Top Law Schools

TWiiX wrote:

34iplaw wrote:When you buy a suit, just make sure it's canvassed and not fused. A fused suit will not look good after a few dry cleans.

EIDOS is a brand that you can get pretty good deals at if you are located near the right Saks or Bloomingdales. I think the end of year sales puts their suits at like $300-$500 roughly. Granted, they got rid of the three-roll-two I think. Shade.

Alternatively, learn your size in brands, and buy online. You can buy Brunello Cucinelli suits for about the same price as SuitSupply if you are patient, know your size, and where to look. [IIRC SuitSupply suits run roughly $700-900?]

teach me your ways. I'm due for upgrading my business wardrobe. My suits are old (they lasted me through college and 2 jobs so far.. they were cheap when I bought them but haven't been able to justify upgrading yet due to not wearing them often). What's the best deal?

Depends range and patience. You can buy from resellers for roughly 75-80% off which means you can find them for 90% off if lucky or go enough. StyleForum is pretty good. Saks generally has Hickey Freeman's which are well made for $400, but they are cut like a box. You can also get stuff from reputable eBay people. I'm a 40S so like a ridiculously hard size to find on sale.

I wouldn't go nuts with suits yet though. IIRC, quite a few guys I know in BL aren't rocking suits every day.

If you're ever at outlets, look for the really high end labels. They tend to get so little of it they use generic skus and misprice it often. One of the best for this is Ralph Lauren Purple Label because they think it's the same price as polo. They do occasionally price it the wrong way too (up).

34iplaw wrote:

blackmamba8 wrote:It looks like I'm going to end up withdrawing from June and taking in September /:

Hey (woah)man,

You made the right choice if you aren't feeling ready for June. Don't sweat it!

proteinshake wrote:

blackmamba8 wrote:It looks like I'm going to end up withdrawing from June and taking in September /:

thousands of LSAT takers are going to wish they were as wise as you when they get their June scores

School/searching for jobs has been eating up more of my time than I expected so I haven't been able to study as much as I'd like. I figure I'll take the next few weeks off to finish the semester strong and then start back up after graduation.

I'm kinda bummed because I was hoping to finally be done with the LSAT here soon, but it's my last take so I want to make the most of it. At least I'll have plenty of time to study this summer.

My brain froze on a basic linear game just now... 12 hour work day but still, basic linear.

I'm to get fried chicken now.

Alexandros wrote:I will concede that backpacks are acceptable if you intend on taking out all of your classmates / everyone on the subway, or if transporting chargers (the TLSer).

Idk man it isn't too hard to take your bulky backpack off and put it between your feet on a crowded subway train... ya know like I had to do today during rush hour.

i hope I succeed in converting you to the Backpack Faction.

Holy shit - just did a couple of practice sections and I'm a mite concerned. I did the Logic Games from PT1 and it straight up took me an hour, and there was some straight fuckery on those questions that I couldn't figure out.

Cause for alarm? Or standard - "person just starting out timing". Of note, the J2007 PT's Logic Game took me 42ish min

abujabal wrote:Holy shit - just did a couple of practice sections and I'm a mite concerned. I did the Logic Games from PT1 and it straight up took me an hour, and there was some straight fuckery on those questions that I couldn't figure out.

Cause for alarm? Or standard - "person just starting out timing". Of note, the J2007 PT's Logic Game took me 42ish min

The Harvest/Limelight/Greed game is a pretty challenging game especially for someone just starting out on games. The first one is pretty easy/straightforward though.

34iplaw wrote:

abujabal wrote:Holy shit - just did a couple of practice sections and I'm a mite concerned. I did the Logic Games from PT1 and it straight up took me an hour, and there was some straight fuckery on those questions that I couldn't figure out.

Cause for alarm? Or standard - "person just starting out timing". Of note, the J2007 PT's Logic Game took me 42ish min

The Harvest/Limelight/Greed game is a pretty challenging game especially for someone just starting out on games. The first one is pretty easy/straightforward though.

I'd agree with this. The cruise ship one is also pretty easy, but the recycling centre one was the hardest of the bunch imo.

34iplaw wrote:

abujabal wrote:Holy shit - just did a couple of practice sections and I'm a mite concerned. I did the Logic Games from PT1 and it straight up took me an hour, and there was some straight fuckery on those questions that I couldn't figure out.

Cause for alarm? Or standard - "person just starting out timing". Of note, the J2007 PT's Logic Game took me 42ish min

The Harvest/Limelight/Greed game is a pretty challenging game especially for someone just starting out on games. The first one is pretty easy/straightforward though.

Yeah Harvest/Limelight/Greed threw me for a loop when I did it. The rest weren't horrible, though I screwed myself up on the recycling center by forgetting the last rule or some such thing.

