I am looking for someone to hold be accountable for the November LSAT and for me to do the same. I am hoping this is someone I can really use for advice, sounding board, and all things LSAT/Law School related. I promise to do the same, no one in my life is preparing for law school so this would be super helpful! Message me! Preferably a girl and my location is Austin, Tx, but I see this being more of an email/text thing.

I want to re-do all of the Logical Reasoning Problem sets from the curriculum. I believe that much like Logic Games, Re-doing these problem sets can benefit me from a skills standpoint in identifying either why the correct answer is correct and/or why the 4 other answer choices are incorrect for each question type. As I do this, I will take notes of any and all trends I discover that will help me attack each question type quickly and accurately. I am wondering if anyone is also doing this and if so how do you schedule this review in your study schedule? As of now I am considering adapting Pacifico's Logic Games Attack strategy. Link provided below.

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/2737/logic-games-attack-strategy/p1

Looking for a small study group to prepare for Feb LSAT. Located in Toronto. Comment and email me if interested: renarenyi@gmail.com

Thank you,

Rena

Hello...I have really bad test anxiety and money to spend so I was planning to go through with the January LSAT and see how I do. If I don't do well I am planning to take the February LSAT (already signed up). I score pretty decently on practice exams but my question is...does this look bad to admissions?

Hey everyone!

I'm looking for a study buddy and accountability partner for the LSAT living in the NY area.

I can meet weekly on Sundays in person and during the week via Skype or Google Hangout. I live in Nassau County, but I'd be comfortable traveling to Suffolk, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Statem Island, the Bronx or Westchester.

Anyone interested??? You can send me a PM.

I wanted some advice on what pts i should be using to study with one month before the exam, and maybe some ways to go about studying

Hi all!

Hope everyone had a Happy New Year!

I haven't been studying much since I was focused on finding employment after being laid off from COVID, however, I'm happy to say I'll be starting a new job this week, and I feel like I can refocus my attention on the LSAT.

The last time I studied consistently was probably early November. I did a bit here and there throughout November/December, but I would say probably only an hour or two every other week. I feel like I'll be rusty getting back into more of a strict schedule, and like I may have "forgotten" my strategies for LR/LG. Does anyone have any tips for someone who's taken a break for this long and is now returning to LSAT studying again?

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you :)

hey all, im looking for a regular study group. drop me some info down below and ill start up a chat and figure out a good time.

Hi there. I'm looking for a partner to meet a few times a week via Skype or Zoom. Ideally, the person will be scoring 160+ although I'm open to working with someone who is not there yet, as long as s/he has been prepping for while. I am in the Eastern time zone and evenings or nights work best for me. Send me a message if you are interested.

#help

I answered this question correctly but approached the stimulus differently than J.Y. I interpreted the part that says “who receive unsolicited advice from someone whose advantage would be served if that advice is taken” to be a description of the kind of “people” the stimulus is referring to. Therefore, I teased out the logic in this way:

People (who receive unsolicited advice from someone whose advantage would be served if that advice is taken)

Interest NOT coincide → Regard advice with Skepticism

so

NOT IC → SK

Therefore, I approached the answer choices in this way:

A – Even if the interest of H and F do not coincide, the stimulus does not suggest a rejection;

B – Perfectly resembled my interpretation since S and R “NOT IC” then R should not reject the least expensive models. So, he must be skeptical about S’s advice;

C – In this case M and Y interest coincided so it did not trigger my conditional;

D – In this case S and R interest coincided so it did not trigger my conditional;

E – Even if we can infer that M and J interest did not coincide because M wanted to purchase a more expensive fish while J wanted to sell her a cheaper one, in no way we can conclude that M should follow J’s recommendation, so “NOT SK”.

What do you think?

Thank you in advance to whoever is going to answer.

Best,

Marco

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-4-question-19/

Is the reasoning flaw in the stimulus that it concludes what makes something not censorship from the sufficient condition for censorship?

If A or B, then Censorship exists.

From this, we cannot conclude that censorship does not exist.

Similarly, in (D),

If A, then heroic.

From this, we cannot conclude what's not heroic. A is a sufficient condition for being heroic, not its necessary condition. If it were the necessary condition, we have a way of concluing that something is NOT heroic. Is this all there is to see in this question?

Hi! I managed to get a 172 on the January LSAT, despite not being in the best mental state. I'm retaking in June and aiming for 99th percentile. Anyways, I just started anti-depressant medication a few weeks ago, and am worried that it might be giving me brain fog/lack of motivation and focus. I feel pretty much the same, maybe just in a bit more of a positive mood. My last PT was a 177 (with medication), but it was also an older test. Has anyone had experience with medications affecting their score? I don't want to be in a situation where it affects my ability to focus on the test, and I end up with a lower score in June....

