I have ADD and struggling with actual reading comprehension (for all sections). I'll get halfway to 3/4 through a passage and realize I haven't retained any of it and have to reread...which is not something the LSAT gives you time to do lol. I am planning to request for time and a half but was wondering if anyone had any ADD tips for reading/retaining information? thanks!

Can anyone give me a rundown as to why the answer for this one is "D- A political interest group can become ineffective by expanding to include as wide a membership as possible" and not "A-political interest groups are generally less influential when their membership is expanding than when it is numerically stable?" Thanks!

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

I have a habit of verbalizing while I read, even if its just mumbling under my breath. Should this be a concern and should I try stopping this habit now?

I got tricked. I did not pay enough attention to the words. I chose option answer E, but it says "most articles" whereas C has "Ragnall's" which is more specific.

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

I started a Discord for the 2022-2023 cycle. Please comment if your interested!

I started using 7sage with a 2 month study timeline since I'm taking the August 2022 test. It's way too much information crammed into each day/week and I've already covered much of this information with other programs as I've been studying for about a year. Any tips on how to cut down on some of the 7sage lessons and minimize the course to better fit a 2 month plan???

I see there is a new drilling section, where can I find my previously taken problem sets?

Honestly, more power to those who routinely got -0 on LG but it seems that I just can't stop making careless mistakes like misreading or even forgetting about rules! Sometime, I got stuck on a question only to find that I had misread a rule, which is a significant time sink. This leads me to not finishing the last game on my take in June and I'm quite disappointed since I was in fairly good shape for LR and RC. Anyone had the similar issue? And if so, how did you eventually overcome this?

I have been studying for the LSAT for nearly a year now, and I have managed to get to the point where I am consistently scoring -0/-1 on LR and LG. However, for RC I am still scoring between -3/-5 consistently (this has never improved from when I started to study). Is there anything I can do to score more consistently? I really want to be in the -2/-3 range before the august LSAT. What have you mid to high 170's scorers done to raise your RC?

Thanks

I've been prepping for a few weeks now with a 160~ starting point. Since then, I've been putting in like 5-6 hours a day prepping. My last two-timed practice tests I've gotten perfect scores on LR and LG then like 5-8 wrong on RC. Have you guys found the RC course component here to be helpful? Hoping to break out of the low 170s.

Haven't given my first shot yet. Just wanna know lol~

Hey all!

I've been studying for the LSAT for about 3 months, with the last 3 weeks being mostly 2-3 PTs a week. 3 weeks ago I was averaging between 169 and 170 for my scores with blind review scores of 170+, but my last 3 PTs have been 162-163 with blind review scores around 166. I took a 5 day break from studying and the regression has taken place since coming back to studying daily.

Is anyone else dealing with score regression? Any tips for getting back to higher scores that I had gotten used to? I'm taking the real exam in August and I'm starting to get frustrated, fearing that I may not be able to recover in the next month.

Hi all,

I have hit a score plateau recently. I am scoring 167-169 consistently with BR in the 170s (which I am glad about considering I started in the high 140 range). I have focused on drilling problem areas and working on timing between PTs and I see improvement in those areas of focus, but it seems like every time I fix one problem something else comes up in the next PT. What helped you break into the 170s, and how have you maintained improvements into PTs? What made the biggest difference score wise once you reached this phase in your studies?

Thanks!

What are the best academic journal websites? Specifically, science journals and science news websites.

After going through all of the core curriculum, I'm still scoring -12 or -13 on LR. Does anyone have any recommendations?

I basically goofed and payed for the Prep Plus subscription on a LSAC account that I created and forgot about (not the one currently linked to my 7Sage account).

hi all! Happy Friday!!

Ellen Cassidy (EC) from Loophole is a strong proponent of the former but some disagree.

I have been studying for about 11 months and during the first few months, I liked reading question types first but decided to try stim-first approach after reading Loophole which I found to be helpful. At 10th month I got a much better handle on LR, scoring -3 to -5 untimed and I'm kind of tempted to switch back to see if it improves my timing.

EC argues that if you read questions first it will distract you when reading the stimulus.

Has anyone experienced anything similar??

Thanks for sharing!

