@02kimask ty

If running low on material, I would prioritize trying to create test-like conditions to the best of my ability. Retake your earliest test and get into the test day mindset. Practice your approach just as you would on test day. That will be the X factor on if you score towards the top of your range or the bottom.

I moved my LSAT from June to August and it was incredibly helpful. My PTs just were not where I wanted to them, but in spite of that, I was hesitant about moving since of all the hard work I had put in. Moving the exam gave me a couple months of much needed prep and I was able to get consistently above the score that I wanted.

November to January is a bit of a different story. You move to after Thanksgiving and Christmas. You will still be able to apply, just later in the cycle and need to have your material locked and loaded.

At the end of the day, schools really care about the LSAT, so getting 3-5 points higher on a test will make a big difference in terms of admission chances and scholarship.

I didn't give a clear answer but just thought I would share some things I would consider!

For me RC is an exercise in process elimination, in which case you are bound to run into situations where there are two/three possible answer choices left. Getting good at running a tie break sequence is helpful. Thinking about things like which AC am I doing more work to make right? Or which AC sounds less wrong taking into account the author's MP? Making sure to judge both AC's with this bar helps me single out which one I am being unnecessarily fair to.

So I had down between (A), (B) and (D) and I should have run my tie break sequencing a bit better. The conclusion is odd because it claims that there is some sort of causal relationship, it does not specify which direction it goes. So to weaken, we just need to show that this correlation cannot point to causation.

(D) was so weak and broad, I have no clue why I chose it in BR (I was in a rush to get ready for work). Some people have tendencies as adults that they don't have as children, so what?

I should have clocked that (A) was weak too. Some impulsive adults might not have the gene. Okay, well there can still be a causal relationship. This is like saying: some people have cancer were not genetically predisposed to it. Well, the gene can still cause it some cases. Causal reasoning describes mechanism operating in the world; they tolerate exceptions.

(B) would therefore work best here. Because we cannot reliably distinguish impulsive behavior from others, we cannot reliably base a causal relationship on that correlation. It sounds like we are attacking a premise, but given the unconventional type of conclusion, we sort of need to.

(A) caught me off guard. On its surface, it is directly contradicting the premise: No active volcanoes have been identified on Venus. I assumed on the basis of this, that this meant there were no active volcanoes, but this reasoning in itself is a flaw. Ignorance of something is not evidence that it does not exist. By saying “Conditions on Venus make it unlikely that any instrument targeting Venus would detect a volcanic eruption directly,” (A) suggests that in fact there might be some activity, we are just unable to detect it. 

@Bartje Looking at this question again later, I also think paying special attention to the restrictor words in the question stem would have been helpful.

"Linked to positive musical experiences" is soft language. It does need to be the main factor at play, just something that contributed in some positive way.

If I noticed this then, maybe I wouldn't have been looking for the perfect answer.

(A) is saying "people with a genetic predisposition have the same or less iron levels as people without a predisposition." This strengthens because otherwise someone could say:

Genetic predisposition to Parkinson's -c-> Parkinson's AND

Genetic predisposition to Parkinson's -c-> iron-heavy food cravings

This would destroy the implied hypothesis of:

more iron intake -c-> more chance of Parkinson's

The work of the new art is outside the bounds of the European aesthetic theory, so there can never be an all-encompassing theory of aesthetic.

The author is saying: because we didn't get it last time, we are never going to get it.

However, what if there is another theory that innovates beyond what we thought was possible and accounted for all types of art in a way that euro theory couldn't.

Crucial to this question is recognizing that "the aesthetic theory" is referencing a specific theory and different from "theory of aesthetics"

What made this click for me under timed conditions was the fact that the conclusion says:

Honey-treated wounds healed faster than (1) wounds treated with antibiotics and (2) wounds cleaned but not treated.

The (2) part is basically a control group, which tells that Honey actually does have some benefits since it is better than doing nothing after cleaning.

(E) was tempting but it does not push honey treatment to the positives. All we know is that honey does not have a negative effect. It could be the case, if (E) were true, that the rankings would still be:

1. Doing nothing

2. Honey

3. Antibiotics

That's why (C) is right

I really hate this question and it's a reminder that there is a different between LSAT thinking and real-world thinking.

I chose (D) which seems too strong in hindsight, perhaps if it said "increases in workers' standard of living sometimes is accompanied by a decrease in how much they value their jobs." I feel like creativity and talent aside, if I am healthier due to changes in my job, I am happier about it.

(E) might sound better if it said "work processes that involve greater creativity and talent are sometimes less efficient," might work better.

I had felt like (B) was the way to go, since productivity causes increased standards of living, which might be because companies are making more money, so they can now pay more.

This is a tough one, but the more one thinks about it under timed conditions the harder it gets.

Again, I didn't read closely enough.

I read "there is more one valid explanation" and thought, that must be right

But in reality, I needed (B) to say " there is more than one valid explanation for the process in which bees share food information"

I fell victim to bringing an outside assumption into the LSAT. Having just read a novel from an author who writes exactly one book a year of a series, I assumed that we didn't have authors submitting multiple manuscripts a year.

