Hi, thank you for this explanation. That makes sense, maybe I'll sign up for the November test date. Thanks.

Hi, can you add me to the email thread? I would love to join!

Amazing, just left my question for Dean Kirschner!

I got a lower score than I’ve ever received on a diagnostic or PT and just super bummed and not sure how to feel. I’ve been working full time, 40 hrs a week, and studying for 8 months. For my mental health I just can’t take it again, but I’m worried about paying for law school with my highest score on file. I was hoping for full scholarships at at least T50 schools, any advice for a 165 score with scholarships and acceptances? I know this is higher than average and I’m grateful but still not at all close to what I was aiming for.

Thanks and hope everyone else did great.

I used to read the question stem but then I ended up re reading it again later so it was a waste of time. It also distracted me from understanding what the argument was by just looking for the answer to the question stem. But then I wasn’t able to understand it without fully reading the stimulus.

So in my opinion, read the stimulus first and fully understand what is being said, and identify any loopholes or immediate flaws or assumptions. Then read the question stem.

But up to you and what you think works best for you. Each person is different and what may work for one person might not be the best for another!

For RC, try this method: reading an untimed passage without highlighting and then spend as much time as needed writing down short sentences/ideas of each paragraph from MEMORY.

Then, using these short sentences/ideas only try to answer the questions without referring back to the passage. This may be a bit annoying at first but it will train you to retain more information and really focus on what the questions are about usually.

For RC, you typically want to know the main idea or purpose of the passage, the authors tone and opinions, and any other opinions from 3rd parties. This is general for most passages, but look into the specific passage types and they will give you more insight.

Make sure you review RC implied and strongly supported questions. Also, keep in mind that every answer choice should be somewhat supported or reasonably inferred by the passage. Meaning you want to really pay attention to direct support, specific wording, strong and weak language, and descriptive accuracy in ACs.

Conclusion: It's not true that folktales lack deeper meaning.

Reasoning: Folktales provide great insight into the wisdom of a culture.

How can we prove that folktales have deeper meaning with this reasoning? Sufficient Assumption questions are open-ended, meaning you can either find a creative answer that makes the conclusion 100% true, or find an easy answer that makes the answer 100% true. You should read all the answer choices, but know that upon reading B, it is a clear missing link between support and conclusion that makes the conclusion SOLID!

B solidifies the missing link by saying folktale that has great insight into the wisdom of a culture has deep meaning.

Example for B

My company hires 11 employees. 2 have extensive sales experience. 9 have engineering degrees.

5 of these employees are the best sales reps. This includes 2/2 of the employees with extensive sales experience and 3/9 of the employees with engineering degrees.

100% of the employees with extensive sales experience are top performers, while only 33% of the employees with engineering degrees are top performers.

Why should we hire more people with engineering degrees? Let's instead hire more folks with extensive sales degrees since 100% of these folks at my company are top performers!

how is this assumption in the analysis correct: He also assumes that watching the film is the primary or sole cause of the children's behavior, ignoring other potential factors that could contribute to their behavior.

when the stimulus states: watching violent films is at least partly responsible for this aggressive behavior.

This doesn't necessarily mean sole or primary, it could mean it's 5% responsible, right?

@alliah777799 The intended effect is a decrease in the mosquito population. The opposite of decreasing is increasing. We cannot assume anything else. Think of scale. Opposite of one end.

negative--------nothing--------positive

@Ossyborn Generally follow this structure:

Structure: /[the way things are]-> unless statement ( the "exception")

I am always breathing unless there is no air.

Application: /[Always breathing]-> no air

If I am not breathing, then there is no air.

#feedback I think the analyses of the stimuli in this PT is great, but the explanations of some ACs seem a bit convoluted. It's a bit hard to read as a logical explanation and I feel like I have translate it in my head. Not saying it's entirely unhelpful, but it could be slightly cutdown? Although I do understand there are different instructor styles. It feels a bit similar to LSATDemon in that it's fun but I switched to 7Sage because of how straightforward and concise the explanations were.

Never choose an answer that was not supported in some way with the passage.