Hi all!

This is my second post today on an unrelated topic.

I didn't get into my top-choice (wait-listed at Columbia) last cycle and am reapplying. I am trying to figure out if I should matriculate this cycle regardless of the outcome (Big Law or not). In general, I think it's wise to reapply with new score and improved app but I'm turning 31 soon and starting to feel some pressure due to my low-income background and familial responsibilities. My parents will retire with no retirement savings and a whole lot of debt. These were the main reasons I was set on going to ~T30 schools (for regional BL opportunities and national portability).

Until recently, I was under the impression that employment outcomes for most graduates are largely bifurcated (either very well paying or not e.g., $190k vs $80k, I consider anything above $120k well-paid). But I met some people who went to T50~60 schools, work in mid-size firms, earn decent living (low end of six-figures e.g., $130k) and also have good work/life balance. Conversely, I personally know a few people who worked in BL for 3-5 years, suffered severe depression (even suicidal in one case), only to quit at the end. Obviously these are limited, small set of data but I'm starting to question whether BL is really the wise or the only path.

I want to know more about the middle-of-the-road outcomes like Mid Law. Does anyone else struggle about this? Everyone is unique but any of your thoughts or perspectives will be helpful both for myself and the community.

Thank you.

I know it is hard, and you feel defeated. However, you got this!

Hi everyone, I am wondering if we are allowed to reference writers in our personal statement?

hi looking to start a study group to weekly or biweekly go over and discuss practice tests. i plan to take august lsat and aiming for high 160s / low 170s! let me know so we can make a groupme!

For people who live around Orlando or live close to it, any of you is willing to meet up for study group?

I was posting this as a comment to a thread in which someone asked for a "trick" to identifying assumptions. But I thought it'd be more useful as its own thread.

Unfortunately, there is no trick for answering assumption questions, and a full treatment of how to approach them isn't reasonable to fit in a forum post.

However, many, many students would benefit from adding another step in their process to NA questions (and SA, flaw, strengthen/weaken): ask whether there is a "new" concept in the conclusion.

This is because one of the most important aspects of identifying assumptions is noticing concepts in the conclusion that are not mentioned or logically covered in the reasoning. If there is a "new" concept in the conclusion, then the argument must be making some kind of assumption related to it. There may be other assumptions, too, related to gaps between premises, but you can be sure that at least one of the assumptions must be about that new concept in the conclusion.

As good LSAT students, you probably are already familiar with the idea described above. But a lot of people seem to rely mainly on passively noticing new concepts rather than actively thinking about this as a step in solving questions.

Let's work through some example that increase in difficulty.

Example 1:

Rooney graduated with the highest GPA in the history of our law school.

Thus, she must be good at writing law school exams.

Is there a new concept in the conclusion? Yes - do you see that "good at writing law school exams" is not mentioned in the premise? That means the author is making an assumption about the relationship between having the highest GPA and what that tells us about being good at writing law school exams. The author is assuming that having the highest GPA is an indicator of ability at law school exams.

Oftentimes students just fail to notice the difference between two concepts - they make the assumption that the argument itself is making, which is why it's hard to spot that assumption.

Example 2:

Our new neighbor, Xander, was convicted of over fifty murders and has been referred to by local historians as one of the worst serial killers in the United States.

So, we were living next to a murderer this whole time and never knew it!

Are there new concepts in the conclusion? You might see that the idea of "not knowing" our neighbor is a murderer is new - the evidence never provides anything related to what we knew about Xander. So the argument is assuming something about our lack of knowledge. What if we actually knew he was a killer before he was found out? Then the argument doesn't work.

Do you also see that the concept of "being a murderer" is also new? The evidence just refers to being "convicted" of murders and "being referred to by historians" as a serial killer. None of those is the same as being a murderer - what if he's an innocent person who was wrongly convicted and falsely thought of as a serial killer?

Another issue is that sometimes students don't realize something is a new concept because they think that the fact that it was mentioned elsewhere in the stimulus means that it's not new. But in reality, the concept can still be "new" if it's not mentioned in the reasoning that supports the conclusion.

In addition, you might have to translate the conclusion if it uses referential language. You can't identify new concepts in the conclusion unless you've spelled out exactly what the substance of the conclusion is.

