Took the exam back in October 2021, but decided to pursue a different career path. Now, I’m looking to make a change and go to law school. I miss the logic games! I thought it was the easiest section once you knew all the rules. If there is one pro, it’s that there’s one less section to study for on this new test!

Identifying the key word indicators in the referenced text is a great tip!

You should take the LSAT. Only a few students (I’m talking single digits) are accepted into Georgetown’s part-time program without an LSAT.

You may find this article helpful: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/law-schools-embrace-lsat-alternatives-after-affirmative-action-ban-2023-12-13/

@kae I overlooked this as well. By saying "Dorothy hasn't yet made a decision" the author is subtly answering the question of whether Bernie's project has been approved (the answer is no, the project has not been approved because Dorothy has not made a decision).

This issue is admittedly something I am still working on, but I’m finding it helpful to watch the explanation video for every question I flagged or exceeded the suggested 7SAGE time on, even if I got the question correct. Sometimes JY and Kevin approach the questions differently than I do or identify things in the stem that I overlooked. I note these differences in my wrong answer journal and evaluate the differences between my approach and JY’s/Kevin’s.

I got tripped up by A's characterization of polyasparate as a "promising alternative to an existing product." I did not think this was descriptively accurate since the passage ends by saying that polyaspartate is not a financially viable alternative to polyacrylates but can "nonetheless be market-competitive on its own merits"? To me, this meant that we should not think of polyasparate as a "promising alternative" but instead an entirely separate product category. This reason, plus the fact that I did not think the author's primary purpose was to describe attempts to market polyasparate, is why I eliminate A.

Even though I did not love answer E, I thought it accurately described an important point in the passage, whereas I did not see answer A as descriptively accurate. Dees anyone have any advice? Am I wrong in thinking answer a is not descriptively accurate?

I see the other comments say not to get bogged down by wording . . . but 7Sage's curriculum teaches us to eliminate answers that are not descriptively accurate (in other words, we need to pay special attention to the word!) #help

This one was tough. The wording did not scream "most strongly supported" to me so it did not occur to me to assume all the answers choices were suspect (i.e., may not be true). If you assume all the answer choices are true, it's hard to figure out why the last 2 answers are incorrect.

This one was tricky. I think the reason I struggled is because I know: (1) what vagrancy laws are and (2) that such laws are not typically effective ways of stopping people from engaging vagrant activities (i.e., the passage of vagrant laws, in my experience, haven't lead to a noticeable decrease in people sleeping on sidewalk in my city). In my mind, the author was correct that vagrancy laws will "cause" an increase in crime because people will not stop engaging in behavior classified as vagrant just because its illegal. I did not realize I mistakenly made that assumption until I watched the explanation video.

Because I was having a hard time prephrasing the flaw, I assumed the answer would be a causal flaw based on the "increase" language. If I'm stuck on a similar problem in the future, perhaps swapping the subject will help reveal the flaw. For example, if the claim had been "grocery bag taxes do not reduce customers use of plastic bags", I would have immediately flagged that as potentially wrong because I religiously use reusable grocery bags, in part, because I abhor paying an additional $0.50 per plastic bag at my local grocery store.

I eliminated Answer B because it seemed like an invalid argument: the author assumes he will have to wait longer for a special order of blinds; however, this is not stated in the argument. Perhaps, for example, the blind seller already has the special order in stock from a return so it won’t require any waiting. Alternatively, maybe all blinds, regardless of whether they are special order or standard, have the same wait/processing time.

I did not observe a parallel missing assumption in the stimulus. Does the stimulus also have a similar missing assumption or am I incorrect in thinking Answer B contains a missing assumption (and, thus, is an invalid argument)?