Hi Guys,

I achieved a diagnostic score in March of a 130 and in April as well, but my score was still pretty low. I am planning to take the test in October and started studying about May 13th. I really would like to hit the 99th percentile, if possible, but not sure if anyone else has achieved more than 40+ increase. I am studying about 20 hours week and seriously studying, but just concerned. I know anything is possible, but just a little worried that I scored a little lower. Not sure if this is normal. I want to get full-ride scholarships.

Thanks so much! Stay Blessed!

For this NA question I choose B, could someone explain to my why C is correct?

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

Hi what is a good approach for these questions? I been studying for 6 hours and Im still not grasping it? :(

Hi guys, I was wondering if it’s normal for LR scores to fluctuate between -13 to -6. Both are my worst and best score on my recent LR. (I have been studying for some time; I’ve finished CC and been practicing tons of drills.) Let me know if any of you relate and if you have any solution for this!

I was going to take the LSAT in June, but I decided to switch my test date to August, since I got out of habit of studying. Im applying for Fall 2024!

Premise 1: Clark brand name parts are made for cars manufactured in this country.

Premise 2: they satisfy all the government's automotive tests.

Premise 3: for foreign made parts, you never know which one might be cheap look-alike and reliable.

Conclusion: you should prefer Clark brand name parts to foreign made parts.

The question is asking for the necessary assumption of the stimulus. I picked the right answer. But, upon second look, I think even the right answer, strictly speaking, seems to be wrong....

Answer C, the supposedly right answer, states that "parts that satisfy our government standards are not as poorly constructed as the cheap foreign-made parts".

It doesn't seem to me the negation of this answer choice necessarily undermines the original argument. For I read the premise 3 of the stimulus as only implying that, in contrast to foreign made parts, you COULD KNOW which one might be cheap look-alike and reliable in the case of Clark brand name parts, which means Clark brand name parts could contain cheap and unreliable parts just as foreign made ones do. The only difference is you can tell the difference in the case of former, but not the latter. For answer C to be the necessary assumption of the original argument, however, we need to read that premise 3 as implying that Clark brand name parts are INDEED NOT cheap look-alike and reliable, which seems to me a bit too strong an inference to be made.

Furthermore, nothing in the stimulus implies that cheap and unreliable foreign-made parts cannot satisfy the government automotive standards.

Can someone help point out if I miss anything? Am I reading too much into the stimulus?

I didn't get this question but I would love to see anyone's thought process and how you arrive at the conclusion.

I am unable to access the video explanation for PrepTest February 1997 - Section 3 - Question 16

I wanted to ask if anyone had access to the revisited crystal ball for the June 2023 LSAT? I would really appreciate that resource. Thank you.

Do you guys go in order when answering RC questions? Would be appreciative if someone could give me examples of their strategy. At a bit of a RC slump.

Could someone explain their thought process in getting the correct answer? I debated between A and B and eventually settled for B because I thought the very last line is the Conclusion. #help

Hi! Could someone please explain why E is the correct answer? I would love to see everyone's understanding/explanation! Here is what I thought, which turns out to be incorrect but I still don't get why E is right.

PaI - Disagree over Interpret which news is newsworthy

S: Reporters pick which events they want to report (newsworthy) and for how long is the reporting, so they always interpret the news (preliminary)

Ramon: Reporters -> /Interpret the news. Once they decide a news is newsworthy, they better give me the full info.

So Sarah says the act of considering which news is newsworthy is already the beginning of interpretation, Ramon says the interpretation begins after a news is decided to be newsworthy.

A. Every time they report it? They might or might not, this is digging too deep

B. Sarah disagrees, Ramon agrees “once they deem a story to be newsworthy”

C. Irrelevant

D. Ramon no comment, he only cares about newsworthy

E. Ramon no opinion

My thought process in getting the correct answer:

High blood cholesterol -> increased risk of stroke by blood clots

Low blood cholesterol -> increased risk of OTHER stroke by cerebral hermorrhage (how? Low bc weakens artery walls, making them easy to rupture).

W diets better protect against cerebral hermorrahe (low bc) than non-Western

Assumption: W diets decreases low blood cholesterol (aka increases blood cholesterol, making the artery walls not weakened, less likely to rupture).

NC

A) Healthier is vague, we dont need this to be true

B) Anticipated answer

C) High blood cholesterol level PREVENT weakening of artery walls.

Negation: if high blood cholesterol doesn’t prevent weakening of artery walls (cause of cerebral herm), then high blood cholesterol increases (or has nothing to do with) cerebral hermorrage. This just wrecks everything the stem says, but it doesn’t tie to the diets argument part.

