Hey everyone

I am looking for an Active LSAT Discord Server. I am prepping to take the LSAT June 2023. I am also looking for partners to study with preferably once a week. I am a non traditional student who works full time but my schedule is different everyday so I have some flexibility. This will not be my first time taking the LSAT. Looking to score in the 165 range!

Title says it all.

I have a hard time blind reviewing. I am currently working through the CC and whenever I finish a lesson I focus on drilling questions from that lesson; Isolated questions. Questions from pt 37-159. Approx. 20 questions in two days with 3-5 questions of the previous lessons.

So, after completing these drills, I just check the answers. Most of the time I am down to two answers and initially choose the right answer, but second guess myself and choose the wrong answer.

I look at the question that I got wrong and what the correct answer was and I just think to myself, "Damn, I knew it, I had it chosen at first but went with the other answer" or "I knew it.. I should have chosen that answer" without choosing it the first time.

So, should I blind review my drills of specific questions, or should I wait to blind review full pts after I finish the CC and I'm doing all the question types rather than the current lesson plus previous lessons.

Also, I feel like I'm not really getting anything out of BR. I will just watch the video and explanation and be like ok that makes sense, but still make the same errors.

For example, I'm on SA questions. I would do about 20 SA questions with an additional 20 - 25 questions of MBT, STR, Weaken, MSS, MC. I would do all the easiest questions, move onto easier, and so on. Every few weeks or so I would combine them all and do a 20-25 question drill of all the types I've been practicing with a wide range level of difficulties.

I choose answer C but I realized that it says nothing about it and the only answer really thats discussed in part from the passage is the answer E. Curious to hear your thoughts.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

I answered (C): I thought this would be right because it was the statement that was most backed up by what is in the stimulus.

The right answer is (E):I was battling between C and E, but I didn't pick E because it seemed like a statement although true, the stimulus was not supporting it directly.

Can someone explain why E is correct and why C is wrong? I feel like I am overthinking this.

Admin note: Edited title and post; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]." Also, please review the Forum rules "Do not post LSAT questions", the title format helps others reference the PT and question. Thanks!

Hi! I am currently at a 156 average for the LSAT and I have the following questions regarding each seciton:

For logic games it is time, when I blind review I get it all correct but I really struggle in doing it all in the allotted time. I assume the best way to practice is by just doing it over and over again to get down on time? Does that make sense or has anyone else suffered the same issue and figured out a better way to do logic games quicker?

For Logical Reasoning I kind of struggle on just a random few ones each time -- So for those of you have increased LR what is the most effective way you find with studying for LR? Like should I just do all of the lessons or for time purposes are there one's you recommend over others? Should I do a bunch of practice? How many a day? Any advice would be so appreciated!!

And last for reading comprehension I am weirdly just so bad at these. I read everyday for my major so it really makes me sad that this is where I perform worst so really any advice on books or lessons or practice methods that most helped you I would really appreciate!!

Thank you so much in advance.

Hey, curious how to flag specific questions in the practice tests. Is there someway of doing this?

i read recently an article by the ABA that indicated that lawyers on average score very high on surveys in positive traits like analytical reasoning and abstract reasoning, but very poorly on sociability and , notably, "resilience" which apparently is a trait meaning how well someone "rolls with the punches"...."lets things go" etc. just general agreeableness i guess you could say

have you noticed any negative personality changes in yourself as a result of lsat study? i love studying for the lsat. on balance, im happy with the way the geometry of my thinking has been reshaped by the test. but ive also definitely become a more cynical person. ive become more circumspect of the motives of others, and ive become much more critical toward things people say. the change in this person climate of mine has produced new weather patterns of occasional annoyance, irritation, and downpours of negativity. i find it interesting honestly. ive read all the positive ways the test has changed people , but talk to me about some of the negative ways? thank you

https://www.legal500.com/gc-magazine/feature/all-in-the-mind/

above is the article. its an interesting read. i originally read it on the ABA site a while back.

Hello,

I'm looking for a study buddy for the upcoming June test and looking to apply to few schools in New York that will accept the June test for this fall semester. Willing to meet online or in person if you're located in NYC. Need someone who can hold each other accountable and able to teach each other and go over the drills/sections/PTs. Let me know if interested and we can set something up!

Bonjour!

Long shot BUT:

I am currently living in Paris and would like someone (or even a group) to study with. If anyone else happens to be in Paris at the moment message me here and we can figure out a time and place to meet!

