Quality of 7Sage contributors is always top notch - thanks.

interesting thread this. I've been working for 10 years, and while my resume isn't padded, it is abridged. For instance - say I was a Senior Manager at Company X for 7 months, and then suddenly the role changed to 'Senior Product Manager' after 7 that months due to some reorganization, and I was then employed under the role title for 3 years: then I just say that I was a 'Senior Product Manager' for 3 years 7 months. This is more in the service of making a resume readable. So in my submissions to law schools, my CV is always the abridged version where I make the minutiae of corporate role changes less relevant. In advertising you may get 5 promotions in 3 years... but the only reason you are being promoted is so that HR can justify a pay increase. Your actual job doesn't change. It would be devastating to be turned down by the ABA if they perceived this to be a 'lie' whereas its rather just a macro view of a career path meant to make your trajectory visible to future employers. Does the ABA review the resume you submit to LSAC before 1L - or is there a special, super-non-abridged and nitpicky resume that one can submit after passing the bar?

@ - you mention not trying new strategies on new PT's - has it been helpful to your RC to re-do old reading comp sections? how long do you wait until you re-do them?

Context correlation between amount of soot in atmosphere in cities and frequency of ailments in those cities' populations

Premise in cities with lots of soot in the air there are also high concentrations of many other air pollutants

Conclusion the soot itself does not cause the ailments

Predict this argument is saying that even though there is correlation between soot and ailments, there isn't causation, and that the ailments are much more likely to be related to other pollutants rather than the soot. I need to try find an answer choice that establishes the link between soot and ailments - or that shows that the other pollutants can't actually cause ailments...

What am I looking for? I need to introduce a premise that weakens the premise/conclusion bond

A this would strengthen and not weaken

B a conditional statement... not going for it

C this is what I'm looking for

D a conditional statement - strike it

E another strengthen choice when what I want is a weaken

Choice only C does the job

Context native salmon had nearly dissapeared, so sockeye salmon were introduced in 1940

Premise after introduction - the genetically uniform sockeyes split into two groups - one inhabiting the deep area of the lake, and another inhabiting shallow (don't interbreed)

Conclusion the populations now differ genetically - researchers hypothesize that the genetic adaptation is related to the environment

Predict we need to block other reasons for mutations not related to adapting to the environment. perhaps these aren't adaptations but mutations related on two types of pollutant in different areas

What am I looking for? we need to block other conclusions

A silly - I didn't think of this in my prediction, but this seems obvious as a correct choice

B this doesn't do anything

C strike it

D strike it - I'm trying to shows that sockeyes in the deep and sockeyes in the shallow have adapted genetically to their respective environments. this answer choice just doesn't do that...

E originally we were told that sockeyes were introduced because of dwindling native populations. Now this tells us that perhaps the sockeye population is dwindling... strike it

Choice A is the strongest

Context carved object depicting human head with an open mouth was found in stone age tomb.

Premise some archaeologist believe that this head was a weapon - the head of a warrior's mace - but it's too small for that purpose

Conclusion because of its size and because an open mouth symbolizes speaking - this object was probably a speaking staff - which was passed around small assemblies to indicate the right to speak

Predict I need to raise questions about why mace's can't have a small head, or show that this was quite plausibly a weapon

What am I looking for? I need to introduce a premise that weakens the premise/conclusion bond

A this would strengthen

B I didn't see this coming and dismissed it until I got to the end and didn't see another suitable answer and had to come back. But it says 'passed from one generation to the next' - if this is true the item would not have been in a tomb, and therefore is not a communal object

C this does not seem relevant

D eliminate

E one of those brain melting answers that you shouldn't try think about

Choice B seems best

Context Democracy cannot thrive (/DT) without effective news media (/NM)

Premise democracy cannot thrive (/DT) without an electorate knowledgeable (/EK) (with a knowledgable electorate, democracy can thrive); only way to have EK is with unbiased government information (UGI)