AC B can be eliminated because the author does not mention that the theory can always predict, rather than the theory cannot always predict the behavior of complicated systems. A lack of one thing does not imply the existence of another thing. Another flaw is the implicit equivocation of two concepts in AC B, complicated and chaotic. These are two separate things.

AC D is also a much stronger choice because it is closer to the purpose of why the author claims the theory is misleading. Look around the sentence in P1. The author immediately after states "such a theory would still be limited to interpreting fundamental interactions and explaining why subatomic particles have the mass, charge, and other characteristics that they do"

Agree that this questions was sooooo buns. Good luck to everyone on the June LSAT #slay

Picked AC B on this one. I see why D is correct, but wondering how to better eliminate AC B.

The author states that the theory of everything cannot "explain "everything" only in the sense that everything is made of particles. It could not predict the behavior of complicated systems like thunderstorms or human beings." I chose this because it also aligns to the theory that the scientists are pursuing, although they do not know that the theory will be unable to predict everything.

My best guess for eliminating this would be that the theory "assumes"- this implies that the scientists know that the theory is not consistently predictable, which is not true. The scientists in the passage do not acknowledge this, the author does.

Ok lol, just figured it out. Ugh

@goblue27 You actually don't need to make a big assumption for AC C. In P3, the author states "Between the extremes of simple predictability and chaos there can arise behavior that is partly linear and partly chaotic" and then introduces cells as an example of a system behaving this way.

From this, we can say that a cell's behavior is partly linear (partly linear and partly chaotic)

Aggressive elimination!

AC A, C, and D don't work because the author does not make any claims about excellence being required for something or that something else is required to achieve excellence. The author mentions excellence only as an uncontroversial concept by the sports public for performance but does not claim anything else.

AC B also claims an unnecessary requirement for judgment and the author does not mention beauty as a requirement for anything.

The only semi-good answer is AC E by process of elimination. If you're being tripped up by the word "serious"- SAME! But in the end, it's the best AC. Also note that this is a principle, not an explicit draw from the passage. The principle definitely underlies Passage A, as one of the claims made is that the sports public has the discriminating judgement for the sport. Why? Well, most of the people participated in the sport and acquired that capacity for judgment. The word "serious" in this case is definitely meant to trick you. Typically, something like this may eliminate the answer, but since there are no other ACs that are anywhere close to true, this is the best guess.

The LSAT is sometimes making that gut decision that nothing else is relatively close, so this is the best choice. It also depends on what the question type is and what can be most reasonably defended.

@ChadC this was helpful thanks! Shows how much a word or phrase strengthens an AC, which is really important for these types of questions

This was such a ridiculous answer choice that it made me laugh out loud on blind review. I crossed it out fast on the timed portion because of the introduction of the new concept, but it makes sense since some deaf people (folks who were born deaf compared to later becoming deaf) typically do not use speech to accompany their communication

It's the best answer out of the ACs.

@doodeedoo inference questions are not as strong as NA questions. AC A is the bare minimum needed to support this question. AC B is too strong because of the words "generally" and "many"

@Zanderantochow - this definition of intermediate conclusions helped me: "It will have a "why" below it (evidence proving it) and lead to a "so what?" above it (the main conclusion it helps prove)."

The statement is not being supported by any other statement.

Try this: The purpose of a law is to deter certain actions by threatening to punish those performing the actions.

Ok, why?

Because This threat works only if potential violators believe that they are likely to be punished.

This doesn't make sense. The second statement does not support the first in explaining why the purpose of the law is to deter certain actions. It only elaborates on the statement in order to support the conclusion.

Imagine the statements as a group. They all add additional support for the conclusion but they do not rely on each other to exist. They are all reasons to believe the conclusion, not each other.

A- author provides examples of effective programming in P4 that would support the success of native language preservations.

B and E- author does not provide examples or implications of what is REQUIRED for the success or failure of the preservation of language. these answers were too strong.

C- no mention anywhere that this was a "main roadblock"

D- no mention of economy or tech in the passage.

Tip: aggressively eliminate answers. even one or two words can make the answer wrong! if it seems a bit off, it's likely wrong, but always check all the answers before moving on to the next question.