Hey, fellow law school applicants!

I'm currently in the process of preparing my law school applications, and I have a question regarding submitting multiple letters of recommendation. I have two professors who have graciously agreed to write me specific letters of recommendation for my top school choices. Additionally, they are also willing to write a more generic letter that I can use for all other schools I'm applying to. However, I'm a bit confused about the logistics of submitting multiple letters. I was hoping to get some advice from those who have been through a similar situation. Is it possible for them to submit multiple letters? If so, how should we go about submitting them to assure they don't get mixed up since I will be waiving my right to view the letters?

Thanks in advance!

Any data out there about how many people ultimately get a 90th percentile LSAT score + after multiple attempts? If I'm understanding the percentile charts correctly, approximately only 10% of folks get a score higher than a 166 in each administration. But not aware of data out there about "ultimate" scores across multiple test attempts.

When do I need to ask for letters of recommendation? Should I get them in months before I apply?

I was thinking of having one letter come from an undergrad professor and one come from the attorney I worked for since I worked for her as her assistant.

Or should all my letters be from professors?

Thanks!!

My 7Sage account won't let me link it to the admissions consulting payment plans. However, when I go to purchase the package in full, the account is automatically connected.

pls help

I applied to law school in late December and sent a January LSAT score (162). I was accepted to a #50 ranked law school with a ~30-40K/year conditional scholarship. I deposited and have been planning to attend in the fall. For context: this school was not my first choice school, and I have been secretly harboring a desire to transfer after my first year if I'm unhappy and do well with my coursework. I've been trying to suppress this "transfer fantasy" and start school with the intention of staying because from what I've read it's impossible to predict one's 1L grades.

Recently, I started to rethink my plans. I can't help but feel jealous of some of my friends who are starting law school at programs I'd love to attend. Shouldn't I feel more excited about the program I am planning to attend? Simultaneously, I love my new job and am in a happier and healthier place than I've been in a long time. As I think about moving, I can't help but feel like I'm giving up on my potential to attend a higher-ranked program that might be a better fit for my career aspirations. What if, I've been thinking, I defer my offer, work another year, and save up more money for school. I could also invest in LSAT tutoring (something I haven't tried yet) and retake the LSAT in the hopes of getting a higher score and reapply to some of my dream programs. For context: I previously applied for law school and studied for the LSAT alongside a very demanding job. I now have much more free time and bandwidth to study. I could also spend the year getting mentally prepared for school. For me this means, seeing friends and family, traveling, and pursuing personal goals.

I know it is very challenging to increase one's LSAT score, so as I weigh this decision I want to be realistic about how much I can improve. I would admittedly be disappointed if I didn't improve my score and ended up in a similar (or worse) position a year from now. And when looking at the numbers, the reality is only a small fraction of folks get above a 165. I do have a strong GPA and career experience working in my favor.

So... what would you do if you were me? Go? Or wait a year, retake the LSAT, and reapply?

Who is planning to take the August 11 LSAT and has just recently started studying?

Hey all, I am looking to see if anyone is interested in joining (or if there exists) a south Texas LSAT study group.

Primarily between the 361 to 956 area codes.

I don't see any study buddy postings for these south Texas cities, so I figure I'd try and get the ball rolling here.

The title is all. Am I allowed to cover just the timer with a small post-it or something while taking the actual test?

Could someone explain their thought process in getting the correct answer? I debated between A and B and eventually settled for B because I thought the very last line is the Conclusion. #help

Hi everyone!

My name is Christel. I am looking for a study group as I am interested to take the LSAT in September 2023. I am a working student in Florida however I am looking for or create a group that meet either mid-day or late evening. If you are interested, please let me know :)

If anyone is interested in finding a community of others to study LSAT with, check out this discord server! https://discord.gg/KsVnXeBW

Hi! Could someone please explain why E is the correct answer? I would love to see everyone's understanding/explanation! Here is what I thought, which turns out to be incorrect but I still don't get why E is right.

PaI - Disagree over Interpret which news is newsworthy

S: Reporters pick which events they want to report (newsworthy) and for how long is the reporting, so they always interpret the news (preliminary)

Ramon: Reporters -> /Interpret the news. Once they decide a news is newsworthy, they better give me the full info.

So Sarah says the act of considering which news is newsworthy is already the beginning of interpretation, Ramon says the interpretation begins after a news is decided to be newsworthy.