Conclusion NM - DT (with effective news media democracy can thrive, if democracy can't thrive there's no effective media)

Predict we need to link UGI and EK to NM

What am I looking for? Sufficient Assumption (if assumed the conclusion can properly be drawn)

A no - this focusses on the conclusion

B no

C no

D no

E UGI - EK

Choice E

Context emerald dragonflies endangered live only in wetlands

Premise emerald dragonfly larvae live only in water where they are preyed on by crayfish

Conclusion populations are more healthy in areas where there are crayfish compared to where there aren't crayfish

Predict if the larvae aren't eaten - too many emerald dragonflies are born, and they give each other diseases... or make each other sick by competing for resources or something

What am I looking for? something that explains that even though the crayfish eat their babies, they are more healthy when crayfish are around

A great - not what I predicted at all - but the behaviour of these crayfish actually is favorable to and expands the type of environment that the larvae need to survive.

B we need to know about the larvae - not the adult dragonflies

C we want to know that they do eat animals that prey on larvae, not that they don't

D beside the point - eliminate

E eliminate

Choice only A works

Premise if the consultant who advises on salaries has business interests in the company the executive manages

Conclusion the executive who works at that company is likely to be overcompensated

Predict looking to link the concepts of consultant who has business interests advises on salaries and executive will be overcompensated - perhaps I'm looking for a statement that indicates that it is in the interest of the consultant that the executive is overcompensated...

What am I looking for? we need to supply a premise that 'most' guarantess the conclusion

A this statement seems completely off base compared to what I'm looking for

B there is no mention of the consultant's business interests here

C this is talking about the consultant not being overpaid - eliminate it

D this most conforms - although its not what I was expecting. It seems to just restate the stimulus in another way... will keep it

E once again - this is about not overpaying, which I don't know anything about, seeing as the pay is a sufficient condition. If we negate it, we have no more ground to stand on

Choice not too sure - but only D stood out for me. Will choose D

this question completely ripped open my circuit panel and exposed the rickety wiring beneath

Context Shayna congratulates Daniel = misrepresents her feelings (Shayna clearly doesn't feel good about Daniel receiving an award

Premise If Shayna does not congratulate Daniel she will hurt his feelings

Conclusion One should never be insincere about one's feelings - except in the case where the person with which one is speaking would prefer kindness to honesty

Predict this is an odd type of Misc question - it seems that even though Shayna would be insincere by congratulating Daniel, it would be permissable seeing as it wouldn't hurt Daniel's feelings

What am I looking for? can't say - this is a misc question type

A I don't think we can choose something that used 'should' - however I will keep this just in case

B I think B best crystalises whatever it is that this weird question wants from me

C oh dear - I just don't know

D The stimulus says doesnt' deal with what Daniel would feel when faced with insincerity

E I need to watch what JY says about this

Choice I'm at a loss with this question - I think B but am just guessing

Context Amanda sings (A) -> blues (B) and punk rock (C) ! B -M-> 3 Chords (D)

Premise A -> B and C; B-m-> D; An /D, An -> C; /C

Conclusion /B... D

Predict only pets Zog the dragon keeps are princesses and unicorns. Most princesses wear sparkly glass slippers. So if the next pet Zog the dragon gets isn't a unicorn, it will probably wear sparkly gold slippers

What am I looking for? this talks about two primary characteristics - blues and punk rock. It then introduces a secondary characteristic of punk rock, which is 'no more than three chords.' The conclusion then says that if its not blues, then it will probably have this secondary characteristic, which is 'no more than three chords'

A no - this choice matches the parrot to noisy, which maps the thing to its secondary characteristic. We need to infer the secondary characteristic from the absence of another thing

B this starts with a single characteristic of parrots - eliminate

C yes - this is correct, it infers that because its not a fish it must be noisy... the absence of a primary characteristic draws the conclusion on another secondary characteristic

D no - this negates the primary and thereby negates the secondary

E wait - I think this is better than C. C talks about any pet and I see the stimulus talks about the next song not just any song - so I think that E's phrasing of 'the next pet' is better

Choice I think its E

See how my mis-application of a prediction strategy causes me to eliminate the correct answer and choose the wrong one...

