- Joined
- Sep 2025
- Subscription
- Live
Admissions profile
Discussions
Hi everyone! 😊 I just posted this in the general LSAT discussion but realized there’s a study group, so I figured I’d post here too.
Is anyone interested in a study buddy? I’m hoping to find someone scoring around the low 160s so we’re at a similar place. I’ve found that talking through questions out loud really helps me process them, and I’d love to practice with someone who’s at a similar stage and work through questions together.
I’m happy to meet over Zoom, and I live in Los Angeles, so if anyone is local and would rather meet in person, I’d be up for that too. If there are a few people in the LA area interested, maybe we could even start a study group!
Hi! Is anyone interested in a study buddy? I’m hoping to find someone scoring around the low 160s so we’re at a similar place. I’ve found that talking through questions out loud really helps me process them, and I’d love to practice with someone who’s at a similar stage and work through questions together. We’d meet over Zoom! :)
Going to continue this conversation… four years later. 😅
I read this as a Resolve the Paradox question. My thinking was:
Why are airports proceeding with expansion even though it can only be warranted by increases in air traffic volume, which won’t occur for another five years?
My prephrase centered on what I thought was the necessary condition. If airports are expanding, then there must be an increase in air traffic volume. So I figured the answer would explain how that increase is happening in an unexpected way.
That’s why I initially chose E: if airlines are closing, then other airports will absorb those routes, leading to increased air traffic.
I can see why B is the correct answer, but I’m confused about why the increase in air traffic no longer seems necessary. Am I misinterpreting the question stem? Or am I just drilling too many five-star questions and overcomplicating it?