Stimulus says: Manners are necessarily social (i.e. manners require a social element). Morals are not necessarily social (i.e. morals do not require a social element). Rules of etiquette do not apply to situations with morals or manners alone.

Things I noted upon reading:

Most strongly supported?

A: You can be immoral without causing harm. (i.e. you can not be moral in a case that is not social). Yep, this fits with #3 above.

B: An immoral act is never a violation of etiquette. This could be false if the situation also involved manners, so we can´t say it is supported.

C: Morality applies only when one is alone. I think you´d only choose this if you were hella confused.

D.: It is more important... I stopped reading right there and knew this was wrong. There is no comparison being made in the stimulus.

E: A social situation will never have anything to do with morality. Clearly wrong based on #2 and #3 described above.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

Greetings! I could seriously use some outside opinions on this issue as I am beyond torn on what do:

I am currently in the end of my law school process and am in a tight spot. I currently have two acceptance letters (Hofstra and University of San Francisco) both with scholarship offers (although Hofstra’s scholarship offer extends beyond my 1L year, pending I keep a certain GPA). Both of these schools have April 15th First Seat Deposits. I am still waiting to hear back from two schools (Pace Law, which is ranked slightly higher than Hofstra & Syracuse, which is my dream school). If it helps, I want to become a sports and entertainment lawyer (more focused on Employment/Labor Law, Contract, Copyright, and Trademark law) and believe my pursuits would be best suited to take place here in New York (thus why USF has been eliminated).

I applied to Syracuse in late January and my application was marked as complete and in review 2 months ago. I still haven’t heard anything from Syracuse. My first question is if I haven’t heard anything by now, does that mean or hint something in terms of my applicant status ?

My second choice would be Pace, which has a transfer history with schools I am interested in exploring a transfer to such as USC and Fordham (would be for my second year) and . My LSAT falls above their 50th percentile (153) but my undergrad GPA is 2.89 (Grad school GPA of 3.67). Would my academic credentials grant me admission into Pace? I applied last week and the file is currently under review.

These questions lead me to Hofstra which is my third option. The 1st seat deposit of $400 is due next Monday. Should I pay it and hope that Pace and/or Syracuse get back to me before the second seat deposit is due for Hofstra (which is May 1st)? They offered me a waiver for both seat deposits (a total of $1000) which would bind me to matriculate to Hofstra and withdraw all my other applications but again, this is my third choice and if I got into the other two schools, I would go before I went here.

I know a lot of questions (3 in total) but any advice on this current situation will help! I think having some outside eyes on it could help me in my line of thinking. I do not want to pay the seat deposit but also do not want “screw” myself out of admission to a law school.

Trying to figure out where I should devote my energy in anticipation of the June LSAT!!

i dont understand why this is E

I chose answer choice C because being the rock being submerged in water does not prove the conclusion that is falsifying the idea that life began in the ocean and did not exist on land until half a billion years ago.

Does anyone have an explanation for why C does support the conclusion and why D would be the answer for non-supporting? Thanks!

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

On the 2007 prep test, I was unable to arrive at the correct conclusion for RC#13. I was confident that my answer was right and I even got it wrong during blind review. Even now, I’m unsure that I’d be able to deduce this quickly on a test. When I get to the RC section and begin doing drills, how can I study for this type of question? Are all Art, InfAP and Co questions similar?

I can understand why (B) is correct - but not sure why (C) is wrong. I think I'm not understanding (C) correctly. What does it mean to "indicate the falsehood of the implications" of a hypothesis? Doesn't the author do so in the stimulus, by showing that predicting an invention according to the hypothesis necessarily entails inventing it (the implications), which would be self-contradictory? Is (C) wrong because self-contradiction ≠ falsehood? I'd really appreciate it if someone could give me an example of (C) since I'm not exactly sure I understand JY's example either.

Thanks in advance!

Hey 7sage community,

This post is going to be edited multiple times by myself over the next several days/weeks...

TLDR: Free Lsat RC tutoring and LSAT coaching. Ideal for students who are really early in their process of studying or what to revamp their approach/mentality. I am intentionally starting with RC because I want to challenge the myth (yes myth) that it is the toughest section to overcome. If that's what you think, then guess what, WTF are you going do in law school? Read below for more info!

Deadline for the Application: March 10th

Short Story / About Me:

First of all, if this is a violation of the 7sage discussion forum, admin please delete this. I have not been on this website in a long time and I understand 7sage now has a tutoring program.

