I'm the same way except I tend to average a little lower under timed conditions. But my BR is usually -1/-3 for RC. Just leaving a comment here in case anyone leaves tips for closing this gap :)

the fact that this is just #7 is criminal

tldr: negation saved my butt on this question lol.

I was super close to staying with E but I changed to B last minute because the wording in E is pretty strong. All 45 were established for this reason? What if it was all but one? That wouldn't make the argument fall apart.

D also looked tempting, but it's possible that the size stayed the same bc all the interested people are too broke to go to the shows (or some other reason).

C looks tempting, but we actually don't care about other performing arts. That won't prove or disprove our argument.

B is right because if more than 45 professional opera companies were active 30 years ago, but aren't active now, that would actually be a net decrease in the professional companies that are active now versus then. Which kinda makes the whole argument pointless if you think about it.

@jmeer500 yeah me either

@alliah777799 The argument basically goes: this feather was found from that period, so it must be a bird. And since it's a bird, it's the earliest bird found to date.

But there's a gap here because what if there were other animals that had feathers that weren't birds? Thus, the argument is assuming that this wasn't the case -- i.e. they're assuming there were no other creatures other than birds that had such feathers. If there were such creatures the argument would fall apart.

Answer choice D talks about the feather belonging to an intermediate creature. But if we negate this (i.e. if we say, "the feather did not belong to an intermediate creature.") That doesn't rule out the fact that it could've belonged to some other creature that was completely different, but still has feathers.

Tbh I'd wait until June to give myself a little more time to score consistently in the 160s. However, if you're confident that you will be able to improve your PT score from now until April, go for it!

@bondo007man235 hey man i hope you're enjoying your legal career and know that this question you missed is wayyyy in the past :)

Ayyeee I got this one gng !

@RishabhRaj Thank you so much, I appreciate the encouragement! I have done a lot of blind review and have found it very helpful, especially for LR. I think most of my problem lies in RC; oftentimes I'll get a -4 or better for LR but a -9 or worse on RC, so it'll drag the PT score down. And then during BR I'll get anywhere between a -0 to a -3 on RC. My guess is that it's a timing issue, but I'm still trying to pinpoint my issue there. Something I've tried to implement is enjoying the passage I'm reading -- since I've always generally enjoyed reading. Have you (or anyone) experienced something similar for RC too?

@StevenM Seconding this. I too fell into this issue too where I'd pick one and then just pick the 2nd best during BR. They key is to prioritize your regular score and, during wrong answer journalling, ask yourself, "Why did I pick one instead of the other, and what can I do next time to just pick the correct answer without being sidetracked by the other really tempting option?"

I personally find BR helpful because it lets me know what I'm capable of when I'm untimed and gives me a second chance to solve the question, which usually helps me in wrong answer journalling.

I thought ranges referred to like breeds of moose or something, I was so confused. This question doesn't feel too fair to me tbh.

I was stuck between A & E. I picked A but then got it right on BR. What helped me was reframing the answer choices. A says, "few people want to sit outside while they eat." But neither one actually tells us what they think people want when it comes to eating outside. (Xavier says eating outside AND breathing in fumes, but we don't know what he thinks about what people want when it comes to JUST eating outside)

E looked correct because it says THE new fast food place was risky (not A new fast food place). In other words, this one in particular was risky, which they both agree with because it had no indoor seating. They both thought that one that had indoor seating was likely to fail/weren't surprised that it failed. So that idea "having a new fast food place on 10th street w no indoor seating" is an inherently risky one.

I kinda relate to this too. And it's frustrating because at this point, I'm not even sure what score category to put myself in. Early on, though, something that helped me was taking more time between my PTs to see what I was doing wrong. So I do a PT like twice a month.

"Minutes" could be 59 minutes and 59 seconds though. Aren't we just assuming that if they knew about something under an hour ago, that's negligence?

Hi! I work full time while studying for the LSAT. Here's what has worked best for me:

1) Carving out the same times and days each week so it becomes a habit. I just do 30-45 mins in the mornings before work and 1-2 hours after work. It seems short, but it adds up. At this point, taking studying out of my daily schedule would be harder than keeping it in.

2) I think someone already mentioned this, but blue light glasses for sure!

3) Brain fog is very real and I'm glad you're bringing it up. It was very deceiving for me because there were some days that I did significantly worse than others on drills/sets and couldn't focus. I thought I was just not improving, but it was actually brain fog. What's surprisingly helped me is napping if I'm tired (if I'm doing a PT on the weekend) or moving around a little before studying. That usually looks like blasting some good music on my drive from work to the library to study or doing fun dance choreos I know. Basically, moving around for like 10 mins helped increase blood flow to my brain I guess? (don't quote me on that)

4) Getting enough sleep.

5) Lastly, spacing out time between my PTs has been really helpful. I've found that doing one PT every two/three weeks (as opposed to one or two per week) helped my score increase a ton since I was spending so much time studying strengths/weaknesses/repeated mistakes/habits/etc. Spent more time reading over my WAJ too and retrying questions I'd gotten wrong in months prior.

These are the things that helped me. Best of luck to you! You got this :)

@IvonneRosario Awesome, thank you so much!

But wouldn't the community count as "consumers" of a library so to speak? I didn't think it was C because the stimulus says the experts pick what they like as opposed to what benefits the entire company, not what benefits the consumers.

@LucasKramer I usually just do PTs on Sundays and then work my way through BR on Monday/Tuesday before & after work when I've had a chance to look away from the test for a while. During BR, I time myself redoing each question flagged, put in the notes how long it took me, and then compare it to my time on the actual test. I also note my reasoning (i.e. why I'm changing my answer or sticking with what I picked) and that has seemed to help a lot.

I used the peek function once and I kinda just got used to using it frequently (rip). Idk how much that helps or hinders me tbh.

Leaving a comment here because we sound extremely similar: Same goal score, same October score, same study schedule, same current score of about 164. My weakness is also wild swinging on RC sections, but I do incredibly well on BR (highest BR was a 177). I also want to retake in either April or June. So I'm gonna assume any advice someone leaves for you might help me out too lol

This is probably a summary of what others may have said, but when I see these I say to myself: "Negation of the way things are --> unless..."

So, in your case, it would be: "Major meteor impacts & mass extinctions CAN be consistently causally linked --> many mass extinctions have followed..."

After I memorized that easy one liner, I never had a problem with these. I hope this helps! :)

@KevinLin Ok I see, thanks for the quick response!