Is anyone having issues with Lawhub today? I know testing is going on right now but it's moving so slowwwwwww and I'm trying to get some last min studying in.

How do I find out what the answer is to this question? Where is the answer key?

Hey everyone,

I have just taken the October LSAT (hoping for the best!) and have been starting work on my law school applications. When deciding what to write about for my personal statement, I felt compelled to write about my experience going through school as somebody with a learning disability. I intend to talk about the challenges I faced due to my neurodiversity and the ways I overcame those obstacles.

I am a little concerned that because this is my topic of choice, law schools will assume I took the LSAT with accommodations. I did not, in part because I did not have documentation of my disability within the past five years and in part because I honestly felt I didn't need them to succeed. I know that law schools should not and probably do not judge test takers with accommodations any differently, however I have in the past experienced discrimination in academia due to my learning disabilities and am nervous about law schools somehow looking at my test score differently due to any possible assumptions.

My instinct tells me I'm being ridiculous and should let go of that fallacious assumption and have faith that the admission deans aren't biased and take comfort in the fact that if they were, that's not a school I'd want to go to anyways. However, another part of me feels that I should add an addendum specifying that I didn't have accommodations on the LSAT, maybe adding that it's in part because I didn't qualify for them due to a lack of recent documentation.

If anybody has advice, please share it. That said, the a central theme of my PS is getting past the shame and stigma associated with neurodiversity, so it does admittedly feel disingenuous to even be writing this post and I feel more inclined to simply not write this addendum and let things unfold naturally. Just curious to see if anybody else has a different perspective.

I primarily got the base of my knowledge from LSAT Trainer and PowerScore books and came to 7sage for mainly LG but also to improve on LR to further boost my score. I've been going through certain sections and today I was going to go over the valid/invalid argument forms because I thought they were going to be more obvious LR related however all of these lessons about existential quantifiers have just confused me.

Not only do they take a concept which is intuitive for most people and turn it into a completely non intuitive form but I haven't seen a single direct application for this on the LSAT which makes it worth studying. I decided to google search this and figure out if it was work my time and came across this: https://www.thinkinglsat.com/post/ep-278-part-1-existential-quantifiers-crisis

The LSAT is full of jargon. Some of it useful, and some of it…not so much. What makes matters worse is that many LSAT prep companies confuse students’ understanding by building unnecessary complexities into the study process. In this episode, the guys hear from a listener who just can’t quite understand “existential quantifiers,” hard as he may try. The thing is: the guys have no idea what “existential quantifiers” even means—especially not in the context of the LSAT. Nathan and Ben do their best to bring clarity to this confused 1L hopeful. Plus Nathan advocates for doing more inquiring and less note taking, the guys hear about a life-changing 20-point improvement, and they offer up a PSA about talking and LSAT-ing.

Thoughts?

How is this done why it is not. Option c

Hi! I'm PT'ing 170-174 and am posting to ask if anyone else who consistently scores above 170 would like to have a 30 minute 1-on-1 Zoom call with me, in which we can take turns presenting the most valuable insights we've had in our studies so far. These insights can be general or specific-- whatever has helped you most!

I've completed the core curriculum and so personally would like to use our Zoom call as an opportunity to discuss insights outside the core curriculum. There will probably be a little bit of repetition/overlap, but let's mostly try to break new ground!

I can spend about 1/2 hour presenting the following:

Message me personally if you're interested and we can set up a time! In your message, feel free to let me know what you've been scoring and maybe give a super brief preview of what you might want to present.

Best of luck to everyone in their studies! :D

Hi,

I’m currently at -10 in LR and want to get to at least -5 before the Jan exam

to reach my goal. What would be the easiest and quickest method to do that? I have just started with reading the loophole but it seems like going over it will eat into a lot of my precious time and I don’t know if it’s worth it or if I have enough time to try new LR strategies at this point. Any tips?

My weak areas seems to be parallel flaw, method reasoning and necessary assumption questions. I think I struggle most with negation and writing out the lawgic in a timed practice test. Any suggestions about how to improve these areas would also be helpful. Thanks!! :)

Hey 7sagers!

A group of us are discussing how to represent the following sentence:

"A and B are exactly two spaces apart"

We can't seem to agree on how to represent it. There isn't a specific logic game example I can post that has this language but it came up because it was seen in this book "The LSAT Logic Puzzle Book: Are You Smarter than a Lawyer?"

https://imgur.com/TZ7rryJ

Posting here for a fun discussion/debate and to hopefully take your mind off the October exam for those who took it! :)

Hello,

Could anyone share the range of time slots? I just want to know the options beforehand!

Stay safe!

So the valid argument forms are used for MBT, SA questions and logic games only or am I missing something else? Also what about existential quantifiers? Will we mostly see them on logic games only? I went through all the games and I am guessing that they will be mostly on grouping and in/out games.

AM Times went super fast so hurry! I thought the earliest we could take the test was the 21st, but apparently the 14-17 is available Whooo hooo!

