I know that for weaken questions we're supposed to be critical of how the premise(s) support the conclusion (e.g. select the answer choice that "most weakens the argument" (an argument of course comprising one or several premises and a conclusion). But what if the question stem is cast in weaken form but refers only to the "conclusion"? For example, a stem might ask for which choice "casts the most doubt on the conclusion above." Is there a distinction to be drawn between these stems insofar as what the test is asking the test-taker to do? In other words, if I'm asked to weaken exclusively the conclusion, should I pay no attention to premises and select the answer choice that would simply weaken the conclusion, or do I need to without exception be cognizant of the premise-conclusion relationship?

Hi 7Sagers,

If you've got questions, ~~I've got~~ I'll try my best to have answers. Join me on Wednesday, October 24 at 9 p.m. ET for a Q&A. I won't give a spiel; I'll just call on people and field questions about law school admissions from start to finish. Feel free to get into the weeds about your situation. I'm even happy to talk about your essays, though I won't be able to read them.

You don't need to register in advance.

When: Oct 24, 2018 9:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)

Topic: Q&A with David

Please click the link below to join the webinar:

https://zoom.us/j/495355641

Or iPhone one-tap :

US: +14086380968,,495355641# or +16468769923,,495355641#

Or Telephone:

Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):

US: +1 408 638 0968 or +1 646 876 9923 or +1 669 900 6833

Webinar ID: 495 355 641

International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/ac95nRLMn2

I'm taking the June LSAT and looking for a study partner who wants to score a 170+. Can either be in-person or via Skype. If you're interested, message me.

You guessed it. I circle the question, put a tilda next to my two AC’s, select one, go back for BR, and ITS THE FREAKING TRAP ANSWER EVERY TIME. How did you all fix this problem?

remove

Hello, I'm taking the November LSAT and looking for study partners, primarily but not limited to those also taking it next November. Could be in person or google hangout.

Just took an LR practice test & I can’t seem to understand this problem. I think I just get caught up in the language & can’t move past it.

PTC.S2.Q22

Admin note: Please review the forum rules.

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

I re-took the June 2018 LSAT today. I remember when I took it in June and RC was my first section. When I turned the page and saw the passage was on Borges and fiction, I was elated. All of my nerves disappeared. I worship Borges. To me, there's writers, and then there's great writers, and then there's Borges. He's a marvel of literature. I've read almost almost all of his short fiction ("The Aleph" and "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius" are my faves) and have taught his work at colleges. I know a lot about him (his love for magnifying glasses, how he went blind late in life, his career as a librarian in Buenos Aires). He's a GOD to me. But did this help me that day, or today, on my RC? Nope! That RC section, and that passage, picks me apart. Usually I'm -3 to -5 on RC. Today I went -9. And 3/6 on the Borges passage. Just goes to show, sometimes having previous knowledge doesn't help. If anything, I think my Borges' biases on that section was a hindrance.

I really want to solidify some consistent timing strategies, so if you have any specific procedures you follow for any of the sections, I'd love to hear about them.

LSAT rewards those who persevere, and what is life if not one long journey of perseverance. If you want it enough, then you will be able to do it. Temper your goals though, and go about it incrementally. Getting to your goal may takes months, if not years. Have the right mindset and expectations, and you will be able to go further. There is no shortcut, only heartfelt triumphs after profound struggling.

Personally, I have a 3.0 gpa, so to get into the top schools, I must get at least a 99 percentile lsat score. At some point you realize that improving is the easy part, and trying my best not to decline, now that gets depressing. To some degree, I think one has to become obsessed, or a hermit or a monk; harnessing motivation wherever you can and finding meaning in every little thing in life, good and bad, and devoting ungodly amounts of time to this seemingly marathon without end.

In another perspective, if you can get through this, you can just about get through anything. This is why the LSAT can be a good indicator and preparation for law school. Add oil!

Hi guys!

I am taking the November LSAT (which will be my second attempt). I have put together nearly every other part of my application except my Personal Statement. I can't seem to put pen to paper and just get it done! I think I'm 50% braindead from prep and 50% anxious about how important I perceive my PS to be.

I know logically that I need to draft it ASAP so that I can edit and tweak in the coming weeks. I just feel like I have a major case of analysis paralysis. Can anyone relate? How have you overcome your writer's block?!

Any tips and motivation would be so appreciated. Thank you :)

Is there any way to use analytics to easily see how I'm performing on a particular question type over time?

I'm in a bit of a predicament with my GRE score.

