@DamiOye Legally Blonde should do the trick

Solved this question in 1:40. Helped a lot to draw a picture in my head.

P: Proposals were only sent to the Dean or the committee.

P: The Dean received one proposal. Could be higher level or something else, we don't know.

P: The committee received more than one proposal. All higher level. Let's say they received 2.

P: All higher level courses require prerequisites.

Inference: If there is more than one new course, one of them will be a higher level course!

Has to be true! Again, let's assume that only 2 new courses were accepted. If both of those new courses were the ones accepted by the committee, since both are higher level courses, they will have prerequisites.

But if one of them was accepted by the Dean, we must assume that the other was accepted by the committee, meaning we know a higher level course was accepted no matter what.

Therefore, AC C.

Felt good to get this one!

P: Some commitments deserve no praise.

Conc: All commitments are morally neutral.

AC E: If there are any commitments undeserving of praise, all commitments are morally neutral.

I like treating these questions like SA. Ensure that conclusion!

@RishabhRaj

The whole distinction is that in passage A:

The author defines beauty as being judged by contemporary audience's knowledge of an event, and their ability to pass judgement about a game being playing with the rules that are familiar with.

In passage B:

Kant describes standards being judged by contemporaty audiences based on the aesthetic beauty of an event.

Therefore, AC A: Author A disagrees with Kant's standards by which contemporary audiences judge performances.

If you have been practicing well, and feel confident, there is no reason to sweat it. Don't add stress when there doesn't have to be any.

I am taking it on Friday. I did a PT today and a PT last week. Other days I have just been sprinkling in some drills. Good luck on your test!

Damn! This is an opposite of a sufficient assumption. Basically, what guarantees the conclusion to be false. When looking at it from that viewpoint, D is much more obvious to be the correct answer. Throwing that in the back pocket.

Almost was fooled by AC E because it passed the 'feels good' test. But wait... E states that the set of regulations as a whole has this effect. This isn't true. Just that each member of this set has this effect.

AC D almost feels too cookie cutter. But that is certainly the best answer on this question.

Felt good getting this one. I had this question flagged, and came back to it at the very end of my section. After re-reading Henry's conclusion, it became pretty obvious. His conclusion is that urban pollution specifically will be reduced.

He doesn't care about air pollution in general, like AC B states. He just cares about urban pollution. That is addressed in AC A. Tricky question for sure.

This one felt good to get right. It took a second re-read, but it became pretty clear.

The commentator criticizes Roehmer's tactics of impugning the motives of her adversaries. But then he says her motive in doing this is to appeal to her loyal readers, thus impugning Roehmer's motives!

Tricky, but pretty quick to answer if you catch.

@sofistar I think you are making too many assumptions.

D is way too strong of an answer choice. We are only concerned with belief in ideas not intended by the author. It doesn't matter if they understand what the author actually did intend.

P: Authors of great poems never intend contradictions

P: Sometimes, readers find contradictions anyways

---------------------------------------

C: The meaning of the poem is not always what the author intends it to be

This rests on the assumption that if a reader believes something an idea in a poem to be true, then that idea is indeed true of the poem. If this wasn't true, that means there is an objective meaning of a poem, probably intended by the author, negating the conclusion.

Something about the way the stimulus and question was worded melted my brain into goo.

I got the right answer after like 3 minutes of sitting in my chair like a statue. Somehow E makes more sense to me after seeing that it is indeed the right answer. Just don't know why it took so long.

I believe in less being more regarding PTs. PTs are great for measuring what level you're at, but do not do much for you in terms of making progress. Keep hammering drills like you have been. If you want to train your brain to sit and focus on a lot of questions for long periods, doing a couple of full LR or RC sections back-to-back will do the trick.

My biggest reason for this is that there are just so few PTs released by LSAC. Only the last several PTs (I'd say 150+) give you a good simulation of the modern test. If you burn through these in training, you will not have a good baseline when test day actually comes.

I think it is safe if you want to do one per month, at the end of the month to see where your progress is. Take older tests for this (120-140). Just be mindful that these tests are different than the modern tests (some say they are easier, and I agree). As you get closer to your testing date, start taking more of the newer tests to prepare yourself for testing day.

To give you an idea, over the past year I've taken MAYBE 6 full PTs. I take my test this Friday, and have taken 2 this week, both newer. Even with so few PTs taken, I am comfortably in the 170's. Drilling weak points is the most important thing you can do to increase score.

