All posts
New post655 posts in the last 30 days
Anyone else taking it at the tourist nightmare hotel across from Penn Station?
Listen and subscribe:
In this episode, Nicole and ZeSean take a look at a breakdown of each LR question type's frequency in a given section, providing insights on the ways this information might impact the way you study for the LSAT. Join us this week for a fun episode looking at the numbers!
Hey yall, going to dedicate this whole summer to study for the test! Was wondering if there are any other motivated kiddos focused on kicking this test's ass. I live just outside the loop on the southside and I'm willing to meet anywhere central or in Pearland.
let me know! robertkgarcia@utexas.edu
LSAT Party time, that is!
LSATurday, Nov 14th at 8PM ET: PT53
Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/C8Yeac0csm8G
Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.
Note:
Subscribe to the podcast:
Although not among the headlines during Congressional debates, the signing of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in July has massive financial ramifications for this year's crop of law school applicants. Joining us to break down the ins-and-outs of the bill and provide a broader historical perspective to matters is fellow 7Sage admissions consultant, Reyes Aguilar.
Hey all!
I am pretty sure I understand what JY means but I have never encountered a question where it is okay to independently strengthen a hypothesis without strengthening the support between premises and conclusion.
In JY's explanation for PT 89.S2.Q3 he talks about the question stem and mentions how some (rare) strengthening Q's will say "what most strengthens the hypothesis" (as oppose to "what most strengthens the support between for the hypothesis",) in which case, he says it is okay to pick an answer that doesn't necessarily make the premises more relevant but could be something random that just makes the hypothesis more likely to be true.
I was wondering if anyone knows of any examples of a question like this from a PT? I would like to see it just to ensure my understanding is clear.
Thanks so much and good luck to everyone taking the Jan-Flex!
Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-89-section-2-question-03/
Hello, could anyone provide an explanation for general theory? I have seen it pop up several times in MoR question and in other questions as well. I know its a principle that is know in the world like "everyone should eat healthy" but cannot come up with one that does not include should. Anyone have a better understanding of it?
I'd love to swap all three. DM me if you're interested!
Looking to start or join a study group with regular weekly drill sessions and BR days. Currently scoring in the high 150s low160s hoping to break into the 170s by April. Let me know if you're interested!
Looking to retake in November. Consistently scoring around a 160, hoping to get 165-170 by November. Would love anyone to share in the misery and talk over solutions and try to flesh out questions together. DM me if you're interested! I'm in Mississippi so may have to go for Skype!
B is definitely a flaw in the argument, but can someone analyze my breakdown of D? Here is my breakdown:
50% of people in the survey believe that politician indicted----->politician resign.
35% believe that that politician resign----->politician convicted.
Therefore, more people think politician indicted----->politician resign than those that believe politician convicted---->politician resign.
What I am looking for: First, the conclusion is about "people" in general, but we are using a survey/poll. This introduces the possibility that the poll was biased/unrepresentative. Second, the conclusion makes a sufficiency/necessity conflation in the second comparative statement (about conviction). I didn't see this at first since, and I caught this flaw during BR.
Answer A: This is OK statistical/inductive reasoning. This would describe the flaw if the answer choice put the words "potentially biased" in front of sample.
Answer B: This is the correct answer since the 35% think resign--->convicted. But, the conclusion is about convicted--->resign. Pretty obvious answer choice if you read the last sentence carefully.
Answer C: What term is ambiguous? At best, the argument assumes that "politicians" and "elected officials" are the same thing, but that is an OK assumption.
Answer D: This is what I chose since I failed to see the sufficiency/necessity conflation originally. Would this be correct if the conclusion was correctly stated (if the comparative statement stated resign---->convicted)? Since the two responses convey different beliefs and since the argument is drawing a conclusion/comparison between them, is that a flaw? I am not so sure since the conclusion is about there being "more people" believing X than Y. Since both question were part of the same poll (and presumably same sample size) and since 50% is larger than 35% of that same sample size, would the argument have been valid (assuming there was not sample bias as well)?
Answer E: Why can't the premises all be true?
YO PEOPLE
Quick post
Wanna BR tonight? PT69 at 7pm ET
Well I won't be there. But I think some others will. SO. Add me on Skype (nikkers625) and let me know if you want to join in. I might be able to pop in at the beginning just in case it's all newbies on the call. And then I will abandon you and you will just have to get therapy for that later.
Hi,
My name is Michelle aiming to take both Feb and June. My ultimate goal is June so I would prefer having someone to stay with me and motivate each other all the way until June; but anyone is welcome!
I have gone through Bibles and Manhattan strategies and would like to practice PTs and share opinions with study partner/group.
I would like to meet in person if you are located around Los Angeles, CA or I would like to connect through Email, Skype, Phone etc. I am very committed and anyone who is willing to stay motivated please contact me – michellemoon0708@gmail.com
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Michelle
I had a few questions dealing with addendas that I was hoping to get input on. A few weeks ago I did tune in for the webinar on addendas and learned alot about content for each topic, so my questions deal nothing with content or length.
My main question is this: how many addendas should you provide? I want to add a diversity statement for sure, but for example, if I felt that I needed to address a shortcoming in my application or LSAT score that will be beneficial to my application and not be redundant, can I have two?
