I ntoiced a lot of schools are already having their admitted student days. I follow some law schools in Insta and have seen them posting. Does this mean that if I'm still putting in my apps (before the deadline of course, albeit pretty late) that I basically don't have a chance and am applying to a black hole?

Just been rejected from BC.

Stats: 2.99, 167

I know my gpa is terrible and I've taken the lsat 4 times but really!

I submitted my application to Columbia on Jan. 5 and was waitlisted yesterday. When I was filling in the reserve form I discovered the form was titled "first reserve", does anyone know what it means? Thxxx!

Hi Guys,

In the P2 , line 25-32 , I am assuming that structure means physical properties[like homogeneous,network like,granular..etc] .

Admin edit: Please review our forum rules. Posting licensed LSAC materials is against our TOS.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-1-section-1-passage-2-passage/

My question is why cant we think that Biochemists were not interested in structure aka physical properties of the protoplasm so they stood apart from the debate(among the biochemists) over whether protoplasm is homogeneous,network-like, granular, or foamlike .

It is another way of saying that is the debate(among biochemists) didnot happen.

Then Next line meant Biochemists' interest was in the chemical nature of the protoplasm . Why cant we say both these statements were said of Biochemists? It can happen that the biochemists had a disinterest in the physical properties[structure] of protoplasm but they wanted to study chemical characteristics of protoplasm.

Please Help me out! I am in a soup.

Admin note: edited title for formatting

Hey guys, I was thinking about purchasing the LSAT questions by-type published by cambridge LSAT (one of my friends who studys at YLS recommends it to me) but their prices appear to be totally unaffordable when I searched on amazon (~$999). I was wondering if anyone of you could recommend some by-type drill resources to me?

I am saving the PTs after 40 for timing practice, so ideally I hope all questions from the by-type drills are derived from PT 1-20.

Thanks!!!

I'm curious if everyone else scratches out rules in LG after you have used up the rule creating your master game board. I think it is a good strategy EXCEPT when the occasional question arises that says to "keep all other rules," but eliminate one. At that moment, I look at the master game board and can't tell which game pieces are the result of inferences that may have been made from the rule I'm now required to abandon.

I also can't look at my simplified rule list that I condensed from the stimulus since most are sometimes scratched out. So I'm forced to translate all rules back to a condensed form again. Is the key to not scratch out? To only scratch out rules lightly? Or is there an alternative that I'm missing?

I'll say Mar 2nd.

I originally took this job after undergrad thinking that I would work here for less than a year but now I'm doing another gap year waiting for the next app cycle. This job has a nice environment, people are friendly, the office is really nice, it's a 15 min drive from my house and no traffic, but I really really really really hate the work and I'm losing my damn mind. It's super tedious doing seriously the exact same thing for 8 hours and then the exact same thing the next day and the next. Just shuffling documents around on the computer. 0 human interaction like I could literally not speak to a human all day. Doing this crap and then going home to LSAT study a few hours right after work sucks. I can't imagine continuing to do this for another year and a half.

I used to work a hectic fast paced legal secretary job and the attorney I interviewed with for my document clerk position said “we’re just worried you’re over qualified and you might find this a little bit tedious...” I didn’t care about her warning bc I only intended to work here for a short period. Now I care.

Positives -- I can find a job with human interaction and stop feeling like a depressed robot

Negatives -- It'll take time away from LSAT studying looking for a job. I'm sure I'll have to go to a few interviews before finding a new job which will be hard to manage with my current job. This might look bad on my law school resume that I worked here for such a short time (I've been here since July 2017). New job might not be in a legal field.

7Sage recommends reading the question stem first. I will start to play with this. However, in the Powerscore books they say DON"T read the question stem first and go on to give several pretty good reasons. I don't see where 7Sage gives it's cost benefits analysis/reasoning for why to read the question stem first. Am I missing where this is stated? And if not, any thoughts on why it is better to read the question stem first?

