often pick the falsely negated AC. Is there a way I can improve my ability to spot the incorrect answer in this situation without spending 3+ minutes graphing? Any helpful tips/techniques? Thank you very much!

Hi - My question is whether or not it makes sense to retake the LSAT in April (if I can improve) as a potential tool for getting off of a waitlist (in addition to LOCIs)? I know nothing is guaranteed, but if it could help me get off reserve and accepted, prepping is worth it, but I don't want to do it for nothing. If anyone has any experience with retaking the LSAT as a waitlist tool or any advice, please let me know!!

I have a 163 from the October and November tests last fall. My score didn't change between tests even though it had drastically in prep - I only started 7sage after the October test. I applied with that 163 this cycle. I got waitlisted (reserve list) at Cornell, which is my first choice school. My BR pts had hit 17mid and my official lawhub practice tests well above 163. Honestly the idea of retaking it makes me nauseated, but I do confidently believe I could do better than a 163 on test day after the past few months of a break from the LSAT and applications.

Follow up question: Would the schools I have yet to hear back from see my April LSAT registration? Is there a risk they might put my application to the side as a hold for a future test this late in the game, and is best practice to email all 12 schools I haven't heard from to say don't hold, or is that unnecessary? Pretty much every single remaining application is currently under review (I applied in December), so I don't know if I should call attention to it, but I certainly don't want to delay my decisions through the end of April!

Thanks!

JY mentioned that he would go over the difference "later," but I couldn't find it...

Does anyone know where this lesson is, and/or can explain the difference to me?

Thanks!

Has anyone had experience retaking the LSAT to get off the waitlist?

Considering doing that

Well, I guess starting over is hard. I took the LSAT and had really bad result in November. I can attribute that to bad instruction that I hired tutor and being a lot of financial stress for the last 8 months. I turned 49 this past April. I decided that I need to change my whole approach and needed a change of scenery as well. I decided I need to change the way I thought. I was not getting any support from my mother who was rampant Trump supporter and was obsessed with politics. I just that I decided I cut myself away from it because it was going harm me from thinking clearly and logically.It was taking is toll on my mental well being. I decided that I could not be on either side if I want to think clearly and do it without the hyberbole of both sides. I decided that I wanted no part in politics. I wanted to make clean break from it. I was in deep debt from tax obligation from the IRS and Georgia Department of Revenue from an employer that did not pay the taxes and found out they changed my W-2s to exempt. I was fuming when I found out. I felt very upset and angry. I decided as soon I had the money that I was going pay off the 2600 owed both tax agencies that I could put it behind me.

I started to restudy for the LSAT in mid-January and try to clean up the mistake and not reading carefully in January. I decided that I was going to go a lot slower and really digest each part of the LSAT like itself section that needs to be done slowly and carefully. By mid-February, I saw my employment prospects dry up like well that was producing no water and was left. I had spent a good portion of my career in IT field roughly 25 years. I decided to head west to Texas where my job prospects were better and would give me an opportunity clear up my head and start fresh.

I left in Mid-March during the start of Coronavirus pandemic. I left on March 17th around 8 am and took I-20 route near Lithonia because I did not to drive on I-75 because driving on the highway with drivers in Atlanta was scary. I took the scenic route all until I was across the state line of Alabama. I got to Meridian, MS and stop to eat lunch at McDonalds. I had to eat in my car because the dining had been closed. I saw beginning of social distancing and the McDonald workers were wearing mask and gloves. I was hoping and praying that my car would make it all the way to Texas because it had issues where the brakes need be replaced. I was kind of scared. I made to Rayville, LA and stay at extended there. There was a Popeye's next door. You had to walk up to drive in because dining area inside was closed. It said so on the sign. I did take job in Dallas, TX to work remotely. I stood in the drive through for about 20 minutes and walked up to the window to order a 2-piece chicken dinner with French fries and Cajun rice. I drove to Dallas the next day. When I arrived at the extended stay, it was booked and found out my reservation had been cancelled because all of the flights from DFW airport were delay or cancel. I was panicking for a couple seconds.I almost could been homeless and felt staying my car was not an option. I decided to put it together. I found another extended stay in the good part of Dallas and was only one not booked up. I had bit of difficulty getting PO box with the post office in Dallas because everyone had take every PO box and everything was on backlogged for 6 months. I went a UP store and got one. It was hard. I started my job next day. It was rough for a bit. I tried to study the logical reasoning for 1 hour a night and build up a solid foundation.

Also, I had computer issues where the wifi didn't always connect and got it straighten out 3 days later.