For this, I did the games from PT1 (June 1991) and there was this weird one about the order in which partners joined a firm that was wonky as hell. Very annoying stuff - still not sure I understand it

abujabal wrote:Holy shit - just did a couple of practice sections and I'm a mite concerned. I did the Logic Games from PT1 and it straight up took me an hour, and there was some straight fuckery on those questions that I couldn't figure out.

Cause for alarm? Or standard - "person just starting out timing". Of note, the J2007 PT's Logic Game took me 42ish min

Yeah, that was me when I tried to do logic games for first (several) times. You'll get better at it.

I don't get how anyone could get something reasonable for LG on their diagnostic tbh. Then again, very few do.

Alexandros wrote:

abujabal wrote:Holy shit - just did a couple of practice sections and I'm a mite concerned. I did the Logic Games from PT1 and it straight up took me an hour, and there was some straight fuckery on those questions that I couldn't figure out.

Cause for alarm? Or standard - "person just starting out timing". Of note, the J2007 PT's Logic Game took me 42ish min

Yeah, that was me when I tried to do logic games for first (several) times. You'll get better at it.

Yeah reasonable - watching the 7Sage answer explanations and holy hell the diagramming is so elegant. One question though:

Seems like the method for that particular question (which it has filed as "misc") is:

- OK make your game board. Now that you've come to a potential split, make a new game board. Do this every time you come to a potential split.

Homie had 3 boards by the end of it, which is totally manageable (I'd assume?), but how likely is it that you get a question that has like 7-8 splits? Is that time making the 7-8 possibility boards worth it? How do you know that it is or isn't?

clueless801 wrote:

Alexandros wrote:I will concede that backpacks are acceptable if you intend on taking out all of your classmates / everyone on the subway, or if transporting chargers (the TLSer).

Idk man it isn't too hard to take your bulky backpack off and put it between your feet on a crowded subway train... ya know like I had to do today during rush hour.

i hope I succeed in converting you to the Backpack Faction.

It's more when standing/walking in crowds. People should do that but not enough do.

I get hit by backpacks a lot, in case you couldn't tell.

hahaha meanwhile I'm watching the 7Sage video explanation for the third game on that PT that I was absolutely thrown by and he opens with:

"this is the easiest game in this entire game set, it's probably one of the easiest games in LSAT history"

lotta work to do I suppose

abujabal wrote:

Alexandros wrote:

abujabal wrote:Holy shit - just did a couple of practice sections and I'm a mite concerned. I did the Logic Games from PT1 and it straight up took me an hour, and there was some straight fuckery on those questions that I couldn't figure out.

Cause for alarm? Or standard - "person just starting out timing". Of note, the J2007 PT's Logic Game took me 42ish min

Yeah, that was me when I tried to do logic games for first (several) times. You'll get better at it.

Yeah reasonable - watching the 7Sage answer explanations and holy hell the diagramming is so elegant. One question though:

Seems like the method for that particular question (which it has filed as "misc") is:

- OK make your game board. Now that you've come to a potential split, make a new game board. Do this every time you come to a potential split.

Homie had 3 boards by the end of it, which is totally manageable (I'd assume?), but how likely is it that you get a question that has like 7-8 splits? Is that time making the 7-8 possibility boards worth it? How do you know that it is or isn't?

Making 7-8 potential game boards is not worth it. I'd cap at 2 or 3 (and only if you need to) or it gets messy.

abujabal wrote:

Alexandros wrote:

abujabal wrote:Holy shit - just did a couple of practice sections and I'm a mite concerned. I did the Logic Games from PT1 and it straight up took me an hour, and there was some straight fuckery on those questions that I couldn't figure out.

Cause for alarm? Or standard - "person just starting out timing". Of note, the J2007 PT's Logic Game took me 42ish min

Yeah, that was me when I tried to do logic games for first (several) times. You'll get better at it.

Yeah reasonable - watching the 7Sage answer explanations and holy hell the diagramming is so elegant. One question though:

Seems like the method for that particular question (which it has filed as "misc") is:

- OK make your game board. Now that you've come to a potential split, make a new game board. Do this every time you come to a potential split.

Homie had 3 boards by the end of it, which is totally manageable (I'd assume?), but how likely is it that you get a question that has like 7-8 splits? Is that time making the 7-8 possibility boards worth it? How do you know that it is or isn't?

I'd imagine making multiple game boards is only beneficial if you have a rule that is very restricting. Like the first game on June 2007, because of the "place 2 is double the value of place 1", it was beneficial to split the game board because then there were only 2 possible worlds (1,2 and 2,4) to accommodate that rule. Very restricting.

oopsu812 wrote:

abujabal wrote:

Alexandros wrote:

abujabal wrote:Holy shit - just did a couple of practice sections and I'm a mite concerned. I did the Logic Games from PT1 and it straight up took me an hour, and there was some straight fuckery on those questions that I couldn't figure out.

