Hello, thank you all for your time this evening! I had a quick additional question about writing an addendum. I have heard that a STEM to non-STEM major switch, accompanied by an increased GPA from a low one, is a pretty common occurrence among prospective law school applicants. In such a case, since admissions committees can readily see this change from your submitted transcript, is it advisable to still write a short addendum "explaining" the prior low GPA and subsequent increase or would it be seen as duplicative?

Having had the same struggle, a possible guess is that (and this is such a nitpicky thing) it has to be something to do with what the LSAT writers mean to refer to with "these data." Maybe they're making some subtle distinction b/w the technique itself vs. data gleaned from the technique, although of course it can be argued that any application of the data gleaned from a technique is, by extension, an application the technique helped the data arrive at.

This is at best a very shoddy attempt at understanding the minds of the writers, but one other possibility I can see is that (E) seems to be implying there are "sub-category" techniques that are involved in RCD. While RCD itself is a technique, if there's some implication here of there being separate, but contributing, techniques that together comprise the whole of RCD, can we say (any/all of?) those "sub-techniques" can be applied to predicting future EQs? Maybe yes, maybe no... but the way it's kind of separated out in (E) is cause for suspicion.

Writing this out now, I think I'm weighted more towards this 2nd interpretation but would love to hear what others think!

Exactly... I think another assumption in (C) I initially overlooked is that just b/c these snakes are predatory doesn't mean they're predators of the lemurs. Taking this interpretation, (C) becomes just another fact in the world irrelevant to a genuine explanation!

I think the idea here is that movement in daylight is more noticeable than being stationary in these conditions, especially if you're a high-flying bird and from your bird's-eye view, things way below you are fairly indistinguishable tiny dots until they start to move.

Thought the same under time. However, the implicit understanding in the OPA is that it is always the most environmentally sensible thing to buy local. The ARG against that says that it is sometimes better not to buy local. One act cannot both always be preferable and sometimes not be preferable.

In lawgic terms, if [ENV PREF ←s→ Buy local] is the view supported by the main ARG, by implication it's saying "nope (at least not always)!" to the OPA claim that ["the most" ENV PREF → Buy local], which boils down to a rejection of this absolute claim on the merits of buying local.

(D) sounds tepidly attractive. But we have to revert to the facts on this one. Glass transition temperature is a property of all glass -- the tricky part is that, while the passage as a whole is trying to argue that the thicker-at-the-bottom medieval glass panes are not b/c "glass flows downward," it is nevertheless true that glass at a certain temperature will be liquid or molten. So it is very much true that a property all kinds of glass have would, at the right GTT (when it becomes liquid/molten) and under the force of gravity, flow downward. This rules out (D).

The fact is that no connections, explicit or otherwise, were ever made b/w the source of the impurities in the glass and the medieval manufacturing methods for the glass; so we shouldn't be connecting dots where the author hasn't even left us with a trail.

Where impurities were mentioned was in the larger context of explaining how their presence still does not account for the thicker glass bottoms -- and we're never told how these impurities got there. Just b/c there are impurities doesn't mean they got there by way of how they were manufactured -- I think that's an assumption that might have slid in, b/c it can definitely make sense! But other explanations could also exist that account for how the impurities got there -- for example, not necessarily in some manufacturing oversight per se, but maybe post-manufacturing when the glass was cooling and being set, a bunch of dust swept in from outside and rested in the not-yet-quite-solid glass.

Hi! Six years too late and you may have already sorted it out, but in my view what makes (A) wrong is that as stated it is incompatible with Kant's argument, since treating a lie with a lie seems to constitute a perfectly rational, not irrational, response. So even if we concede that PSG A would accept A/C (A), it's already ruled out by the Q STEM's requirement that the statement in question be compatible with the Kantian-derived view.

How is the absence of a particular topic of discussion incompatible with both PSGs calling out separate views for having unreasonable consequences?

PSG A does talk about harm that can result from treating a lie with a lie. PSG B does not discuss this topic. That's a difference.

PSG A says a liar need not be lied to (in consideration of the aforementioned harm), so the opposing view is implied to be unreasonable. PSG B says the right to do something doesn't mean you have a duty to do that thing, and likewise the opposing view is deemed by PSG B as unreasonable.

What each PSG is calling unreasonable is different; but the fact that each does discuss how a particular view leads to some unreasonable consequence is a similarity b/w them.

Don't bank your hopes on it, but also try and refresh the scheduling screen (not obsessively, but a few times a day, maybe) to see if a more ideal time slot becomes available. I'm taking the test in S. Korea and originally could only find a 5:50 am time slot - the next day when I took another peek, I saw something around 8 am open up and nabbed that.

But definitely plan for the contingency that this might not happen and LSAC may not respond back favorably. Here are some other things you might consider (some are weirdly specific, but they all come from my personal experience):

Night before:

Prioritize getting at least 7.5 hours of sleep!