Context GM crops that resist insects don't need pesticide

Premise insecticide has harmed wildlife

Conclusion using insect resistant crops will help wildlife recover

Predict Okay - something is going to try and trap me here. I need to be clear before I go in. Basically the conclusion is that 'using insect resistant crops will help wildlife recover' - I guess what is being assumed here is that recovery is possible... if the damage to wildlife was permanent - then how could they recover? Or - another assumption is that the people who are spraying will be smart enough to stop spraying... maybe they're just a bunch of spray happy insecticide junkies...

What am I looking for? I'm looking for something that offers a very weak bridge of support... however it must also be something that if it is negated it will completely destroy the argument

A Less harm' - no... this would not support the fact that they would recover. eliminate it.

B this is in line with what I wanted - it shows that recovery is possible... keep it

C this says that GM crops are never sprayed - which is in line with a prediction I made. However now that I think about it... B is stronger because it suggests that recovery is possible. This answer choice C however would be more sufficient. I'll keep it though

D this is talking about costly... we're not factoring cost into this equation which purely relates to harm of wildlife, recovery of that wildlife from said harm and the use or non use of insecticide

E mishmash

Choice I feel sure that its between B and C - if I look at C it is actually too strong - it says never sprayed... on the other hand B is better because it suggests that recovery is possible. If recovery is not possible then the argument would be wrecked. I choose B

womp womp No! Its' A - I spent a lot of time reasoning myself into the wrong answer - clearly I should be looking to AccountsPlayable more. It seems my prediction over determined my elimination strategy and that hurt me... I was focused on recovery - and should have been focused on excess spraying...

watch how I get trapped and go to great lengths to choose the wrong answer like a fool...

Context in 2003 scientists detected methane in the atmosphere of Mars.

Premise Methane is a fragile compound that falls apart when hit by the ultraviolet radiation of sunlight

Conclusion any methane that has been released into the atmostphere must have been released relatively recently

Predict we detect Mars methane in 2003 - we know that Methane falls apart when it is hit by the sun (what does this even mean... does 'falls apart' mean it is no longer methane, or does it mean that it is released and is more detectable!) - and the argument states that because of this it must have been released recently. Okay - so we need to choose something that if it weren't true... then the methane couldn't have been released recently. I can't be sure because I'm unclear of this 'fall apart' concept... while 'detectability' is clearer... However I think the detectability is a red herring.

What am I looking for? I'm looking for something that offers a very weak bridge of support... however it must also be something that if it is negated it will completely destroy the argument

A wow - this is straightforward! this seems like it for sure. If methane was in the atmosphere before 2003 then it could not have been released recently... I feel good about this one

B can't go for this one because I don't even understand the sunlight/falls apart concept - eliminate

C once again - this is talking about falls apart... I think this is decoy material that trades on foggy understanding. I'm not falling for this

D again with the ultraviolet radiation thing - will someone tell what 'methane falls apart' means!

E now this one is talking about the Earth's atmostphere - get out of here. Eliminate it

Choice so perhaps I completely misunderstood this - but A really jumped out at me...

womp womp Dufus! Its B - aaaaaargh!!!! The falling apart thing kind of threw me though... How do I fix my way of thinking to stop myself falling in these LSAT traps?

Context more books were sold last year than in previous year - and in particular, more cookbooks were sold

Premise for the first time ever - most of the cookbooks sold were not intended for beginners. More cookbooks that ever are being purchased by professional cooks

Conclusion However - one of the few books available on every continent is a cookbook written for beginners entitled Problem Free Cooking

Predict Last year was special because more books were sold than in previously year. Of all the books that were sold - more cookbooks were sold than ever, and most of those cookbooks were not intended for beginners. Additionally more cookbooks than before are being purchased by professional cooks.

