@JacobBaska HAHAHA thank you so much. Honestly reading this very much so confirms that it’s an anxiety questions. Thank you so much for taking the time to answer me I really appreciate it!

@JacobBaska Thank you so much! As a follow up, do you think that my scores would hurt my chances at a t6 or t14 school? My dream schools are Harvard, NYU, and Columbia and I get the impression that get a 176 like i did typically don’t take 4 tries to get there.

@lollipoppy Well there was a whole year in between exams so def a lot of changed. I took 2 official LSATs in 2025, scoring a 163 then dipping to a 159. The biggest change I made after that was then doing the full 7sage curriculum. My first two attempts were completely self taught. Although, obviously, I did begin my 7sage journey with a mid to low 160s level understanding of the test. And then something I found to be really effective was practice full timed sections only once I got comfortable enough with the material, and then using quick tricks like logical force to answers. For example if there’s a MBT question and i’m down to 2 choices and one of them contains a some statement whereas the other is an all or most statement, choosing the some statement because of lower logical force.

@spindlynoodles Hey! Yeah ig if you are scoring so well on BR then knowing the material isn’t really your issue. This may not help but you really just have to trust yourself and eliminate answers you know to be wrong. Say you come down to 2 answer choices (which was often the case for me when I was in your position) I would always tell myself that if i could poke holes in one the 2 ACs then i knew which one to eliminate. So i know it sounds obvious but really just trust yourself.

@Shannell_E'llan Basically, what it's saying is that the 52% of people who thought he was good never changed their opinion. Its the same people before and after the ethics violation accusation. That is because, as A points out, pretty much every person who DOES believe he is guilty ALREADY thought he was bad. So the 52% of people who thought he was good before and after were unaffected.

@ChristopherTobin Something I think it's important to note regarding assumptions for D is that even if they were vulnerable, that doesnt mean its possible that they didn't need internal records or anything. Embezzlement is inherently an internal crime and the stim establishes it as a necessary condition. Only B directly weakens by saying someone else got access to them. D says that the corporation was vulnerable to INTERNAL crimes. Hope that helps that's just how I understood it. Another additional thing with these questions where 2 answer choices seem right, I would say just focus on the argument. At the very least, C makes a point about accountants and actuaries, whereas D doesn't at all. Think about how D cannot in anyway lead you to believe that it was more likely to be one or the other in terms of who committed the crime.