Hey,

I'm looking to get a study group together for the November LSAT in Austin, Texas. If you are in Austin and studying for the LSAT, let me know!

Hi everyone!

Some of you may remember I made a poll about a month back regarding my uncertainty about taking the LSAT in December, well, after reading everyone’s advice I opted for the best choice: take the LSAT at a later date!

Before the deadline, I sent LSAC an email with an attached refund request, which they provide online. I haven’t received any response from them, LSAC I mean. Should I go ahead and withdraw? I don’t want to lose my refund, but more importantly, I don’t want to be marked a no show for the December LSAT!

Any thoughts? Have any of you guys had this experience ?

Thanks :)

Hey so I was doing some surfing on eBay for cyber Monday of course, and I came across someone selling their LSAT materials, I guess they got what they wanted out of them. This is the most interesting one I saw, a bundle of PT 7-80, which is awesome! Go get it folks! There’s also the Powerscore trilogy and The LSAT Trainer on there as well.

https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F272957510189

I need some insight. I Took the LSAT dec 16 and was not nearly prepped. I decided to retake and have been studying hard since april or so.

Im at a strange phase in my studying where i am scoring around and sometimes above my potential but iv only taken 7 tests. Ive done multitudes of timed sections and drilling.i feel very confident, but my brain is starting to get toasted from studying.

I am signed up for september. And until this week i was planning on postponing till December. But now i kinda wanna take it.

My concerns are as follows. I have foolproofed 1-40 games. I also proofed the games i have taken in PTs. But i still havent seen alot of games. I also havent really touched the 60s and only took PT 78,70,71,72,60,61,65.

So i have alot of material i am not exposed to..

Averaging a 170, havent gotten above a 174 yet.

What do you guys think? should i postpone?, or take it with a slight chance of a cancellation?

Hello everyone! I just wanted to take this time to share my experience regarding study abroad transcript so hopefully you won't have to go through the same frustration. This is a very long story but I hope it gives some guidance.

I submitted my transcript to LSAC September of this year. I ignored it for a while and focused on arranging my school list, working on my personal statement, getting LORs, etc. It wasn't until October when I noticed something wrong. On my transcript tab, it said "1 of 2 transcripts received." Listed under the missing transcript was University of Richmond so I thought that they were referring to the school I did my summer study abroad. I called LSAC and asked if I needed to submit my transcript from my study abroad even though it was only for the summer. I was told yes, however, the answer didn't set right with me because I remembered specifically not having to because it was for less than a year.

On the LSAC website, it reads:

"Do NOT have a transcript sent from an international institution IF your bachelor’s degree is from a US, US territory/associated state, or Canadian school, and

the total amount of work you completed at all international institutions combined is equal to or less than the equivalent of one year of undergraduate study in the United States, its territories/associated states, or Canada, or

your work was completed through an overseas study program that was clearly sponsored by a US, US territory/associated state, or Canadian school. In this case, the transcript must be sent by the sponsoring school."

I called again to clarify because obviously, I was getting different answers. While on the call, I was assured that I did not need to send in my transcript because it was for less than a year. Also, there was a confusion because I attended Richmond University in London and NOT University of Richmond in Virginia. They said that they will make the correction.

A week passed and I still saw U of Richmond on my transcript tab. I called LSAC again. Apparently, on my undergrad transcript it said transfer credit from "RICHMOND UNI" and so whoever handles transcripts at LSAC just put U of Richmond. Great! Problem solved. No, not quite. Turns out that Richmond University in London is an accredited American school so I did still have to send in a transcript! I ordered them right away but I'm afraid that it will not get processed fast enough to meet the early decision deadline for the school I am applying to.

Long story short, if you studied abroad at an accredited American school, you still have to send in your transcript no matter how long you went there. Also, you have to keep bugging LSAC and sometimes it takes three to five calls in order to reach any solutions.

Febbers! We’re less than 2 weeks away! Come to Group BR tonight!