What am I looking for? Quoting JY: "MSS questions contain only one answer choice with support. The other four are utterly without support. MSS questions are very similar to MP questions in that you’re being asked to identify a conclusion, i.e., a statement which receives support. However, unlike MP questions, sometimes only a small portion of the stimulus is used to support the right answer choice." Focus man!

A this mirrors a statement from the stimulus exactly: "most of the cookbooks sold last year were not intended for beginners" keep it

B we know nothing about the best selling cookbook

C we don't know anything about sales of cookbooks intended for beginners

D this is just mishmash

E all that was said about problem free cooking is that it was available on every continent

Choice A

Context Pollution from gasoline burned by cars contributes to serious environmental problems.

Premise the cost of environmentral problems is not impacted in the gasoline prices and does not affect consumer's decisions about how much to drive

Conclusion A heavier tax on the price of gasoline would reflect the cost to the environment and therefore the consumer would pollute less

Predict a heavier tax on gasoline would get consumers to pollute less - what does pollute less mean... drive less?

What am I looking for? Quoting JY: "MSS questions contain only one answer choice with support. The other four are utterly without support. MSS questions are very similar to MP questions in that you’re being asked to identify a conclusion, i.e., a statement which receives support. However, unlike MP questions, sometimes only a small portion of the stimulus is used to support the right answer choice." Focus man!

A this is a conditional statement - so I'm ruling it out

B awareness of the kinds of pollution - maybe... but I don't get that from the stimulus. Eliminate it.

C I will keep this answer choice - even though its very wordy

D the only cost considered - I can't say that... what about opportunity cost, or emotional costs...

E once again - a conditional statement - eliminate it

Choice C

watch how I get this wrong!

Premise fluoride enters soil when rain dissolves fuoride-bearing minerals in soil -

Conclusion If we keep rainfall + fluoride bearing mineral concentration + other relevant variables constant: fluoride concentrations are higher in areas where groundwater also contains more sodium

Predict sodium content is positively correlated to fluoride entering the soil during rainfall

What am I looking for? Quoting JY: "MSS questions contain only one answer choice with support. The other four are utterly without support. MSS questions are very similar to MP questions in that you’re being asked to identify a conclusion, i.e., a statement which receives support. However, unlike MP questions, sometimes only a small portion of the stimulus is used to support the right answer choice." Focus man!

A we can't say anything about the primary source of minerals

B the stimulus states that rainfall does have an impact

C there's nothing about the relative rate of dissolving

D this is in line with my prediction

E this says that high contentrations of sodium are related to high contentrations of fluoride

Choice its between D and E - I choose E

womp womp dammit dammit dammit! Its D

Here's a breakdown of how I totally screwed this question up!

Context Most of the Students who attended Spanish 101 at the university last semester Attended every class session: S -M-> A

Premise Every student who received a low grade missed at least one class - Low Grade -> Missed One Class

Predict most of the students attend every class. However there were some kids who did not attend every class, and all of them achieved a B minus

What am I looking for? We are given a set of statements and we are to draw an inference from them. This is going to be a lot stronger than say a MSS. Whatever we pick, it must be true when we take into account the stimulus.

A there is not mention of grades of A minus

B this is in line with my prediction

C not supported

D this says B minus or higher - it should be lower

E don't think so

Choice B

womp womp Got this wrong in PT and BR! Answer is E... time to watch JY explain...

