Discussions

All posts

New post

187 posts in the last 30 days

Hi everyone! I am from Ontario and am applying to Canadian law schools. I got my score back from the October LSAT and it was a 154 (my first attempt). This is lower than my practice exams as I consistently score in the 160's. My question is, do you think I should cancel my score and try again in January? Also if I do the January exam will Canadian universities still consider me for admission? Thank you so much for you help, I really appreciate any advice:)

0

Hey everyone. I am doing the core curriculum and have noticed a lot of my answers I get wrong are because I simply read the answer choice wrong / argument wrong because I was so nervous to get it right within the time limit, even when I do not show the time elapsed. I plan on taking the test the second time in 2024 because my mind absolutely blanked during the actual test. It was like everything I had learned went down the drain and was like I didn't spend months studying for the test. I would greatly appreciate it for some tips to help this from happening again, whether it be for drills, etc. Hope everyone has a great day!

0

Based on an examination of three types of rates (small, average size, and large), a recent study found that in rats, SIZE↑ correlates with HEART PROBLEMS↓. In other words, the study found that the greater a rat is, the less likely it is to have heart problems.

RRE EXCEPT. Four of the answer choices must be able to CONTRIBUTE to an explanation of this correlation; one does not. I did not do a pre-phrase here and went straight to the answers.

(A) Compared to large rats, smaller rats are more likely to have fatal diseases that strike earlier than heart problems. Under timed conditions, I took this to suggest: Small rats generally are more likely to die before heart disease strikes, so that heart disease will be overrepresented among the surviving small rats. However, this inference does not follow. If small rats tend to die young, the total NUMBER of surviving small rats that gets heart disease might be smaller, but there is no indication that there would be a corresponding increase in the PROPORTION of small rats that gets heart disease. This answer choice thus does not contribute to an explanation the observed correlation and thus must be right.

(B) Small rats are more likely to have blood vessel issues that causally contribute to heart disease. This helps to explain the correlation.

(C) Larger rats have less stress than smaller ones. If you assume that stress is causally related to heart disease, this contributes to an explanation. Under timed conditions, I thought that this assumption was too big of a jump, but compared to (A) this answer choice still is better. (A) does not contribute to an explanation at all, (C) does so if we make an additional assumption that seems fairly plausible from a common-sense perspective.

(D) The most common cause of heart disease in rats also causes them to be small. This explains the observed correlation by identifying a joint cause of small size and heart disease among rats.

(E) Larger rats do more exercises than smaller rats that causally contribute to heart health. This contributes to an explanation.

(C) is right, (A) is wrong. Under timed conditions, I had taken (A) to lead to a sampling bias making smaller rats not afflicted by heart disease less likely to survive such that heart disease becomes overrepresented among the surviving small rats. However, this inference is false. Just because small rats might be more likely to die for reasons other than heart disease, heart disease does not have to afflict a greater proportion of the surviving rats. I made a mistake here in assessing the implications of this answer choice and then switched to (C) because (C) requires an additional assumption to be explanatory ('Stress causes heart disease').

Takeaways: I originally had chosen the right answer (A) but then switched to (C) after mistakenly making the above-described inference. I likely was overthinking (A). I need to keep an open eye for the distinction between NUMBERS and PROPORTIONs. If unsure, close my eyes for a couple of seconds, do some deep breaths, calm down and reflect. I definitely felt uncomfortable in selecting my answer but could not quite identify what went wrong. NUMBERS vs. PROPORTIONs is a crucial distinction here, similar to e.g. POSSIBILITY vs. ACTUALITY, INATE vs. ACQUIRED, or MENTAL STATE vs. REALITY. Be vigilant, stay alert to these commonly used distinctions.

1

(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.

0

Hi everyone, I know this has been mentioned before and I even commented on a post about this but is it normal to score better on one of the 2 LR sections every time on PTs? I consistently get around -5 for the first section and -8 on the second. Is the second section generally harder or is it perhaps fatigue?

Also am I right in assuming that the experimental section on the real test isn't guaranteed to be LR? At this point I am kind of hoping two LG section come up as they are actually kind of fun. Still making small stupid mistakes on them but hoping I get more accurate with more practice.

0

So the stimulus presents a paradox where sales (as measured by the value of the clothes sold) has increased one year an then Fabrico closed a store the very next year due to low demand. How can sales be up but demand fall sharply the next year? C presents a situation in which a huge increase in the price of raw materials spikes and the clothing prices spike too. (for instance, a $5 t shirt is now being sold for $15. Maybe Fabrico sold 2 t shirts and now people are only buying 1 but because the success is being measured by the value of the clothing, 1987 was a good year). It then follows that it would be unsustainable for customers to keep buying now-expensive clothes in 1988 and Fabrico would close a factory.

