Cold 152 - 173 Final
Paralegal and ESL Tutor
I worked fulltime while studying for the LSAT, it was difficult but it can be done with motivation and persistence. My aim is to help you reach the score you want while life happens!
Applications
Discussions
@niakbotti I don't believe that was an option back when I did the curriculum. I did it when 7sage was still on the old website. If you were choosing now I'd probably recommend you decide based on your timeframe of when you want to apply. I'd be happy to setup a free 30min consultation if you need help creating a study schedule.
For LR be in the habit of finding the conclusion and predicting before heading into the answers. For RC focus on creating little summaries for each paragraph so that they act as little mindmap anchors. Also always predict the Main Point for each passage. I also have some other general tips in my post you might find helpful.
@Mail_Jabrayilov Hi! Yes I'll be posting another more detailed breakdown of the resources I gave above in a few days in General. I'll update you when I do.
@AbenaAfriyie Hi Abena! Thanks so much for your kind words! 174 is definetely an achievable score with enough persistence! If you do need any help along the way shoot me a DM! I'd be glad to help!
@MargaretEvered Hey Margaret! It really depends if you're a morning or night person. For me I would come home, walk the dog, have dinner then do 1 hr of studying, which covers a section and review. However, I also have a student who does 2hrs in the morning before work and it works great for her. So I think it depends on when you are the sharpest and most importantly whether you can stick to it for a few months.
@cookiecutter Don't be in a rush to hurry all the questions, that's how you loose points on questions you would've got right. Instead as you practice you'll see patterns emerge and you'll know exactly what to look for when it comes to different question types, you'll also get better with predictions that will help a lot with speed. So basically, don't look at the time, practice more to improve accuracy and you'll see your speed improve.
@aidanpierce16 You got this! It's going to take time and dedication, but with consistency I'm sure you'll hit your goal score!
@KindlyQualifiedChampionship During lunch time! The articles don't have to be too long, 20mins is enough each day. For super long articles like law review or the ocasional opinion I would span it over a few days. The point is to treat it as RC reading and do recaps to summarize author's main points. But yes, I don't have children so that definetely gives me more time.
Hi there! I'm in PT timezone as well, I'd be happy to meet with you and see if I can help. Shoot me a DM!
@77 You're right, but given that no other answer acts as a plausible explaination, D is the only choice. Now it is a weak SA answer, perhaps it's because this was from an older PT.
I have to argue that "Weakened by disease" doesn't mean "will be killed by disease", hard to imagine moose dying from a contageous cold. However, A) isn't perfect since an eagle could be a predator, or a lizard could be a predator too, yet they don't necessarily prey on moose.
Almost fell for the trap but I realized if you negate A): Many of the most beautiful and not the best, then that's literally the same as the "realistic/truthful ones", since the passage says "Many of the most realistic are not the best". If that's the case then it is entirely possible that the most beautiful and most realistic ones overlap are in fact ARE the same.
I don't know I read A) to mean "Of the suitable patterns, few of them are situated near drinking sources". Becareful of reading too fast!!!
I did not realize that social consencus = jurists interpretations. I thought jurists could not represent society in general.
Now I see the issue with B) is it says some species will become extinct, while the stim only says they will lose their habitat. Losing habitat does not mean extinction.
My first thought was: I may be legally obligated to serve a 10 year prison sentence, doesn't mean I've agreed to do it. If B) said, fails to consider instead of takes for granted, might have been more attractice.
@superchillasian I was between A & E too. I ultimately chose E because A was about 19th century painters and what they later did, while the question is asking what happened to painting "since 19th century". The passange only talks about 19th century impressionism -> modern abstract, so it must be that we need to describe how we got from impressionism to abstract. A) only talks about the impressionists in the 19th century.
Sidenote, not to be nitpicky, "other subject matter" is talked about in the last sentence of the passage "painters had more freedom to vary their subject matter", basically not restricted to just portraits which is what led to abstract. Though this is talking about more modern painters than the 19th century impressionists, which is why A is wrong.
So the premise is "Since I don't know ulterior motive, I don't know the morality". Conclusion is "Therefore I should look at consequences for morality".
I was tempted to try and justify "If you want morality -> need to know consequences". However, you need to bridge the first gap, which is "How come if you don't know ulterior motive then you don't know morality?"
So you need something that says if you don't know ulterior motive then you don't know morality. A) says intention, where's the ulterior motive??? The tricky part is piecing that intentions include ulterior motives, it even includes internal motives, ultrustic motives, good motives bad motives etc.
So if we replace "Intention" for "Ulterior Motives", A) because much more appealing suddenly.
"Ulterior Motives are indepspensible for evaluating morality" aka "if you want to know motive, then you need to know Ulterior Motives" or "if you don't know Ulterior Motives, then you don't know motive." The latter is exactly the bridge that we spotted.
The hard part here is recognizing that you don't need to bridge consequence with morality, because it's fundemntally rejecting the initial assumption of "ulterior motive -> morality", for all we care the conclusion could be "Therefore we need to look at oranges instead of morality." The issue is why doesn't looking at ulterior motives work.
@SabinS Hi Sabin, it's definetely possible! Shooting you a dm if you'd like to meet for a consultation!