Context Art historian says that because 15C paintings were more planimetric than 16C paintings, 15C painters had a greater mastery

Premise 15C painters did not have greater mastery because the degree to which a painting is planimetric is irrelevant to their mastery

Conclusion the Art historian is wrong

Predict the critic simply attacks the historians premise and not the support and then draws an opposite conclusion

What am I looking for? looking for the description of a common pattern of flawed reasoning

A there is no mention of "other objectionable views"

B mastery' is only used in one sense

C this does not look like necessary/sufficient confusion

D two claims that contradict each other' - not sure about this answer choice - it could desribe the two conflicting premises, I'll keep it

E I would say that the problem with the critic's argument is that it uses an inadequate argument to reject a position, not that it rejects a position based on the grounds that an inadequate argument has been made

Choice not 100% sure - but I'm choosing D over the others

womp womp Got this wrong in PT and BR! Answer is E...

Context L's claim about universe - it began with a primeval atom - a singular point

Premise If L is correct - our observations should show Y

Conclusion we can see Y - however there is another theory, Z which makes the same prediction, so L's theory is inadequate

Predict the argument takes for granted that because Y and Z make the same prediction - that one of them must be wrong/ or that they can't be complementary

What am I looking for? looking for the description of a common pattern of flawed reasoning

A Y is attributed to an expert - but X is not - this doesn't describe what is going on

B there is no shift in meaning in the stimulus

C a causal connection... not sure what this means. If it means - "because Z exists, Y must be inadequate" then yes... not sure but I'll keep it

D this seems to be much better aligned with my prediction

E no - the writer makes space only for one theory, not two

Choice pretty sure its D

Yes! Pianists/violinists was experimental LG! Best news ever - my score is saved!

Confirmed grey

Context meetings should be kept short - addressing only those issues relevant to a majority of those attending

Premise a person should not be required to attend a meeting if none of the issues to be addressed at the meeting are relevant to that person

Conclusion Terry should not be required to attend today's 2 O'clock meeting

Predict none of the issues presented at today's meeting will be relevant to Terry

What am I looking for? we need to supply a premise that 'most' guarantess the conclusion

A this isn't about Terry presenting - its about Terry attending

B same as A

C this is phrased awkwardly - but I'll keep it

D why is this using conditional language?

E this is what I chose in PT

Choice C - @AccountsPlayable's explanation flagged the use of 'the majority' in E which I didn't pick up as relevant at first. Now I see why its 'the best wrong answer' and that even though C is awkwardly worded its better...

Context 50 choices of cola makes one less free than one who has 5 choices: wine, coffee, apple juice, milk

Premise the extent of differences in alternatives is relevant

Conclusion meaningful freedom cannot be measured by the number of alternatives available

Predict its starts by giving an example in the context. the premise then draws on that example - saying that its not only the number of alternatives that defines freedom, but also the differences within those alternatives...

What am I looking for? not sure what type of question this is

A keeping this...

B its not taling about a 'particular case' - rather this is a general example

C this was my choice in the test - but I got it wrong

D eliminate this

E I'd say that both principles are equally general

Choice Only A seems likely, seeing as I chose C originally and that was wrong...

Context Many environmentalists hold that the natural environment is morally valuable for its own sake, regardless of any benefits it provides us

Premise even if nature has no moral value - it can still be regarded as valuable on the grounds that it is beautiful. It is disputable that nature is morally valuable, and undeniable that it is beautiful

Conclusion arguments that emphasize nature's beauty will be less vulnerable to logical objections than ones that emphasize moral value

Predict something that is indisputable is less likely to be vulnerable to moral objections than something that is disputable

What am I looking for? to quote JY - principle questions are SA questions in reverse

so for an SA question they give you P and C in the stimulus and in the answer you need to show P→C. In Principle questions they give you P→C in the stimulus and you need to show P and C in the answer.

A this starts off well and then the "if it avoids the issue that makes it worth preserving* part spoils it

B no - the argument may still provide a sufficient reason. Its just that one should rather use the reason that isn't vulnerable to objections

C mishmash

D this might be true - but not here

E yes - this spells it out rather nicely

Choice E

is the writing sample at the very end - or during the test?