Game 1

Game 2

Game 3

Game 4

Hi! I’m looking for some study strategy. I’m looking for encouraging & supportive advice.

I’m planning on taking the exam on Nov 17. I’ve taken about 7 practice tests over the past several months. I’m averaging about 149 and have a goal of 160. I have a high accuracy on my untimed tests.

I generally get through 2 logic games, 2.5 reading comprehension passages, and all but the last page of a logical reasoning section on a timed test. I do blind review and go through the questions. I’ve been studying off and on since January. I’ve read all the PowerScore books.

So, I’ve got several weeks left. How should I prioritize my studying and schedule my time to bump up my score? I work part-time, too.

Hey, I was wondering If somebody could read my personal statement and give me some feedback! I would be more than happy to do the same!

Hey 7Sagers,

For a limited time, you can pick up PrepTest 85 (September 2018 LSAT) for $5.97 here:

https://classic.7sage.com/addons/

This comes with the password-protected PDF of PT85 and a +1 month extension to your account.

Once the explanations are available, they will automatically be added to your account if you have access to PT85.

Please note that you must be enrolled in a Starter, Premium, or Ultimate course to add this PT on. Ultimate+ automatically has this PT added on.

The sale will end on Sunday, November 25.

I'm hoping to submit within the week, and I've gone through a few drafts of my PS. Anyone willing to offer some feedback or swap PS with me? Id appreciate it - just comment or PM.

I take the LSAT November 17th and I just finished all of the core curriculum. Should I just straight into taking the prep-tests now and doing the blind reviews? Or should I do all of the LG drills first, then do the prep-tests?

Admin note: edited title for clarity

hey all,

i was wondering how top scorers do SA Q's under timed conditions? i've been realizing that SA questions take me WAY too long to do under timed conditions.

Do you do the short cut way -- where you identify the "new guy" in the premises, and the "new guy" in the conclusion, and just go hunt for an answer choice that has both "new guys"?

Or do you actually map out the logical chain, and try to find the area you need to bridge?

do you hand write the logic for SA questions, or do you just do it all in your head?

if you do it all in your head, how are you able to do that with certain SA questions that are very convoluted (both with grammar and logic), and have many conditional logic chains?

in other words, what's your thought process/strategy whenever you see a SA question under timed conditions?

thanks!!

When people say to foolproof games 1-35, how are you doing this? A couple questions with this...

I'm new to the concept of fool proofing, which I'm sure is surprising because it seems that everyone is doing it! So I'm jumping on the train. Just need to know the best way to begin doing this.

For the easier questions in the practice set, I tend to get them; however, once the difficulty picks up, I start missing them.

Any advice to start getting the harder questions right?

it is a strengthening question where the conclusion is that descriptive labels have outlived their usefulness.

Because an unusual Grb was sighted that had properties of both.

My issue with the correct ans choice is that the argument says that the unusual GRB had all properties of Short GRB in every other respect other than duration. So if take the ans choice to be true, then other properties would be more important in classification however in that case since we know from stimulus that all other properties were that of a short Grb then we could easily classify the unusual Grb to be a short one.

so i dont see how this strengthens the conclusion for us. In a way i suppose it weakens the argument at best. Could somebody let me know where i am going wrong ?

i can see how others are wrong but cant see how C is correct.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-3-question-06/

I really need help. I received my BS in '13 and received a 138 on the June 2013 LSAT. Got a 136 in June 2014 and 134 in 2015. My GPA: 3.86

I do not know how to study. Also, I am dyslexic, so reading fast is very difficult. Any advise?

this is a weaken question

the conclusion is that those skilled workers who remained in EE will be in high demand

Premise: highly skilled workers left for the West

B is clear to me as the correct answer choice

but i could not get rid of D (in fact, in PT i changed from B to D);

if those countries plan to train many new workers to fill the positions left by those skilled workers, wouldn't D also weaken the argument?

thanks for the help!

If the PS instructions do not specify a font size, is it acceptable to use 11 pt. font? If so, should the rest of the application materials be uniformly at 11 pt. font?

Hello again 7Sage fam,

I am very interested in immigration law/family law clinics, but not all schools I am interested in applying have these clinics. How important are clinics? Would it be better to attend a higher ranked school w/o these clinics of interest, or attend a lower ranked school with clinics where you can get valuable experience in?

I'm personally really drawn to these lower ranked schools because I think it would be awesome to get that experience, but I understand that other schools have ranking to their advantage.

It would be great to hear some perspective from some current or past students who have had experience with these clinics.

Thank you!

Does anyone have any leads on good personal statement samples? would love to look at one before submitting applications

One thing I have been asked and am starting to take note of is goal setting on LG. Generally speaking, LG is looked at as a section very amenable to improvement. I believe this is rooted in the fact that upon first encounter, for many test takers LG is the weirdest section of the exam and that unfamiliarity translates into a lack of correct answers on one’s diagnostic or first attempt. It is often after one has gained familiarity with the games and developed a systematic strategy to approach the games where one starts to see their scores improve.


This post is dedicated to those who are what feels like a lifetime of prep away from their goal score on LG. It took me over 2,000 games to get from where I was (maybe 1 or 2 questions correct on the entire section), to close to where I want to be (a -1 for the whole section). I’m writing this for people who are -10,-12,-8 or even -5 on an LG section.

Let’s pretend you as the reader are attaining a -10 on a fresh, timed LG section and you want as your goal a -3 come test day. From someone who has put in so much work into the games, what do I recommend?

The first thing I recommend doing is figuring out precisely where your current problems are emanating from, is it a failure to make inferences? Do you occasionally misread rules? Is your understanding of conditional logic weaker than it should be, ie, not as sharp/quick/confident as it should be? Are you failing to keep track of your game pieces in a cogent way and therefore you have missed “floaters” or MBT placements? These are some of the possible places where errors might be introduced into our approach. The first step I recommend here would be to record yourself doing a section and review and watch the video on 7Sage for the game and see precisely where you failed to do something. Note here that you want to focus on the big things you missed, there might be smaller, stylistic differences between how you and MR. Ping set up a game board, sometimes, this is not a problem, other times it might be, in short, we are looking for substantive areas that are missed and not stylistic areas per se.

Next, use the filtering option on 7Sage’s question bank to find three or four games similar to the one you messed up on from a section of exam history you have dedicated to drills: for many this section of exam history is PT 36 and below: 35,34, etc, for me, my fool proofing/drilling “bundle” at this stage was PT 49 and below. Do these games several times along with the game you missed questions on. Look for similarities between the games on a deep level, how many rules chained together along with the inherent constrictions of what the game board allowed, for an inference on an in and out game? Where did you know to look for s possible inference? One small clue I will dispense here is that if you want to search for inferences after or during the writing of your rules: start with a piece mentioned in more than 1 rule. If a single piece as multiple restrictions/rules attached to it, there might be an inference attached to that piece!

All of this is outlined by 7Sage and by 7Sagers. Where I want to go with this post is , where to next?

After you’ve done the supplemental drills, located and hopefully fixed an issue, the next section you take (5,6 maybe 7 days later because you’ll be consciously drilling away the issue you discovered) your goal for that section is to not get a -10 or more missed questions. Your goal for that section is a -9 and maybe even a -8. The goal here is proximate: to be slightly better than where you were, meaning you have fixed something small and in addition to that kept everything else consistent. -9 here is a victory, you’ve survived and are no worse for the wear.

A quick detour: I’m reminded here of the first Pacquiao vs. Marquez fight. A thrilling match. Manny Pacquiao is, even to people who don’t follow boxing, one of the all time greatest fighters to ever live. Certainly (for my money) the greatest left handed fighter to ever live. Manny Pacquiao posses one of the greatest combinations of speed, precision and power ever. Tremendously physically gifted. But Marquez is brilliant, he knew he was outmatched in the physical areas of boxing and had to rely on what boxing experts call “ring generalship” or “boxing IQ.” In their first fight, Marquez got very badly knocked down several times in the first round: about as bad a start one can get fighting Pacquiao, who jumps on wounded opponents with precision like no other.

The fight was an inch away from being stopped by technical knock out. The round ended and Marquez went back to his corner: not defeated and deflated, but curious as to what he could do better the next round. Sure enough his corner started noticing things that he was doing wrong: not enough head movement, not enough jabs etc. From each round forward Marquez started implementing those things into his approach, one by one. His goal in the second round: stay alive and don’t get knocked down again. His goal in the third round: shake out all those cobwebs and start moving your head. Inch by inch all those things that got him into trouble in the first round, were being removed from his approach. He started winning rounds!

Sometimes we are going to get knocked down by an LG section, much like Pacquiao knocked down Marquez. But we’ve got to get to what went wrong and the next time we do a section (round) we implement that skill. Round by round Marquez started implementing all these things! And when the 12 rounds were over, it was a draw! A guy who had been knocked down three times in the first round by one of the greatest fighters to ever live was able: inch by inch to get back into the fight! If you’ve bombed a section: find one of the issues and drill it away. Bring that lesson into your next section, next time find another issue and drill that away! Marquez wasn’t looking to knock Pacquiao out in the second and third round, that would have been too much of a mountain to climb, Marquez was looking to win inch by inch. In your next section, don't look to crush the section and move from -10 to -2, instead look to turn that -10 into a -9. There are enough sections out there to implement this strategy across time.

Take a 6 minute brain break and watch the highlight:

So once you’ve improved by 1 point and you’ve improved something specific, it’s time to thoroughly review that new section, what went wrong and what went right? Your first goal is to stay consistent and your second goal is to improve upon that consistency. Consistency is improvement: for Marquez, consistency not getting knocked down again was an improvement! Drill via the question bank for the next week: your new goal is a -8 or maybe even a -7. Rinse and repeat, every 2 points in improvement taking an additional 3-5 days to drill the supplemental material along with the game in question. We do this because as you get better and better the problems might become more nebulous. Meaning, where once your improvement rested upon confidence in conditional logic, now your improvement relies on not making the inferences quick enough. Everything is great, it's just not fast enough to net a score improvement. These issues are going to take a bit more time to improve, but in the meantime you have hopefully attained a new normal when it comes to your score: a -7!

This is what I mean by LG goal setting: your process of diagnosing what is wrong and keeping the good things and fixing a single issue is a game of inches. I see many people not happy that they haven’t gone from -11 to -2. For some people-myself included- thats not how it works for us. A -11 to a consistent -7 is amazing progress and is something great to improve upon. More specifically, going from a -11 to a consistent -7 is tremendous. We want structure our goals piece by piece with games. People don’t climb Everest in one shot, they climb 200 feet and camp out, 400 feet and camp out, the next day there is a storm and their goal is: don’t lose an inch, stay where we are (consistent) and then they climb 200 feet and camp out when the weather is better.

Inch by inch, when we add up all of our progress, we will make it into that -2/-1 range, as long as we are honest with our mistakes and implement the solutions consciously. I should add in closing here that for many, this is not a linear process, there are going to be setbacks, but as long as we are focusing on sustaining where we are and building upon the foundation: improvements should come.

For further questions, feel free to reach out to me.

David

Hi there!

I was planning on applying into the Fall 2019 but there have been some turn of events and now I have to wait a year. I already received my LOR's on LSAC. Will these expire? Can I still use them in a year?

Hello 7sagers,

I am looking for some advice. Currently i'm booked to take the November LSAT but i'm about 70% complete (mid way through games) with the core curriculum. What should i do if i want to be ready for the test next month and expedite the amount of time for testing and blind reviewing? my previous score was a 151

I have taken 30 PT's and completed the LSAT Trainer Program, and purchased the starter package at the start of the month with the hopes of boosting my LG and LR scores. I have taken the test last February and in June, scoring 162 and 163. Can anyone give me some pragmatic advice for what I can skip on the CC if I am happy with my RC score and pretty happy with my LR score? I'm only 30% through and am planning on taking the test for the third and FINAL time in November.

My current regimen is 2 hours of CC and 1 hour of drilling sections/foolproofing on weekdays, and taking full PTs and doing BR on Saturdays and Sundays.

I'm averaging about 166 currently, but know that my score on the actual test will be somewhat lower. My main problem has been bad time management on Logic Games, as I can get perfect or -1 on the section untimed, but run out of time by the fourth problem set about 50% of the time.

For the people who will tell me to postpone, and that every single lesson on the CC is absolutely critical to bumping my score 3 to 4 points, this test and anxiety over it have consumed every waking moment of my life outside my full-time job for close to a full year now. I refuse to let it ruin another holiday season. Please don't try to reason with me on postponing, I am fully aware I could score higher if I postponed, but am looking for a pragmatic answer from someone who has been in a similar position.

Hello, with just about a month left until the November exam, I'm taking 2-3 prep tests every week and will have taken 25-30 PTs by the exam week, but I'm reading that a lot of the test takers took every available exam in the market (some even twice). I'm pretty consistently hitting high 160s and early 170s on my PTs but am concerned that I am not taking advantage of all the resources available. Generally, do scores improve with more PTs? Should I be concerned about the fact that I will have taken less than 30 PTs?

Hello. Lately I have been having a lot of trouble with grasping what exactly I am supposed to be doing with Weaken and Strengthen Questions. I understand that the basic concept is to find an answer choice that will either weaken or strengthen the existing support structure provided in the Stimulus or more it less or more relevant but despite this I find myself having trouble with finding the correct answer.

Because we have to treat what is said in the answer choices as true what does that mean for the assumptions that you can draw from the answer choices? Are we even supposed to be making any assumptions from the answer choices when doing this and if so do they also hold true? Or is the truth of these assumptions from the answer choice dependent on something else like the information and context provided by the Stimulus? Should we even be making any assumptions at all when it comes to the AC?! Also do we treat all the information in the Stim as true as well?

To make my question a bit more clear I will be using Question 15 from "Weaken Questions Problem Set 5" as an example.

Admin note: Please review the forum rules.

4. Do not post LSAT questions, any copyrighted content, or links to content that infringe on copyright.

PT25.S2.Q15: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-2-question-15/

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the reasoning above?

Answer Choices (With my Reasoning Below)

A.) Admin note: Deleted

X = I picked this answer choice (but it turned out to be incorrect) because I thought that the argument above assumed that it was only temperature that is capable of causing rhododendrons (R) and crocus (C) to blossom. If it was to some other factor which this AC seems to hint at then wouldn’t it weaken the authors argument that because of the observed incident it can be concluded that it would indicate something about the temperature.

B) Admin note: Deleted

X = The subject of this AC is what many people think about being outdoors which is irrelevant and thus does nothing to weaken the argument above.

C) Admin note: Deleted

X = I feel that this would strengthen the argument because if it is also favorable then it is more likely for this incidence to be indicative of the accuracy of a thermometer reading.

D) Admin note: Deleted

Correct AC = This is my problem with this AC. It says that R “CAN” grow 12 feet tall. Are we supposed to draw an assumption that the R plant in the Stim is infact 12 feet tall. “Can” seems to indicate only a possibility but it doesn’t guarantee anything so then I thought that because we had to draw a assumption that this wouldn’t be a strong enough AC to weaken. Also the phrase “is likely” doesn’t guarantee us anything either, it just indicates an increased chance but not something I would consider to be 100%. That 1% that the air temperature might not differ could possibly lead this AC to be useless in weakening. So I am confused as to how much we can assume to make an AC fit with either strengthen or weaken.

E) Admin note: Deleted

X = Seems irrelevant to me although it has the possibility to weaken if the assumption that the author was using this specific thermometer + would have to assume that he is not working in modern temperature range + also would have to assume that he is observing this phenomenon where the thermometer would be less accurate. So too many assumptions that we are not guaranteed of.

Hi all,

I took the Sept LSAT and came up slightly short of what I would have liked to score. Due to some complications I was unable to take the Nov one, and had to sign up for the January LSAT. Is it possible for me to apply to my fall back schools right now as I would likely get in with the Sept LSAT and then wait to apply to the better schools after I retake in January (assuming my score improves), or would I be locked in at my fall back schools. Thanks for the help

So I took a summer language program, and then two more language programs from Chinese Universities after graduation. In short, these transcripts are super complicated to get and I didn't take any of the classes for credit or towards degree granting program. They were really only for my own language advancement. Do you think I need to get the transcripts for these? The requirements are sort of unclear and I know they won't impact my GPA so it seems like a waste of time. (Two of them will also be in Chinese)

So I feel like I'm at a crossroads. I have two LORs already from professors, but I'm still not sure if I should ask my boss for a LOR? I know you only really need two letters, but I've been working for this office for two years now. This job has really opened my eye up to the law and is something I discuss heavily in my personal statement. Because of this, I wonder if adcomms would wonder why I didn't get a LOR from my job? I've been told that this isn't true -- that adcomms understand that some people can't/won't get LORs from their employer because of job security. And while I don't believe I'd be fired or anything, I just don't want to create an awkward environment for my boss since I've not really mentioned law school with them.

My plan right now is to wait until I take the November LSAT, see how I feel about the test, and then re-evaluate as I finish up my applications. I suppose I'm venting/looking for any advice from anyone who's been in a similar position? Would the lack of a LOR from my employer negatively impact my "soft" factors?

I came across this article today and thought it's interesting for those who are curious about entertainment law. Entertainment law is a niche and a very small one, but if it's your passion, there are ways to get a foot in the door.

This list seems to be mostly top of the T14 and either NY or LA, which is probably the best way to pursue a career in entertainment law. (Slightly surprised Vanderbilt isn't on here, being in Nashville.) Location is probably most important, because you need to get hands-on experience with internships or other work in the industry in order to have a shot. It's cliche, but it's definitely about who you know. I have a background in the entertainment industry, and happy to discuss specifics or answer questions via PM if anyone is interested.

This list is handy too, I think it's a good overview of some of the offerings that these schools have. UCLA's new music law clinic sounds awesome.

https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/magazine-feature/8480764/top-music-law-schools-2018-list?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%20Template%20BB:%20Multi%20Story%20-%201.0&utm_term=daily_digest