Friday, Jan. 29th at 8PM ET: PT 2C

Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/548459389

IF YOU DON’T CLICK THIS LINK YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE BR GROUP

NOTE: You can get Superprep 2C here: http://www.amazon.com/Official-LSAT-SuperPrep-II-Champion/dp/0990718689/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1454086721&sr=8-2&keywords=lsat+superprep

NOTE: Great News! Starting now we’ll be using GoToMeeting for all of our BR group needs.

Be sure to click the link of the conversation you’re attending and announce in the comments that you’re planning on attending.

February Test Takers Schedule: http://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/6609/february-test-takers-group-br-schedule-very-tentative

Fine Print (NOTE: you all want to be lawyers; reading fine print is what lawyers do, so READ IT!)

BR GROUP NOTES:

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

Proctors: Efficient, but not overly strict.

Facilities: Very clean, well maintained. Bathroom was little grimy.

What kind of room: Large lecture hall.

How many in the room: Around 40.

Desks: Long desks spanning the length of the row. Ample space between students.

Left-handed accommodation: Not needed due to nature of desks not being for each individual student.

Noise levels: Extremely quiet.

Parking: I already had on-campus parking, not sure on the availability for someone driving in from out of town.

Time elapsed from arrival to test: 30 minutes

Irregularities or mishaps: None

Other comments: None

Would you take the test here again? Yes

Date[s] of Exam[s]: December, 2015

Proctors: Decent, actually kind of funny, very relaxed. Made a couple of jokes throughout that eased the tension a bit 9/10.

Facilities: Older building, temperature was perfect, probably right at 65 degrees 9/10

What kind of room: Class Room

How many in the room: About 40

Desks: TERRIBLE!!!!!!!!! Tiny desks, LG was a nightmare 0/10

Left-handed accommodation: A couple of spare desks

Noise levels: Great building for an older university 9/10

Parking: Free parking on Saturdays, ample room 9/10

Time elapsed from arrival to test: About 30 minutes

Irregularities or mishaps: Stupid obvious questions from other test takers

Other comments:

Would you take the test here again?

Absolutely not. Based solely on the size of the desk. I actually felt as if it was a terrible disadvantage and not only slowed me down on LG logistically but also added an extra stress that I needed to accommodate for. other than this, no other complaints.

12/5/15 (The day of reckoning)

.

175 scorer, Cornell grad magna cum laude. I'm also an LSAT instructor/tutor with 10 years of private tutoring experience and five years of experience at a major test prep company, where I tutored one-on-one as well as taught in front of a classroom.

I have helped countless LSAT students achieve their law school goals. The LSAT can feel like an insurmountable challenge and is viewed as the predictive indicator of law school success. LSAT requires a way of thinking that might feel unfamiliar to most. It's not a test of intelligence - it is a test of pattern recognition and understanding of the structure of arguments. I help you study strategically so you develop the skills you will need on test day, such as reading critically, inductive and deductive reasoning, and organizing evidence. I lay the foundation for the skills you will need to succeed in law school! I identify the techniques that will be most useful to you on test day and shore up against weaknesses so you can attack the test with confidence.

I also help craft graduate application essays, supplemental essays, law school application personal statements, and academic papers. I help with ideation, conceptualization, style, grammar, vocabulary, and structure. I guide, support, and help develop craft, de-stressing an often-fraught process.

Feel free to reach out! Happy to chat about where you are on your law school journey.

Can someone on the 7Sage team confirm that the scores reported when simulating an LSAT Flex are accurate? What is the methodology?

Proctors: They were friendly. Did their job well in keeping everybody separated by one chair between each test taker and verified materials that were brought into the room.

Facilities: Test Center was located off campus in a small strip mall in a small building owned by the school. Clean and comfortable but kind of chilly. Take a sweater.

What kind of room: it was a big open room with various long tables as opposed to desks. There were about 5 test takers at each table with a chair in between each.

How many in the room: I think there were about 25 people

Desks: None, just long tables.

Left handed accommodations: Not sure what this means but, ok,sure.

Parking: ample parking.

Time elapsed from arrival to test: about 20 minutes

Irregularities or mishaps: I initially thought the test was on campus so I was wandering around campus looking for the test center. When I finally arrived to the testing center, they said it was off campus. I was almost late. Another thing that happened was that some guy showed up without a passport photo. He wanted to leave to go get a picture as required and they would not let him because he would have been late. He was unable to test that day.