A. Every time they report it? They might or might not, this is digging too deep

B. Sarah disagrees, Ramon agrees “once they deem a story to be newsworthy”

C. Irrelevant

D. Ramon no comment, he only cares about newsworthy

E. Ramon no opinion

Join 7Sage admissions consultant Tajira McCoy on Wednesday, May 24 at 8pm ET for a special installment in a series of discussions with law school admissions deans from across the country. For this conversation, hear from representatives of Boston College, Emory University, Loyola University Chicago, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University of Richmond, and the University of San Diego, as they take a look at the recently released update to law school rankings by US News & World Report.

Register here: https://7sage.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_meEZ5NgcS8KQGqfBa0_N8A.

Note: this webinar will be recorded and added to the podcast after being edited for sound quality.

help what is the current format of the last (# of sections) and section type?

I know, for certain, that logic games are my weakest point. It seems like if I follow the curriculum as it's presented, I won't get to the logic games for quite a while. I plan on doing one practice test a week in conjunction with studying, so to me it makes sense to do logic games first so I can actually practice what I've learned instead of trying to come up with bad/ineffective strategies on my own during the practice tests.

In terms of 7Sage curriculum specifically, is it recommended to go out of order like that? I'm almost done with the foundation lessons and I'm about to take my first practice test, so now is the perfect time to plan out my schedule.

Thanks in advance!

I’m currently working through the MSS drills in the main curriculum. I’ve been taking my time make sure my accuracy is good, but when should I be concerned about getting the target time? I’m so worried about waisting questions. Is it okay to take 2+ minutes per question while drilling or do I need to pick up the pace?

I only have a few more days on my LSAC subscription and I renewed it, but it still says I need to renew it. Does it take a few days to register or do I need to do something manually to show that I renewed it?

I was wondering if anyone had any tips on getting better ta finding the assumptions in strengthen an weaken questions?

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

Are you looking for an easy way to find people to study with? Or do you just want a break from reviewing questions on your own?

You're in luck! Whether you are taking the June test or you are studying now for a future test, join us for our next "Study Group Breakout" on Tuesday, May 16th from 8:00-9:30pm ET.

Here's how it works:

Register for the Breakout no later than Monday, May 15th.

Take PT55 Section 2 (based on 7Sage's numbering - should be an RC section) and Blind Review it, but DON'T look at the answers. I suggest you take it as a "Drill" rather than as a PrepTest! You can do this by going to the "Practice" tab and choosing "Drills," then selecting "Newer" PTs, selecting "Reading Comprehension," and scrolling to PT55 S2. You will have to individually add each passage to your drill, but hit "Create drill with 4 passages" at the bottom right when finished, and voila!

Log in to the Breakout Session at the appointed time. We will automatically place you in a group of 3-5 students with similar scores so you can review the section together.

At the end of the session, you can exchange emails and keep meeting if you enjoyed the group.

Hope to see you there! Register for the event using this link: https://7sage.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZwofuivpj4tE9CSAtfTD9JURGaw71Tb6OmH

I personally find this the hardest LR question in PT 14; it is (1) bizarre on the level of content, (2) very long and overloads test takers with information, and (3) at the very end of the fourth section, thus hitting you at a point of the test where you already spent 2+ hours intensively thinking about stuff and are mentally exhausted.

In paraphrased form, the stimulus says:

(1) Phenomenon: In the Peruvian desert, there are different sets of lines in the sand. These lines occur in different layers: On the top layer, there are lines that branch out from a single point. Beneath that, there are lines that form a bird figure.

(2) Hypothesis: An investigator argues for the conclusion that both of these sets of lines were brought about by aliens, who supposedly used the Peruvian desert to land their space ships. To support this conclusion, the investigator evokes the premises that the lines in the sand would have been useless to Incas.

The first thing to do here is to figure out what the stimulus is even about: The phenomenon itself is not immediately clear – it is crucial to note that there are TWO sets of lines, not just one –, and the investigator’s hypothesis is counterintuitive to a degree that it becomes all too easy to disregard the glaring selective attention fallacy in their reasoning (Aliens or Incas, not Incas; therefore aliens). So the first hurdle here is to even figure out what is going on, and to throw out one’s common sense intuitions out of the window (How can you even identify the different layers of ancient lines in the sand? How did the lines stick around for so long? All of these questions become irrelevant).

The next hurdle then is the question stem, which again seems bizarre: Here, the test writers tell us that we seek to establish the conclusion that the lines are supposed to refer to astronomical phenomena, and that we are supposed to block an alternative hypothesis to the effect that the lines are non-astronomical. So at this point this seems to become a sort of strengthen question. The question stem is unusual to an extent that it becomes hard to pre-phrase or anticipate how a right answer might look like. Thus process of elimination seems to be the best approach:

(A) North American natives arranged stones in ways that allow for the measurement of astronomical phenomena. This seems to strengthen a little bit in that it points out a seemingly analogous case (It is not only in South America but also in North America that people used geological means to keep track of astronomical phenomena). However, it seems unclear how this answer choice would also have the blocking effect that the question stem is asking for. Thus keep around as a candidate but expect that one of the other answer choices might well be better.

