Having trouble navigating these changes with my iPad. Can’t click on anything in the tester outside of highlight

totally flopped here but in doing BR I noticed this question stem differs from most I've seen in MBT and beyond bc it doesn't say "all of the statements offered in support of the editorial's conclusion correctly ARE TRUE". It says " all of the statements offered in support of the editorial's conclusion correctly describe the government's position" which leaves room to poke at the validity and consistency of the claims.

This makes B most attractive bc I don't know if the govn't claims are right or wrong but I know:

• going claims nuclear PP are entirely safe and fear is unfounded

• gown't limits nuclear industry's financial liability in case of accidents

already, I'm seeing an inconsistency with ENTIRELY safe and IN THE CASE OF accident.

@KCC56 so helpful!!

Crossed out E similar to others bc I assumed that regardless of how many times we replenish the air (every 30min or every hour), we were getting to level zero at the end of each cycle, resulting in equal levels of CO2 in both instances. But the stimulus clearly does say "The less frequently cabin air is replenished in a plane in flight, the higher the level of carbon dioxide" which directly links to E as the right choice.

I chose B initially and in BR bc I missed the fact that it wasn't speaking about commercial flights, which is the only type of flight we know about.

It's okay to be disappointed by your score but if the only way you want to go to law school is through a T-14, you need to ask yourself what this is really about. like many others have said, there are 200+ law schools and only a very select few will get into a T14. You can take it again and see your score and let that decide if you wait another year, the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. Im 5 years post-grad, so for me it's a bit different. I want to go next fall 100%, so even if my October retake (diagnostic: 146; June score: 162) doesn't jump up a considerable amount, I'm still going to apply.

I'd suggest reading the Loophole for LR and focusing on quality over quantity with your blind review. Rather than studying for four hours a day, cut down to one full practice section with thorough review and use 7sage analytics to drill your weak areas. It gets better. I studied for 8months and I def feel more comfortable with the test. Also for the reading sections, something that helped me was understanding that the answer is ALWAYS in the passage. Don't let this thing defeat you, don't go on reddit. Mindset genuinely plays a huge role in this (along with anything in life). You can do thisss, it might just not look like what you planned out in your head

Same boat. I looked at my transcript, saw whose classes I took later in my undergrad years + identified the ones I either helped out in labs or spend a lot of time in office hours with. I was able to get one out of four to write the letter. It only takes one! The other letter I'll have completed by a boss. I was able to access my old college email account and use the college site to find emails. I also offered a call in my initial email requested. I opted to wait until I got a yes before sending the resume, why law, etc stuff

great video! deep into lsat prep and needed a refresher. Was hesitant to scroll through all the modules and search for this.

thinking of "unless" as "if not" from now on rather than mentally going "ok unless= group 3, take statement following unless and place in sufficient then negate". Makes total sense, not sure why I never thought of it that way

@Bev7 I couldn't bc my drills were pulling from 152 and 151 but I got a 161 on PT150

From memory, I thought pick your own referred to D, letting the clients pick (as in select) the crop varieties! On closer look during BR, the answer (C) is literally stated after the mention of pick your own!

For those who picked C- whether or not the stimulus specifies whether both sets of rats are lab rats, the stimulus does state that the rats developed the deformities in the lab. Therefore any deformities from birth are completely irrelevant to weakening the point at hand. Though I agree, it’s not water tight bc we have to assume “lab rat” = “rat”, the birth defect v. Developed the deformity in the lab is enough reason to eliminate C.

100% would be useful

@3895cabinet Robert tutor provided the answer above

@HollieRVA same I just emailed a tutor to ask the below. will update: PT105.S2.Q14. Confused as to why A and B are considered incorrect. For A; Arjun doesn't show that comp crimes are equally or more dangerous than joyriding. He fails to compare them like Yolanda did, instead just proving the comp crimes could be dangerous. How does this not demonstrate that he failed to consider the distinction if Yolanda’s point was based on a comparison? For B; Arjun denies Yolanda's conclusion. The conclusion was that comp crimes = more dangerous than joyriding, and goes on to cite the wrong evidence to only address this part of Y’s argument “whereas only intellectual property is harmed in the case of computer crimes.” Is Arjun not effectively, denying Yolanda's conclusion without providing evidence against it?

#help... is it wrong to use the group 3 conditional where it says "unless" to figure this out?

@DominicCruse you have to walk before you run so I wouldnt be too worried about it. At this point we are supposed to focus on accuracy... speed will come in after during practice tests. Better 7min and right than 1min and wrong (at this stage).

when you summarize the negate/sufficient rule, why do you drop the "take the contrapositive" rule #5? it makes it seem like its not required

Try to take a practice exam section, just thirty five minutes timed to push through and see where you are. If you do well then awesome and if not, hopefully it’ll push you to study just a couple hours each weekend day to raise that score. You’re here so clearly you know you want something different in your life. Easier said than done but change must come from you :)