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?

Hey!

This is a quick question, but I'm curious to hear how other's have approached this. I have some LGs where I get within 30 seconds of the "recommended time" with -0. My gut is to lower the number of times I redo this question to 3 or 5 (depending on how confident I felt) rather than 10 times, to help me ease up some time in my studying for games that give me more trouble (any game that takes me more +~1 minute or that I get -1+ on, I note to do 10X.

Thoughts on if this makes sense? How have you handled such questions?

So my account is about to expire and I'm all done with all my applications/LSAT prep (woohoo!)-- just wanted to thank JY and the 7sage community for creating such a great product. The videos are all so, so helpful and you've all been able to make this process very affordable (the fee waivers during the application cycle alone have already compensated for the cost of my course). I've been telling everyone considering taking the LSAT to use 7sage because it truly made such a difference. I'm from California, so I went into the law school application process thinking I had a decent chance of getting into Berkeley--- now I have (!!!) and it's so exciting to have gotten into one of my top choices and still have other potential options coming down the pipe.

I took the LSAT in September and December, and using the advice of other sagers and the new RC videos I was able to go from -6 to -0 in RC the second time around, which was a huge deal for me and my score actually went up by 10 points (167 --> 177). I don't think I did anything that crazy in terms of studying, but I'm happy to help other sagers however I can (though I'm probably not going to be checking the site much after the next week or so because I'm excited to have a life outside of law school apps again!). My biggest piece of advice is this: be protective with your time and with your psyche. I think it's easy to fall into the trap of trolling the discussion board instead of working on core curriculum ("I'm on the site, I'm studying.... I'll just take a little break..."). Equally easy is working yourself into a frenzy because other people are stressed out. This community is really supportive, but sometimes hearing people complain about not being able to get from a 171 to a 175+ is demoralizing when you're still scoring in the low 160s. Trust in yourself and trust the process! Okay thanks again 7sage, here's to hoping for a great 2018 admissions cycle! Peace!

(deleted)

I was going through PT 47 and wanted some clarification on phrases.

Section 1 Q23 of PT47 uses the phrase "accompanied by" and this indicates positive correlation.

However, in section 3 of the same test Q19 uses the phrase "associated with" and this indicates causation. Links below for the two questions.

For most phrases I find it easy to determine if it is causation or correlation, but this seemed really arbitrary. Are there other similar phrases you have found to be confusing or can someone provide insight?

Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-3-question-19/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-1-question-23/

I will be taking a mock LSAT though my university this coming Saturday (2/24). I have taken one PT before but being in a simulated test room for the first time may make it feel different. Do any of you have suggestions/recommendations for preparing for it whether it's bringing certain things or a good luck breakfast?

Hi all,

I'm struggling with the translation of "cannot."

In an In/Out game if A & B "cannot" be together, then:

In a Grouping game, if A & B "cannot" be together, then:

I was thinking about going to an ASD for a school that is a short drive from me, and I was just invited to another school's Alumni Reception which is apps and drinks at a local restaurant. I'm wondering if it would be beneficial for networking and getting more familiar with the admissions process. I'm nervous for the possibility of having to interview for some law schools next cycle so maybe this would make me a lil more comfortable.

Or is it just a waste of time as it will take away from LSAT studying

I was wondering what I should expect during the interview for Harvard in terms of questions. I interviewed for UVA and it lasted about 30-45 minutes. They said it should be around 15 minutes for Harvard. does anybody have experience or ideas?

Hi Everyone,

I'm working my way through the PT, and wanted to get some input on a question regarding doing 2 weekly PT's, as my schedule suggests.

I currently work full time, so the only realistic timeline I have for doing PT's is the weekend, during the middle of the week I'm too mentally drained to do a full PT.

Originally I thought I would just do a PT on Saturday, then a PT on Sunday - and BR both of them during the week. The value to that being, while there might not be much improvement from PT to PT on any given weekend at least I'll have more data on where I'm weakest and have enough time to work though a BR. The downside being I'm not sure how much time this will leave for additional drills on areas I'm weak in.

The other thought I had was to do one PT over a weekend, BR it the rest of the weekend/early in the week and then drill areas I'm weak on until the next weekend and repeat.