Example 3:

Some social theorists claim that San Francisco's large homeless population could be reduced by implementing policies that condition the provision of free food and medical services to the homeless on their staying off drugs and actively looking for a job. However, most of the homeless do not react to incentives in the same way that the average non-homeless member of society would react.

Thus, the social theorists' claim is false.

If you break down the argument to premise and conclusion, here's what we get:

Premise: Most of the homeless do not react to incentives in the same way that the average non-homeless member of society would react.

Conclusion: SF's large homeless population cannot be reduced by conditioning the provision of free food/medical services to homeless on the requirement that they stay off drugs and actively look for a job.

Notice that the first sentence about the social theorists' claim is not a premise - it's simply referred to by the conclusion as being wrong. So in my understanding of the argument, the first sentence just disappears - we've translated that into the substance of the conclusion, and that first sentence has nothing to do with the reasoning of the argument. Now we can properly think about new concepts in the conclusion.

Do you see anything new? There are quite a few, so there are a lot of assumptions. But here are three that stand out to me.

San Francisco's homeless? They weren't mentioned in the reasoning. Maybe they are different from the "most of the homeless" in the premise. The argument is assuming that San Francisco's homeless do not react to incentives in a significantly different way from "most" homeless. What if SF's homeless actually react more like the average non-homeless? That would undermine the argument by making the premise irrelevant. (Notice that if the premise said "All homeless..." then SF's homeless wouldn't technically be a "new concept" because they would be logically covered by the premise, even if the words "San Francisco" are new.)

The whole idea of policies that condition food/medical services on requiring them to stay off drugs or look for a job --- where is that coming from? The premise doesn't say anything about them. The argument never explicitly identified these things as the kind of thing the premise was calling an "incentive". So the argument must be assuming that these kinds of policies relate to incentives and how people would react to them. It's assuming that having the conditions of staying drug free or getting a job would be things the average non-homeless would react to differently from most homeless. If this weren't true -- if the homeless and non-homeless reacted the same way to these conditions, then the premise would have nothing to do with the conclusion because they'd be talking about two different things.

Reducing homeless populations? Does the premise say anything at all about reducing homeless populations or what is required for that? No. So the argument is making some kind of connection between the different reactions that homeless people have to incentives and the reduction of homeless populations. It's assuming that the policies in question - conditioning food/medical services on drug-free/look for job - can reduce homeless populations only if they work through incentivizing the homeless in some way. If there were some way that the policies could reduce homeless populations in a way that didn't relate to incentivizing them, then the premise (which was only about incentives), would have nothing to do with proving the conclusion. What if, for example, the policies could reduce homeless populations by stirring the moral fiber of SF's private citizens, who find the policies draconian and cruel and as a result band together to build thousands of free housing units for SF's homeless? The argument is assuming that this isn't a possibility.

I hope this helps if you're having trouble with assumptions and always find yourself thinking "there's no way I would have noticed that..." Maybe one reason you're not noticing it is because you're not explicitly identifying key concepts in the conclusion and asking whether they were mentioned or logically covered by the premises?

If you're reading quickly and uncritically, the difference between QOQOOQOQ and QOQOQOOQ might not stand out. But if you actually examine each set of letters and explicitly ask "Are these the same?" Then it's a lot easier to see where the difference is.

Hi so I forgot about that stupid email they sent out weeks ago that we can't use scratch-paper on the LSAT writing portion. I started to use scratch-paper but then stopped after writing literally 4 words because I realized they provided digital scratch paper.

I need advice: What should I do? Should I email LSAC and make my case? Pray that they didn't even notice? What should I do?

I am literally panicking because I don't want to have to take the writing section again, and I don't want my test to be flagged (I don't want admissions officers to think I cheated or did something bad).

Please help, I'm so scared and I have no idea what to do

Can you help me break down this question? My understanding of the argument is: the two sub-conclusions are inconsistent with each other (outside principles vs constitution only), therefore the first sentence is not true. I selected answer choice E because it seemed like the most reasonable option, but I don't understand the structure of the argument and what does the "particular premise" in answer choice E refers to? Thank you!

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