Cause for alarm? Or standard - "person just starting out timing". Of note, the J2007 PT's Logic Game took me 42ish min

Yeah, that was me when I tried to do logic games for first (several) times. You'll get better at it.

Yeah reasonable - watching the 7Sage answer explanations and holy hell the diagramming is so elegant. One question though:

Seems like the method for that particular question (which it has filed as "misc") is:

- OK make your game board. Now that you've come to a potential split, make a new game board. Do this every time you come to a potential split.

Homie had 3 boards by the end of it, which is totally manageable (I'd assume?), but how likely is it that you get a question that has like 7-8 splits? Is that time making the 7-8 possibility boards worth it? How do you know that it is or isn't?

I'd imagine making multiple game boards is only beneficial if you have a rule that is very restricting. Like the first game on June 2007, because of the "place 2 is double the value of place 1", it was beneficial to split the game board because then there were only 2 possible worlds (1,2 and 2,4) to accommodate that rule. Very restricting.

Yeah that is the case imo. The times when it's best to split are when there are two possible and they're like: 4 spots on top, 3 in middle, and 2 on bottom, or 2 on top, 3 in middle, and 4 on bottom.

Alexandros wrote:

oopsu812 wrote:

abujabal wrote:

Alexandros wrote:

abujabal wrote:Holy shit - just did a couple of practice sections and I'm a mite concerned. I did the Logic Games from PT1 and it straight up took me an hour, and there was some straight fuckery on those questions that I couldn't figure out.

Cause for alarm? Or standard - "person just starting out timing". Of note, the J2007 PT's Logic Game took me 42ish min

Yeah, that was me when I tried to do logic games for first (several) times. You'll get better at it.

Yeah reasonable - watching the 7Sage answer explanations and holy hell the diagramming is so elegant. One question though:

Seems like the method for that particular question (which it has filed as "misc") is:

- OK make your game board. Now that you've come to a potential split, make a new game board. Do this every time you come to a potential split.

Homie had 3 boards by the end of it, which is totally manageable (I'd assume?), but how likely is it that you get a question that has like 7-8 splits? Is that time making the 7-8 possibility boards worth it? How do you know that it is or isn't?

I'd imagine making multiple game boards is only beneficial if you have a rule that is very restricting. Like the first game on June 2007, because of the "place 2 is double the value of place 1", it was beneficial to split the game board because then there were only 2 possible worlds (1,2 and 2,4) to accommodate that rule. Very restricting.

Yeah that is the case imo. The times when it's best to split are when there are two possible and they're like: 4 spots on top, 3 in middle, and 2 on bottom, or 2 on top, 3 in middle, and 4 on bottom.

hmm makes sense. Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by the bolded? Is this just a certain style of diagramming that I'll come across after starting to read more formal LSAT stuff?

abujabal wrote:

Alexandros wrote:

oopsu812 wrote:

abujabal wrote:

Alexandros wrote:

abujabal wrote:Holy shit - just did a couple of practice sections and I'm a mite concerned. I did the Logic Games from PT1 and it straight up took me an hour, and there was some straight fuckery on those questions that I couldn't figure out.

Cause for alarm? Or standard - "person just starting out timing". Of note, the J2007 PT's Logic Game took me 42ish min

Yeah, that was me when I tried to do logic games for first (several) times. You'll get better at it.

Yeah reasonable - watching the 7Sage answer explanations and holy hell the diagramming is so elegant. One question though:

Seems like the method for that particular question (which it has filed as "misc") is:

- OK make your game board. Now that you've come to a potential split, make a new game board. Do this every time you come to a potential split.

Homie had 3 boards by the end of it, which is totally manageable (I'd assume?), but how likely is it that you get a question that has like 7-8 splits? Is that time making the 7-8 possibility boards worth it? How do you know that it is or isn't?

I'd imagine making multiple game boards is only beneficial if you have a rule that is very restricting. Like the first game on June 2007, because of the "place 2 is double the value of place 1", it was beneficial to split the game board because then there were only 2 possible worlds (1,2 and 2,4) to accommodate that rule. Very restricting.

Yeah that is the case imo. The times when it's best to split are when there are two possible and they're like: 4 spots on top, 3 in middle, and 2 on bottom, or 2 on top, 3 in middle, and 4 on bottom.

hmm makes sense. Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by the bolded? Is this just a certain style of diagramming that I'll come across after starting to read more formal LSAT stuff?

