@ArcherHeeren The argument is saying that intervening on forest fires is bad for the ecosystems. And therefore we should not do it.

But the gap in the argument is what if there are non environmental reasons to prevent or control forest fires. What if they constantly destroy towns and we need to stop them for that reason. So we can't know for sure that forest fires should be left alone based on the premises that they are bad for the ecosystem.

If we add B as a premise to the argument, then we also know that protecting the environment is the only acceptable reason to prevent or control forest fires. So the simplified argument with answer B becomes

Premise 1: Intervening with forest fires is bad for the environment

Premise 2: The only good reason to intervene with forest fires is to help the environment

Conclusion: There are no good reasons to intervene with forest fires.

Hope that helped.

I have a couple questions:

1. What accuracy do you get if you take untimed questions? And I don't mean untimed on the drilling feature, but still trying to go fast. If you genuinely take as long as you think you need, and think about questions until you are either confident you know the answer, or see no way to narrow it down further with any amount of time. I'm curious because you said you usually can't come up with a prediction. That stands out as the thing that needs to be addressed to improve further. If you go untimed and literally take as long as you want in between reading the stim and question, and the answer choices, are you then able to come up with a prediction? If you are not sure it might be worth practicing taking questions super slowly and literally not being willing to look at the answers until you have at least a general prediction. It doesn't need to be the exact answer, just an description of what a correct answer could look like(this does not apply to some questions, like parallel LR questions, and lots of RC questions). It seems like this is the thing that needs to happen to unlock your improvement. If you have no idea what a correct answer would look like before looking at the answers, then it will be really hard to identify which answer is right just because you have seen it. I would encourage you to do untimed drills and be strict with yourself on coming up with a prediction on all questions where it is possible. Even if it takes 10 minutes per question. And I would even considering adding a wrong prediction journal, where if your prediction was completely off, you write down how you could have made the correct prediction. Even if you get slower now, this is the fundamental LSAT skill that needs to be practiced and I believe it will bear fruit in the long run.

2. How many questions do you usually complete in timed sections? And what is your accuracy for the easier questions that you complete, compared to your accuracy for the 4 and 5 star questions. It is worth noting that if you have 2 questions, a 1 star question, and a 5 star question. You are better off spending your time to get the 1 star question right 90% of the time, and blindly guessing on the 5 star question, as that is1.1/2 expected right answers, equivalent to almost exactly a 150. If you had instead narrowed both questions down to a 50/50, you'd obviously be expected to get 1/2 right. Which is the equivalent of about a 147. So if you are completing all or nearly all the questions, it is possible you can increase your score by making sure you get the easier questions right, and just guessing the last few which are basically always 4 or 5 star difficulty.

@Arthurxx I think this is definitely one of the hardest LR questions I have seen . What it is basically getting at is saying that a political party needs at least 30% of voters doing at least one of donating money to it, or joining the party for it to be succesful.

And in this case only 26% of people joined a party, and 16% donated. So it will fail. Cause 26% is less than 30%

The underlying assumption is that everyone who donated to the party also joined it. So 26% of voters either joined or donated. 26% is less than 30%, so the party is cooked.

But there could be people who donated and didn't join! And that could get the party to above 30% joined or donated.

E is really hard to pick, because it intuitively sounds bad for the education party. But it means that there are more people who either donated OR joined. Because there is less overlap between them. So even though it sounds bad for the education party, it gives them a way to get above the 30% joined or donated threshhold.

There is a difference. When you are around the median of the schools you want to get into, that is when an extra point matters the most. Because once you are below a schools median, you are bringing their median down the same amount no matter how far below you are. So this cycle according to LSD.law Yale, Chicago, and Harvard are all at a 174 median, so for those the difference between a 173 and 174 is real.

Don't get me wrong, a 173 is a fantastic score, but if you are specifically targeting the absolute top schools, it benefits you to get a higher score.

If someone claims my cat I had growing up killed 1 billion birds in it's lifetime, and I said, well my cat obviously didn't have time to kill that many birds in it's life, so therefore it killed 0 birds, that would definitely not be a good argument.

I think it is really important that early on the argument establishes that the revolutionary party has been accused of causing "great suffering." Not just "suffering" The existence of great suffering kinda implies that there could be a level of suffering which is not great. Which implies that there are levels to suffering.

@AluGator Beethoven's music could still have gotten introspective, but E is just saying it would be slightly different. E just needs 1 note of Beethoven's career post hearing loss to have been different if he had not lost his hearing.

