Just to be clear - November 2020 is Flex for everyone right?

IDK why I still have to choose a test center. Also, it still says the exam is on November 14.

I'm assuming we will be emailed instructions as to how to pick a Flex time and all that later? Interesting they haven't updated this yet...considering the last day to sign up for Flex is Sept 23.

Ever since the October test became Flex, I've been PTing using the "simulate flex" option on 7sage. However, I'm wondering if this will give me an inaccurate picture of how well I'm actually doing, since I don't know how 7sage decides which of the 2 original LR sections to pick, it could well be that I've been doing easier LR sections than what will actually appear on the test.

This being said, is there a good estimate out there of how the 7Sage simulated Flex scores will correlate with the actual Flex? Many thanks!

Disclaimer: I'm not claiming to be an RC expert, but I've seen huge improvement in a short time period (roughly two months) and would like to share how.

Starting out I was abysmal at RC and things stayed that way as I was told RC is the "least improvable" area. Fast forward and this is my most improved section. So what changed?

I started doing additional reading pretty well every evening for about an hour. I've been reading some dense literature, Dostoevsky's Demons in particular. I atrribute an increased facility in reading passages to this additional reading practice.

I read the LSAT Trainer's tips for RC. The main points can summarized as follows: routinely ask yourself why the author is writing what they are, what the purpose of each pargraph you read is in relation to the passage as a whole, and what the main point of the passage is.

Using J.Y's "active reading" technique. After each paragraph I read I force myself to jot down a summary/main idea of it. Knowing I have to write something down while reading has indeed helped me read with more purpose, and force me to better understand paragraphs before moving on.

Reading a new RC passage or two every single day and doing a thorough BR. I'll often sit and analyse every single question and make sure I'm confident of my choice before I move on. My BRs typically last 30 minutes to an hour.

Reading articles on Sciencenews.org. The broader your knowledge base, the better equiped you are for whatever a passage throws at you. Moreover, these passages ressemble actual RC passages and I've even been able to implement similar techniques while reading them (ie: asking what the purpose of a paragraph is and how it relates to the main point of the article).

I've starting listening to "A Skeptic's Guide to the Universe" podcast. As a foreign languages major my science knowledge is weak, and I think it's possible that listening to discussion of science topics by experts has helped me improve in this regard. Plus it's just genuinely interesting material and once again adds to your knowledge base!

I've seen lots of RC struggles posts on here lately so I felt this write up would be timely. Let me know what you think!

I remember it was possible in the past to purchase some of the courses. Now it seems like there is only an option to pay per month.

In the past week, on 5 consecutive days, I scored a 167,163, 173, 171, 163. I ate the same breakfast, took it at the same(ish) time, wore the same clothes even. The 171 and 163 were consecutive PTs (early 70s), so it's not an issue of earlier vs later tests. It seems that one contributing factor at least tends to be the types of RC passages I get. If I get 2 law 2 sci passages, my grade suffers. It's extremely disheartening and at this point, I'm starting to feel like my grade is up to chance. Which is of course true to some degree, but I would like to get to a point in the next couple weeks where those chances fall within a 5 point range, not 10 points.

Anyone have any advice for how I can achieve greater consistency? Is this normal?

Hi,

Can anyone explain why B is right here?

It seems, when watching JY's explanation, that the reason why B is right is because it provides an explanation for the phenomena-- perhaps the other dinosaur was a baby, and that is why it has T-rex features but small size. However, when I tried to flesh this explanation out, it just didn't seem to work:

if the dinosaur is really old, it strengthens the argument by giving an example of a dinosaur that has T-rex features but is small

if the dinosaur is a baby, it still seems to strengthen the argument by giving an example of a dinosaur that has T-rex features but is small

Thus, even though it does provide an explanation for the phenomena seen in the argument, I don't see how the dinosaur being a baby would provide an alternative explanation that could weaken the stimulus' argument when the argument never gave an explanation for the phenomena in the first place.

Hope that makes sense to people reading this

Any #help would be appreciated!

Thanks!

