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?

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

I currently go to a top 100 undergrad, but my specific college within my university has a good reputation with many of the top law schools since many students go on to succeed there. I've heard a lot of different things, some people say going right through is easiest since you don't have as many responsibilities, but others say that work experience is becoming far more important for T14 schools. My GPA is a 3.8mid and I'm registered for the August 12th LSAT. My scores have been 16mid but I'm showing fairly steady improvement as I get better at focusing on the test for the entire duration. My goal score is a 175+ and I am fairly confident that I can get close to it as I keep practicing.

However, I'm worried that my age will make it difficult for me to find work experience, since I am graduating from college at 19 since I'm doing my undergrad in 3 years. I think if I have a few more years before I get into the "real world", then it will be a lot better for me. I have 2 internships so far, 2 e-board positions in school organizations, I mentor for 2 different organizations, and I'm a researcher for my school's Human Rights Lab. I hope that my school involvement can make up for my lack of work experience, and I hope that the leadership positions will show maturity and ambition despite my age. My GPA was also a 3.8high before this past semester, but I have heard that you can include an addendum to explain a slight drop in grades, since this was my first fully in-person semester of college and many of the facilities were not fully operational, making the semester especially difficult.

I would really appreciate any thoughts!

Thanks :)

Hi 7Sage!

I have been studying for this monster of a test for almost 2 years now (working full time) and have finally realized I should probably get a tutor for extra practice. A bit late, I know, but now I can actually afford one. I have seen some Instagram LSAT tutors who have great reviews and are pretty popular. But I also heard of some 7sagers who provide tutoring services I think. Any recommendations? Any advice before you ask an LSAT tutor for their services?

Thank you!

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.

I know that 7Sage offers several different admissions packages, but I'm not sure what I need right now. I was hoping to be able to chat with an admissions consultant and get some insight into my situation, (I am a nontraditional applicant.) I'm not sure how this works.... do consultants on here have an hourly rate, or is there someone who would be willing to chat with me and answer a few questions? I've been reading on here how competitive law school admissions are getting, and I'd greatly appreciate some feedback on my soft qualifications.

Thanks!

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

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!

HLS website and application says the following. I'm wondering if anyone has put it to test for HYS or HLS specifically. I don't see this at Yls website.

How many times may I re-apply to the J.D. program?

Applicants may apply for admission to Harvard Law School through the regular J.D. application no more than three times.

Anyone with first-hand experience with this? Is this a lifetime limit and other schools have similar limit?

Does it not matter whether their score or jobs changed after 3 applications?

Anyone in the Bay Area studying for the August test? I am on summer vacation so currently studying full time. I'm also pretty good at RC, I can consistently get -2 to -0 so I might be able to help someone with that. My big weakness is setting up the board and making inferences on the LG. I don't have anything going on so I can video call or meetup whenever. :)

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

Hi friends,

Stopping by to share this because I know how helpful these sorts of posts were for me when I was deep in the trenches of LSAT prep--and mostly struggling. Just here to say you got this, it IS worth it, and 7Sage is hands down the best resource to get you to where you're trying to be (although you probably already know that by now).

If you have any question about LSAT, consulting package, or just anecdotal law school tingz -- feel free to reach out! In fully transparency, bar prep is a horrible time so my replies might be a bit inconsistent, but I do promise to check my inbox more often.

With love,

Nabintou

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

Hoping to form a study group for both the June and August exams! Goal is 170+ and I am currently scoring mid-160. Available EST nights and all day weekends! Drop a comment if you are interested and I will reach out :)

Hi! I'm looking for a study buddy. Someone that can meet 2-3 times a week through Google Meets. I work full time, so preferably someone is a similar position. I'm looking for someone that desires structure and accountability. We could do timed drills/preptest and blind review together!

Please let me know if you are interested!

So I have been out of undergrad for less than a year, and I have been committing my life to the LSAT. I decided that I am going to try and get my LORs in line for when I apply, but the only issue is I was never close to any of my professors in undergrad, and I'm not confident they would write one for me. What am I supposed to do in this situation? I don't really have any mentors that could write one for me, attesting to my academic ability and work ethic, so am I just screwed?

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!

Like many of you, I watch Game of Thrones. While watching the latest episode, I realized the characters make many arguments. So, I thought it would be fun to use some of their dialogue as mini LSAT lessons.

