- Joined
- Jan 2026
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
To add to the explanation of D which I found difficult to eliminate: D is saying that a rock can come from a planet where life exists without the rock itself showing the ratio associated with life.
yeah i started transitioning to doing drills untimed just to focus on accuracy. Alternating between drilling + sections (and review) each day. Also Wolves gonna have a hella of a season with Melo
For me, "often" in C is what is more clearly why the answer is wrong. We are given just one example
does this not require the assumption that a frost doesnt follow later in the spring?
This question to me should be eliminated from scoring. the underlying idea of if not a then b that the stimulus uses is the same for A and B. The only differecne is in B they mention a name and in A.) they mention the lowest bidder who is Qui.
Ive been studying for a long time but have struggled to improve beyond high 150's/low 160's. Its difficult to assess how well I am doing when I take a full practice test or even a section with only 25-30% freshness. I dont remember that many of the questions but I still feel like its somehow easier.
I find Bs explanation to be wrong. We do know that the plan admins agree with what B is saying. Its just thats not the context/purpose of the mentioning in the 3 paragraph wheres it used as a way to show a negative of the pre paid legal services
In the explanation for D, how is this "because of their potential financial impact on the legal profession." not describing the authors MP "to criticize the plan by arguing that it won’t benefit clients or lawyers much."
Yep:
cat outside-->one member is outside-->sun shining or hot
/sun shining and /hot-->/one member is outside-->/cat outside
The tricky thing about C is that in contrast to B which says "overlooks", C says "the argument presumes"... if you overlook that then C seems far more attractive because the argument isnt presuming what C states
during my test I had the chair right next to the door. Heard every time someone went in and out plus all the proctors conversations smh
Imagine doing a tutorial on every lsat question. my god id say the same shit too
I feel like wording of the correct AC was more of a weakening format, which completely threw me off. I was expecting the answer choice to be stated in an abstract way such as assuming a correlation from two separate correlations etc...
It says "The law of the city of Weston regarding contributions to mayoral campaigns is as follows". Had it said "a law regarding contributions" then i think its different
Question for anyone who understand why B is correct:
Looking at the explanation for question 22 (which uses the same exact stim) the correct answer D: states:
"we can infer that there is a real danger that the nuclear industry will go bankrupt. Connecting that idea with the premises, we can infer that there is a real danger that injury claims can be sustained against the nuclear industry, and that therefore there is a real danger that injury will result from a nuclear accident. This supports the claim that the public’s fear is well founded."
According to the correct explanation of D: "there is a real danger that injury will result from a nuclear accident"
If there is a real danger that injury will result from a nuclear accident" then how is A wrong?
using video technology to create legal records sounds pretty confusing. My interpretation is that they just record themselves creating legal records. In that case the act of recording themselves signing/creating legal records acts as legally binding. Hence A. Legally binding and creating legal records arent the same. Just what im thinking
if there is a risk of an accident then how is the government's position that "entirely safe and hence that the public's fear of nuclear accidents at these plants is groundless" not false?
fr... its one of those where you need to block common sense and go for what is 100% supported
@CMiller3030 From my understanding illicit shift means like an unwarranted jump. I got to A through POE, but in theory the answer can be found by realizing that the author defines anarchy as the absence of government and then in the conclusion as chaos. As 'AccountsPlayable' states "Those two are different things since you can have "chaos" without an "absence of government" and vice versa."