Finding place to live was not the easiest thing to do. Most of the places required two pay stubs and didn't have enough to get an apartment. Most of the people were weird and didn't seem friendly at all. I had one that got mad because I didn't have a Facebook account and Twitter account. I said I didn't need one because I don't have anything interesting to say. I found about the lockdown and decided be cautious and keep the social distancing in place and wore a mask when I saw about a place. I looked online and found a room in really nice neighborhood. I rented room from this really nice African American lady who was really well off financially. She was 60 years old. I really needed a friend. She offered me a room, and I offer to pay the electricity. I said I want to be gracious as possible. I paid up rent up for the first 4 months after a month on the job. She said she had a daughter close my age. She started to treat me like I was her daughter. I was feeling better. Here is the thing. I was encourage to read books like classic literature by her. I starting reading Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew, the Three Musketeers, King Solomon's Mines, Allan Quartermaine, Catcher in the Rye, Old Mice and Men, The outsiders, Marcus Arelious,I was reading non fiction books and Texas Monthly which is the Texas version of Atlantic and the Economist. I read about 13 books since Mid April. I didn't have tv. I found myself being encouraged to listen to classical music and jazz. Her encouraging me, it is opening new ways of thinking. I think I had receive more an education in my last couple months with reading than I did in last 10 years. I must admit was not I reader until I got to Dallas. I wanted grab all the books I what could grab onto and afford. I did manage to cut out all of the sweets and fast food. I want to eat healthier to lose weigh and did since mid April. What difference it makes in thinking clearer. I did manage to lose roughly 30 lbs. I got yesterday three Agatha Christie's novels. I was excited to get them. I end up taking drawing and starting getting really good and practiced every night to help loosen up a lot of stress. It had filled my sketch pad almost. The drawing getting better each day that I practice. I try to find pictures that make me happy or that seeing the person smiling.

I stay in the house and never venture out because I heard that Dallas Police department was harassing people with out of state plates. My car stay parked on the street for over a month. It had the issue where the door ajar light stay on. I took Uber to UPS store when I had mail on the weekends. I was not keen on going to the grocery store with virus rampaging. I order food from the Doordash.

I had paid off my tax debt mid- April. My old apartment near the Mall of Georgia had given me a lot trouble for the last 2 months. I was battling them to keep their word on paying back the security deposit. I found they like to get people evicted and make more money on the eviction than holding the lease. They hated me paying up my lease. They had deal going on the utilies with this company they work with and make utilities like water 2 months later, so they could ensnare you on that. I was on to them and paid them ahead. I just got my deposit back and won.

I had to save 3 paychecks to get my car fixed and it was fixed. It just passed the state inspection. A week ago I managed to get my Texas licenses plates and get my car registered.

I was studying for the LSAT with the PowerScore books for the LR and LG. The reading of books is helping and reading of Texas monthly. I purchase Manhattan reading comp and found it be more helpful than the PowerScore reading comp. The PowerScore reading bible seems to overthink things and makes things more complex. My end goal is become a felony prosecutor. I know this long post. I am studying and making much better progress. I can tell the difference vs the bad instruction I had received early on. I must profess that I do not know everything. However, I am always will to learn more and make friends. This is the beginning of my LSAT journey. I want to think like a lawyer as well. For me, it means learning to do a lot of listening and learning from others. I don't have a test date set yet. I figured I would get the reading comp straighten out first and start taking prep tests first once I have the reading comp lessons finished. I want to keep track of my progress. I am more of a turtle with the LSAT than the hare at this point.I keep about 40 tests as a good indicator and once I have proven that I can do it. I will set a test date then. This is end of my blog post studying during greatest pandemic. I am so grateful to my landlord and her generosity. I feel energized by her encouragement to think better and new ways of viewing the world. At the moment, she is my biggest cheerleader for me with the LSAT.

I thought I diagrammed this correctly, but I can't figure out how E is "properly concluded" or must be true.

Here is my diagram:

Explanation--->Must Distinguish from justification

Human action--->potentially has an explanation-->Can give an accurate description of the causes of the action (I don't think you can link these up to the first sentence)

Action justified--->person performing has sufficient reason to act

Action justified SOME justification forms no part of the explanation (These you can link together).

Generally, rational--->justification/reasons form an essential part of the explanation

What I was looking for: Since the only thing I could link up were those two middle statements, I thought the answer was going to be Person performing has sufficient reason to act SOME justification forms no part of the explanation. This isn't an answer choice though.

Answer A: This isn't in any of my chains.

Answer B: This isn't in any of my chains.

Answer C: I ended up picking this one even though I didn't see any support/I had eliminated all of the other answer choices. It was the "closest" to what what I was looking for, but it still wasn't in any of my chains. Explanation isn't part of the linked up middle statements.

Answer D: Discovered? Totally irrelevant idea.

Answer E: This is the answer choice, but where is the support? The only time "cause" is mentioned is in the second conditional statement. But even then, it is only talking about giving a "description of the cause." Rationality does imply reasons forming an essential part of the explanation (last conditional statement), but why must they be causes? Shouldn't this answer choice be "If any human actions are rational, then the reasons must be given an accurate description of the causes of the action?" I don't see how this is the same thing as what answer choice E states.

I got this question correct by POE, but I don't have any clue why C is something the author would most likely to agree with. Can someone point to where this idea is supported in the passage? Also, why is answer choice D explicitly incorrect?

Hi everyone ! Is there anyone in the Boston area! I would love to create a study buddy group for those taking the June LSAT