- Joined
- Feb 2026
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Discussions
Thank you for the advice. I’ve been in a pretty frustrating process of trying to figure what that external factor is. It’s like the universe just decided “yeah you suck at RC now” lol. Ironically I felt amazing with RC on the actual September exam, and as I said, leading up to it. So I don’t know. Maybe I’m going insane
I took the Sept test and then took about a week off. Since then I’ve been studying and my RC scores have plummeted. Not quite sure what’s going on. I went -3 before the Sept test on my last RC section, and now I’m lucky to go -9 to -10. Not only that but my pacing is way off. Before, I had gotten a good rhythm and would move through sections more comfortably. Now though I’m struggling to even get to the last passage for some reason. I take the October test in 5 days and wanted to see if anybody had any emergency advice. Any is greatly appreciated!
One of the biggest things that has caused my LR score to go up is getting better at flagging/skipping questions that are rubbing me the wrong way, while banking the questions that rub my brain the right way. This allows my pacing to skyrocket, so that I can come back later, ideally more relaxed after doing the types that I have an easier time with.
However, with RC I’m having a hard time wrestling with how to parallel this method (no pun intended 😂). With LR, it feels like I can come back later and immediately get back on the saddle, so to speak. But with RC I get worried about having to refresh my memory when coming back. Moreover, It seems much more of a production on RC to shift to the next passage. I.e., you need to clear your brain to get ready for the next narrative and slew of details. This, altogether, results in me spending FAR too long on questions I’m unsure about on RC, as my brain rationalizes getting it right THEN and THERE.
Does anyone have ways that they’ve successfully mirrored the LR skipping/flagging method on RC? Also, I know I keep saying skipping “questions,” but I think this also applies to skipping PASSAGES if one of them is giving you a really rough go.
Any advice is greatly appreciated!
Yeah, this PT (148) has a lot of infamy online about it being the hardest ever and bringing people's averages wayyy down. I looked it up b/c I thought I was going crazy but no, it's just freaking hard lol.
BillyTheKidd02
Do questions you drilled/sectioned with a previous prep company (that is also connected to Lawhub) get counted as such on here?
Another hyper-specific question lol, but about a year ago I used a different prep company a lot. I switched over to 7sage earlier this year and have loved it. However, a lot of my PTs show up as "60% fresh" etc., etc., and I didn't know if it were counting drills/sections I did with the other company, which is of course also connected to Lawhub. This is no big deal for me if this is the case, b/c I'm pretty sure I've forgotten those questions. Just wanted to know though
This question is HYPER-specific haha, but my room is filled with music equipment (heavy keyboard (2x), multiple amps, multiple microphones, electric and acoustic guitars, pedals, cables, DAW, etc.)
Am I going to have to move this equipment 🫠? I.e., would they likely flag me if I proceed as is?
Regarding question 4, how do we quickly infer the author's attitude toward the hypothesis when they are speaking of it in hindsight? The author keeps saying "the THEN bizarre theory," and they were skeptical "at the time." It feels like this muddies the waters on an attitude question, as hindsight bias is clearly a thing. As such, I had difficulty figuring out if the question wanted their attitude from the present-day lens looking back, or through the lens of someone evaluating the hypothesis at the time.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DQClK_3grB2/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsi=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
What Passage A to B felt like
Got it, but just to be sure, we're saying "irrelevance" = 0% relevance? I.e., no tangible importance to speak of whatsoever?
If you ever wanted to know how good LSAC is at making stuff boring, I've literally read "The Awakening" and I hate this passage 😂.
I've noticed some people are saying that the author was advocating for the long-term approach throughout the passage. However, I only noted the author coming in at the last paragraph, giving their requirement for it to work. Is there evidence that she supported the approach before then? Every other point seems to be preceded by "experts recommend," "critics claim," etc.
I've noticed some people are saying that the author was advocating for the long-term approach throughout the passage. However, I only noted the author coming in at the last paragraph, giving their requirement for it to work. Is there evidence that she supported the approach before then? Every other point seems to be preceded by "experts recommend," "critics claim," etc.
Ah yes, horses plowing the fields is definitely similar to Antarctic seals chilling at the bottom of the freezing ocean for 5 hours
Putting conditional reasoning in an RC question is genuinely horrendous
Very sneaky. My brain just glided right over "unprofessional" and "acting professionally" for a whileee until I realized
So, wait, if an argument has a sub-conclusion that exhibits a certain flaw, but then a main conclusion that exhibits a different flaw, are we to ignore the flaw in the SC and look for the answer choice that attacks the flaw of the MC?
Also, are we to handle the phrase "almost certainly" the same as "certainly"? It's such a high bar for both, so I assume that both would be going wayyy too far (90%+ vs 100% if I'm not mistaken), and that we would attack them similarly.
Silly rabbit, you confused a claim that under certain conditions a certain action should be taken with a claim that the action need not be taken in the absence of those conditions
This is fascinating to me. Does anybody have an answer/explanation for this? My hunch is that it’s b/c Flaw Qs are closer to Inference Qs, which I love.
First paragraph had me thinking I was about to love the passage. My eyes rolled so hard after reading the first sentence of the second paragraph. Absolutely cruel bait-and-switch