Hi! I'm hoping I can get some input on how people have fool proofed the logic games in the core curriculum--this is specifically referring to the ones used as examples and the problem sets (not PTs). I have yet to start drilling PTs so the questions I get come from the game examples and problem sets from the core curriculum. How have you guys scheduled in fool proofing these games? I'm really struggling as I seem to have problems with every game (or going over the designated time) trying to get the rules, diagramming, and inferences.

anyone else seeing this?

https://ibb.co/cdAkvx

I was admitted to Harvard this morning, and I can honestly say that it would not have happened without 7Sage.

I've been a bit too absent from here recently and am hoping to get back into the 7Sage community.

The community here is the best. The support and motivation cultivated at 7Sage was crucial to my LSAT success. The curriculum and materials are the best by far. I feel that 7Sage is almost unfair in how good it is, I legitimately wonder if 7Sage's continuing success will mess with the LSAT scale because scores will go up for so many people.

To all still studying for the LSAT, keep grinding, keep being tenacious.

So, I've seen on here quite a few times that it is a good idea to use a sheet protector for logic games. I've been doing the same for logical reasoning and loving it (~save the trees~). When I went through the lr cc at first, I was a "starter" level 7sager. So, I missed out on anything but easy questions. Now, I upgraded and I'm going back as I begin to fool proof sequencing games (I want to have those down 100% before I move into grouping; it is also a good opportunity to delve into the tougher lr problem sets).

I've ended up doing something I haven't seen yet (though I'm sure 50 people have already had this idea and posted it) for lr. I'm not br'ing these very intensely, as my focus is purely on getting it right, not on timing (that can come later in my opinion). When I get a question wrong or am not confident in how I got it right, I watch the video explanation and then (as I've seen in other posts) cut the question out and (lightly so I can't see through the paper) write the answer on the back. Here's the actual point of this post:

Starting on Monday, I put all of the cut outs throughout the week on questions I got wrong into the plastic sleeve (be it 2, 10, or 20). On Sunday evening, I write on the sleeve the dates I am allowed to/must go back and solve all of the cut out questions I had previously gotten wrong - the following Saturday-Sunday.

So, the weekdays become days to go through new problem sets in the morning before work (I work full-time) and on the commute to and from work (for once I love MTA delays as it gives me more time to go through questions). The weeknights become the time to move forward in the cc on new topics and the weekends become time to go back and retry questions and work at them. If I don't answer a question correctly or confidently that was already a cut out, then in it goes into the next week's plastic sleeve.

Just an idea! Hoping this helps me not let any question go unattacked from the cc. I also think this is an easy way to keep up my lr even as I move into the lg portion of the curriculum.

Also would love to hear advice from other folks on this! I'm approaching lg similarly and will begin to balance this out once I wrap up the cc and move into the stage of PT and br.

So I plan on taking the June exam and read on a few of the schools websites I'd like to attend that those scores are accepted depending on seat availability and some other factors. I don't want to postpone another cycle if I don't have to. My question is should I at least get the applications into those schools so all of that is taken care of when my June score is officially released?

So after I drop off the progeny at school this morning, I rolled into the YMCA for my daily workout. I'm ~40 minutes into an hour long stationary bike workout, led by a training video that both encourages and mocks you through a series of intervals. Today, its riding with the pro peloton in the Tour De Suisse and I'm giving it all I have to stay in the break (re: sweating all over the place and my leg ache). Suddenly, my partner in the break flats and I have to wait for the pack to catch up (start a rest interval). The screen cuts to text, "Life... Life is cruel."

As I'm currently 3/4 through the Introduction to Logic section in the CC, my brain immediately goes to work. Life is cruel, the two concepts are life and cruel. Assume an implied group 1 indicator of "all" and you get Life - Sufficient Condition, Cruel - Necessary Condition. The contra-positive gets you if its not cruel, then its not life.

You just can't get away from the LSAT, even when you are killing it in the gym. However, I eventually won the Tour De Suisse today with a killer sprint at the end.

Hi, could someone help me understand Lsat4.s1.question-18 better? I have several questions.

