true to your name lol

Hi! I'm in central NJ and studying for the August LSAT!

reasoning: (1) /most abide willingly --> futile (2) few will willingly give up power ... conclusion: it is futile... [/most abide willingly (= few willingly give up power) --> futile]... ASSUMPTION: if abiding, must give up power.

I was very tempted to choose A, but then talked myself into choosing E because it didn't explain the large vs. regular rat difference. Now I see that the question stem only asked for "contributes to an explanation".

Hi! For me, PTs dropping for more than like 2-3 PTs in a row is usually a sign that I'm burnt out whether or not I fully realize it. Maybe you could take a few days off?

If I were to try to accurately predict what a weakener would do, could I say, I think a good weakener would either discuss how: 1) a large size is better for LakeS for reasons other than predator defense or 2) large size actually isn't better than armor for predator defense?

Which would lead me to answer choices B and C.

B would be correct because in line with my 1st prediction, there's a reason other than predator defense presented (alt explanation)

C would be tempting in alignment with my 2nd prediction because it would weaken IF size doesn't help against insect predators. But it's contingent on that assumption so that is why C is not as good an answer as B.

also start untimed to focus on thinking through the questions correctly, and then work on speed later

Yeah, I'd analyze each question to really make sure I know why every right answer is right, and why every wrong answer is wrong.

I understand why you'd want to take the PT without the experimental, like to get your score which excludes the unscored part anyways, but note that the experimental is just as worthwhile study material as the other sections since they all come from actual old format PTs. Plus, the actual test will too have an experimental section so it makes sense to be familiar with the timing and pacing, and getting used to focusing throughout the full length of the test. Indeed there's no actual reason to PT without an experimental section, and doing that would actually give you a less realistic view of what taking the actual exam is like. While your score on any one PT might make you feel good (or bad), but isn't ever a definitive indicator of your level. It's much more insightful to see what kinds of questions you miss and why, and if you're getting better or faster on question types you previously struggled with.

I understand why you'd want to take the PT without the experimental, like to get your score which excludes the unscored part anyways, but note that the experimental is just as worthwhile study material as the other sections since they all come from actual old format PTs. Plus, the actual test will too have an experimental section so it makes sense to be familiar with the timing and pacing, and getting used to focusing throughout the full length of the test. Indeed there's no actual reason to PT without an experimental section, and doing that would actually give you a less realistic view of what taking the actual exam is like. While your score on any one PT might make you feel good (or bad), but isn't ever a definitive indicator of your level. It's much more insightful to see what kinds of questions you miss and why, and if you're getting better or faster on question types you previously struggled with.

like linyang55 i also wouldn't recommend that. Each question is worth the same amount for your raw score so why get harder ones instead of easier ones? If you do it in reverse you also risk running out of time for the easiest questions in the section.

It might mean you aren't 100% sure of your answers. Personally I would then work on really solidifying my thought process -- a right answer I know is right isn't second-guessable!

SA/NA/MBT as problem areas sounds like you might need to solidify underlying conditional diagramming or causal reasoning skills. If you practice the underlying reasoning more, you'll be able to do those questions faster so you can achieve higher scores even within the bounds of time pressure. Or if you're overlooking any key words, you can practice identifying those words in any stimulus that you read, thereby training yourself to become more attentive.

I'd diagram things out! For conditionals, diagram as normal but know where you can split the arrow (for and/ors), and for causal reasoning, Cause: _A_ --> Effect: _B_ which might lead to another Cause: _B_ --> Effect: _C_... etc.

Try to make sure you're fully understanding every question you read! I wouldn't do PTs yet, just dissect questions (without ANY time pressure, so untimed drills too) down until what the stimulus says is 100% clear and what the answer choices say are also 100% clear. For conditional reasoning, definitely take the time to learn how to diagram -- this itself can take a few weeks to become proficient at! Then become totally solid at common wrong answers, like recognizing mistaken negations and mistaken reversals. I noticed you mentioned your errors could be resolved by "pay attention more," but instead of just chalking it up to that, try to notice patterns in what often escapes your attention, and when you're dissecting questions/stimuli as you practice, give attention to every little thing, especially those consistent with the patterns you've historically tended to overlook. Being attentive can and should be practiced! Furthermore, for every wrong answer choice, always go find the word(s) in it that make it wrong.

What do you mean "including his son"?

Regardless, if this is a violation of a private institution's rules, the school doesn't have to actually do things the way the court system works... so you may not necessarily have the right to a hearing or an appeal, but definitely check your own school's policies. It's also hard to say exactly how it would affect law school admissions but an action like this could be seen as poor judgment and ethics.

Why is C any better than E?

To me - C tells me there might not have life on Mars at the point in time that the meteorite left, which leaves open the possibility that there could've still been life on Mars afterwards.

E also says that there could've been life on Mars afterwards.

I also feel like the wording of "it is unlikely that life occurred on Mars" is a bit vague, like does this mean "had life occurred there at the time the meteorite left" or "has life ever occurred in the whole span of time and existence" -- like if they'd written "Therefore, it is unlikely that there was ever life on Mars." I think this would have greatly clarified C > E. How can I be sure how to read the stimulus in the correct way?