The final premise says "In Beethoven's case it GAVE his later music a wonderfully introspective quality that his earlier music lacked."

"gave" suggest causation between him losing his hearing, and it gaining that specific introspective quality. So we have a premise saying him being deaf contributed to how introspective his music is. Making it very very likely if the music would be different if he had never gone deaf.

For E to be wrong it would have to be likely that Beethoven's music would be literally exactly the same even had he not lost his hearing. Not just introspective, but every note would have had to be the same.

@SlippinJimmy2026 I disagree with LSATlabs explanations, cheating the paradox presumably just means it contradicts one of the premises. C is compatible with all the premises.

The reason C doesn't matter is that however many hunters there are, we know that in total they kill no fewer deer than they did in the 60s. That is a premise.

If the number of deer hunters has gone down, that just means the deer hunters who are left on average kill more deer. The number of distinct different people hunting the deer does not matter to the deer population, only the amount of deer being hunted.

In the 1960s there may have been 10 000 deer hunters in North America killing 1 deer each per year. Now there are 5000 deer hunters in North America. But they each kill 2 deer per year. This doesn't help explain why the deer population has gone up.

I think more context is needed to know, but I can guess. My guess is that if you are worried about running out of materials, and not progressing, it makes sense to spend as much time as you can on reviewing the questions you made mistakes on.

Is there a pattern to your wrong answers? Do they tend to be clustered near the end, or spread out? If you go to analytics, questions you can see your accuracy on questions of each difficulty type.

More importantly, for every question you have gotten wrong, do you understand why the right answer is the right answer now? If you open the last 5-star difficulty LR question you got wrong, could you explain to a person who is not familiar with the LSAT why the right answer is right, and why every wrong answer is wrong?(If you have someone who is very patient and willing to let you, actually literally try this if you are unsure if you can, it can be really helpful. Like text them right now, and say, hey can I try explaining an LSAT question to you, to test if I really understand it)

If the answer is that you could not explain the questions you have gotten wrong, then I think you need to spend more time analyzing the questions you have gotten wrong. The only way to make progress is to realize what error in reasoning/process you made for your wrong answers and figure out how you could not make the same mistake again.

So, I would need more info to be sure, but it sounds like you should go through the materials more slowly, spending more time on each question you have gotten wrong. And then you can have enough materials left to take the June test.(or the July test, or the August test)

One thing you can try if you are better at flaw questions, is identify the flaw, because the necessary assumption is usually just repairing the flaw. Specifically, the flaw questions where the answer choices are a specific counterexample relating to content of the question. Not the flaw questions which describe a structural problem.

This may not work for all NA, but usually the necessary assumption is that one of the possible counterexamples is not the case.

For example, I grabbed a random level 5 NA question from an older PT you are likely not saving for timed tests. Take a look at 120.4.22. So please go open that, and read it carefully, and look for the flaw in the argument. I am not sure if I am allowed to post full questions here.

When I read that question, the flaw that stands out is that it is concluding the act of inhibiting displays of emotion causes a rise in heart rate. But what if just the emotional situation itself causes the rise in heart rate. We have no data on the heart rate of people who do not hide their emotions in emotion-provoking situations. They might also have a sharp rise in heart rate, and if that is the case this argument seems like it doesn't work at all.

If you can identify that flaw, we can look for an answer choice that fixes it.

A seems like it does, it says that an emotional situation on its own is not enough to cause a rise in heart rate if they are a nonrepressor. That seems to patch up the flaw. And A is false, that would mean the counter-example is true. And the argument completely falls apart.

None of the other answer choices do patch up the flaw. If you have follow up questions about any of the other answers and why they don't work let me know. Or if you try this as a drill and have problems with other examples, feel free to ask about them

Edit: I will just look at the analytics, E looks like it is the most picked wrong answers. But it just says the heart rate is the same for repressors or non-repressors. That doesn't have anything to do with the differences between nonrepressors choosing to try and hide their emotions, and nonrepressors who display there emotions.

I don't know if this will work for you, but if you really do struggle with NA questions, you can try also distinctly looking for flaws in the argument. And look for the answer that patches up those flaws. Could be a mental strategy that works.

163 is a fantastic diagnostic score. Probably better than like 98% of people, if not more. 163 is a decent just...score after months of studying.

Aiming to take the test once only is a bad idea, because there is kinda inherently variance in peoples scores, and you want to do it until you get in the top of your score band.

But yes, if you study well, and consistently, you absolutely should be able to score in the mid 170, or high 170s.