D) Who cares which one is more deadly

E) low blood pressure is irrelevant, were talking about blood cholesterol

Can anyone explain why B is the correct answer?

I crossed it out because on the surface, it seemed irrelevant to people's moral beliefs. B elaborates on the moral content of broadsides in detail, but how can this be an alternative explanation for people's subscription to broadsides? Instead of B, I chose E, which says well educated people who read broadsides hated broadside peddlers. I thought E showed that people don't necessarily read broadsides guided by their moral beliefs.

However, now I see why E is wrong. The "well-educated people" in E doesn't represent the "most people" in the conclusion. Also, those well educated people hate the "peddlers" who distribute the broadsides, not the broadside itself.

I picked E because I thought it eliminated an alternative explanation by showing that the population drop was not because the beetles were eaten by their predator. I immediately crossed over A thinking it was totally out of scope. My thought process was: the stimulus talks about the number of beetles "spotted" in 1985 and 1989, so why would their camouflage matter anyway? Is E wrong because it can't explain the "difference" in the number of beetles in those two years? Can anyone explain how A connects to the stimulus?

PTB S1 Q16

Hey! I remember reading somewhere or learning from an explanation video that in disagree questions each author must explicitly state the answer choice in order for it to be correct. Therefore, an answer choice wouldn't be correct if only one author discusses it.

Here is the question I am stuck on: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-3-question-19/

The correct answer is B. I eliminated all of the answer choices discussing emigration because Raphaela doesn't discuss emigration. Could someone provide more insight into their method for disagree questions?

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question" Also, please do not post the entire question and answer choices for the LSAC question, this is against the Forum Rules

I think I've started to notice a pattern in my wrong answer choices. The answer that I get wrong on LR is often the one most people choose when they get that answer wrong. So am I just falling for the top trap answer, or something more deeply concerning? Often the correct answer choice is a better articulation of the wrong answer that I find myself thinking "that's what I thought WrongAnswerChoice was saying," it just turns out that I fall into the trap.

How can I overcome this?

Reading the stimulus, I thought there was the following logical gap in Anita's claim:

having a quandary about newsworthiness(the premise) and the guidance being inadequate(the conclusion).

So I picked (D) since I thought it meant the contrapositive of my pre-phrase. However, is (D) wrong because of "ethical dilemmas" since the stimulus refers to quandary specifically related to newsworthiness?

Also, is (E) wrong because of making a "professional decision"?

Then, why is (A) the correct answer?

I hate to start a new thread for PT June 2007, but related threads seemed so old I wasn't sure if anyone followed those. I've been here since February, decided to get a feel for the curriculum first and took the 2007 PT today. Syllabus wise I am only through the Causation and Phenomenon-Hypothesis section. On the PT, I ran out of time in the LG section and did not even complete 8 of the questions. Therefore, I did not see a reason to BR the LG section as I do not even know how to attack these questions yet. After I work through LG eventually on the syllabus, can I go back and BR this section of the exam? Or once I "complete BR" there is no going back and would I just have to retake the exam?

When should I take my next practice test after this one listed in the syllabus? Should we not move on to other practice tests until we've been through the syllabus first? After seeing my performance on this baseline, I want to maximize my efforts on any future tests. I am determined that there really is no place but up from here.

Just a friendly reminder to read every single word throughout the stimulus and the answer choices. I blind reviewed this question for FAR too long and ended up not really seeing a clear difference between any of the answer choices. When something is not adding up and you feel like you are just throwing a dart between two answer choices - you are doing something wrong. As obvious as it sounds, misreading something or glossing over, just as I did, will be detrimental to the whole question.

What I did was gloss over the word "urban" several times while reviewing and my brain just translated it to "rural" for some reason. This one word completely changed the entire questions for me.

But anyways, READ EVERY WORD.

can someone help me understand this; i legit couldnt even get through the stimulus

Hello, I've created a discord for all students taking the August or September 2023 LSAT.

Here's the link: https://discord.gg/XhaYVT7z

PM / inbox me if the invite has become invalid.

Thank you!

No matter how many drills I do and how much I study reading I always get the same amount incorrect on all my practice tests which is about -11 and -12. My LR and LG are much less than this and I don't know how to get more right on reading. When I read the passages, I don't feel extremely rushed or even confused but when I go to review my test I just seem to get many questions wrong. Any suggestions??

On my diagnostic LSAT, I scored a 148 score -- but I completely skipped every logic games question due to how foreign and confusing it was to me. If I master logic games without improving on any of the other sections, how much of a score increase can I expect? Thank you much!!