0

Hi everyone!!

I would love to create a welcoming group for LSAT studying. I am in greater LA area near West Hollywood/Burbank. Please let me know if anyone would like to join!! I can create a discord/Group Me. Currently studying for August but that may change due to my scores lol.

Shoot me message if interested!

0

Hi everyone, I'm currently struggling with RC (mainly timing issues). I'm working with standard time and it's just not enough for me. When I'm practicing with a little extra time or just untimed, I tend to write out my low-res, view points and all that stuff and I ZOOM through the questions missing no more than 1 or 2 at the most on the passages. When timing constraints are on, my note taking is shit and I can't comprehend the text as much as I should be and I rush. Do I just need to slowly get rid of the physical note taking?

0

I just took the LSAT writing sample. I used every second. When the clock struck 0, I was taken to a page that said something like "Oops, error. Try reloading the page or talk to us in the chat". My videocamera and screen continued to be recorded. I chatted with a proctor and he said the close will tab. I'm still worried it didn't get submitted...... Has this happened to anyone else? How do I check to see if it got submitted?

1

Hey everyone,

I am planning on taking the January 2024 LSAT. I have been studying for quite a while now, and am scoring in the range of 152-155. I recently just decided to purchase 7sage due to the overall positive results it has produced for students. I have been PT'ing using 7sage as well scoring within that range, however, I have been scoring between 166-168 on my blind reviews. Here are my averages for each section:

LG: -6/-7 (-1/0 BR)

LR: -9 (-5/-6 BR)

RC: -10 (-5/-6 BR)

One of my overarching issues is pacing. I can't seem to quite get to where I want to be given the time constraint. This usually forces me to skip a LG section, and forces me to miss a fair amount of questions on both RC and LR. Sometimes, depending of difficulty, I may skip a LG section while being about 50% on each answer for another.

From all of this, I would just like to know what I should do going forward with studying. Should I go through 7sage's modules and work each section out? I work about 30 hours per week, and since my graduate classes are completed for the semester, that is really my only obligation as of now. My goal score is to get around a 160. Thank you so much!

0

How vital is it to have more than 2 letters of rec if a school takes up to 4? I've heard that if the school takes 4, you should submit 3. I have another recommender in mind but he would not be able to complete my letter until beginning of next year, so would it be better to submit my application with 2 letters earlier, or wait for 3?

0

Hello 7sage hive mind!!

I have a few questions re: Character and Fitness section.

Every school asks if you have ever been disciplined for academic or non-academic reasons. Do university parking citations count as being disciplined by the school? Does anyone care? This was 7+ years ago.

Along a similar vein... If schools want to know about speeding tickets, should I disclose written warnings? Also, should I disclose when I was pulled over but not issued anything?

I'm clearly down the rabbit hole here lol.

Thanks in advance for your advice

0

Curious what people think about this question. The second rationale is essentially that a punishment should fit the severity of the crime. Applied to the answer choices, we are to understand that we are not looking for an exact match, but rather a consistent parallel form of reasoning.

So, rationale: punishment = severity of crime.

A: Correctness = fairness

B: Correctness = what society deems correct

C: Correctness = consequences + inherent fairness

D: Correctness = consequences + intuitive rightness

E: Correctness = consequences

Curious on why A is the best answer. Fairness? Is this because attaching fairness to the correctness of an action is consistent with determining the severity of a punishment on the severity of the crime? There's no clear linkage.

0

I am just happy that I have finished the test today and got sort of valuable experience for sure. A bit lost for some time out of panick. Remote testing at home. No technical issue encountered, proctor was very friendly. Had a ten-minute intermission for the restroom, came back and went through security check.

Honestly, LG was not that hard, and it was the only reason I rushed to take the test this time because I have practiced a lot over a long period.

My goal is 170+, which I know, is only realistic with tons of efforts, at least, for myself.

I will continue to study for the next one in Aug.

0

I've noticed that a huge issue I'm having right now is drawing way too many boards on logic games. Whenever a question introduces new conditions, I can't just picture it in my head- I need to be able to visualize it. I've always been the same way with numbers, I've always been terrible at mental math. What should I be doing to help this? Will I make better inferences in time? I take the LSAT in like a month and would love to address this soon.

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?