Start winding down and resting early & get away from all bright screens and definitely all strenuous activity, including studying, at least an hour before bedtime.

Use an eye mask if you don't have black-out curtains and earplugs if environmental noise is a problem.

Keep your room very, very cool to induce sleep more easily if you're not the kind of person who can just fall asleep on a dime. If you have a programmable A/C and don't like things too cold for too long, you can set it to go off after an hour or two.

Morning of:

DO NOT HIT SNOOZE, even for 5 minutes. Mentally and physically "rocket" yourself out of bed when you hear your alarm go off if it still feels cringey and awful trying to get up. I've heard a technique that has worked for others is going like "3... 2... 1... [jump out of bed!--assuming you're not sleeping from a top bunk 😂]." I'm a morning person naturally, but whenever I've woken up in a mental/physical slump, I try not to lie in bed too long thinking about the things that suck and just force my body out. I've found that the mind does eventually catch up!

Try a good stretching routine first thing for at least 15 minutes and a colder than usual shower to help your body wake up even more. I also put on cold eye patches I keep in the fridge for several minutes after washing up.

Hydrate sufficiently and imbibe your reliable caffeine of choice well in advance of your testing time slot.

It may feel weird to eat at all so early, but do have something to fuel up. Don't overload on starchy, refined carbs for bfast, but do include some of the sustaining kind (e.g., I love steel-cut oats, and you can prep them overnight to be heated up the next morning), a little protein, and maybe a banana or citrusy fruit or OJ.

Mindfully do a few practice Qs from each section and break away from your screen with at least 15 minutes to spare before you're supposed to be in your seat -- do another few quick stretches that will get your heart pumping before getting ready to start.

Try adjusting your monitor and/or seat so that you are slightly looking up, rather than looking down. A book underneath the monitor, for example, can help elevate it if you don't have one that can be adjusted otherwise.

During test:

Use the minute you have between sections on the test to mini-stretch at the desk you're sitting at. Definitely use the longer 10-minute break to move around and get some direct sunlight exposure from a window (hopefully, the sun will be up and shining by that time!).

Wishing the best turnout for you!🍀

Attributing cause on RC Qs is often a dangerous game we have to very carefully engage with. For me personally, a cause stated so definitively as it is in (D) had better be strongly supported; a tenuous connection of facts the author states wouldn't usually be enough for me to be swayed by causal attribution otherwise.

In this case, the fact that there is now interest among CGs, combined with the fact that there has been a certain tendency in their focus does not mean that the interest arose with that tendency in mind. Maybe conceivable, but just because something could be true doesn't mean the evidence supplied sends us down this path.

I think we should be especially careful here b/c we know from the end of the para. that a diverse pool of crop genetics is at least sometimes at odds with maximizing output; if that's the case, why on earth would CGs be interested in HV for that very reason? It's perfectly consistent with, and arguably even more reasonable to infer, that CGs developed their interest in HV for some other reason, perhaps in light of the "rapidly eroding genetic base" that other groups are now responding to.

Frankly, I'm still trying to muddle out whether in fact even LA alone implies "←s→ CI". We can concede that AA (arousal of anger) at least sometimes happens as a legit artistic aim. But does that mean that the world of LA (legitimate artwork) has to ever coincide with this AA? Put another way, since we know that 2 conditions (LA and AA) both have to be met in order for the NA of "→ CI" to kick in, why couldn't it be that no LA have AA?

But by JY's logic, if at least 1 LA does include AA, then by extension at least 1 AA is considered LA, so it seems your logic would hold in this case. Again, just not sure whether either scenario would even have to pan out.

Thankfully, it doesn't seem like we really need to rely on this distinction to get to the right A/C.

I'm not exactly sure how you're translating the conclusions differently, but the language in the conclusions parallel..able.

"will confirm one... at the expense of the other" = one is right, the other is wrong. The "will verify either... or" in (E) is implied to be an exclusive either/or statement b/c D and J's tree IDs are at odds with each other, so they clearly can't both be right; but similar to the STIM, although both then could definitely be wrong, the conclusion is adamant that 1 of them is right. This simplifies down to the conclusion asserting one turning out to be right, the other wrong.

I hope that makes sense, but like JY I also solved this one w/o any formal logic.

Thanks for setting this up @jhaldy10325 & big congrats!

Given your initial plans and overall experience, would you say law school was worth it for you, at least at this point in time? Not intending to spoil the anticipation, but a little sneak peek would be much appreciated :)

Invalid ARG: Whenever the premise/s (accepted as true) of an ARG, strung together, do not absolutely have to lead to the conclusion (i.e., whenever the ARG is anything less than “airtight.”)

If any unwarranted assumptions exist in an ARG, we can say it’s invalid – and that’s where we call out the ARG’s flaw or try to board up its pothole(s), whatever we are being asked to do on an argument-based Q.

For example, in this Q we can change the words a little to make it so that (C) stands correct:

R: We do not need to stop and ask for directions. We aren’t lost, after all, and us stopping to ask for directions would imply that we are lost.

