Hi everyone,

I am trying to figure out if I should start scheduling law school visits. I wasn't sure if it is "a thing" for law candidates to visit school as much as it was for undergrad. I am still waiting on my August test scores which will give me a good idea of which schools I am really looking at, but do you all think it is a good idea to visit schools this fall? Since I am a spring sport college athlete, I won't be able to attend any accepted student activities in the spring, so I have to focus on that stuff this fall.

Thanks!

I received a score of 171 in 3 of my last 5 PTs, but I'm having trouble getting over this hump. My goal score is a 173 based on the new T-14 medians, and I'm not sure whether I should be spending my time before the October LSAT just taking PTs or drilling. I struggle the most with Inference questions in RC and Weaken questions in LR, and I have been drilling these with some improvement. I typically miss between 4 and 6 questions in RC, between 1 and 4 questions in LR, and typically go perfect or -1 in LG. I have gone as high as 177 during BR, but cannot score higher than 171 timed. Any tips would be appreciated!

Hi everyone, I'm new here and I've been stuck on 158 since over a month. I could really use your help. My main problem is the Logical reasoning section. I get over 10 incorrect answers.

In college, I originally started with a major I wasn't well-suited to. I later changed my major but I had taken enough courses for that major that I could get a minor in it by just taking a few more upper-division classes P/NP. I ended up doing this and taking a number of additional courses P/NP for my minor. I recently found out that some law schools view a P as a C or just don't look favorably at a P. I'm stressed about how these additional courses I took will be viewed. Does anyone know what an acceptable number of P/NP courses is? Also, should I submit a GPA addendum or some kind of addendum regarding the upper division classes I took P/NP? Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

#help

I am wondering how other test takers stregically use the highlight function. From my understanding, this will be available on test day. I see in the lessons (especially logical reasoning), that circling strong words, underlining the conclusion, etc. is used. How do you all use the highlight function and what do you choose to highlight?

Thank you!

Anyone have a good study schedule they're willing to share with me? Maybe like a weekly one, for example like Mondays is logic games and Tuesday is LR and how many hours do you spend on it. If that makes sense....thank you!!

What are your thoughts on this? Do most of the applications getting accepted in the beginning or it does not matter?

Hi all!

I recently saw the new LSAT medians for some of my top schools go up considerably. I was in the 75 percentile with my LSAT score, and now I am at the median or below the median for some of my schools. I was strongly hoping for a scholarship, and felt that my current LSAT was good at the time I took it (June). However, now I'm not so sure, and it is too late for me personally to retake. Any suggestions or advice? If you were recently dropped to the median or even below the median for a school, is there any hope at all for scholarship?

Thanks all for the wonderful community !

Hello, 7Sagers!

Been awhile, hope everyone's easing into a nice LDW :)

I posted this on the question's discussion board but was hoping for a variety of views if possible, so I wanted to repost this here. Here's part of the post I was responding to:

...In answer choice E) however, look what happens if we negate it. Acme’s move to OV WILL be accompanied by a significant pay raise.

This is a necessary assumption because if we knew this specific point, then there is the POSSIBILITY of a gap in the argument.

The argument wouldn’t be 100% deducible that the workers won’t be able to afford the new location. That is also the reason why the LSAT writers specifically wrote SIGNIFICANT. Hope this helps

And my reply/question:

Hello, would you be able to clarify something?

I agree that the existence of a possible gap in the argument would obviously weaken it. But it seems to me that said gap could only be said to completely invalidate the argument if we knew the possible gap were an actual gap.

I know this may sound kind of fuzzy, but as an example, if for (E) it had said, “Acme’s move to OV will not be accompanied by a significant enough pay raise to allow Acme employees to afford housing in OV,” that to me would be a clear invalidator, a true gap that “destroys” the argument as we like to say around here.

But in negating (E) as it stands, we have, as you said, allowed for the mere possibility that the conclusion may not follow if we assume certain things about what (E) is getting at. For one thing, (E) is banking on the assumption I mentioned, and maybe others.

