I really hate the way that some of the explanations for some of these questions are as much of a pain in the *** to read as the stimulus and choices themselves. Can we turn of the "lawyer voice" occassionally and just cut to the chase?? What's with the extra, additional fluff? It comes across as flip and condescending. I get that enough from LSAC, thanks.

@Iwantagoodscorepleathankyou I'm thinking through this one myself too, and after seeing the right answer, I think they mean that the test is independent of the other three, and the test is not intended to help one decide which of the three listed previously were insufficient, because it's already implied that their's is 'better' anyway???

@haena ok that does make sense - and I should have focused on the argument and attacked it at that level. I think I let the percentages throw me off. Thank you!

This one gave me an issue. Someone please explain this to me? I selected B because reasons. First go around I chose E because local applicants could be 20 people and non-local could be 200 and then 2 locals would get one and 20 non-locals would. No?

@KatrinaFurman I am literally in the exact same boat and I’ve been studying for a while. My blind reviews are coming back at like 165 but I routinely PT at 150-157. I wonder if I should just start taking a PT everyday since I am taking the test in October?? I also have the same GPA and affordability issues - and Chicago is on my short list of where I want to practice so maybe I’ll see you somewhere up there lol ???

I got this wrong because I interpreted "normal-looking" to mean normal relative to what most people are exposed to having seen before, such as a species of insect that also exists today, such as a mosquito, as opposed to something more exotic looking, such as what could be an actual, ancient insect that humans have not been exposed to "normally".... I almost picked the correct answer and then talked myself out of it for this very reason and chose A instead because of the relationship between vendor integrity and authenticity??

How - seriously, how - can avoiding dairy logically be assumed to have "negative consequences"? Please don't say calcium: there are plenty of ways to get calcium, and the stimulus makes no mention of calcium whatsoever.

"might/may also have negative health consequences" <-- no. This is not vegan bias, I promise. I just truly don't see how A is a valid answer. It goes beyond the scope of logic.

@soleluna883 where does it say they "were wearing seat belts"? It just says it was the law - it doesn't say it was being followed?

It's A