A little bit about me - in my last semester of law school (Dalhousie University - Halifax - Canada) and my passion for the teaching the LSAT has not gotten away from me (https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/22608/giving-back-to-the-7sage-community-free-tutoring). Secondly, I am teacher by profession. Honestly, nothing made me more happier in law school then having one of my students get accepted into York University's law program (weird but it was the honest truth). I cannot believe I am about type this - > I think law school only increased my passion for the LSAT!

Reflecting back on my law school life (loool....I should write about this in another blog), I think the best way I can give back to my law schools Weldon Tradition (google it) is to alleviate access to justice by getting more people from marginalized communities into law. I really believe this is the best way of dealing with "injustice" in the justice system.

The LSAT - I cannot stress this enough - is a great exam for developing your skills to be a great law student and lawyer. Only if I knew this, or thought of the exam differently before hand (I actually did - but I decided to have a kid LOL and that destroyed my law school timeline). TBH - I am going to restart studying for the LSAT post April and want to take my final LSAT probably next year...don't know why but I really want to ink down 170+ on my LSAT transcript. Its always been a weird passion of mine and I do not want to let this dream go (I know I am weird).

To get my free RC tutoring & LSAT coaching - DM me with the following (the more detail - the more it will help you!)

My goal is to create a group of three students - to teach you how to read RC (perhaps 7 to 8 sessions it may take) and then create a new group of three students, and continue this process. Also during this journey I want to coach you on your general LSAT journey.

.....

Stay tuned for my next LSAT post: The LSAT mentality!

P.S. I am not sure if other alum feel this way, but writing posts while being in law school about the LSAT is weirdly therapeutical LOL.

I saw a comment on this question that stated: but & and are logical equivalents. Is this true?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-2-question-10/

Wrong Answer (D) and Right Answer (E). I can't seem to reach the understanding on how E is relevant, e.g. doesn't contain information introduced in the passage on whether or not zebra mussels can transform hazardous waste and why they would be considered hazardous waste. I chose (D) because out of all the answers it seemed like the closest to being supported, as it mentions one of the 'redeeming qualities' of zebra mussels.

If you don't know what the title of this post means, I've got good news! This change won't affect you at all. It will only make your life on 7Sage a bit simpler.

If you use our Admissions site, heads up! We're folding the Admissions Site into the LSAT site, and for the time being, there's a new way to navigate to the Admissions Course.

https://www.loom.com/share/168a73b68f124c00b49f8d3ee4d200d9

Quick links:

I got 4 out of 5 right in this drill but got this particular questions drastically wrong. I selected B and on blind review selected C. I never felt E was correct during the drill or blind review. I do not know what I am not seeing on this particular question. I do not understand why C is incorrect. If 40% in the first group reported awaking paralyzed with a strange presence in the room, wouldn't it be correct to say 60% had not? Or is C wrong, because it only mentioned "strange presence" and excluded "paralyzed" as part of the answer? #help

I'm one of the 35% people that chose (B) and still am not fully convinced that (E) is better. To compare the two ACs, I'll list all potential objections/flaws they each have for them to work:

(B) says, salt is not the only dietary factors associated with high blood pressure. It takes for granted that the people in the question actually were consuming these other foods, and the intake of such foods in combination needs to be significant enough, not only to offset the effects of their high salt intake, but also to bring their blood pressure down to very low.

(E) says, some people have abnormally low blood pressure and they have heightened cravings for salt to maintain a blood pressure that's not too low. It assumes without justification that these people are in fact the people talked about in the stimulus, and their high salt intake was in fact the result of their heightened cravings.

I'll admit that (B) makes a lot of unwarranted assumptions. But the "cravings" in (E) really trips me up because I think the assumption of "heightened cravings for salt" implying "high salt intake" is the exact kind of bad assumptions that LSAT usually punishes us for making. My only justification for choosing (E) over (B) is that it makes fewer assumptions. Can someone please help me out on this one? This question is bothering me so much and I don't know what I need to do differently to avoid similar mistakes in the future. Any help is hugely appreciated!

Can someone explain the percents/proportion relationship that makes B the right answer? I am having a hard time understanding it. #help

For the correct answer choice, why does it matter if the trees used are or old or new since the answer is talking about the harm caused by the products they will be turned into? This is the reason I did not choose it #help

Hi All,

I'm hoping to find the section where J.Y introduces the idea of piecemeal analysis. I kept hearing him talking about it during the flaw section but I can't remember where he introduced the idea of peicemeal analysis. He suggested that he introduced it in Method of Reasoning.

If anyone has the lesson, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you