Are you able to get an updated letters from the old ones? Based on my direct conversations with admin folks (which I recommend), you should submit the letters that will speak to your academic/professional strengths and ability to handle rigor. Speaking directly to the admin team at your schools of interest will also give you insight into the types of candidates they are excited about and what strikes them the most when reviewing applications- particularly those with 10+ yrs of w.e.

Lastly, most schools require 2 but will accept 3 or 4 so you can submit 3 or 4.

:[ Let me go find science content to read/listen to because I struggled to pay attention and remember the differences across theories in this one passage.

same

Correct and 10 sec under target! I'll take the win noting that listening to the previous lessons that go over the low res & summary for this passage thoroughly set me up for success.

My assignment- become as thorough with low res, summary, and predicting MP as Kevin in about 2.5 minutes. No biggie.

11/13 Medium (only 15% incorrect vs the projected 32% correct). Improvement!

BUT it took me nearly 5 minutes beyond Target time- so I've got some practicing to do. I really don't know how to increase my reading speed. It consistently takes me 4:20-40 to read a passage- this includes mental low res.

This curriculum was great. I'm excited to dig into drilling, PT, and doing exceedingly well on the exam. If I could ask for one thing it would be a vocabulary section that includes abbreviations.

Is there a way to print or copy/paste in a way that minimizes use of paper?

Or a way to save our AC/responses to flag which ones we want to review?

mhen... I don't like this example.

And it was only 2 star difficulty. :/

I didn't choose AC E b/c I didn't think it was THE flaw, BUT "government" did not read the same to me in the premise (i.e. as an institution, systems, policies) as it did in the conclusion (i.e. as people, legislators, regulators, govt employees).

So, I guess I just need to see where this type of flaw is demonstrated accurately.

Great reinforcement activity. I started reading them out loud and the repetition really helped drive home the distinctions.

On medium, got a 2/5. Then BR 5/5. I spent quite a bit of time and paper&pen to think through each answer choice during BR. I'm happy I got them right, but I used different strategies for the 3 questions I struggled with. I do think I am tired and may need to take a break.

same!

Thank you. I saw your comment on the previous 2 questions. After I got the last 4 out 5 incorrect and struggled to answer this question, I applied your strategy on BR and got the answer correct. This was also my first L5 question correct in SA. We'll see how this strategy serves me moving forward because the correct AC was not even in my original top 2 choices.

As I navigate these drills, I pretty much score what was predicted. For example, on medium the expectation is that I would get 30% incorrect. The first round I got 3/5, then after BR I score 4/5. This pattern has happened essentially on every drill. Does this mean I'm not improving since I last took the PT?

I've seen other comments about trying several Drill settings before moving on- I didn't even realize I could reset the Drill mode.

Internal thoughts and why I exceed target times:

Quarried? Is that the same as carried? Does it matter? #Move on

90 Km, Ugh LSAT, the U.S. doesn't really use kilometers. How far is that in miles?

Doesn't matter- it's across the lake. #Focus

Ok, let me reread it again.

I approached this thru POE. I read each AC as: if this AC were true would it weaken the argument that the Ebola virus caused the Athenian epidemic?

I chose answer B because it doesn't weaken the argument. The stim already said that many of the people had hiccups, so to say that not everyone had hiccups wouldn't weaken the argument. The other AC if true made me question the author's conclusion that it was Ebola virus that caused the epidemic.

How I understand it: Premise in the stim referenced "every alternative energy" project which is slightly different from "every project".

Conclusion in the stim: it is likely that the corporations' actions influenced the government's funding decisions.

We are looking for an AC that strengthens this idea that the corporations are the reason for the government curtailing funding as opposed to some other reason.

Answer choice C strengthens it because it states another phenomenon that further shows the influence of corporations on government funding. In the realm of research projects (not alternative-energy projects) we see the same issue, i.e. that the ONLY research projects whose funding was curtailed were the ones the corporations discouraged. It wasn't across the board cut in funding, but only the ones the corporations discouraged. This strengthens the stim conclusion by giving another example of funding curtailed for a different set of initiatives that corporations also discouraged.

I need more time. In this case, I got it right BUT it took me double the target time.

#4:

I'm wondering if Question 4 could be translated as a conjunction as such:

Domain: Journalism

Accurate Info and Consid. Interest -> Good

/Good -> /Accurate Info or /Consid Interest

If not, why?