Would you test here again?: no, I took my LSAT the first time here and the second time I went about a half hour further to get to another testing center. I'll review that one later.

Date of Exam: June 2015

Hey everyone,

During the summer, I asked one of my former employers for a LOR (Letter of Recommendation). I worked for him for 3yrs as more of a personal assistant than a legal assistant. I did do some legal work for him (small claim suits related to his real estate business) but most of my responsibilities were non-legal. Since I graduated from college about 10yrs ago, academic LORs are out of the question. So, my former employer agreed to write a letter for me and to help him draft it, I provided him with a binder full of info about LORs, a sort of guide if you will. The most important thing I included in this guide was a detailed list of the legal projects I worked on and what I did in those projects. I also told him to take his time, and to contact me when it was ready because I had a family friend who happened to be a Notre Dame Law School grad who could proofread the letter and give him feedback.

A few months later, my boss emailed me the letter and without reading it, I took it to my family friend for proofreading. After reading it and going over my resume, my family friend shockingly told me that the letter was prominently missing anecdotal info about what I worked on in my previous job. In other words, my former boss either forgot or chose not to include one of the various legal projects I worked on. I haven't read the letter, but I get the feeling that it's full of platitudes and generalities about why I want to attend law school. As most of you know, anecdotal info is paramount to a LOR. So I think the letter needs major improvement.

I'm a little confused on how I should proceed though: how should I tell my former employer that he needs to carefully revise and include anecdotal info in my LOR? I don't want to sound too forceful or complain about the letter because he might misinterpret my concerns or may just rush through it just to get it out of the way (he's a busy guy); but at the same time, I'm concerned that he didn't take his time in writing it because in the guide I provided, I stressed multiple times that anecdotal info is of utmost importance in a LOR. Maybe he didn't bother to look over the guide, which means he didn't meticulously or carefully craft my LOR, or as much as I would have liked him to. I want to respond to him as soon as the holidays are over, but I don't know how I should approach this. Any advice or suggestions would greatly be appreciated.

Thanks

Can anyone please explain the pattern of reasoning that would make the answer C?

Rewords the conclusion

Flaw Question-- calling all folks who are a beast at LR:) HELP?

I understand that the answer is C but I want to make sure that I'm breaking down the argument correctly:

*Best way to understand --> Direct Empathy (that's what some psychologists claim, and we're supposing they're right)

*/Direct Empathy ("since it's impossible to gain a direct and complete grasp of another person's motivations" aka Direct Empathy-- I believe this is what the author takes as the truth)

THUS, no way at all to understand (already problem here, it should have been THUS, "no best way to understand" rather than "no way at all to understand")

But that's not even the main conclusion...

*Understand ("One can understand other people"-- again, this is what the author takes as the truth)

THUS, the psychologists' claim is wrong-- it's wrong to state that (best way to understand --> Direct Empathy)

The problem is that the author cannot state that the psychologists' claim is wrong because the author's evidence is flawed--- assumes there's no way when the psychologists are only talking about best way.

However, I'd like to go deeper into this question and modify it-- what if the author correctly said it was "best way to understand" as opposed to "no way at all to understand"-- would the argument be valid then??

*Best way to understand --> Direct Empathy (that's what some psychologists claim, and we're supposing they're right)

*/Direct Empathy ("since it's impossible to gain a direct and complete grasp of another person's motivations" aka Direct Empathy-- I believe this is what the author takes as the truth)

THUS, there's no best way to understand

*Best way to understand (my modified premise-- "But there is a best way to understand people")

THUS, the psychologists' claim is wrong-- it's wrong to state that (best way to understand -> Direct Empathy)

In this case, is the argument's conclusion valid? It's TRUE that the psychologists' claim is wrong because ultimately what we have is... we know it's true that /Direct Empathy & there is best way to understand ... so we can't validly get to "Best way to understand --> Direct Empathy"

(Am I thinking correctly? lol)

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-2-question-11/

I plan on taking the LSAT in April. I'm a very visual person. Does anyone have a good study guide/outline to follow?

