Has this worked for you? I'm considering it but it's a lot of paper to print.

I originally picked C but think I get why C is right - can someone validate my thinking?

Stim:

-Context basically (even though it came from treasure hunter): maritime law says that when people risk their lives to save a ship in peril, they can keep whatever they want.

-Treasure hunter: For ships that have basically been wrecked for a long time, treasure hunters get to keep cargo since they risk their lives to save the ships from oblivion

-Archaeologist: No, you don't get to keep cargo since these shipwrecks are stable. They're not in danger from anything (aka not in peril) - the only annoying thing they have to deal with are greedy treasure hunters.

ACs:

C - Originally I thought that the archaeologist was arguing that the hunters weren't actually being heroic or risking their lives (the "shipwrecks have stabilized over the centuries they have lain underwater" somehow made me think that she was arguing that the waters around the ship were still aka hunters were not risking their lives.) But I guess my confusion was it seemed that she was arguing that the ship wasn't in peril and therefore the hunters weren't even risking their lives?

The main "devils advocate" to that statement would be that maybe the hunters ARE risking their lives but the they're not saving the ship from oblivion.

D - Archaeologist seems to agree with this statement that the maritime law can apply here. She's just saying that the ship is literally not in disarray at all and have nothing to save.

B - Speaks to the fact that "the only danger [the ships] are in" is from "greedy treasure hunters."

#help

I'm currently registered for both the April and June 2022 LSAT. If I correctly understand the structure description from LSAC, the LSAT is now 3 scored sections (1 of each type) and 1 unscored experimental section. Does that mean that the test is essentially still a Flex format with the addition of an unscored section, i.e. there is not 2 scored LR sections as the PTs have? If so, should I be choosing to simulate Flex when I am PTing?

I'm taking a logic class and my professor is making us do LSAT problems for homework (and theres no explanations). How would i properly map out this game?

Your philosophy course covers seven philosophers: Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Locke, Nietzsche, and Plato. Each philosopher is assigned for exactly one week. The order of the readings must meet the following conditions. Rule 1: Hume is assigned before Aristotle but after Kant Rule 2: Descartes is assigned before Plato but after Nietzsche Rule 3: If Locke is assigned before Hume, Descartes is assigned before Locke. Rule 4: If Descartes is assigned before Locke, Descartes is assigned before Hume.

Should I take the LSAT just to take it. So I have a score. Even though I am not ready? Or postpone to March.

So unbelievably happy! I started my journey in April 2021 with a 141 diagnostic, it was so discouraging to have people tell me there's no way I can get my goal score of 165+ because the jump is too large. WELL, I can finally say I proved them wrong but I always believed in myself--I think it's easy to compare yourself with others while studying for this exam but mindset is everything. Push yourself, study hard but also take time for self care. I struggle with GAD and ADHD and it has been no easy task but with the proper schedule to balance your time efficiently and positive affirmations, you can reach your goal!

Huge shoutout to 7Sage as well, I was at a plateau at 160 since September until I decided to start using the problem sets and video explanations to focus on my weaknesses!

If anyone has any questions, my messages are open :)

I'm having trouble justifying why only C is correct in this MC question.

My understanding is that Anita's conclusion is that the journalistic guidance Marcus cites is inadequate. So wouldn't both A and B also be satisfactory answers here? Both say that the guidance Marcus cites is bad, either by saying the guidance is not clear in all ethical dilemmas (A) or that the guidance is not correct in all ethical dilemmas (B). Both clear and correct are used in the guidance cited by Marcus.

Is my mistake misunderstanding how the word inadequate is used here? So, Anita saying the guidance is inadequate does not mean Anita thinks it is not correct in all dilemmas or not clear in all dilemmas? But to me, both situationally incorrect and situationally unclear mean the guidance is inadequate!

Sorry if this confusing. I'm confused. To be clear, I understand why C is correct.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

Hello all,

So today was score release day and I'm devastated. I was really hoping to make it before this application cycle was over, but my score today was in the minimum score range of all of my perspective schools. I don't know what to do- every single PT exam I take I score within the 160-170 range, and then every time I take the real exam I score in the 150s. I am so utterly frustrated! I don't know how to close this gap, and extreme test anxiety doesn't help. I think I am going to have to go at this for another year and try again next app cycle. Does anyone have any advice for how to help my actual score reflect PT scores?

Having a bit of trouble understanding why A is correct (I originally chose C). Could someone clarify? Thank you!

