The admission curriculum has been super helpful to me and has undoubtedly increased my chances of admission to many schools this cycle. I definitely recommend it to anyone who wants to perfect their applications. (A huge thank you to @"David.Busis" and his team). I have one suggestion that I think would make it even better-- a section on scholarship negotiations. What is the proper protocol regarding timing and how to frame your "argument" for more money? What are comparable schools that make it appropriate to use money from one school to ask for money from another? Who do we contact? What do we say (in other words, do we explain that we deserve the money or that we have gotten better offers elsewhere? At what point is reiterating your qualifications and contribution to the campus redundant from your application?) How much emphasis do we put on money being our decision making factor without sounding ungrateful for being admitted? I know technically the curriculum is focused on admissions, but I personally think scholarships play a huge part in the process.

Just a thought! On that note...does anyone have any input on this? Definitely planning to ask at least one of my schools for money within the near future, but I do sort of feel like I'm shooting in the dark regarding how to do this.

I stumbled on this Twitter thread and found it super interesting, and then thought... hey, I wonder if that would help calm people's nerves before an LSAT? Obviously this is a random twitter thread and I'm no expert, but it's an interesting idea for the many folks that have test anxiety. Maybe it's wise to try splashing cold water on your face and holding your breath for 30 seconds? Science! It's neat.

https://twitter.com/gaileyfrey/status/963842152303280129

(Click on the tweet to see the whole thread for the info)

I can get through all the quizzes and exercises but I'm having a hard time knowing why or the meaning of things I'm doing. When I look at a SA question, instinctively it makes sense and just reading the question I can normally eliminate 2-3 wrong answers and narrow it down to 2 and if I re-read the Conclusion and Premises, I can pick the right answer. However, when I try to diagram it, it turns into a cluster fuck and I feel I just wasted a bunch of time. The last questions sets, thought, I can see why doing the diagram is important.

I need to understand how to know if an Assumption Question is Sufficient or Necessary, but I still don't understand the "why" aspect if that makes sense. I just read what I'm supposed to get out of the statment and try to predict what kind of answer they are

looking for after I read the argument then I just find what fits. I'm getting about 70% correct, but its the 30% that I know I can probably get a few more if I just understood the "why's" not just the "how". I just cant seem to get the logic to click.

I'm not even sure that this question makes sense. I get the whole X------->Y J (some)A stuff, its the application I'm having problem with.

Is anyone else having a conceptual problem?

Hi everyone, I took the February 2018 LSAT. My applications are ready, the only element that is missing is the LSAT score. I am still confused as to whether it is beneficial for me to send my application before the score is released. I know that in this case, law school will put applications on hold until the score arrives. however, once the score is out, how long does it take for the universities to start reviewing the applications? Would this affect the admission process?

I don’t get it. AC B looks to be necessary but not sufficient.

A->(B-most->C)

Therefore

B(-some-)D

AC B gives us C(-some-)D

Which allows us to draw: B-most->C(-some-)D

But we can’t conclude that any Bs are Ds from this conditional chain. That is an invalid argument.

I got this question right but only because B came the closest (C/D/E don't even contain the new idea which is found in the conclusion and A was intuitively wrong). Maybe I am misunderstanding the logical relationships? JY didn't mention this issue and neither does the Manhattan forum.

If we were to change the premise to C-most->B, then AC B would allow us to conclude B(-some-)D but I don't think that's the correct translation. The Manhattan forum agrees with me on this.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-54-section-4-question-22/

Admin note: edited title

Hi all, hypothetical here. If you were planning to go into public interest, and you got a full ride to a T-6 (or Penn eg) vs HYS, would you take the full ride? How about if it were T-4 full ride vs HYS?

Thanks for your thoughts! :)

Is it possible that you could do better on an lsat just because you understand certain topics better than others and those were the ones being tested heavily on the day of? For example, If I am good at SA and there were plenty of those tested or if I struggle with science RC passages and they weren't tested?

Is that just pure luck?

@Sami I am following your BR process for Reading Comp passages. I have a question regarding that BR process for RCs. During BRing, do we read the Reading comp passage and then write the high resolution summary (HRS) while referring the passage at the same time. Like reading one para then writing its HRS , then reading the next para and writing down that para's HRS. Or is it reading the passage in one go then write the whole passage's HRS from memory, I find it difficult to retain the entire passage in my mind and then write its HRS ?Should i push myself to retain the entire passage details ?

So I took a PT last Monday, after over a month of resumed studying.

Actual score: 139 (highest PT was 138) BR: 159 (Highest BR was 154).

Any suggestions on how I might close that gap?

Thanks.

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