Hi, does anyone know if you withdraw before they make a decision, if they'll still have access to my files and if they'll pull them up in the next cycle, even though I would've withdrawn my application before they get a chance to look at it during this cycle?

I'm fairly new to 7Sage, but I am curious to know others' thoughts on this. Should I keep doing problem sets in a specific category if I am getting them right every time? Even without blind review? Not trying to brag or anything here, just genuinely curious of what others are doing.

Hi,

I am currently getting mid 150+ and am taking the January exam in 10+ days. My goal for this exam is 160. (Ultimately aiming for 167-170 by May).

Every time I do the digital preptest and BR, I get at least 12-15+ correct question difference.

I am wondering if the difference is majorly because one's on digital and the other is on digital/paper.

I do would like those differences to be reflected on my actual preptest.

Any suggestion?

Hi 7Sage Forum! I am looking for strategies on identifying the Sufficient and Necessary Assumptions in questions. I find myself understanding the material but am getting bogged down in language. Still working through the 7sage curriculum however any advice would be helpful! Thanks!

Hey all! I am really stuck in trying to figure out how this is used in causation questions. Is there a specific lesson dealing with this notion? Or are the explanations embedded in the causation explanation videos?

Thanks!

(P1) According to dinosaur fossils, dinosaurs had an oxygen isotope ratio in their bones that suggests that their CORES had roughly the same temperature as their LIMBS.

(P2) Today, cold-blooded animals have much warmer CORES than LIMBS.

(MC) Therefore, dinosaurs were probably warm-blooded.

Weaken

This argument assumes, among other things, that warm-blooded animals, unlike cold-blooded animals, do NOT have much warmer CORES than LIMBS, or some other temperature distribution that deviates even more from the dinosaurs'. To anticipate the right answer, I thus was expecting a weaking option targeting this assumption.

(A) Unlike cold-blooded animals, warm-blooded animals only have SLIGHTLY warmer CORES than LIMBS. This goes in the direction of my pre-phrase but is not very strong. Crucially, it remains more likely that dinosaurs were warm-blooded than that they were cold-blooded, just as the author claims. So this answer choice does not seem to actually weaken, even though it gets at the assumption that the author makes, and that I had identified as the weak point of their argument.

(B) Dinosaur fossils don't actually allow you to do the temperature inference described in (P1). This answer is very unusual in that it attacks a premise rather than the reasoning in the argument. Nevertheless, this answer choice definitely weakens, since it takes away the data about dinosaurs that the author presupposes. Keep this answer choice around but be vigilant; see if a less premise-focused answer choice is available.

(C) About oxygen generally. Does not seem to pertain to the argument.

(D) Body temperatures in small and large animals other than dinosaurs. Does not seem to connect directly to the argument; especially since the stimulus does not identify dinosaurs as either small or large.

(E) Warm-blooded animals are more active and use more oxygen than cold-blooded animals. This again does not seem to relate directly to the argument under consideration.

(C), (D), and (E) turn out to be largely unrelated to the argument in the stimulus, and (A) does not seem to weaken the inference made by the author. This leaves (B) as the only remaining answer choice, and thus (B) must be right.

Nevertheless, (B) feels very much uncomfortable and is unusual. (B) just straight up contradicts information that we get in the stimulus, rather than attacking the author's reasoning. It also seems unusual to have this sort of unexpected answer choice so early in the section; just expecting straightforward questions in (Q1)-(Q10) is too naive.

I originally chose (A) because I got too focused on my anticipation of how the right answer could look like, and thus I neglected (B). Nevertheless, a more careful examination of what (A) and (B) are actually saying would have allowed me to get this question right. I need to stay alert to the details of individual answers and compare them against each other; a more thorough examination between (A) and (B) would have allowed me to see that (A) does not in fact weaken and that (B)'s unusual character does not prevent it from being the right answer here. Read answer choices carefully, compare them against each other, and choose the one that has the fewest problems.

I couldn't find a good explanation for this question.

Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."