C: We may not be lost, but does that mean there aren’t other reasons we might need to stop and ask for directions? Certainly, there’s got to be a faster way to get to our destination than we’re aware of.

Craig seems to concede the truth of at least one part of Rifka’s premise (“we aren’t lost”) but at the same time rejects R’s conclusion that they don’t need to stop and ask for directions. Craig does this by hinting at the pothole – the invalidity – in R’s logic, that the only reason they’d need to stop and ask for directions is b/c they’re lost. In Craig’s view, there’s at least one more reason to stop: to find a better way to their destination.

Hope this helps!

Hi Admins - accidentally "commented" when I meant to "reply" to another's. No option from my end to delete this entirely, so to clear up some space, if you could kindly help with this it'd be appreciated!

I think it boils down to the author's question posed at the top of ¶2 - what justice requires (which in turn requires us to answer what is considered a "fair procedure" or "just arrangement").

I don't think it's necessary or even helpful to map out this STIM in lawgical terms. JY tends to show us how whenever a STIM is suited for that. Better, I think, to simply view this under the lens of correlation ≠ causation and attack the ARG that way.

If you mean only subbing out "customer" with "store" in (C), I don't think the rest of the A/C really makes sense, since it is talking about renting a movie, and that's what customers do, not the stores. But even if we changed (C)'s entire context to match what the stores actually do, I'd find it hard to think that a rephrasing of Anna's part would be the conclusion we draw from it.

Certainly, a rephrasing of a part of a STIM can often be inferred on many MSS Q types (and thus leans much closer towards the 'explicitly stated' end of the spectrum); but in this Q stem, since we are asked to infer a conclusion, it wouldn't make much sense to draw a conclusion from a premise she's already given us. Also, if the conclusion drawn is supposed to operate as part of her argument, restating a premise as one's conclusion would also run the risk of becoming circular reasoning.

Paralegal here! Echoing "quality over quantity" and to that I'd add consistency and planning a timeframe most days of the week you can and will consecrate to studying.

I was working FT plus had another PT gig when I began re-studying for my LSAT. I think I was working close to 70-hour weeks and frequently did overtime. Not sustainable at all. But my workload was out of necessity at the very beginning. Now, thankfully, I have a partner who has been able to take more of the financial reigns when he graduated, so I had an opportunity to reduce my paralegal hours by a whole lot. But I think this was also due in no small part to my relative seniority among our staff (5 years and counting at a law firm with a huge staff turnover). If you're working mainly for the experience and have the means of reducing your hours, I'd recommend that, unless you operate better under pressure from multiple directions. I also had a co-worker who asked to leave at 4 instead of 6p everyday in order to have time to study - she made that clear to HR at the get-go and was granted it, but I know different firms may be much stricter.

Otherwise, definitely fitting in studies a few quality hours in the morning before going to work is the way to go and how I did it starting out. And making sure to "punch out" from work on the dot as much as it's within your power to. And not take your work home with you (unless you're remote lol, then I guess just stuff it neatly in the corner under a blanket somewhere). I failed at this for the longest time due to the various hats I had to wear for the high volume of cases that came our department's way.

I had to learn to be my own advocate by trial and error. Legal idioms aside, test the waters but try to stick up for yourself and your time, knowing how weighted the LSAT is (for now at least) in the application process.

Best of luck!

(A) states there is a generalization made, and that I can agree with. And overgeneralization from limited data is certainly a kind of error, but it's not the one we see here. Where is your support for "a small # of individuals" that (A) claims is the basis of this flaw? From the STIM, the only thing we know is that the generalization is drawn from those who used COMP at work and a subset of them who own LT... w/o any other qualifiers (and unless the STIM gives us clear reason to doubt otherwise, we can grace this set as unconstrained), that can be a pretty big set!

It's also helpful to remind ourselves what the conclusion is actually doing -- it's not just making a generalization, it's illicitly jumping to a causal conclusion ("...led to...") when mere correlation has been established. If the conclusion were instead something akin to your what if, like "It is obvious from this that those who own laptops have higher-paying jobs," then I think we could point out that it erred in overgeneralization.

Nope - we are just establishing that causation can't be concluded when mere correlation has been established. (C) is not masquerading as the end-all, be-all master causal explanation. In other words, its presentation of another correlation is not limiting us to concluding that it's this correlation that caused it (you can refer to my above explanation on "consistent with") and not the ARG's.

All (C) is stating is that another viable correlation exists that wasn't accounted for, and because it wasn't accounted for, we can't jump to the ARG's conclusion (or any other for that matter).

"Consistent with" does not translate to "confident that"; it merely means that "it's possible that/hasn't been ruled out that..." If there's a puddle of water on the ground, I could hypothesize that it rained sometime earlier. But the existence of the puddle is consistent with someone having just dumped a bucket of water on the ground too. The latter fact doesn't shut the door on the former but just shows us another way of looking at what happened.