All posts
New post591 posts in the last 30 days
Feb Test Takers
Friday, Dec 19th at 8PM ET: PT61
Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/sdiINq0J9AwI
Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.
Note:
Hey Feb Peeps! We got work to do!
Wednesday, Dec 23rd at 8PM ET: PT64
Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/w7McAagFN3pf
LSATurday, Dec 26th at 8PM ET: PT65
Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/C8Yeac0csm8G
NOTE: Great News! Starting in January, we’ll be using GoToMeeting for all of our BR group needs. More details to come!
Be sure to click the link of the conversation you’re attending and announce in the comments which group(s) you’re planning on attending.
Note:
I get why (E) is the answer here, there's a flaw between the premise and sub-conclusion. Just because a majority are unaware doesn't necessarily mean they disprove of the attempt.
But I'm having a tough time eliminating (D). If we just isolate the sub-conlusion (premise) and main conclusion we get: Since a majority of them obviously disapprove of THE attempt, graduate students at this university should not unionize. Ok, so they disapprove of THIS attempt, but isn't there the possibility that they may want to unionize for other reasons, which is what (D) says? Or maybe I'm just reading this wrong. Any help woulf be greatly appreciated!
Just in case you need another prediction
https://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8359&p=21376#p21376
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:
Hope everyone had a wonderful Christmas!!!!
LSAT Party time, that is!
LSATurday, Dec. 26 at 8PM ET: PT65
Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/548459389
EVERYBODY GETS A GOTOMEETING! YAY!!!
Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.
Note:
Hey Feb Peeps! We got work to do!
Wednesday, Dec 30th at 8PM ET: PT66
Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/548459389
LSATurday, Jan. 2nd at 8PM ET: PT67
Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/548459389
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 which group(s) you’re planning on attending.
February Test Takers Schedule: http://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/5520/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:
I don't understand the correct answer for this one at all. Can someone breakdown why all the wrong ones are correct and D is correct? Here is my breakdown:
http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-65-section-3-passage-3-questions/
Answer A: This is what I picked both times, I don’t really see what’s wrong with it. Doesn’t legally requiring something describe US/Canadian law while not legally requiring it parallel Roman law? To me, this is perfect…
Answer B: Roman law didn’t make anything illegal, so this isn’t it.
Answer C: Roman law didn’t distinguish between legality, so this isn’t it.
Answer D: Completely dumbfounded how this could possibly be the answer. Roman law didn’t make blackmail illegal outright. You had to show harm, and THAT made it illegal. I don’t see how this is analogous to Roman law in the slightest…
Answer E: Higher fines? Roman law didn’t have harsher punishment.
I am taking the Feb 2016 test and looking for friends to study with!! Let me know if your in the area.
Febbers! We’re less than 6 weeks away! Come to Group BR tonight!
Wednesday, Dec 30th at 8PM ET: PT66
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: 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/5520/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:
This was pretty tricky, and I got it right, but I still don’t have a good understanding of what is technically wrong with A. How is answer choice A not directly contradicting one of P’s premises? It must not because it isn’t the right answer choice.
Video link: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-69-section-4-question-15/
L: You philosophers say that linguists don’t understand language, but you haven’t provided evidence of that.
P: You say that “J and I are siblings” means the same thing as “I and J are siblings.” This isn’t true since the word order is different. For two things to be identical, everything must be the same.
What I am looking for: Both make pretty bad arguments (L makes an absence of evidence flaw), but we really only need to undermine P’s reasoning. P is wrong because he misses the point of what it means to “understand language.” The order of the words doesn’t matter necessarily; it’s the total meaning that matters. P assumes that “identical meaning” is influenced by the “physical” placement of the words.
Answer A: To me, this is attacking one of P’s premises directly (and that was one of the reasons I didn’t pick this one). Attacking the premise is technically an OK way to undermine an argument; the real issue is that the LSAT is very good at creating answer choices that SEEM to attack premises, but they really don’t. This one is different in my mind since it flat out contradicts the final independent clause of P's fact pattern. P defines “identical things” as “things having all of the same attributes.” If L responded, “I disagree with your definition since two things can have a few minor differences and be identical [referring to minor differences in physical structure, but identical meaning]” doesn’t this weaken the argument by directly attacking the truth of P's premise?
Answer B: I think this strengthens P’s argument since it provides another way that differences (context) matter.
Answer C: Wtf?
Answer D: This more succinctly hits the main point, and it is a much better answer choice that A. The issue is over “meaning," not the order of the words.
Answer E: More experience? So what?
LSAT Party time, that is!