Hey guys, I just wanted some advice on how to go about closing the gap before the NOV LSAT comes through.

So I recently did a section and actually incorporated BR (I know it's praised here, I usually just file the section / PT as done and review questions I got wrong not BR format but by watching videos on them).

Anyways outside of this section (and PT 62 LR in general, wow it was tough) I would usually get -10/-9. I am very confident I understand the material well but timing is tough, and under timed conditions I think I might over stress myself / choose convenient answers just to beat the time.

Any advice on how to continue from here? I'm really trying to push for a 164+!

I think ad-hominem is often colloquially defined as a direct character attack: Jim says the earth is flat but Jim is an idiot therefore Jim must be incorrect. This is probably the most common iteration of ad-hominem.

But contrary to popular notions of an ad-hominem, LSAC defines ad-hominem as anything that distracts from the argument at hand and redirects the aim toward the maker of the argument. To this end, I've also seen ad-hominem take the form of:

Attacking the interest/motivations of the argument maker: Jim says the earth is flat but Jim runs a flat-earth film festival every year so Jim has an interest in getting more flat-earthers to show up to his event. Therefore, Jim must be incorrect.

Attacking the past actions of the argument maker: Jim says smoking is harmful for your health but Jim smokes 2 packs of cigarettes per day therefore there is reason to question Jim's beliefs.

Hypocrisy: Jim believes that reality is only an illusion yet Jim has worked strenuous a 9-5 job for 30 years to provide for his family. Clearly Jim's beliefs to not match his actions therefore those beliefs are questionable.

Apologies if this is pedantic but almost got a question wrong because of this and I thought I'd flush this out on a post.

Are there any other types of ad-hominem that you are aware of? Trying to make a list.

(1) My professor asked if I wanted specific letters of recommendation written to law schools. Is it possible for a professor to write multiple letters of recommendation for me to upload to LSAC (to be assigned to different schools?)

(2) Is this a practice in law school admissions? LSAC’s guidelines indicate this is possible, but is this a practice that comes up with downsides? (like because this isn’t the norm, it might come off negatively or as collusion)

Misc:

LSAC guidelines seem to imply that a school-specific reference is done when your recommender is writing to their alma mater. But could if your professor just wants to tailor their letter to a school’s interest? And circling back to (1), can they upload both a general letter and a school-specific letter to LSAC? https://www.lsac.org/applying-law-school/jd-application-process/credential-assembly-service-cas/letters-recommendation#:~:text=LSAC%20LOR%20Service&text=If%20you%20use%20LSAC's%20LOR,in%20your%20law%20school%20reports

CLOSED FOR NOW

Pretty early for January, but I have a low gpa and I'm trying to squeeze out everything I've got. (Won't be applying until next cycle) My PT average is 167 and I'm BR in the mid 170s, aiming for a 175+. Main issue is logical reasoning, pretty solid on lg. Looking for a group/buddy to review with, am Central time but can be flexible!!

Comment or message me :)

I have been grinding out Logic Games, both timed and untimed, and I've made little to no progress in terms of my ability to make proper inferences. Even with less pressure in an untimed setting. Has anybody else run into this issue? I have made substantial improvements in both LR and RC, but this section is my absolute worst by far. I am a shoe in for a -12/-13 on my timed PTs and it is honestly pretty discouraging, especially since I have seen that this should be the "easiest" section to improve in. Does anybody have some good suggestions for someone who is struggling mightily with games? I would really appreciate any advice at this point. This is literally a make or break section for me in terms of me getting at or above my desired score. Thanks so much guys.

Hello 7Sage community! I am a full-time worker and I have been studying for the LSAT for 6 months now. I have a pretty solid foundation with BR scores ranging between 172 - 177, but I am having trouble translating that performance to timed sections. I consistently feel behind and slow. I am typically not even looking at 6-7 questions on both LR and RC. I am improving on LG with recent timed sections at -4/-5. Still work to do to get to -0, but it is an improvement.

I am currently PT-ing in the high 150s (average is 158). I am targeting 165+ and would appreciate having a tutor help me develop strategies to get there. I know I can do it, I just need some guidance along the way.