Admin edit: Please review our forum rules. Posting licensed LSAC materials is against our TOS. Sorry, duly noted

I think my problem comes from the fact that I didn't come up with the right 'antecedent claim'. I had thought the claim would be something along the lines of, 'intelligent life exists...' or 'intelligent life doesn't exist...' so when I got to answer choices I went with (C) because it seemed that the whole passage hinged on the ambiguity of the key phrase 'intelligent life.'

Now, knowing the right answer is (D) I'm struggling. It's clear that LSAC are tricky bastards to put (C) as an answer choice. The nuance to the question lies in understanding how the passage challenges a claim that we are supposed to infer. Right now the only way I see (D) working is if the claim is 'The question whether intelligent life exists elsewhere is precise.' Is this right**?**

Typing this all out makes me realize what seems to be the proper claim is just the negation of the first sentence in the stimulus, but is that what we are supposed to go on**?**

I have the conclusion of the stimulus in lawgic as:

define life more precise -> !(find and recognize life -> leave definitions open)

conversely

(find and recognize life -> leave definitions open) -> define life less precise

With this all in mind, what part of the stimulus should I identify as arguing the claim is 'counter productive'? and am I right now looking back to say that 'cannot be adequately defined' is too strong and not what the passage is saying. When it's really saying that life cannot be precisely defined**?**

Admin note: edited title

Hey guys, we're posting on behalf of a 7Sager. They're wondering the following:

I purchased the Ultimate Package when I completed the LSAT in 2016, but pursued a masters instead. I am now applying to law schools, but do not know what impact having another degree would have on my application. I scored 157 on the LSAT and graduated with a 3.4 from Boston College. But I scored high on the GRE (99th writing, 95th verbal and 75th percentile in math) and graduated in the top quartile of my masters program at University College London. I also authored an Initiative to the Citizens of Washington State.

I did my MSc in Transportation and City Planning, and I am centering my law studies on land use and environmental law, too. I imagine there is some benefit to showing such dedication to a specific area of focus?

Any advice guys?

I am new to the LSAT community so please don't laugh at me if this is a dumb question. I looked at a few recent PTs and found that the grading scales for converting the raw score to the 180 scale score seem to be different for every single test. For example, in PT 80, a 170 scale score requires a 92 raw score (just like the cold diag test) but in PT 82 170 requires only 90. Both of these tests also require a 75 for 165, but on cold diag test a 78 would have suffice.

So, does that mean I cannot predict my scale score accurately even if I know my raw score after taking the real test? Also, does anyone happen to know why this would happen? Did LSAC intentionally design different grading scale for each individual test base on its level of difficulty?

In addition, it seems that sometimes a scale score in the high 170s does not match any raw score. In PT 82, 98 matches 179, 97 matches 176, but nothing matches 177. In this case, how could one possibly get a 177 on this specific test?

Hi everyone,

Should I waive the access right to my recommendation letters?

I am thinking if I waived the right, I won't be able to review those letters to make sure it is the correct one before submiting them, correct?

Thanks.

I am taking the LSAT this Saturday (original date was postponed due to blizzard). I have been preparing since late December, however I have only been using 7 sage for a couple weeks. The program I used previously was Alphascore. My logic games scores are consistently 20-23. But due to Alpha-scores heavy game focus, my LR and RC are barely above my baseline scores. 14-17 correct per section now, baseline was RC 15, LR 14 and 15 respectively. I have learned more about LR in the Last 2 weeks(just finished MSS in the syllabus) than in the previous 6-7 weeks of prep . I know I can add at-least 10 pts to my score by June. Should I drop out of this LSAT and just take the June one? Or should I take this one and apply to schools with it? My last PT (yesterday) was 155.

So I have a question regarding the rule used for negation ie 'All jedi use the force' is negated as 'some jedi do not use the force'.

Wouldn't 'some jedi do use the force' have the same effect, because both are inferring that if some do or don't, then the opposite must also be true and some don't or do?

Another example 'Every doctor in this hospital is qualified to work on combating the city's zombie epidemic.', isn't 'some doctors in this hospital are not qualified to work on combating the city's zombie epidemic' conveying the same information as 'some doctors in this hospital are qualified to work on combating the city's zombie epidemic' would? that if some are qualified, than others aren't. That if some aren't qualified, others are? What is the significance of the negative?

