Reading this post itself brings so much trauma! I studied in India and had a near-perfect GPA, first class with distinction! Hence, the program in India, at least the one I attended, is a three-year program; I had to complete another BA to apply to law school here in the US. I will never forget this experience.

So, my friend, do your due diligence and check whether the US education board accredits your BA/BS before investing any more effort in the US law school application process.

10.

Frank's reasoning in his response to Maria is most vulnerable to criticism because it

This is an interesting way of asking about flaws. I have not seen it before. Typically, I see this argument set up in point-at-issue subtypes.

Maria: Thomas Edison was one of the most productive inventors of his time, perhaps of all time. His contributions significantly shaped the development of modern lighting and communication systems. Yet he had only a few months of formal schooling. Therefore, you do not need a formal education to make crucial contributions to technological advancement.

Frank: That is definitely not true anymore. Since Edison's day, there have been many technological developments; to make crucial contributions today, you need much more extensive technical knowledge than was required then.

We are asked to find out what Frank did wrong in his response to Maria. I read both arguments to get context. I know some companies say to focus only on the person whose argument you are asked to analyze, but in this case, it's hard to do without hearing what Maria is saying. Maria says you don't need formal education to contribute to technological advancement. Her premise is Thomas Edison, who contributed so greatly but had little formal education. Lots of flaws there, Maria, but I'll give you a break and move on to Frank.

That is not true, he says. What is not true? The fact that you can make contributions to technological advancements without formal education. Why do you say that, Frank? Since Edison's time, there have been a lot more technological advancements, so you need formal education today more than ever before.

Well, Frank, you are not answering the question by just comparing the two time periods and noting there are more discoveries today than then. That doesn't support your claim that you need formal education! Frank assumes that for a person to contribute to technological advancements, they need formal education. What if you can get the necessary technical knowledge through experience and on-the-job training? Choice A gives us the possibility that Frank overlooked.

"fails to address the possibility that technical knowledge may be acquired without formal education."

We are asked to make the conclusion more likely to be true. That REM relieves stress.

How can we do that? We are given the premises of a study on people who are irritable during waking hours due to a lack of REM sleep. So, the argument then says that just because some people who seem to have a hard time sleeping and dreaming during REM end up being irritable, and concludes that these people who are not sleeping well are stressed.

There is nothing about stress in the premises, yet it appears in the conclusion. The arguer must have assumed that stress and irritability, which were side effects of less REM, must be connected. Now, let's make that connection better!

A- Na, Other sleep cycles are not relevant.

B- Bad dreams.....>stress and pleasant and exciting dreams too? No! We are not interested in what else could cause stress. What we are interested in is that REM...> relieves stress.

c-This is correlating dreams with stress-we want REM with stress

D- Super erelevent who recalls their dreams.

E- I am running out of choice, hence this has to be_ Precisely! People who tend to have less REM sleep>>>>> experience more stress. We don't have proof of this argument; we have to make it more likely, giving it a little push, as it were.

1. A flaw in the argument is its failure to consider that

"The radiation absorbed by someone during an ordinary commercial airline flight is no more dangerous than that received during an ordinary dental X-ray. Since a dental X-ray does negligible harm to a person, we can conclude that the radiation absorbed by members of commercial airline flight crews will also do them negligible harm."

Working on this problem was one of my proudest moments because I could see where it was going right after I read the first sentence. What they mean by LSAT is a test of pattern recognition that repeats itself. I recognized the pattern of this flaw: two things that are alike are the same. The radiation from X-rays at the dentist's office and the radiation flight attendants experience are the same, and just as X-rays do not do much harm at the dentist's office, the radiation from their flights should not harm flight attendants. This is a mismatched concept flaw- alike are equal. The arguer has overlooked/failed to consider the fact that what is alike is not equal.

What do we know about how much radiation flight attendants are exposed to, compared with the amount of radiation a dental patient is exposed to? How often do we get X-rays at the dentist's, compared with flight attendants who, perhaps, are flying around every day for all we know? These two populations are not alike: dental patients and flight attendants.

The argument also fails to consider that the longer and more often one is exposed to radiation, the more radiation one absorbs, and the more seriously one is harmed. That is what answer choice D says.

"the longer and the more often one is exposed to radiation, the more radiation one absorbs and the more seriously one is harmed"

Answer choice C could be tempting: "Exposure to X-rays of higher intensity than dental X-rays may be harmful. But the argument did not fail to consider this, as this is not relevant to the argument. Our concern is the radiation put out by dental X-rays and flights. We do not know anything about how similar or different the two sources of radiation are.

I am not sure how this question is rated as level one, but here is my thought process: The assumption is that unless apes express their thoughts in human language, the Apes must not be thinking in human language. There are mismatched concepts here: Thoughts and expressions/asking.

Apes could be thinking in human language but expressing their thoughts and philosophical questions, maybe in ape language or another way. Unless the author feels the only way apes can express their philosophical thoughts/questions is through human language. So, Apes, sorry to say this, but since you are not asking philosophical questions, you must not be thinking either! How ridiculous is that?!

The point of writing out the wrong/right answer choice is to help you understand the error in the choices. Maybe take more time understanding why the choice is wrong, then write that down? This process could perhaps help with actually understanding the erroring process, which in turn should help you in avoiding making the same mistake.

Right there with you on the frustration part, I guess that's part of the journey to train us for the life of an attorney. I am not sure, but don't be discouraged, as that is the worst enemy right there. I am not sure I remember why I scored low on pt 156. I practiced it in November; either way, you might be right. I, too ,am taking the test next week.

Based on my personal experience of a similar issue, not having my transcripts in place, I was denied admission! I will wait. (You can also check in directly with admissions of the schools you are interested in; they can wait before reviewing your application until they receive the transcripts.)

Where in the passage are we given the timeline of the 1920s and 1930s? which was exactly why I eliminated the answer choice. Sometimes I feel like the answers are chosen and made to fit the explanation.