Stim:

Ctx: Foundation didn't want their $ to be used for weapons research so uni said none of their $ would be used for the research

P: None of foundation's $ would benefit weapons research

C: Foundation rescinded threat

ACs:

C - I didn't love this AC, but chose it because none of the others initially seemed correct to me. Descriptively, it is accurate in that the foundation overlooked this possibility that the uni was lying, but I mean it's a short argument, I'm sure they could've overlooked several things.

I wonder if this C almost attacks the premise in a way - Like, okay sure what if the uni was lying? Then the foundation's grant money would DIRECTLY benefit weapons research. Is this the right way of thinking about it?

A - I googled around and saw some explanations for why A was correct, but my struggle is that the crux of why this AC is correct is that it hinges on the nuance of direct vs indirect benefit. I didn't even think about indirect benefit until reading explanations for this AC, but wondering if that's a common theme of "direct" vs "indirect" when it comes to certain flaw questions?

#help

I'm discouraged because of my January score. I was extremely sick at the time (with Covid) and my score is much lower than I was making on my practice tests. I'm already signed up to retake for the February exam, which is in 10 days, because I want to apply to law school before the March 15th priority deadline. But now I'm doubting myself and rethinking everything and thinking maybe I should wait and retest in the Fall and apply for the next cycle. I just really wanted to go to law school this Fall...

By type I mean MBT, Sufficient Assumption, etc. Just curious if you guys first identify it, then solve the question in a way that is unique to each type of question (diagramming, finding the assumption, etc.). If so I think I will memorize most of the question stems before attempting another full LR section haha

By problem sets I mean the LR ones with 5 questions each, usually in the middle range (in the numbered list of problem sets). I feel like my brain is burning out too quickly considering that I would have to solve 50 LR questions on the real LSAT.

Also, how many "3+ difficulty" questions are there usually in a single LR section (approx. 25 questions total)? I'm getting -1 or -0 on problem sets with questions below or equal to "3 difficulty" but getting more than 1 wrong in sets with questions with "3+ difficulty" and am scared :/

Any help would be very appreciated, thanks guys.

Hi everyone,

I am signed up for the March 2022 exam and would love any advice on my situation:

My goal score is a 170, and I have taken 6 full PTs (five in the 70s and one in the 80s) scoring in the 162-165 range with my blind review scores in the 172-177 range. My typical-timed breakdown is:

-1 to 0 LG

-4 to -3 in LR

-10 to -8 in RC

Given that we’re a little under 6 weeks away, would improving to my goal score before the March test be doable?

If so, what else could I be working on given the time span? My focus is surely on RC along with 1-2 full PTs/week with thorough review (and rewatching recorded takes). Thank you in advance! 🙏

Hello. If I have a firm grasp on LR before starting my subscription, what do I do once I purchase? Do I just create problem sets of 30?

Am having trouble with this question - could someone let me know if I'm thinking about the stimulus (and ACs) correctly?

Stim:

P1: When old trees die, the decomposition releases their stored CO2

P2: Harvesting old trees makes more room for young trees (who can absorb more CO2 than old trees)

C: Harvesting old trees for manufacturing things would reduce CO2 (and therefore we'd avoid the whole decomposing issue?)

My thoughts: Okay, that seems like it makes relative sense. There's an assumption there that the CO2 release by decomposed old trees would be offset by the young trees that can absorb more CO2.

ACs:

A - Animal species? Irrelevant.

B - At first I immediately eliminated this AC because it just didn't seem to make any sense. After more reading, it seems like okay, if the harvested old trees were manufactured into products that would decompose super quickly, we could still run into the CO2 decomposition issue.

C - This was the AC I originally picked, thinking that since a young tree contains 10 CO2 vs an old tree that contains 40 CO2, then clearly the young tree can't offset the decomposition of an old tree. But I think this AC is actually irrelevant because of course a young tree at a snapshot would contain less CO2 than an old tree would - but this seems to attack P2?

D - Irrelevant, dont need to know where most of the CO2 in a forest comes from.

E - I feel like this AC is trying to get us to attack P2 in a similar way C is, but we'd have to also assume that size of trees has some sort of correlation with CO2 absorption.

#help

So I just started training for the LSAT and I am only focusing on the Logic Games for the next couple weeks. Is it smart to take a single problem set in under 9 minutes, then review what I got wrong through the explanation videos? Or should I really challenge myself by taking more than game per set?