So I'm about to embark on the journey of improving RC. Just for some background, I started studying in June of 2017. The bulk of my studies has gone to LG and LR. My diagnostic was just flat out bad in all sections. It's been a battle; but, I am fully committed to earning a 170, or at least extremely close. I worked my ass off for 4 years to earn a stellar GPA; I'm not about to waste those efforts because I wasn't patient enough to master this test. I started out with Powerscore, but in September I FINALLY went with 7Sage. Since then I have improved with RC slightly. I'm currently sitting at a -10 in RC (yes, that is improvement). I'm only able to do 3 out of the 4 passages right now, and that is something that will change; I refuse to only do 3 out of the 4. I'm realizing that this is simply just going to take a long time, which I'm fine with. I want to make sure I'm not making huge mistakes in terms of how I invest my time, which is why I've decided to confer with some of you who might have some wise words to share. So, I'll give you an idea as to what I plan on doing for the next month (2, 3, maybe 4 months?), or however long it takes to figure RC out.

(I only have about 3 hours per weekday to do this, and 5-6 hours per day on weekends. On the easier to medium difficulty passages I can get anywhere from zero to three wrong, but it will take me 10 minutes to do this. I would say I average getting one wrong on easy and medium passages.)

First, I plan to do all the passages and questions from 1-36. If I'm already wrong on this front, please let me know. I've read just about everywhere that RC changes quite a bit in later tests. I don't want to dedicate countless hours to something if it will actually hurt me in the long run. I think that is a reasonable concern. But, I've also read that RC for the most part is similar, and doing earlier tests would be beneficial. So, basically, is doing RC 1-36 valuable for someone in my situation? Or, would my time be better spent focusing on newer tests? My guess, because I am missing so many questions, is that I need as many RC sections as I can get my hands on.

As far as my methods, I plan on doing each passage three times. The first time will be timed, and in the beginning of my studies I will use the memory method, although I've already experienced with this quite a bit and haven't seen too much improvement, but I haven't ruled it out yet. The second attempt will be traditional BR - no worries with time, just accuracy. Then I will look to see which ones I got wrong, then watch video explanations for the passage and the questions. I also will be writing out explanations for questions that I got wrong on the first attempt and/or during BR. The third attempt will be similar to fool proofing. I just feel that I need to be training my brain how fast it will have to be processing the information from the passage and the questions. At the end of the week, I will review and maybe even redo any passages and questions that tripped me up substantially. I'm also considering having a "redo date" for each one, similar to one of the LG fool proofing methods that I've seen floating around the forums here. I'm aware that RC cannot be fool proofed in a sense that is analogous to that of LG. If RC could be fool proofed to the extent that LG can, RC wouldn't be as hard as it is.

In doing all of this, I feel that I would be getting the most out of each passage and its questions. But, I'm not totally positive. I could very well be wrong in using this method. Of course, I'll be looking for patterns in passages, questions, and things I get tripped up on. I will also be keeping track of my performance on each passage and its questions.

Do you think this method has potential to help? Or, is it overkill or maybe not enough?

Thanks!

I've been selected as a finalist for the Berkeley Law Opportunity Scholarship, which is a full-tuition scholarship offered to outstanding first-generation students who may attend Berkeley Law School. I have to sit for an in-person interview to be selected, so Berkeley is going to pay for me to fly out there for a couple days to interview and visit. I feel so special!

What do I do?! What do I say?! What do I wear?! Has anyone here had to sit for these sorts of high stakes interviews yet? I'm really excited but also nervous since I've never had to do anything quite like this.

I was wondering what the most effective method would be to foolproof logic games 1 - 35. For those of you who have done all the games from 1 - 35, would you recommend doing them in order or by game type? Ex., should i do 4 games from PT 1 each day in that order until i reach PT 35, or should they be done differently?

Also, if i wanted to foolproof games 36 - 60 instead of games 1 - 35, would that be just as effective?

Thanks again for any feedback, i appreciate it. :)

I just requested and received a fee waiver in an email. Should I send a "thank you" email? What should I say?