(B) The straight lines indicate positions at which astronomical events could have been observed ‘at plausible dates,’ and the bird lines could represent a constellation. This gets at both sets of lines and associates both of them with astronomical phenomena. The answer thus is fairly specific. Furthermore, the answer itself postulates its own plausibility (‘plausible dates’), which seems like a massive hint, though again unusual. Like the rest of this question, (B) thus again seems wildly counterintuitive, but in the scenario we are supposed to explain, (B) arguably makes the most sense. In particular, (B) approximates the desired function more than (A). Thus far this thus is the least bad answer choice.

(C) The lines form patterns. This answer choice is worse than (B), due to its lack of specificity and its apparent disconnect from the question stem. Worst answer choice thus far.

(D) Central American Natives used rocks to measure astronomical phenomena. This answer choice seems almost identical to (A) and thus provides good grounds to dismiss both (A) and (D): There can only be one correct answer choice, two virtually identical answer choices thus are likely to both be false.

(E) The bird lines might be older than the straight lines. Again irrelevant; (B) must be right.

Takeaways: This seems to be a question where the LSAT really tries hard to make test takers focus exclusively on reasoning structures, not on common sense intuition or plausibility. In this sense, the question is similar to other early LR questions that seem weird content wise but make syntactical sense on the level of formal logic. Focus on getting a clear understanding of what is going on in the stimulus and the question stem; I spent four minutes on this and still felt overwhelmed. Get a clear grasp of what the phenomenon is, what the explanation attempt from the stimulus is trying to say, and how the two alternative explanatory directions from the question stem relate to another. Then use process of elimination to get through the answers.

Conservative: Socialists study history, and they do so to identify trends that inevitably lead to a socialist future. However, this undertaking is certain to fail, because it is only retroactively that historical trends appear inevitable.

Socialist: Socialists do indeed study history, but the purpose of this is practical rather than theoretical: Instead of trying to identify historical trends that themselves bring about socialism, socialists try to identify trends that inform the kind of work that socialists need to do to bring socialism about. Socialism thus is not the inevitable outcome of historical trends, it instead must be worked towards and deliberately brought about.

Under timed conditions this Point at Issue / Disagreement question had me genuinely confused: The conservative and the socialist agree in maintaining that socialists study historical trends, but they disagree about the purpose that these studies are supposed to serve: According to the conservative, these studies are a purely theoretical undertaking, the socialist deems them practical. This thus would have been the issue to anticipate.

The pertinent answer choices are (A) (“[A] socialist society is the inevitable consequence of historical trends that can be identified by an analysis of history”) and (E) (“Socialists analyze history in order to support the view that socialism is inevitable”).

In the case of (E), we do get at a version of the anticipated answer; (E) gets at the conservative’s portraying socialist analyses of history as purely theoretical undertakings, which the socialist rejects.

(A) is more tricky. If (A) said “Socialists believe that a socialist society is the inevitable consequence of historical trends that can be studied,” this arguably would be a right answer choice: The conservative does ascribe this view to socialists, the socialist does not. However, (A) is a claim in itself, not only a belief that socialists may or may not endorse. In this context, the situation is more straightforward: We have no reason to think that the conservative deems the creation of socialist societies inevitable, and the socialist explicitly denies that they are inevitable. So as it stands, the speakers actually seem to agree that (A) is false. This thus can’t be the point at issue.

Takeaways: It is crucial to distinguish clearly between the two viewpoints here, as well as between facts and beliefs. Do not interpret (A) as a belief that the conservative ascribes to socialists; it is rather a claim that the speakers themselves are supposed to endorse or reject.

I just opened the website to a notification that I should try the quicker + better way to learn logic with 7sage's beta 2 version. I edited my settings but lost all progress, I try to return to the lesson I was working on and it says "not included in subscription" , I tried to undo the update but the checkbox disappears from settings the second you open the page?

I want to undo this beta version and just go back to my progress on standard. #help #admin

Hi is someone able to walk me through this LR question? In general, I struggle with sufficient assumption (SA) and pseudo-SA questions (even though I know JY calls them freebies), so I would love to have general tips for getting these right as well as the one pertaining to PTB S4 Q4 (the one that talks about political self-determination). Thank you so so so much in advance!

PTB S1 Q16