If anyone else is looking for a great comprehensive LR review before tomorrow's test, I highly recommend looking here! https://7sage.com/lessons/logical-reasoning/introduction-to-logical-reasoning/logical-reasoning-cheat-sheet
I've been running through these drills and it's been very helpful. I am #scared of tmwr but its fine, we're all going to be fine :)
I'm sorry but there is no chance in hell this is a level three passage am I just losing it or something
Hi! I'm beginning to ask people for LOR for this upcoming cycle. I'm aiming to have 3 LOR (4 if you advise that's best). Who do law schools want to see as LOR? As of now, I'm planning to have one from my professor (graduated college last year, so that's still relatively fresh), one from the managing attorney at the law firm I worked at last summer, and one from my current boss (who is a senior paralegal at my law firm). Do you recommend I swap one of the professional LOR for an academic one? Or branch out from that completely?
I'll take any experience y'all have with this. Thank you!!!!
this is a TERRIBLE answer choice. nowhere in the passage was there an indication that this was the primary focus of circulum. it specificalluy says "a vital aspect of the practice of law" and "Much of legal education, with its focus on judicial decisions and analysis of cases." we've learned time and time again that it has to explicitly say something is the primary reason/thing, or else its just one thing, or even a big thing, but not exactly the MAIN thing. how is this different????
why is it sometimes ok to have "if/then" answer choices be correct but others are not? I've heard reasoning for an AC to be incorrect simply based on the fact that theres and "if/then" in the AC.
i think its really unhelpful to say "these answers are wrong just because they aren't ____" : (
How come a lot of answer choices are disregarded because we don't know anything about the negated idea, but in this case we can make assumptions on the negated idea? for example, my thought process was that the stimulus is talking about someone competent, so we dont really know about the group of incompetent people.
I dont understand why C is right. It isn't technically the only reason. The stim mentions 1. its a sacred right and 2. people have always been able to vote by mail. I would consider the fact that its a sacred right to be a second reason that doesn't fall under the "tradition" umbrella
this makes literally zero sense, how does this relate to the scientist's interests at all? maybe it could be the reason, but there is nothing in the passage to indicate that.
@MarcusTsang I also thought about the speed v. acceleration discrepancy, but the stimulus conflates wealth with income which is a similar comparison - you can have $5 billion in income but still be poor because you spend all your money on pay day. Don't know if that's what they're going for but this is how I thought about it!
@Kevin_Lin I did see your video and it was very helpful, thank you! This was more a comment for JYs video. I've noticed this trend across the board with JY's videos (I love you JY don't get me wrong), and unfortunately you (Kevin) don't have a vid on each question to give further detail. Sometimes I just can't see why an AC is wrong, and after going through all the discussion comments it's still not clear. I struggle with SA/NA and do some mental gymnastics to make an AC work sometimes, so it's helpful to have the logic broken down in real time.