I don’t disagree that (E) is the best of the bunch, and the only one of the bunch that could remotely be considered the correct answer. But I guess the puzzling part is this sometimes hazy spectrum b/w “greatly weaken (w/o destroying)” and “absolutely destroy” and where a negated necessary assumption is allowed to fall within it. In my view [destroy → weaken], but the reverse is not necessarily true, and I just don’t see (E) meeting the “absolutely destroy” threshold…

This has been a recurring issue of mine & your help is appreciated!

Link to discussion: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-3-question-18/

🙏

Gosh I can't hold it anymore, I am taking the October LSAT, barely a month from now. All I wanna get is a 165, ideally 168. I practiced so hard for the whole summer, like a PT every two to three days and smashed the Bible trilogy and LSAT trainer. But my grades just keep fluctuating...

I went from a 147 diagnosic mark (2 months ago) to a 151 (a month ago) to 156 (two weeks ago), to a 160, BR 162 ( last week, PT 88). I was so happy, but I dare not to celebrate cuz I know whenever I am contented with my LSAT grades, something bad just follows right away. I put away my PTs and revisited the LR Bible cuz I feel like I can make the biggest improvement in a short period of time. And my grades started dropping, like till they meet the deepest point of Mariana Trench. My LG is pretty much stable, at the -6 to -4 range. But my LR just fluctuates SO BADLY. I was going from a -13 to a -5 over the past few months, but then it just happens that I went back to the starting point again... I tried three LR sections today, ends up -10, -12 and -12. What's happening out there... I reviewed the questions I got wrong, they are TERRIBLE CARELESS MISTAKES, if I had a second chance, I am definitely getting them right...

Can anyone give me some guidance on how to attain stable grades in LR? I don't know why but every time I broke my record, I just restart everything and need a whole week or two to get to another peak. I am so frustrated right now. My poor little heart... I'm so afraid that I will be performing like this in the actual LSAT...

I would really appreciate someone willing to read my personal statement and give me any overall feedback. Please let me know, thanks!

When when will we know the date of the test, given three dates?

Here's what NYU Law students think what being on law review is like(not really)(well maybe) the rendition is based on the Disney movie Mulan's "I'll make a man out of you":

Episode #55 is here!

https://soundcloud.com/user-737824810/55-7sage-on-clubhouse-how-to-stand-out-as-a-splitter

Subscribe to our podcast:

iTunes (Apple Podcasts) | Google Podcasts | SoundCloud

How many PT's should I take? I am thinking between 20-30. Opinions on this amount?

When I first did this question, I crossed everything off and was left with E. I almost chose it, and then I thought it felt a lot like a trap AC...

The stimulus is telling us that if a resource becomes scarce, new technologies that create the ability to use new resources arise. As people start using these new alternative resources, the demand for the original resource declines, and whatever amount is then present in that original resource can be sold to those who still want it. Then they give some examples of things that were once the sole resource for a thing, but were then supplemented by other resources. The author asserts that bc new technologies are constantly replacing old ones, (conclusion:) we can never run out of natural resources.

E says that the biological requirements for substances like air and water will not be impacted by technological change. I thought, at first, this meant that "there are some resources that technology cannot replace". But then I second guessed myself and thought, "what do we really care if the biological requirements of that thing-- not the thing itself-- is unaffected by technological change? Even if technology can't change the fact that water needs hydrogen and oxygen to be water, couldn't technology develop different resources that could replace water and air in the future?" Couldn't we use other liquids(not water) or other kinds of energy(not air) to, for example, power things? Is the assumption here that water and air, as necessary for life, are not interchangeable with anything else? Like, if water runs out and technology can't replace it, we CAN run out of important natural resources?

Using the example in the passage of trees: sure, the biological requirements of a tree -- what makes a tree a tree-- is not affected by technology. But we can make steel or plastic, a new substance entirely, to serve the same purpose of that wood.