Has anyone been in a similar situation, would love to hear some feedback on which strategy would most likely be more effective.

Has anyone else noticed a difference in these two phrases?

I was working on PT 47 and "accompanied by" seems to indicate correlation while "associated with" seems to be causation. Is this a recurring thing, or am I misinterpreting these questions?

Thanks for any help!

S1 Q23

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-1-question-23/

S3 Q

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-3-question-19/

I can't believe I'm writing this, but I became THAT applicant. I accidentally submitted my rough draft for my Why Columbia essay, instead of the final. I just sent it in over the weekend, and they replied today that they were adding it to my file....so I decided to re-read it.

I cannot explain the sinking feeling in my stomach after realising that my submitted copy had a ton of red underlines and comments in the columns. Thank goodness I'm this type A and double checked....but I'm kicking myself for making this mistake in the first place.

I called and they kinda laughed at me...probably because I sounded crazy and said they would update it with the final copy haha. But a part of me is still very anxious that I somewhat hurt my chances.

BLEH.

PS swap anyone?

Title says it all. I'm very curious to know!

It's been a long year of endless studying for the lsat for me, as for all of us here at 7Sage. I have taken the test an amount of times, that most of you would consider to be too many times. I'm not influenced by how many times people can or don't take the test, if anything in my [personal opinion]... It shows schools that you're persistent. However, like I said that's just me. Given today's economic shifts, employment of this generation, and academic trends; it's hard to ignore the signs that we often neglect to recognize.

If anyone else is into the whole socioeconomic trends, not by just a degree in B.S., but by simply observing the world's trends... then I'm sure you can see what I'm talking about. Recently Glassdoor released a list of the 50 most in demand jobs, based on a few different factors. All of those 50 were in these catagories: Analysists, Engineering, and Marketing. Upon reading about these occupations, I realized that all of them paid at least 75,000 as their average base. They range up past the 100k as well. What I found strange was the fact the businesses wanted people with skills/past experiences, or two years of internships. I have none of that. Not to mention, like many of us... math & science are totally not our areas of expertise. I haven't done math or science since high school, let alone major or work in the field with these two, very complex fields of occupation.

Economically, in the world we have noticed that education used to be the way out in order to achieve success later on in ones life. Now, education is the way in... to debt. I'm sure a lot of us can acknowledge how expensive a college education is, especially if we are not given the opportunity to have it readily available, financially. The United States largest debt, is now student debt. We have to work our whole lives to repay what we did in school to get us the jobs (most are not even satisfied with). We don't get to even think about retirement due to this overwhelming growth in loans. It's sad. These jobs listed above seem to want those whom have a good understanding of those fields, not a M.A. or J.D, etc. It makes sense if students decide to go into a high paying job after school, without having to be buried in debt. So, for many of us noticing that unless we truly want to be apart of the law, versus just going to Law school for a high paying/ powered job... the script is now flipped. Unfortunately. I know too many people who initially went to Law school for a better financially stable future, and are now disappointed that it didn't play out in the way they had thought it would.

Thus, I do think for many who either just love school or learning, or those who really know that law school is all they have ever wanted... stay with it!!

As for me, I intend on going to Law school. However, I was recently admitted to a Graduate program with a fully paid tuition. For me, thats two extra years of a dept free education. I'd be remiss if I didn't take it, for it is both economically sound & I believe will give me more time to build a strong resume, allowing me to go for my J.D with a master's degree behind me as well. Also, I hope to get the Teachers Assistanship as well, for it will show my abilities to teach, and have a solid foundation of interpersonal communication. I do know this will help for applications when it comes time for law school, seeing those things on my resume.

I will continue with 7sage, because they have been here for me since day one. I'll probably be on here for another two years, and many will find me annoying after awhile.

I just figure that with all the discussions of Law School Apps, I'd post this in case anyone is in a similar predicament/ freaking out about a future in continuing education.

Being realistic about the world has shown me that my plans for the new few years, is not as realistic for the rest of my life.

What the heck. Why is (nearly) everyone at Columbia getting wait listed, even when they have 170+ LSAT scores and a 3.6+ GPA's? I get YP, and an increased applicant pool etc etc...but this seems excessive.

Thoughts?