Yeah, some games have rules that restrict in ways like that, and they're very difficult to solve if you don't split.

Alexandros wrote:

abujabal wrote:

Alexandros wrote:

oopsu812 wrote:

abujabal wrote:

Alexandros wrote:

abujabal wrote:Holy shit - just did a couple of practice sections and I'm a mite concerned. I did the Logic Games from PT1 and it straight up took me an hour, and there was some straight fuckery on those questions that I couldn't figure out.

Cause for alarm? Or standard - "person just starting out timing". Of note, the J2007 PT's Logic Game took me 42ish min

Yeah, that was me when I tried to do logic games for first (several) times. You'll get better at it.

Yeah reasonable - watching the 7Sage answer explanations and holy hell the diagramming is so elegant. One question though:

Seems like the method for that particular question (which it has filed as "misc") is:

- OK make your game board. Now that you've come to a potential split, make a new game board. Do this every time you come to a potential split.

Homie had 3 boards by the end of it, which is totally manageable (I'd assume?), but how likely is it that you get a question that has like 7-8 splits? Is that time making the 7-8 possibility boards worth it? How do you know that it is or isn't?

I'd imagine making multiple game boards is only beneficial if you have a rule that is very restricting. Like the first game on June 2007, because of the "place 2 is double the value of place 1", it was beneficial to split the game board because then there were only 2 possible worlds (1,2 and 2,4) to accommodate that rule. Very restricting.

Yeah that is the case imo. The times when it's best to split are when there are two possible and they're like: 4 spots on top, 3 in middle, and 2 on bottom, or 2 on top, 3 in middle, and 4 on bottom.

hmm makes sense. Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by the bolded? Is this just a certain style of diagramming that I'll come across after starting to read more formal LSAT stuff?

Yeah, some games have rules that restrict in ways like that, and they're very difficult to solve if you don't split.

I also think splitting is dependent on you as a person. If you're someone who can easily visualize things, then there's really no reason to split often, as it won't save you time. But if you're someone who really struggles with that, then it could be beneficial to do it more often, especially if you can't be accurate without doing it.

I think he's referring to grouping games with three different sized groups.

Ditto on splitting. I tend to write fairly little when I do LGs. Or at least relatively little. I also think trying to not split every possible little thing can help you sometimes better understand the logic behind games.

oopsu812 wrote: I also think splitting is dependent on you as a person. If you're someone who can easily visualize things, then there's really no reason to split often, as it won't save you time. But if you're someone who really struggles with that, then it could be beneficial to do it more often, especially if you can't be accurate without doing it.

Yeah, agree. I barely ever split, only really in scenarios like above. I felt like a lot of vids had you splitting if there was a rule that was like "either P or J is on Wednesday."

Alexandros wrote:

oopsu812 wrote: I also think splitting is dependent on you as a person. If you're someone who can easily visualize things, then there's really no reason to split often, as it won't save you time. But if you're someone who really struggles with that, then it could be beneficial to do it more often, especially if you can't be accurate without doing it.

Yeah, agree. I barely ever split, only really in scenarios like above. I felt like a lot of vids had you splitting if there was a rule that was like "either P or J is on Wednesday."

Makes sense. And the pace at which the 7Sage instructor was whipping through the questions merely by having all the options there was fantastic. Guess I'll just have to learn all the diagramming methods and then experiment. Fancy that - drilling is useful?

This whole page is almost completely LSAT talk.

Don't Quote (it's me, but I'm too lazy to run in a new browser to hide my identity.)

I'm not sure if it'll help, but I have drawings of how I solved all the games for PT 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 52 as well as the interesting bits I find. I try to call attention to when variables, questions, and answers are logically equivalent or similar. I feel that 7Sage misses this sometimes. I feel like building a deeper understanding makes games like PT80 Game 4 actually super easy... relying too much on a set way can get you stuck. For example, I'm pretty sure I solved #22 on PT 13 Game 4 in the most devilishly intelligent way ever (ALEX DOUBLECHECK PLZ?) that I don't think is on any of the other explanations.

Just navigate to 180pedia.com/every-lsat-practice-test or 180pedia.com/lsat-pt-## where the # equals the PT. In worst case, it'll easily link to the other explanation sources.

Oh - also, if you want to take a look at https://180pedia.com/logic-games-recurring-inferences/ I was planning to make more recurring inferences but I got side tracked. Do the two semi-finished ones seem useful?

Don't Quote

oopsu812 wrote:This whole page is almost completely LSAT talk.

Haha - I mean there is a solid possibility I'll be retaking in September. TBH, I may retake at some point even if I get a decision I'm happy with. I'm sort of pissed I fell short of my PT average.

OH - I'm taking the digital pilot in about a month. Totally forgot about that HAHA.