If you don't watch Game of Thrones or aren't caught up, turn away for many spoilers lie ahead.

Scene 1 - Jon Snow wields a cool conditional chain

Jon Snow: "I need you with me if we're going to beat them, and we need to beat them if you're going to survive."

survive → beat them → you with me

Jon uses "need" to indicate necessity along with "if" to indicate sufficiency. Though he states only his major premise without giving the full argument, he correctly assumes that everyone wants to "survive" which would triggers the conditional chain allowing everyone to draw the conclusion that the Free Folk ought to stick with Jon Snow.

Scene 2 - Tormund's like "Hey Snow, let me see that cool conditional chain."

Quickly following Jon's argument, Tormund wants to play with the conditional chain also. Earlier in the dialogue he mentions that Jon died for the Free Folk so "do the same" is referencing that.

Tormund: "If we are not willing to do the same for him, we're cowards. And if that's what we are, we deserve to be the last of the Free Folk."

not willing to die for Jon → cowards → deserve to be last of the Free Folk

Like Jon, Tormund also states only his major premise. He also correctly assumes that none of the Free Folk wants to be the last of the Free Folk nor do they want to be labeled cowards. Hence, by failing either of the necessary conditions, we can contrapose and arrive at the conclusion that the Free Folk "are willing to die for Jon". In context, this means join Jon in war to take back Winterfell from the Boltons.

Scene 3 - Cersei is not half as bright

I find this scene really funny. Olenna says to Cersei, "If you're half as bright as you think you are, you'll find a way out of here, too." Without missing a beat, Cersei replies "Never." Like, she just accepts Olenna's insulting premise and plays along. I almost feel bad for her.

Let's look at this in lawgic.

Olenna: Cersei is 50% as smart as Cersei thinks she is → leave

Cersei: not leaving

Conclusion: Cersei's not very bright

Scene 4 - Blackfish understands the inclusive or

In this scene, one of the Frey idiots threatens Blackfish and says "Yield the castle or I cut his throat."

Blackfish, who clearly understands the inclusive or, thinks to himself:

not yield castle → nephew's throat cut

But I remember from this 7Sage lesson that if I yield the castle, that Frey idiot might cut my nephew's throat anyway. I'm gonna call him out on his shit bluff.

Scene 5 - Jamie with a strong contrapose

This was probably my favorite scene from the episode.

Right before this scene, Jamie simultaneously insults and warns the Frey idiot that "only a fool makes threats he's not prepared to carry out."

makes threats he's not prepared to carry out → fool

Since Frey threatened Blackfish earlier but didn't carry it out, Jamie effectively called him a fool. There's the insult. But Jamie is also warning Frey because we can assume that Jamie does not think himself a fool and hence conclude that Jamie makes threats he is prepared to carry out. Jamie proceeds to make the following threat: "Now let's say I threatened to hit you unless you shut your mouth, but you kept talking. What do you think I'd do?"

not shut your dirty Frey mouth → Jamie hits you

And of course, like the idiot he is, the Frey keeps talking.

Scene 6 - Jamie is fond of unless

Jamie uses "unless" again in this scene, "Have him bathed and fed. Unless you'd like to take his place."

don't want to take his place → bathe and feed him

Jamie assumes that the idiot Frey does not want to take the prisoner's place and therefore will bathe and feed him. This time they take Jamie's threat seriously.

Scene 7 - Davos also knows how to contrapose a conditional chain too

Davos strings together a conditional argument just like Jon and Tormund did at the beginning of the episode.

Davos: "As long as the Boltons hold Winterfell, the North is divided. And a divided North won't stand a chance against the Night King."

Boltons hold Winterfell → North divided → no chance against Night King

Davos correctly assumes that Lady Lyanna Mormont wants to stand a chance against the Night King and so, contraposing back, will arrive at the conclusion that she should help them kick the Boltons out of Winterfell.

I believe this should be a weaken question not flaw. Manhattan says its weaken too. Besides, the right answer choice E is giving a new cause- that of not being extroverted as a person OVER astrology affecting them.

PT #5, S1, Q#2 wrongfully labeled. Should be a Flaw Q.

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

I am planning on taking the August 12th exam, how many more tests should I take?

currently scoring -10 ish on all categories. Best tips to improve? have been studying about 25 days.

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.