I scored a 139 on the June FLEX. Some of you might remember a post I made when the June 2021 FLEX scores were released. I still am devastated, but the malaise since then has waned and I am again driven to try to win the LSAT. I just deleted all of my progress in the core cirriculum and I'm starting over from 0. I've since signed up for an introductory logic course at the local community college for the fall semester, while treating this (7 Sage) like another 3hr/5 days a week class. I have no excuses why I can't study in the mornings, so I must and I will.. I honestly don't even care about Law School anymore. I just want to tackle this monstrosity of a test, however long it takes. I'll worry about Law school and admissions and all that other stuff when I get a score that I can personally be happy with and meets my goals. I don't care if it takes 5 years or 10 years. I wrote down some goals to keep me consistent, sober, and healthy while attempting to overcome this rigorous barrier to my successful, legal career. Every comment posted onto my June 30th, 2021 post was encouraging and motivating. People describing their tribulations through this trial of the mind gave me some needed self reflection on why I am doing this and what I hope to accomplish beyond the LSAT. But for now, I am only researching programs and schools to keep me motivated to study and take seriously this feat of intelligence. I look forward to studying along side you all.

I don't get why the games are difficult for me. I've done a lot of Sudoku in the past which is similar to the games, in terms of figuring out placements and sequences so I assumed Logic Games would be alike to that. Every time I do a logic game, I get an average score and understand the explanation but still do average on the next problem set. Does anyone have any tips for knocking these questions out?

When you focus hundreds of hours in the old PT's and finally catch up, it's another level, but not a level of to train more to exceed.

It's obvious when looking at the meta-scores that for the LSAC too many people are hitting 170 so they are making it so absurd that some questions are bound to cause people to have issues. It's disturbing as well that they are going to remove Logic Games because people are "getting it". And it's obvious that when LG is so clear cut they won't remove questions nor have it contested, yet with new PT I see 30 - 40% answers right ON THE FIRST 10 QUESTIONS.

This test went from understanding the theory behind the questions to making sure you understand any upcoming tricks.

It's outrageous that you have to spend 300-400 hours to get 170s and then slip back to the 160's since God forbid law schools weigh 70% instead of 75% of your weight-in application.

And before people start to defend the LSAC, it's the LSAC that caused the pressure for schools to get this achievement mentality to 170. 170 doesn't mean top 10%, it's the top 2.5% yet schools will do absolutely everything to get into that 170 elite status,

It's already bad enough that Hispanics get average 146, now I'm facing this test like the ending of Glengarry Glen Ross , where I thought I had it until the realization that it was mere delusion.

Hi, I'm reapplying and I have an early decision deadline coming up very very soon.

Really need someone to look at a third version of my essay and provide feedback on content and structure.

Absolutely willing to provide feedback on any of your essays in return.

Any takers?

PTing in low-mid 170s, trying to improve a 169 with focused BR and curve breaker question analysis (trying to break out of that 16high - 17low zone!). Currently taking about one full PT/day, was thinking of doing BR with some people twice a week? Let me know --

How did I get this wrong? Is there a way something explains this to me?

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

Hello 7sagers!

My LSAT study buddy and I BR together. However, we are both scoring around the same on our actual score (low-mid 150's) and BR (mid-high 160's). We are looking for someone who is scoring higher to BR with us. Any advice would be helpful.

I am thinking of starting a small (in-person) study group starting Nov. 1st

Time: Twice a week for 5 weeks

(Monday/Thursday or Tuesday/Friday) can be changed

Location: A study cafe in Seoul (the cost will be shared equally)

We will take "timed" practice tests 62-71 under simulated conditions (I find this to be the best practice)

Blind review will be done individually at home

Come back with additional questions and we will try to help ourselves by helping each other

Most importantly, I would like all of us to be a positive influence

providing good moral support as well as holding each other accountable throughout the treacherous LSAT journey

If anyone is interested, leave me a comment

And I will organize the Kakao Group Chat :)

I have no idea what C is trying to say, and no clue how can C be the answer that provides an alternative explanation to why the scientists are discrediting Smith. Can someone give an explanation? Thanks

#help

My understanding is that in normal times, water vapor from ocean contains a heavier proportion of oxygen-18. However, if that water vapor is not retuning to the Ocean during ice ages, but getting trapped in glaciers, wouldn't that mean the ocean has LESS o-18? I guess I'm assuming the water vapor is taking O-18 out of the ocean. But even if that's not assumed, what warrant do we have to say the ocean has more O-18 than usual?

Can someone explain why B can't be a good answer? My logic was that everyone that reads the book agreeing that the incidents could happen, i.e. not implausible, doesn't mean that the story isn't implausible since they can well interpret it wrong.

#help

Hi everyone! I have some free time and would love to provide some free tutoring. I have no official score yet but have been scoring high 160s/low 170s on recent PTs after receiving a diagnostic of 146 back in the beginning of the year. DM if you’re interested or have any questions, thanks!

I couldn't shake the thought off my mind that the conclusion is "matters pertaining to conservation of topsoil have been ignored for long". The given answer is E, which is a suggestion and I don't see how that's the conclusion. #help

I don't understand how D weakens the argument .Can someone please explain?