I'm extremely grateful to JY and the 7 Sage team! May God bless you all!

I feel much more confident do LR questions and my knowledge pertaining to logical reasoning has deepened significantly. The only thing I would say is that when I do drills at the end of a lesson the site forces me to do blind review and then go to a new web page before I can see the answer to the drill. I wish the answer was directly below the question like answers in the "answer" tab in the LR questions designated as "you try" or on the link for reviewing different prep tests. ~

I'm wondering if a prescriptive claim can even be false??

Yes it's possible, but you need to go through the core curriculum again, because if you are scoring a 135, then you don't have the foundational LSAT skills you need to reach 160. Either way, I would let go of applying to law schools this cycle spend a lot of time going through the core curriculum. Then when you are done with the core curriculum you can begin taking practice tests - like one section a day timed, repeat it untimed (focusing on missed questions and questions you were unsure about) then review questions you missed twice very thoroughly. ~

I honestly think answer choice D is a subpar answer, but it is the best answer the writers gave us out of the five answer choices.

I didn't like D, because I assumed that 30% was the average percentage drop in crime in the country as a whole and contemplated that there could be some cities who had up to a 90% drop in crime and other cities that had an increase percentage change in crime. Even so, JY's explanation for why D is correct and B is incorrect is right on the money! Why didn't the chief's city see a reduction of 90% in crime if his city's policing tactics are really so amazing...

In other words... Answer choice D cannot say the argument is committing circular reasoning when the argument employs the reasoning strategy of arguing by analogy for its premises, which is fine when done correctly. Thus, using the temporal nature of music as an analogy to argue the conclusion doesn't not commit the fallacy of circular reasoning.

Thank you so much Kevin for such a great explanation! #grateful! : )

Just keep going. It takes some people 4 months and other people 2 years before they see the scores they want. First go back to the core curriculum and review the question types you keep missing. Use the analytics of 7 sage to pinpoint your weaknesses and focus drilling those questions in the core curriculum. For some question types, improving your conceptual understanding of how to approach that question type could add 5 or 6 points to your score. Just don't give up! You've already made incredible progress and will continue to improve if you keep going. Also, don't worry about having to wait till next cycle to apply. This is your future and its important that you leave nothing on the table with regards to your effort in studying for this exam and the money you can get from schools or the caliber of school you can go to!

There could be many reasons why the university's applicant pool is smaller than they'd hoped for, but charging too little for tuition and fees could be the most impactful reason for their small applicant pool. Thus, even if there were other causal reasons for the university's small applicant pool, simply raising tuition fees would result in more applicants if the reason of charging to little in tuition and fees that the author suspected is correct. ~

Answer choice A is also problematic because it says, "at one point in time," which doesn't enable us to absolutely infer that people tried to domesticate any wild animals today.

Great stuff! Thank you, JY!

What kind of reasoning is being used in the stimulus here?

I'm thinking B and E can immediately be eliminated without deep analysis because there isn't any causal reasoning happening. I mean think about it... Alexander being a student of Aristotle doesn't "cause" Aristotle to become a student of Plato. ~

Nice explanation! Thank you so much! Makes perfect sense to me now! I think I just got intimidated by the scientific jargon, but when you go back to the question it is actually quite simple, as the other four answer choices are obviously problematic!

I was caught off guard by this question but JY's explanation really helps!

The part about not going back and thinking about what Snell's main point of his paragraph was is really helpful advice. Can't wait for more tid bits of information like this, so I can finally feel confident doing reading comp passages!!

How do we view the target time for these questions in the syllabus? For the questions in the drills the target times are readily available. ~

I think A would be better if it said attacks a view different from the view Ruth actually stated. Steph's mere assertion of another view or in this case a variation of a similar view (varied experience necessary but not sufficient) isn't necessarily entirely in opposition to Ruth's view.

I didn't like B because of the "not all" in it. The stimulus' conclusion is very strong, saying each of the staff members, but of course I accept that B is the right answer and will try to rethink this question using JY's advice.

I'm very pleased with the core curriculum! : )

Got the right answer but this question is so long. It felt like reading through a reading comprehension passage. The test writers are sooo extra sometimes!

Brilliant explanation JY! May God bless you and your family!

Just because something is sufficient doesn't make it necessaryyyyyy!!! ; )

Took me too long to finish this one. Like 3 minutes. Sometimes it's hard to discern when to write causal or conditional relationships down on paper vs. when to just keep them as information in your head. Notating relationships on paper is too time consuming to do for every problem with conditional and causal relationships, despite being immensely helpful. This problem, I'm presuming should have taken about 1 minute and 30 seconds.

I think E is also wrong because the stimulus doesn't tell us how much/the amount of oxygen in the body of water discussed in the ocean was left after phosphorous doubled. There is no numerical figure referring to the amount oxygen in the water. From what I read online, "inversely proportional," more specifically means two things that move in opposite directions each by the same amount. So we can't infer that oxygen is depleted to levels 2X less than it was before after phosphorous doubled. ~

Answer choice B is also wrong because it says, "do not have experience everyday," however the stimulus says research shows that people do not defer to journalistic news reports except on matters that have NO direct experience. The phrasing "do not have experience everyday," leaves room for could have 'some' experience or 'none.' We don't know the extent of the experience that people have with foreign policy, we only know that they don't have everyday experience with foreign policy but they could have some experience with foreign policy. In this case they wouldn't even defer to journalist. ~

Edited:

OMG! JY already said this but I missed it the first time. Lol.