@Rori04 My advice would be to analyze why you got each question you got wrong wrong. And it is even better if you can explain to a skeptical non LSAT person why the right answer is the right answer. Every single correct answer on the LSAT is unambiguously correct. All the wrong answers are unambiguously wrong. When reviewing with unlimited time try to get to the point where you understand why every wrong answer is wrong. If you ever think to yourself something like "oh well I guess I thought C was slightly better, it turns out A was slightly better" STOP. C was not slightly worse. C was wrong.

Also, I know this is the same thing I said before. And there could be life circumstances you don't want to talk about that make this truly not viable. But truly ask yourself whether you be more behind graduating law school from a better school, or with less dept due to a larger scholarship in 2030, or a worse school, with more depth in 2029. I don't know your age or circumstances, but if your reason is that you are 20 something, and you are worried that if you go to law school when you are twenty something plus 1 you will be super far behind. I would seriously reconsider. You can reconsider and come to the same choice. But like write down all the pro's and cons of both plans. And if you are like 22 and just graduated undergrad, please just apply next cycle, give yourself a year to get a good LSAT score and study consistently part time while working.

Are you trying to apply for the 2025 cycle, and if so is there a reason you cannot apply for next years cycle? If applying to law school literally ASAP is a must for some reason follow other peoples advice. If not I would like.... not worry too much about this one. And give yourself more time. study for like months and got get a 160 in August.

I had a shorter plateau, and I found doing massive drills of the questions types i'm bad at to help me break through.

I feel like if you consistently score in the high 160s, that probably means you basically just know most of the answers, but the 2 or 3 hardest questions are basically guesses, and maybe 1 question type is basically a guess.

For me I was weirdly bad at conclusion questions. And I did a 50 drill set of all conclusion questions. And finding the conclusion 50 times in a row kinda made those type of questions automatic for me in a way that doing 50 conclusion questions spread across 20 drills and 5 practice tests wouldn't.

You could also do some 3 question drills that are only level 5 difficulty questions, and take as long as you want, like literally >10 minutes per question, and practice fully solving them

From what I have seen almost all schools only really care about your highest LSAT. And if they don't they will just assume a canceled score is a low score anyway. It also still counts as an LSAT take. Also then you will have to go on never knowing what you got.

Unless you are 100% sure it is going to be drastically worse. But considering it won't change how it effects any schools stats, and you will probably write a addendum on your application that you had issues with proctor on your first LSAT whether it is a low score or a cancel. it probably doesn't really matter if that is because of a low score or a cancelation. Because if you have a cancelation, they will assume it would have been a worse score.

Also like, if you got a 145, and then later get a 170. It is very obvious that the 145 does not reflect your abilities. a 25 point swing is not variance. Lots of people literally take an LSAT as a diagnostic, which is foolish, but from what I have seen it is foolish because it wastes $245, and an LSAT chance, not because schools care about the first low score.

@jacobjack.1123 I know you won't care because this was 3 years ago, but for people now, or in the future looking at the discussion I think the inclusion of "This is especially important with the new clear-coat finishes" offers some support that the scratches on old finishes from brushes are not super severe, and that the new finishes don't get scratched in any way that is super bad.

The fact that it was considered "especially important" to switch for clear-coat finishes, and not older finishes(note the word especially means more important for clear-coat finishes than other finishes, without the word especially I don't know if C is right) has an implication that the situation with brushes wasn't super dire for old coats. Because if it was then it would also be super important to switch to mittens. And that the situation with mittens now is acceptable. Because the switch from bad, to still bad would just not matter that much.

So we have a pretty good reason to believe that the scratches from mittens on new cars are minor enough that it is a big improvement, and that the mittens should scratch the old finishes less than that. And that their gap in resistance to scratching is big enough that it was distinctly more important to switch to mittens for clear coat finishes. So we have a pretty good reason to believe the mittens don't scratch the old finishes to any substantial degree.

Obviously that would not be good enough for a must be true, but I do think that that is enough that C is distinctly more strongly supported than every other option here.

Hah, I spent like 3 minutes searching through paragraph 2, 3, and the bottom half of 1 looking for any of the answers. Because I disliked all 5. Then on blind review I just started to reread the entire passage from scratch and there it was right away. Thought I was really dumb for forgetting the opening.

Then I see it is statistically a very difficult question, so I guess I can be consoled that lots of people are forgetting about the opening.

Good mental note though. If I don't recognize any of the answers, to check the opening, I forget the details of the opening more than random details in the rest of the passage a lot.