I ended up choosing C over E after I re-read the ACs because I was thinking that if companies won't invest in the new technologies, they won't be created in the first place. I didn't love the words "at first" and I knew my reading of the AC was assuming things, but I just thought that E was sort of irrelevant but attractive.

What am I missing? #help

I wish there was a way to have all logic games on one pdf? can Seven sage please do that ?

Hey all, I currently have a discord chat for the Oct/Nov administration for the exam. This is for people who want to score in the 170s consistently.

Please PM me if you want to join. Space is limited so it will be a first come, first serve basis.

Thank you.

I'm struggling to see how the "substantial" in answer choice D is justified. This AC does match the passage best when compared to the other choices, but it seems a little too strong to assume.

The question asks what's the function of the a phrase that states "people have a positive moral obligation". How in the world can I make the assumption that having a "positive moral obligation" = "substantial moral obligation"?

Anyone willing to work together on a blind review for LR questions ?

On Wednesday, July 14 at 9pm ET / 6pm PT, join 7Sage Consultants for a full hour of Q&A. Ask previous admissions officers about applications, written statements, timing, strategy, addenda, and/or splitter scenarios.

If you have a Clubhouse account, use this link to RSVP and join Club 7Sage: https://www.joinclubhouse.com/event/myo56gjV.

If you do not currently have Clubhouse access, or are on the Clubhouse waitlist, the first 1,000 people to use this link (https://www.clubhouse.com/join/club-7sage/RF9Xur4Q/myo56gjV) will be able to skip the Clubhouse waitlist for access to the platform, RSVP for our event, and join Club 7Sage. Unfortunately, we cannot provide additional access beyond the first 1,000 people. We will record the session for those unable to attend and post it to our podcast, which is available via Apple and Spotify.

We hope to see you on Clubhouse!

Hi people, I am looking for a study buddy, it's my first time here.

It would be great if you are also aiming at high 160s, or even 170. Even better if you are good at RC / LR.

My strength would be LG sequencing, we can exchange our views and approaches.

I live in Hong Kong, just in case you're from a different time zone.

Please comment down here and I will shoot you a message :)))

I've been studying for 2 months now, but I'm not sure if that studying is helping at all because of my PTs! My raw score seems to be decreasing...with every PT. I'm freaking out. Can someone please advise me on where I need to focus my studying to see increases?

7/31- PT 80: 158 (RS: 70/101)

8/7 - PT 81: 157 (RS: 69/101)

8/21 - PT 82: 153 (RS: 63/101)

9/4 - PT 83: 157 (68/101)

My strongest section right now is RC: 21/27(PT 80) , 18/27 (PT 81), 20/27 (PT 82), 20/27 (PT 83)

LG: 18/23(PT 80) , 19/23 (PT 81) ,14/23(PT 82), 16/23 (PT 83)

LR: getting lazy with writing it out but it ranges from 13 - 15 right on the "harder" LR section, and 16-18 right on the "easier" LR sections

Please help me. I don't get why my scores aren't increasing when I'm studying so much. When do you start to see gains/increases in your PTs after studying for so many hours? I'm not seeing progress...

Am currently starting on the RC section and have decided to start from the hardest problem set and work backwards. My rational is that am excited to start RC, so I want to improve on the hardest sets first, thereby allowing me to gain momentum toward the end with the easy sets.

Hello all,

I am currently PTing around the 157 mark, a vast improvement from the 143 I started with. However, I plan on taking the October exam with a goal score of 163-165 which should comfortably put me in range of my goal school(s). On BR, I am able to hit that goal with relative ease and sometimes sneak into the high 160s. I am able to finish each section with time constraints, but often my worst section is RC (avg -9) followed by LG and LR which range from (-3- -7). Any advice on narrowing the gap between my timed score and BR score?

I BR every question except games I'm positive I got a prefect score on, which might inflate my BR score.