Originally got this question wrong (picked E), but I think I understand why C is right - could someone confirm my thinking?

Stim:

P: Infant death rates have declined historically

C: But that doesn't necessarily mean the babies currently born are actually healthier now.

Hm, why is that? Is it that they are more likely to live but are still really weak when they're born?

ACs:

A - We're not focused on the rates for infant mortality. The stim already addresses some localities where the rates have increased.

B - This explains why 51%+ of the infants who are already part of that mortality rate died, but doesn't explain why the infants who survived aren't necessarily healthier.

C - Originally I eliminated this AC because I misunderstood the stimulus when it came to "infant mortality" and what actually meant to be part of that rate. But if the US is developing awesome tech that is able to keep babies alive, then that explains why babies are dying are lower rates - we're able to save them better, but nothing's really changed in their unhealthy state during birth.

D - Again, not focused on infant mortality rates

E - Originally picked this one because C just didn't click for me, so I tried to justify that E introduced some sort of alternative cause as to why they're not as healthy. But this has one huge issue: The stim is talking about babies at BIRTH and this AC is talking about babies who grow into toddlers, young kids, etc.

#help

For me, both are to support the argument.

But, it’s to hard to distinguish how to approach to each.

Is there anyone who can explain how to approach to each Q?

Thanks!

Hello, I wonder if anyone could help me to locate a LR question, which I guess I came across while I was doing core curriculum or PTs in 50s.

The question is about a principle labeling a carrot as "nonfat":

If we are to label an actually nonfat food like a carrot as "nonfat", it should be mistakenly believed to be a fatty food.

Also, if people mistakenly believe a nonfat food as a fat food and if that nonfat food is labeled as nonfat food, it may be labeled as "nonfat".

I wish I could give you more information about the question.. or is there any way to filter out prep questions using a keyword?

#help

Are there breakdowns for the prep test questions? If yes could someone tell me how to access them.

Can someone please explain why A is correct? Here was my initial breakdown/reasoning for why I thought E was the right point of issue:

Stim: There were some footprints found.

Dr. T: These are obviously hominid footprints because they have some human characteristics.

Dr. R: No Dr. T, these are not obviously hominid footprints because if you're right, then these hominids would've walked in a really weird way that's unlikely

ACs:

A: Originally got rid of A because it seemed like they both acknowledged the significance of the evidence, just that they interpreted the "squarish heel and a big toe etc" evidence differently in terms of what it meant

B: Neither of them really touch on this - seems like they both agree this set of footprints is at least somewhat distinguishable

C: Gait? Isn't mentioned by either

D: Dr. R isn't saying that this isn't enough evidence to support T's conclusion, she's saying that the evidence doesn't support the conclusion

E: R mentions how weird it would be if the hominids walked "in an unexpected cross-stepping manner, by placing the left foot to the right of the right foot," which I assumed was just walking upright. Hence why I chose E

#help

I've been studying for well over a year and reading comp is the section I'm just not getting any better at, in fact I've gotten worse. After nearly acing my LG and LR (-2 combined),RC has single-handedly out of the 170s. I score anywhere from -5 to -8. At this point, I'm just not sure law school is for me if I can't simply read and do well answering questions. I've tried many different methods but no one strategy yields significantly more positive results than another. I'm really unsure of what to do but for the first time in my studying I'm close to calling it quits (for financial reasons I'm not willing to go into a certain amount of debt which requires a good LSAT for the target schools I'm looking at).

Any advice?

Can someone validate my reasoning for why A is right and E is wrong (I had originally picked E):

Stim:

The new device can just cancel out the noise that the vacuum makes, so because of this, this new device can operate more efficiently/use less electricity than the old-school silencers. Why?

A:

Historically, there's been a tradeoff between silencing noise and efficiency, so for the old-school silencers, having to design that requires using comparatively more energy.

E:

This only refers to silencers in general and how they make cleaners less efficient, so we don't actually know what the difference is between these new silencer devices vs the old-school silencers.

#help

Hi! I'm having trouble distinguishing why option B was incorrect when option E was correct in problem PT7 S4 Q02. Would someone be able to explain it for me?

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

After studying for almost 2 years I have come to the conclusion that it is nearly impossible to improve on RC and to do all 4 passages under timed conditions. What are some ways that helped you get to all 4 passages under timed conditions as well as get under double digits with regards to wrong answers? I usually get 10-12 wrong on RC sections and I want to at least get to -9.

Thanks.