I took the GRE in 2017, intending to use it to apply to humanities PhD programs. Law school wasn't on my radar then, nor had the law school GRE pile-on begun. Thinking that only my verbal scores would matter, I didn't bother studying for the quant. I scored a 170V and 158Q (69th percentile) and a 5.5AW.

In February 2018 I took the LSAT and got a 170.

My question is whether I should submit my GRE with middling quant score to law schools where submission is optional if you have an LSAT score. (Some schools require you submit the GRE no matter what if you took it in the last five years.) For example, if I apply to Harvard will they be more likely to see my 170V as a boon or my 158Q as a detriment?

Will the GRE even matter if I have a solid LSAT?

Any success stories to share for diag at 145 and writing 160+? Looking for some motivation and avg weekly hour of studying :)

Any tips for increasing the score from around a 149-150? This is my second time taking the test and have one month left, so any study tips for the second time aroung would be great!

One of the issues I had with LR was how quickly I had to change gears from one question to another. The test tries to mess with you as it asks similar questions and tripping you up is what the test writers are trying to do. I had to come up with a way to remember all of the different types of LR questions so I could recall quickly what was being asked of me. I 'borrowed' from both the 7-Sage lessons and the Powerscore books to make this basic study sheet. It is a breakdown of the similar question types, what makes them similar and a definition of the individual types.

Hope this helps.

LR STUDY SHEET

THE MUST BE OR PROVE FAMILY

-Information in the stimulus proves that one of the AC’s is correct

-Accept the stimulus 100%

-Any information in the stimulus that does not directly or indirectly appear in the Stimulus = Wrong Answer

• MBT/MSS- Best proven by the information in the stimulus

• Main Point- What is the primary conclusion (similar to MBT ?’s)

• Point at Issue/Agreement- Find point of contention or point of agreement between the speakers.

• Method of Reasoning (MOR)- Describe in abstract terms the way the author made the argument.

• Flaw in Reasoning (Flaw)- Describe in abstract terms the error in the authors reasoning.

• Parallel Reasoning/Parallel Flaw- ID the AC that contains reasoning most similar in structure to the reasoning presented in the stimulus.

HELP FAMILY

-Assisting or helping the authors argument or statement somehow, possibly by revealing assumption of the argument or by resolving a paradox or some other way.

• Assumption- ID the assumption

• Justify (The Conclusion)- Supply a piece of information that when added, proves the conclusion.

• Strengthen/Support- Provide support or strengthen the authors argument in some way.

• Resolve the Paradox- Find the AC that resolves or explains the discrepancy or contradiction.

• Weaken- Find the answer choice that attacks or undermines the argument.

~Cannot Be True- ID the AC that cannot be true or is most weakened based on the stimulus

I've been stuck at 137 for quite some time now. I am good with LG but poor with LR and okay in RC. I really need some direction.

Do you guys think that the amount of time you are willing to spend on something reflects how much you like the thing?

For example, say I really enjoy studying for the LSAT for about 25 minutes, (after which it becomes a drag) does that indicate that I don't really enjoy studying? Or to put it in philosophical terms: does the quantity of time you are willing to spend on a given thing correspond to the amount you enjoy doing that thing?

-removed-

After waiving right of access to LORs, has anyone asked to see their LORs? Is this considered an appropriate course of action? If yes, what’s the appropriate way to go about it?

Hi :)

Curious to know if people approach RC questions like LR (as in, when you're certain you've come across the correct ans., you pick it and leave -- without looking at any other ACs). If you do/did, why; how'd you build the confidence to get there; and are there any conditions for which you do that under (for exp., if you only notice yourself doing this when you've gone [back] to the passage to make sure the AC you're about to choose is the correct one).

Thanks!

I have several study abroad grades listed under the category of "other grades" and I know they weren't factored into my overall GPA so would LSAC use them in their recalculation? Thanks!

I’m thinking of applying to U Chicago. It’s a perennial top 5 law school. But I don’t know too much about it relative to the other T14’s. And I read mixed reviews. Any thoughts on this school’s reputation and what it’s known for?

Hey everybody!

My childhood best friend has been an associate at Paul Weiss (prestigious big law firm--JY actually worked there) for about 8 years. He went to Columbia Law School and clerked for a State Supreme Court judge (now I'll stop talking about him). What do you think about a LOR from him saying, 'I've known him for 25 years, and in my experience in the legal profession, I think he'd be remarkably successful because of X reason, Y reason, Z reason." Does that seem weird? Thanks for any input!

I have tried the memory method, and it helps a little. My score for that section has been fairly the same. I am not entirely sure what I can do to improve it. Any tips?