Good luck studying!

P: Most ancient documents have been translated into modern languages and can be read without learning an ancient language.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

C: People aspiring to be ancient history scholars need not learn ancient languages.

Loophole: What if they document they want to read has not been translated?

AC A: Yeung had less supporters that could vote than Panitch. This fails to explain why Yeung beat Panitch, in fact, it works against it.

AC B: If 100 people were polled:

40 favor Panitch.

30 favor Yeung.

30 favor Mulhern. If Mulhern drops out, who is to say that his supporters don't switch to Yeung? This explanation works.

AC C: Introduces the potential of bias in the poll, leading to inaccurate poll results. Works.

AC D: If Panitch has 100 supporters, and Yeung has 90:

Panitch has more supporters. But only 30 of them saw the election as important enough to vote, meanwhile over 70 of Yeung's supporters thought the election was important, leading to more of them voting. Checks out.

AC E: Another choice that introduces the potential of bias in the poll, leading to poll results that did not align with reality. This explains the discrepancy.

I was able to get this one in good time.

Stim:

P: If A then B

P: If C then D

------------------

C: If D then B

That's just a bad assumption to make. Good match on AC B. Cat

╱|、

(˚ˎ 。7

|、˜〵

じしˍ,)ノ

@akikookmt881 How did you make this post in 2017 when it says your account joined in April 2025?

I almost had a stroke reading this question stem the first time

Retep

Anything is possible, brother. If anything, it seems law schools would rather have older applicants with more experience. Go do it!!!

I treated this one as a must be true. Is that a bad idea? Idk, I did it anyways and got it right.

Stim: The only indigeneous primates are lemurs, which are lower primates.

AC B: No indigenous primates are higher primates.

I felt this one followed pretty cleanly.

Ohhhhh King Juliennnnnnnn

Good rule of thumb for principle/apply: always always ALWAYS (always) look for language consistent with the justification itself. I'm pretty sure most people who choose A fell victim to this.

For example:

P: It is not right to drive your car if you are drunk.

The correct application will have language consistent with not right. A correct answer may be: "Your mom took 8 shots of tequila. It is not right for her to drive".

But, you do not know anything about when it is right to drive.

P: It is not right to drive your car if you are drunk.

It would be incorrect to say: "Your mom is not drunk, therefore it is right for her to drive". What if she is blind? What if she does not have her driver's license? Maybe she isn't drunk, but is on heroin instead. You just don't have enough information ot make a judgement on when it is right to drive. Same logic applies to this question.

AC A: If not acidic, then beneficial.

This is an example of switching necessary and sufficient conditions. Maybe it's not acidic, but there is a turtle eating alligator in the water. Bad news for turtles and probably not conducive to a thriving turtle population.

AC B: Acidity is the most important factor.

Doesn't have to be true. Like the example for AC A, maybe there is an alligator that preys on the turtles. That might be a more important factor than acidity. Turtles just can't thrive in either.

AC C: The water in Soshachi pond is more beneficial than the water in Wallakim pond.

NO SHIT! That's what I said to myself when I read this one. But why? It doesn't connect the conclusion.

AC D: If Wallakim wasn't acidic, then there would be a thriving population.

Refer to AC A and AC B explanations.

AC E: Pond conditions are beneficial only if the water is not acidic.

YES! I got real warm inside when I saw this AC. If pond conditions are beneficial, then water is not acidic. That's exactly what we need to guarantee the conclusion. You can contrapose to if acidic, then not beneficial if that helps with your understanding.

Definitely strange language in this one. Best to try and translate points into another word if that is what you are hung up on. Easier said than done. :P I interpreted points as bring. For example, pointing out the fact a frog looks weird == bringing up the fact a frog looks weird.

From there it gets simpler: the argument is bringing up an example to draw contrast.

I like to translate weird language like "need not"- it just helps with my understanding. When I see something like "need not", I just interpret it as "do not". That is what helped me to get this one right pretty quickly.

I also understand why B is a tricky answer choice. The language is almost perfect, but falls apart when it begins pluralizing. If it said "A complex phenomenon will generally have a complex cause", it would be a great answer choice. But it takes it too far with the inclusion of many complex causes. Just my thought process.

In hindsight I feel like I should have got this one. Damn.