@jasminesade220 same, recognizing how "dietary" impacts the argument changes everything.

(D) might be stronger if it said:

The physicians in the study had not been screened in advance to ensure that were not making deliberate diet choices as a result of a heart disease diagnosis.

Analogous argument:

Who missed their free throw yesterday in gym? College recruits probably will not miss their free throws, so it was likely someone who is not being recruited to college for basketball.

Answer choice (C) would say:

Well, 20 students are being recruited to college and Bartje is the only one not going for basketball.

This is a new consideration that suggests, at the very least, we should reconsider how confidently our premise leads to our conclusion.

(D) says:

The gym teacher, judging his students vibes that day, thought it was likely someone would miss.

In weakening a comparative argument that choses A over B, we need an answer choice that would suggest either B over A or not necessarily A over B. (D) just adds to the context, it doesn't give us any new information that might tip the scales.

I still dislike (E) because it requires the assumption that psychotherapists who provide psychotherapy on talk shows will satisfy these demands to be entertaining.

We don't know if they will. Perhaps we have a phycologist who won't bend the knee to the producers of the talk show.

With (E), "manner that makes it unlikely to be of high quality" clearly refers to "satisfying demands while speaking on a talk show," not "providing psychotherapy on a talk show," which is what the conclusion says.

I think (C) is better in this regard. Since we don't know whether or not psychotherapists will satisfy demands, all we can safely say is that there is SOME chance, so therefore, "any" is not too strong but rather descriptively accurate.

Think of some ancient Greek poem.

We don't have records or information on how people reacted to the poem when it was published (newspaper/scholarly articles) and we don't have information on how the author wanted people to react (journal entries).

Can we just decide that it is impossible to have an idea of the reactions the poem was intended to produce?

No, we can look at context clues in the language (does it sound sad or happy?) or in the culture (was it at a time of political upheaval?) or do we know about the author's broader theme of their work.

In short, there are many factors that can be used to understand the intention of something. Which the argument clearly overlooks.

In the LSAT, we are constantly being asked to evaluate evidence or lack thereof. This is just like those types of questions: is this observation enough to reach this conclusion?

our buying glass water bottles IS AN EFFORT TO protect the environment

By saying "It actually will harm the environment," I am claiming that you're buying glass water bottles for the wrong reasons because they actually harm the environment. You can still buy glass water bottles as far as I'm concerned, but just change your justification.

our buying glass water bottles WILL protect the environment

By saying "It actually will harm the environment," I am rejecting what the other person is claiming: no, they won't protect the environment, in fact they will do the opposite.

Getting this question wrong feels like the equivalent of missing an open goal.

Of course Author A would agree with (D), his whole point is that we don't necessarily need scientific evidence to prove that something exists, and he points to anecdotal evidence as a mean for proving paranormal activity.

I think I just fixated on "no evidence" and thought "Well no, Author A believes that there IS evidence." Modifying words and phrases in RC answer choices are vital.

This was difficult because I didn't really identify the author's thesis since it came in the last paragraph of the passage.

If we cannot aspire to the significant degree of social and economic equality that is required for formalism to be compatible with the achievement of substantive justice, then formalism should be abandoned so that the law can adapt to social reality.

The author has laid out both systems and is making a value judgement, saying if we can't do both A and B, let's just do B. So we need something that tells us that we should actually choose A when faced with this dilemma.

(B) does exactly this saying that if we care about factoring in equality to legal decisions paradoxically formalist systems do it better.

Recognizing implied bi-conditionality would have made this question a lot easier and saved me a ton of time.

I looked at the AC's where the conclusion was that an individual should not be granted a leave. Based on the info both Hal and Sara did not violate any of the conditions we were given.

At this point, I should have gone back to the stim with bi-conditionality in mind. And rephrased the second sentence in a more recognizable bi-conditional language:

An employee is eligible, if and only if, they apply for benefit at least three months prior to beginning of the parental leave period AND have at least one year of full-time employment with the company at the time of application

Does this make sense in the context of the problem? I think so, which means now (A), (D) and (E) are on the table.

Two things made this question hard for me:

1. The conditional statement in the first sentence sent false signals that we were dealing with conditional support, when in fact the author uses a causal chain to reach their conclusion.

2. (C)'s wording threw me off. I wanted something like: It assumes that by repealing a law with a negative effect, the negative effect will not get worse. "Countervailing" is not something I use in everyday English, which made things tricky.

I think logic notation makes this question unnecessarily difficult and the answer is rather intuitive.

The underlying assumption is that you can't have the best of both worlds. You can't stay in budget and renovate, it has to be one or the other.

We know that's the case for next year, the premise plainly states that:

Renovating next year will make the museum's expenditures exceed next year's very tight budget

But does the stimulus tell us anything about what will happen if we renovate this year? No, it doesn't.

(D) tells us exactly this: if we renovate this year, we also exceed the budget.

Thinking about this almost as a Necessary Assumption might help. (D) contra-posed would destroy the argument since if we can renovate and stay within this year's budget, then we don't have to worry!