LSATurday, Jan. 2nd at 8PM ET: PT67
Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/548459389
EVERYBODY GETS A GOTOMEETING! YAY!!!
Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.
Note:
Inbox me if interested * Brooklyn Latina*
[Admin edit: Please don't post titles in all caps.]
Anyone from Miami, FL prepping for Feb 2016 that wants to blind review/study in person?
yep, as expected, LG3 f-Ed me over. But it's ok because I didn't suck at the other sections. I'm also well within the median for my goal school. But yeah, Game3, how cruel a fate.
Is there a good method or trick to eliminate all possible worlds for distributions? I just completed a game and couldn't figure out if I exhausted all possible distributions or not. I usually guess for the most part.
thanks.
Firstly, thank you thank you thank you 7Sage! I scored above my expectations and even beat my PT average which I was already happy with. This was my first time taking the LSAT so I busted my back with 7Sage every day for 8 months and it was worth it. So everyone dragging their feet through this preparation process, keep going and don't give up. You're with the best.
Secondly, does anyone know when LSAC officially releases scores? I've been getting emails from schools I've applied to saying they're still waiting on LSAC to release December scores before they can review, even though I got my score back last night.
BR Group!!!! The road to PT 36 is almost here!
Talk to your heart’s content at Group BR
Tuesday, Jan. 5th at 8PM ET: PT35
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. :) Hope to see YOU there!
Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.
Note:
I hit the 25th percentile of LSAT but am in the 75th percentile of UGPA. What would be an appropriate reach up from my 25th% LSAT to apply? Ex 155 and 3.75. How many points up should I reach for in the 25th % LSAT schools?
Febbers! We’re less than 5 weeks away! Come to Group BR tonight!
Friday, Jan. 8th at 8PM ET: PT A
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 A here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0979305063?keywords=LSAT%20Superprep&qid=1451922968&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1
and
here: https://www.cambridgelsat.com/preptests/4-section/#official-lsat-preptest-1-june-1991
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/5520/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:
Hey Feb Peeps! We got work to do!
Because of the special webinars this week, we’re moving our Wednesday session to Tuesday.
SPECIAL DAY: Tuesday, Jan. 12th at 8PM ET: PT70
Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/548459389
Friday, Jan. 15th at 8PM ET: Superprep B
Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/548459389
Sunday, Jan. 17th at 8PM ET: PT71
Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/548459389
NOTE: You can get Superprep B here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0979305063?keywords=LSAT%20Superprep&qid=1451922968&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1
and
here: https://www.cambridgelsat.com/preptests/4-section/#official-lsat-preptest-1-june-1991
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 which group(s) you’re planning on attending.
February Test Takers Schedule: http://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/5520/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:
June Test Takers! Great work last week, gang! We’re making our way through the 30s.
Here’s the schedule this week:
BR GROUPS
Tuesday, Jan. 12th at 8PM ET: PT 37
Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/239503069
LSATurday, Jan. 16th at 8PM ET: PT38
Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/239503069
June BR Group Schedule: http://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/6171/june-test-takers-group-br-schedule-updated
NOTE: Great News! Starting now, we’ll be using GoToMeeting for all of our BR group needs. (It’s also why we’ve already released the link to the workshop!) More details to come!
HOPE TO SEE YOU THERE!
Be sure to announce in the comments which group(s) you’re planning on attending.
Fine Print (NOTE: you all want to be lawyers; reading fine print is what lawyers do, so READ IT!)
BR GROUP NOTES:
Febbers! We’re less than a month away! Come to Group BR tonight!
Friday, Jan. 15th at 8PM ET: PT B
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 B here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0979305063?keywords=LSAT%20Superprep&qid=1451922968&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1
and
here: https://www.cambridgelsat.com/preptests/4-section/#official-lsat-preptest-1-june-1991
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:
Hey Feb Peeps! We got work to do!
Because of the special webinars this week, we’re moving our Wednesday session to Tuesday.
Wednesday, Jan. 20th at 8PM ET: PT72
Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/548459389
Friday, Jan. 22nd at 8PM ET: Superprep C
Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/548459389
Sunday, Jan. 24th at 8PM ET: PT73
Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/548459389
NOTE: You can get Superprep C here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0979305063?keywords=LSAT%20Superprep&qid=1451922968&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1
and
here: https://www.cambridgelsat.com/preptests/4-section/#official-lsat-preptest-1-june-1991
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 which group(s) 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:
Febbers! We’re less than one month away! Don’t panic! Come to Group BR tonight instead!
Wednesday, Jan. 20th at 8PM ET: PT72
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: 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/5520/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:





