I am just wondering what you guys are thinking about when choosing law schools to apply to. I feel that I wanted to go to Top 14, but when I look at the possibly ED full ride at WUSTL, it does seem very compelling. Why would you apply to Top 14 or WUSTL ED? Why wouldn't you? I noticed that WUSTL did have about 76 students who went to firms with 500+ people. Would that be big law? Would you likely have the same chance at big law from WUSTL and Top 14? It appears that Top 14 means better chances at Big Law and 160-180k salaries, but is that still possibly from WUSTL? I may be wrong though, so thank you for any clarifications!

I've been studying on 7sage for the past 10 months, but I've been studying for the LSAT since July 2014, you read that right. Not until I started with 7sage, I started to improve and analyse my data better. I've average low 160 after months studying with 7sage, but before that I was in the mid-150. Today was the first time I EVER scored above 170 on a PT. I didn't take a PT since mid-June. Still studying by taking sections and BR . But since I decided to take the November. I figured I should take a PT, I was really nervous. I went to my November testing site. Took the PT, ask a friend to score it, so I can still Blind Review it. He tells me I got 172. I could not believe it. It became so real for me. I can in fact score above 170. I know it's only one test, but I actually achieve my goal. Now I got to maintain this and take it to the next level. Any advice?

I just want to point out a minor flaw in the site which I think could be easily fixed. When reviewing reading comprehension after taking a practice test, the explanation page for the first problem set you select will show which answers you got right and wrong like all explanation pages do. After you click "next", the next problem set won't show your answers, necessitating you to go back and find the link in the BR page within the list of all the questions. All other types of questions show your answers when you scroll through them, which makes it easy. Its not a big deal, but it would make reviewing the tests easier.

Just for some fun lol and a thread to help people vent. Do you think some people bluff about their pt’s when taking to classmates and friends?

Positive mojo only from this point forward.

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/41819489/hey-girl-good-luck-on-your-lsat.jpg

I've been studying for the LSAT for a couple of months and I feel like I've run out of fuel, so I just wanted to ask how do you guys recharge? Im sorry, I'm sure this has been asked hundreds of times before but a little more motivation can't hurt.

I usually try and complete questions containing a stimulus riddled with formal logic in my mind, but sometimes that burns me because although the structure isn't too complicated (i.e. no embedded clauses or anything), the answer choices could be structured in a way that is a bit harder to decipher if you don't have a diagrammed structure written down somewhere. Refer to the example in Preptest 82 below:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-82-section-1-question-19/

I was just wondering if there is anyone out there that avoids this issue altogether by habitually diagramming stimuli that are heavy with formal logic, or if you guys generally do what I do and try to keep things in your mind, and then diagramming after you figure out that the diagrams might be more than your working memory can handle - especially when some of the arguments require taking the contrapositive. I guess I want to see how competent I am compared to someone doing well with formal logic stimuli. If you guys generally keep the structure in your mind, then that tells me I have more work to do in understanding formal logic at first glance, or on the other hand, maybe needing to diagram out the argument isn't just common, but efficient when it comes to getting through a logical reasoning section.

Hope everyone is doing very well. Just wanted to ask if anyone has some advice for my situation.

Up until last week I was averaging between 169-171 on PTs, which is exactly the range I was hoping for.

However, I got a 168 and and 166 on the last two PTs I took.

I think this is "burnout" because most of the mistakes I am making are just careless, and my pacing is a bit more off than usual too.

My plan is to take the next few days completely off (save for maybe some light reading of the LR Powerscore Bible and maybe a couple of logic games), take PT84 on Wednesday, and pray for a good performance on Saturday.

Please let me know your thoughts/advice/if you have experiences something similar.

Thank you, take care y'all!

Can someone translate "No H is not A" for me?

Is it H -> A? (I tried to understand the sentence, rather than using the conditional rules)

Can someone explain this in detail using the conditional rule?

These are one type of question I often struggle a bit with, so I figured I would write out a bunch of common answer choice labels and define them in my own words, and was hoping others could weigh in on my definitions and possibly offer corrections, or general advice for these questions. Otherwise hopefully these definitions will help you clarify when examining the answer choices.

I find the most common labels are:

Analogy

Generalization

Example

Evidence

Premise

Sub conclusion

Principle

Support (offered as)

Premise

Main Conclusion

Destinction

Some of these are obvious, but others seem to be worth definition.

Analogy: A comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. Example: Finding an extra point on the lsat is like finding a needle in a haystack. An analogy actually functions quite similarly to a principle - while a principle makes a broad claim and applies it to a specific case, and analogy takes one specific case and applies it to another.

Generalization - A claim, drawn from a piece of evidence about a broader population. When survey results are used to make statements about the general population, that is a generalization.

Example: I asked 50 people along the beach if they liked icecream,and they all said yes. [I guess everyone on the beach likes icecream.]

Evidence: When were talking about evidence were talking about something objective. Evidence is a fact or something observable that, in and of itself, says nothing about what should or ought to be. Sometimes you might think evidence implies something, for example, the claim [gun violence has risen 25% every year for the past 6 years] might indicate gun violence is a serious problem, but that's you applying the meaning.

Premise: a premise is a claim which is subjective. [Gun violence is a problem] is a subjective statement when it's used to support the conclusion: Thus, /we should invest more money in our police force/ Premises are directed towards and support conclusions.

Sub Conlusion: These get pretty easy to identify eventually. I just look at rather evidence is directed at it. A subconlusion is a joint which connects premises and often packages them together into something easier and more compact that can then be tied into the main conclusion. If your unsure which conclusion, just look at which conclusion is directing into the other. Example: Everyone on the beach likes icecream. They also like frenzies and popsicles. [This shows that everyone on the beach likes lots of cold snacks.] Thus, we should open an icecream store on the beach.

If we cut the icecream store part from this argument, the statement about cold snacks would be the MC. But because it offers support for a final statement, that statement becomes the main conclusion.

Support: Something in the argument that makes something else stronger. This is really broad, and can have a ton of applications. Essentially, everything in an argument exempt the main conclusion is a support for something else. Generalizations, analogies, examples, principals, and premises are all supporting portions of an argument. When you encounter the word support in an answer choice, you need to focus on the direction of the support. Is it actually supporting the thing the answer claims it is? Dont worry about support indicating a specific type of statement. Dont be like, "This isnt really a support, it's a principal". Everything except the MC and possibly redundant statements or context is support of some kind. Focus on the direction.

Principle: is ‘a fundamental idea or general rule that is used as a basis for a particular theory or system of belief’. On role of statement questiond, principles are often offered without further support in an argument. They are a claim about the way things should be, perhaps based on the basis that their truth is self evident. The can also be argued for, or be a conclusion. Example: We should not hold punish John for getting someone badly injured while speeding down the highway, because he was doing so to save three people who were badly injured who he was driving to the hospital. Doing so saved their lives and saved their families from massive grief, and of course, [One should always act in a way which maxamixes net happiness].

Many of these catagorise subsume or overlap with others. When approaching the answer choices, I find it reduces stress to remind myself of this. A statement could be a sub-conlusion, a principal, and support. I made this list mostly for myself but figured I'd post on here. Hopefully others found it helpful, if anyone has any criticisms / input please let me know.

I was recently browsing a few law schools websites in anticipation of applications opening tomorrow. Interesting to note, Northwestern lowered their early decision scholarship to $120,000 from $150,000 over 3 years. Tuition is $64,102 per year and tuition will be increasing each year. The deal doesn't seem as sweet as it was a few years back. I also noticed that Berkley increased their early decision scholarship to $75,000 from $60,000 over 3 years.

Good luck to everyone taking the September LSAT

Reported by the Daily Wire:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/35303/lawsuit-student-denied-college-following-alex-amanda-prestigiacomo?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

I'm wondering to what extent something similar is possible in law school admissions?

I've been studying since January. I took a test before I jumped into the Power Score books and got a 160. I felt great! I worked through all three PS books, taking a test every week or so. My average from about 12 tests only moved to a 162, and I only got between 165-169 four times. Never hit my goal, 170. So, I reread the logic reasoning bible. And then again. Still nothing. I turn to 7Sage, and have worked through the entire syllabus in about three weeks. My score right before started 7Sage was 166. I took one a week throughout the course, and got worse and worse. 162. 161. Today, 160. I'm back where I started. I take the test on Saturday and I feel like I've done all this studying for nothing. Any advice? Ideal school is Vandy.

Also, I usually miss 0 (1-2 at most) in the games, 5-7 on each LR, and about 8-11 on reading. And don't suggest Spreeder, because it didn't help either :/

Hey everyone,

I work full-time, so my plan was to take 2 PT’s this Sunday and Monday.

My question is would it be best to just take 1 PT on Monday or go back to back PT’s Sunday and Monday? I know it may be unwise to take another PT without completing BR, but the only reason id do this is because I wouldn’t have time to take another PT during the week since I work.

My goal is a 155 on game day .

Last 5 PT’s: 150, 151, 153, 156, 152

I have been enjoying 7Sage right up until the LG section. I cannot learn these games this way. Can anyone recommend another resource that teaches the games in a different style? Not disloyal to 7Sage in any way, but this is making me a total head case and affecting my performance on all the sections. Before starting LG I was scoring -1 or -2 on LR and -3 or -4 on RC and now my scores are tanking across the board. #help

The active reading strategies preached by @TheoryandPractice are really good for anyone who is looking for that.

This is something much more specific. I am currently finding that Hardest Law passages are ones that I consistently have at least -1 in. So I decided to read and do every single one available in PTs. I found that my understanding of law in general has improved greatly, and my speed has gone from on average 12minutes down to about 10minutes per passage. It also helps just to get familiar with concept, such as common law vs civil or constitutional law, or how common law is made or changed, and develop a LSAC definition on terms, such as abjure, adduse, injunction, enact, balance, or semantic. I realized I got a handful of questions wrong simply because of my colloquial use of or lack of use of some of these words gave me misinterpretations.

This strategy, I think, is probably only effective for law, since it is more specialized and the ideas and terms can be learned fairly easily, whereas for art/history passages, the breadth is too wide for specific weakness practice to have much of an effect.

I wonder if anyone else uses this strategy, or has any feedback, and hope that someone can benefit from this.

.

Hi everyone!

I'm getting excited (gotta stay positive!) for next Saturday and I'm mapping out my plans for this coming week. I'm going to take a PT in the 80s tomorrow, BR it on Sunday, and then spend maybe an hour or so each day until Friday (which I'll take off) drilling weaknesses. What's your week looking like?

Hello,

Like others I am trying to decide whether to take September (see score and make a decision on retaking or not) or just go for November completely.

Background:

Goal: min 170

Highest PT: 165

AVG on last 5 PTs: 158

Studied for about a year and half now (on and off)

Lately, I've started a new job and have pushed myself so hard these last six months that by August I was burnt out. I practiced just not productively reviewing or reviewing the next day after.

Any idea if I should take it solely November or take it September (then decide)?

hi Sagers!!

for those of you taking the lsat next saturday i am right there with you!! let's make the most of this weekend amirite?! war paint ON

I have been reading about doing a mental warm up on test day. I like this idea because I definitely think I need to get the part of my brain i have reserved for lsat stuff pumped up, focused, & ready 2 GO. I have read a few past blog posts on what people do & have found these helpful. One user suggested reading 1-2 articles, an easy LG section and a few questions from a LR.

I have never done this for my PTs and I think it will help me feel more relaxed! I wanted to do it tomorrow before a PT. All comments, suggestions, personal routines that have worked in the past welcome :)

Hi all!

The LG game section has always been my best one during PTs and I always get max 1-2 wrong. However, during my actual recent LSAT for some reason I totally messed the section (as in I got more than half wrong!!). I think it was a combination of nerves and because the games are becoming slightly more weird/less traditional in the recent LSATS.

Did anyone else experience this struggle in their LSAT experience? At this point I feel like I almost maybe overstudied the games and whenever a rule feels new or different now I freeze and mess the whole game up. I also feel like being nervous affects my games section the most because its easy to mis diagram or something?

Please let me know if you went through something similar and/or have tips to master the LG games :)

Thanks so much!!

I’m trying to drill inference questions in RC. Is it possible to pull up a list of inference RC questions/passages that have inference questions?

All of the tags I see in the question bank relate to the subject of the passage, whereas I can tell from analytics that each question is broken down by type somewhere on 7Sage. Thanks!

Anyone have any advice on how to close the gap between those two scores by November? Logic Games is the quickest to improve on. I have only done about 10% of the curriculum. Would it be better to jump right into practice tests or to finish the curriculum?

Can anyone please explain to me why the lower bound for ‘some’ is 1 and not 2? Is there no distinction in logic between a singular instance of something occurring within a set vs it occurring at least twice? Isn't it fallacious to conclude that 'some' things in a set possess a certain attribute from the observation of a singular occurrence of that attribute within the set?

For example, the sentence ‘some unicorns are fluffy’ would seem to imply that there are at least two unicorns that are fluffy. Same with the ‘some’ mice living in my home’ example from the lessons on existential quantifiers. J.Y. concludes that if we know that there are 'some' mice in the house, or 'some' unicorns that are fluffy, then we know that there is at least 1 mouse in that house and at least 1 fluffy unicorn. However, the plural forms of the nouns - ‘unicorns’ and ‘mice’ - are used in both of these examples, which would imply more than 1 of each entity. In fact in most cases that I can think of, the word 'some' implies a plurality of the noun that follows it.

If there were 100 unicorns in the world and 99 of them weren’t fluffy while only 1 of them was, could we really accurately conclude that ‘some’ unicorns (again, plural) are fluffy from this singular instance of fluffiness? What if that unicorn was an anomaly and turns out to be the only fluffy unicorn in the history of unicorns?

#help

I was wondering what have people done to improve their scores on the reading comprehension section. Ive heard the more sections you go through the more patterns one will learn. Has anything noticed some patterns in this section that seem to be reoccurring? I am still avg. -10 on this section and can't seem to improve my score. I am just not a fast enough reader and once i get to the last passage i feel like i am rushing to complete the questions. Please Help! :(