Hello all,

I'm looking to see if anyone wants to collaborate with me to study via zoom or in person, mainly to keep each other accountable, but also to bounce questions off each other sometimes. I'm currently scoring around 154-157 range and am I aiming to get to 165+ . I typically study after work around 5 o clock but I can be flexible.

Hello, looking for a zoom study group to do co-working. I am not interested in doing review or going over answers, just co-working at a set time in the evening (EST). I work 9-5PM and workout early mornings. Hoping a co-working space will keep me accountable! Shoot me a message if interested.

I couldn't see how the term "normal" was used differently between the two speakers? Would someone be able to clarify how to focus on that? I completely brushed over that.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-40-section-1-question-10/

I'm going through the curriculum right now and I'm up to LR pseudo-sufficient questions. There were some lessons in which I felt sort of weak on (for example weakening questions), though I feel compelled to just keep going as I want to finish the curriculum in the allotted time I originally planned in my study schedule. How often should old lessons be reviewed? Should I drill down those lessons before going on? Or should I just keep going, finish the curriculum and then go back and review old lessons?

I started out with a diagnostic score of 153 and have been scoring 168-172 for the last 5 practice tests, and my main struggle is consistently LR sections. I have begun doing flashcards with the logical indicators to drill which group they go with, but want to gain a lot more confidence with arguments and logical relationships. Does anyone have tips they have used to better comprehend logical arguments and practice to become more confident in these sections? Thanks!!

deleted

Hi,

Based on all the discussion online, this question seems to be very infamous, so anybody who can help me here would be a genius.

I was stuck between A and E here-- they both looked so good, so I ended up sticking with E (the wrong answer) because E had slightly more accurate terminology (I thought that maybe "environmental consequences" in A may not be the same thing as "environmental degradation" as stated in the stimulus and E). A ended up being the right answer (not surprised there), but how is E wrong?!?

My prephrase here was that: "Thus, the electric car will not result in an abatement of environmental degradation caused by auto emissions"

E looked right to me because abatement (according to the dictionary) seems to mean the same thing as "net reduction". As a result, E looked like a perfect answer almost word for word.

Can anybody explain why E here is completely wrong?

Thanks!

Best regards

Is it appropriate to direct message a partner at a big law firm on LinkedIn for an informational interview? Or should I stick to associates?

Hello,

This question took me a while to understand why A was not the answer. Anson concludes that Dr. Ladlow isn't a responsible psychologist. The question stem asks: "Anson bases his conclusion about Dr. Ladlow based on which of the following?"

A ) If anything, the attack on his character would be the conclusion, not the support for the conclusion. Furthermore, from what I understand a personal attack would be more along the lines of: "Dr. Ladlow smokes cigarettes; we shouldn't believe anything he says"; not a professional criticism.

B ) Is correct because it takes the general principle within the stimulus of that responsible psychologists need to consider the potential of evidence that could refute their own findings, which Dr. Ladlow fails to do. Thus by failing to adhere to a general principle, Anson states that Dr. Ladlow's incorrect.

C ) There's no ambiguous term within this stimulus.

D ) Anson doesn't dispute Dr. Ladlow's facts (i.e. that the Dr.'s theory about rats isn't correct, its just that Anson adds to the notion that he must also consider the possibly that it might NOT be correct)

E ) Anson doesn't reject the Dr.'s theoretical explanation.

Hey everyone, so I wrote my first ever LSAT in November and I am pretty happy with my score. My first diagnostic was a 141 and now on the November Flex Exam I scored a 163. What I was hoping for some opinions on is my next move from here. Currently, I am signed up for the January flex exam (I signed up immediately after writing the November exam in a somewhat state of panic lol). I am happy with my score as it lands me in a good spot with the schools I have applied to (I am a Canadian student), and my GPA for my last 20 is also pretty good (3.695/4.0). I am torn on whether I should keep going with the January flex or withdraw. My average scores for my prep tests leading up to the exam ranged from the mid to high 150's to mid 160's, which is why I feel happy with my performance on exam day and feeling a little uneasy about whether I will be able to improve upon my initial score of 163.

Let me know what you guys think, I don't have many resources or people to draw from so I am interested in what the 7sage community has to say!

Thanks :)

The lsac website says tbd - week of the 14th. Can you assume you will be testing on Saturday the 14th or Sunday the 15th? When will the official date come out?

Any Tips on getting better at LR. I'm not doing so great on this section of the test and need help. This section is keeping me from my target score.

Hi,

So I can see why C is definitely a better answer choice than all the rest. However, I find myself confused by the fact that I am not sure how we can tell that the author thinks that doctrine of precedent is a "useful tool" here. Can anyone #help me with this?

Thanks!

Best regards

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-3-passage-2-questions/