I am in Chicago (Central Time) and am available before or after work (before 9am and after 5pm). I am scheduled for the October and November exams and am highly motivated to meet as often as possible to improve.

If anyone is out there scoring 165+ (hopefully in 170s), please DM me. I am happy to get together over Google Meets or whatever is easiest. Thanks!

Hi everyone!

I have a question about applying to American law schools on LSAC. When you add a school to your list, do you have to pay the fee before starting the application or can you just add it and take a look at the application and then pay once you submit? I would really appreciate any guidance on this topic, thanks in advance. Not entirely sure how the American system works since I'm primarily applying to Canadians schools.

please go over PT1 S3 Q12

Hey all, has anyone used any grammar books (or course/class) that you found helpful for LR and RC? I did the CC grammar section and figured that I needed to study more.

Thanks for the recommendations!

Struggled with this one. Can someone process this with me? Thanks

Hi All,

I've been tutoring with @Sami for the past few months and have been able to improve my LR from an average of -5 to a -1. In order to solidify the strategies I've learned, I would love to provide free tutoring to someone who is in the mid/high 160s scoring -4 to -6 in LR sections. I will have to stick with this range since this was where I was plateauing most recently and have learned the skills to overcome the high 160s plateau. I am based in Asia (GMT +8) so sessions will need to be scheduled in line with the timezone's hours. Do PM me if you're interested!

Edit: Due to the overwhelming amount of interest, I'll have to close this discussion and focus on those that have messaged. Thanks!

Does anyone have any advice on how to get through LG more quickly? I have additional 50% time accommodations on the LSAT so that's what I practice with and I still feel rushed and can't always finish. What takes me the most time is problems where it seems like I have to test out every answer choice. On PT 68 I got -11 and -1 BR on the LG section so I know I can do the games it's just timing

Hi, everyone. I am currently reading a textbook of Australian Torts Law, and the following sentences really confused me.

"However, there are four exceptions to the requirement of actual or constructive possession. The common feature of each of the exceptions is a notional possession by the person out of actual possession, through either possession through another in respect of whom there is an association, or where a gap in possessory title to sue might occur." Would anyone explain the words in bold to me please? What does it mean by "through either possession through another"???

Thank you!!!

Hi all,

I am facing a really troubling fact and decision regarding if I should continue my pursuit of becoming a lawyer. I have recently finished my 7 sage curriculum and I started with a diagnostic score of 138. I have done practice sets and BR as well as watching explanation videos. That said in my last 4 prep test I have repeatedly gotten a 143 even after BR. I am feeling very discouraged and am not sure if I should even continue at this point. I have a high GPA but not even being able to break into the 150's is troubling. Not sure what to do at this point and any advice would be helpful. As background I started studying around the beginning of May and am registered to take the October 3 LSAT flex.

Hello,

I was looking at the course and after the course it shows only PT that you need to BR and Review. Did anyone find helpful doing so many PT and blind reviewing so many of them?

Hey guys!

I was just checking some of my application statuses for fall of 2021. One of my top schools says "Current Status: Admitted Full-time Day". I know this seems silly but i have not heard from the school yet and my decision status change was 2 days ago...would this be an official decision or what? because under decision status it does not say anything. Let me know if you can!!

What do you guys think is the best way to attack the consecutive Problem Set sections of the syllabus . I feel like after a certain point my brain thinking gets convoluted after grinding them out consecutively. Do you guys do them consecutively or approach it differently?

Hello-

I have been into a deep dive with the Core Curriculum (which has been extremely helpful with deepening my understanding). My issue is I have not taken a complete test for over a month now. Is this advisable? Should I follow the critical areas of the CC as listed in the syllabus from top to bottom (I have just begun the Logic section) or should I begin to weave into my studies full test? For information and response I have elected to take the January '21 test to provide more training time for solidifying these concepts.

Thank you for any information provided.

Best,

-PS

I want to improve and be more efficient when i do my wrong answer journal. Any advice?