Discussions

All posts

New post

584 posts in the last 30 days

I did not chose D because it has the word 'interest'. But to me this sounded superficial as oppose to beneficial. I chose E because it shows the exact correlation between the two, but i did think it was a strong statement. Can somebody help?

0

Recently a school reached out to me and requested transcripts for a Paralegal certification course I took after college. The course is two separate 7-week classes. However due to finals and my legal internship I did not take them back-to-back which is why I correctly put 05/21 to 10/21 on my resume. I have two pieces of evidence to prove this. The transcript shows 05/21 to 08/21 because I guess they just count it as two consecutive courses.

I'm conflicted about if I should reach out to admissions or not. On one hand I feel like it might not be a huge deal but on the other hand I feel like if they admissions committee thinks I'm just outright lying on my resume for no reason it can jeopardize my acceptance chances.

0

I'm taking the January LSAT but already applied to all my schools, indicating on the apps that I'll be taking the future January LSAT (so presumably they're holding my application until the Jan. score comes in).

But in the hopefully avoidable event that my January LSAT score is lower than my present score and I decide to cancel it with score preview, will law schools automatically know that I cancelled my Jan. score and proceed with review or will they still hold my application, expecting Jan scores to come in? Am I supposed to update them that I cancelled my score or does LSAC send a report?

0

I'm doing some LR drilling right now, and I just wanted to make a discussion post and share my reasoning for a question (as prompted by 7Sage).

C: the glacier that melted to reveal the ancient body is at least 4,000 years old

Reasoning: Artifacts found on the man's body indicate that he lived at least 4,000 years ago, and that he died on the same spot where his body was discovered. Therefore, the glacier - the spot on which he died and was discovered - must be at least 4,000 years old. None of the other answer choices were even close to enticing and were easily eliminated.

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

0

I have 3.5 months to get score from (just over 12 weeks) to go from 150 to 157 - 160 range.

My incorrect answers are somewhat even on each section, but struggling most (conceptually speaking) on logic games, especially with the speed. I can set up most games but have a hard time attacking the questions.

Should I drill the LR question types I have most difficulty with?

Drill reading to improve efficiency / speed?

Is it better to drill drill drill, then take practice test and review and go from there?

Any specific advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

0

(spoiler alert if you havent taken PT41) :

its the question that begins with "poor nutrition is at the root....."

the logic in the argument seems to me to look like "high nutrient diet ---> improved behavior ".........but the credited response was answer choice E which states " ~high nutrient diet-----> ~improved behavior"

intuitively, this answer choice feels correct, but wouldnt this be whats called "denial of the antecedent"?? other books call it illegal negation or denying the sufficient condition, but the point i guess is that its logically invalid. and yet that invalid logical structure is present in the correct answer choice for this question. Can someone explain that to me? thank you

Explanation Video: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-1-question-14/

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

0

Hey guys, I posted this question on reddit a few days ago but received a response that wasn’t very helpful. So I decided to post the same question here to see if anyone knows something about it.

I was subscribed to “LSAT Prep Plus” in 2020, when it first came out, and in 2021. Before, depending on how you adjust the browser to suit your reading comfort, each of the RC passages could be made to fit on the screen in its entirety, provided you had a large enough monitor—I guess slightly bigger than your average laptop screen would suffice to bring this about.

However, I haven’t “logged in” to access the Prep Plus in 2022, and today I looked at the free sample PTs on their website and saw some major changes that I find discomforting. As you can see in the screenshots I provided here, the main passages are cut in the middle and you can’t see the whole of the main text for each of the passages without scrolling up and down, which I think also happened to be the case with LSATs administered on the tablets for a brief period before COVID struck.

I am registered for the January exam, and because I spent significant time preparing in previous years, I decided not to re-subscribe to the $100 per year subscription to the questions on their website.

Does anyone know anything specific about these changes, like when it first happened, and whether there’s a way to work around it?

Oh, I just realized I can’t post pictures up here. So, if you want to see the screenshots illustrating what I’m talking about, please visit

https://www.reddit.com/r/LSAT/comments/zrimx4/changes_to_the_lawhub_interface_with_rc_passage/

Thanks a lot.

P.S. I was a monthly subscriber long ago, and J.Y. has the best explanations!

0

Hi all,

I received another letter of recommendation on LSAC after I had already submitted my report with LSAC. I want to include this letter, but am unsure if LSAC will send it after the report was already sent. Does anyone know if LSAC will send the new letter to the schools I have already applied to? I have not received a decision from any of the schools as of yet.

0

So I am learning Logical reasoning through the book "The Loophole". So it says that "Your loophole and resolution have to be powerful" and "Your inference and controversy have to be provable" But then when I got to the Provable question stem section it said that the question stems-- conclusion, NA, Method, Argument part, The flaws-- all used loophole. Can someone please explain this? I don't understand.. because the book initially said that loopholes have to be powerful.

0

Hello,

I am just beginning the core curriculum and I have a couple questions.

Is completing all of the questions problem sets and drills recommended? Somewhere I believe I saw someone recommend taking every other one. What is typically advised?

Also, I am struggling with the idea of confidence drills. What are these?

Thanks,

0

Where in the stimulus do we find support for the fact that zebra mussels MUST be regarded as hazardous waste if they don't transform the waste products they filter and remove? Answer choices D and E seem really close here.

Admin Note: Please use the format "PT#.S#.Q# (G#) - brief description of question."

0

Hi, I've been on a hiatus for a few months and came across a problem while reviewing NA questions on the syllabus and remember having this issue in the past as well.

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/computer-emotions-na-question/?ss_completed_lesson=1791

Here JY attaches a noun (computer) to another noun (emotions) instead of writing it as, and as I wrote it, C->/E he writes it as /Ec

Then he wrote the conclusion as follows /Ic, I wrote it as C-> /I

So how can I know when to attach one thing to another in conditional reasoning? Is there a general rule to this? Because it lead me to the following issue with this problem.

I created a chain where both E and I connect to /C however I'm not able to see which comes first inorder to validate the conclusion, the /E or the /I

(diagramed below)

P:C - > /E

SA: I->E or E->I

C - >/I

JY, and the correct answer choice, both did it as I->E - I understand how they got to that when he attaches the c to /E.

Im not sure if my conditionality is off or what, but I would have assumed that it wouldn't matter if I attached the two nouns together or just created it the relationship in the chain as above. If anyone needs more clarification on anything please let me know.

0

Want to make sure I'm thinking through this correctly. C is right because it suggests the incorrectness of a premise, that the reason that Peter's actions are more blameworthy than Alicia's. The relevant part of C is just that Peter's running a red light, an illegal action, caused the action that caught the police's attention. I'm struggling to figure out whether the part of C that says that Alicia took extra care to avoid police noticing her contradicts the premise that there's a diff in the blameworthiness. I would argue that it doesn't, but I want to ensure that I've nailed down the important part of the correct answer choice.

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

0

I can't parse out or understand the assumption being made in this question below:

Paleontologist: It is widely, but falsely, held that life began in the ocean and did not exist on land until half a billion years ago.

The answer is D but I do not understand why

Admin Note: Deleted the question and answer choices because it is against our Forum Rules to post the entire question and answer choices on the forum.

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?