Also, how do I format them?
Should I use a simple title in bold letters? Should I use fancier format options or keep it simple? Font? Size? Anything related to addendas are foreign to me, sorry if these questions seem pointless. Also! For personal statement essays do I add a title or just jump into the essay right off the bat?
Columbus, OH, Anyone? Anyone? BUELLER :) Let's connect. I'd love to have a study partner.
Does anyone know of any resources for information on merit scholarships at the T14? Specifically thinking about the established/named scholarships that they don’t really publicize. I’ve only heard of most of these because of occasional mentions on various admissions forums; some schools mention them vaguely on their websites and others don’t at all. I’d love a comprehensive list of what’s out there, and estimates about what stats you typically need to get offered one (I know the schools don’t offer the official stats, but I feel like there is probably a general consensus out there).
Here’s a short list I’ve been working on that definitely needs more work:
Columbia- Hamilton and Butler
Michigan- Darrow
NYU- Vanderbilt
Duke- Mordecai
Penn- Levy, Toll
Chicago- Rubenstein, Cafaro
Alternatively, any T14 schools that are throwing money at PI students?
Is it a good idea to use the BR method for non-timed pts? I like to work on older pts such as 30 to 50 slowly while Im at work or If I need to drill and keep my mind sharp and to make it a habit to not forget anything.
Im using 51 to present pts for my actual timed pts while I study for the October exam so Im not concerned with wasting pts.
I’m not sure if this has already been asked, but I was wondering how to gauge where I stand now that Logic Games are no longer required. Since all previous PTs include a Logic Games section, how should I take a PT and grade myself accurately?
Hi,
I heard if you want to re-apply the same school you should re-write your essays, but what about LOR?
Can we use the same letters?
Thank you in advance,
If you're in or near Pittsburgh and looking for a study group, let's talk!
i didnt show both sides of the scrap paper to the camera. the program did not instruct me to. anyone get in trouble for this???
Hi all. I applied to a school during the first week of September and received a wait list notice today. I'm wondering if I should send a letter of continued interest ASAP, or wait until later on given it is so early in the cycle. Or, if I should do both, one now and another later on if I have not heard anything? Thanks!
Hello! I am looking for a study group or buddy! Writing the LSAT in AUG and NOV! if you have an exisisting group I can join or want for form one with me please PM me!
If you have an interest in being a part of this, please message me with your current score, your target score, what you have studied so far (i.e. only 7sage? or other programs as well?,) and when would work best for you (I am thinking to do this over Skype on the weekends.)
Good luck!
Hi 7Sage! I love this forum, sorry to pester you all again with walls of text.
Background: I started studying the June 2007 test. I did well on the RC/LR sections but only got halfway through the second game of the LG section before I hit 35 minutes. I think I got three wrong so ended up 6/23 for the section. Since then my entire focus has been on logic games. I've probably printed out some 40 games and completed them under timed conditions, and I've read the entire Powerscore LG Bible. I still can't complete 4 games in 35 minutes consistently. It's easily my weakest section despite putting all my focus on it.
I knew there was no chance I could study for the February exam with school going on so I decided to take last December's while I was traveling so I could see where I was at. I missed an entire game on the LG section (filled in all Ds for it so I might have gotten me a point or two) and scored a 166.
Since then I've taken 4 timed PTs and scored very well when I complete the LG section in time (172, 175) and worse when I don't (166, 167). Generally I lose very little on RC/LR (they're about equal losses for me) and that hasn't really changed since I started taking tests. That said I think the only way I'm getting accepted into a decent law school in Canada with my abysmal GPA (the program I'm in is terrible for GPA but that's another story) is with a T14 level LSAT. So I know that in all likelihood if continual drilling of LG sections is not improving my speed anymore I really need to be able to count on a -0/1/2 for each of the other three sections.
BUT I also know that reading about LGs dramatically changed how I approach them and how I think about them. In some ways it's good, in some ways I think it's actually slowed me down (surely a lot of my improvement can be chalked down to repetition). I am very nervous about studying RC/LR extensively only to destroy some innate logic I've developed before the LSAT or to slow down my reasoning as I usually finish those sections with 1-2 minutes. I'm also worried of making my logic formulaic (as stupid as that might sound), because the way I approach RC/LR right now feels pretty organic, and the way I do LG feels totally formulaic.
Of the questions I've gotten wrong, no type stands out. The only similarity between them is that they were all 4/5 star difficulty questions, but I have no types of question to drill/learn about specifically. So for anyone who has been at the point where they average -3/-5 or something like that on LR/RC and wanted to take that down to consistent -0/-2 did you manage it? And how did you go about doing it? Or if anyone found LR/RC came naturally to them did you find studying those sections specifically was actually detrimental? And if anyone thinks it's worth studying LR/RC, what would you say I should start with material wise? As for LG, is there any better speed improving strategy than to drill?
Sorry this is so long or if it all comes off as paranoid. I'm just feeling a little nervous after talking to schools and finding out the level of score I'll have to get to be accepted anywhere decent and am kind of lost on how to move forwards from here.