I just did a 16 question LR drill, ulimited time. I can tell how well I managed time for each question but not for the 16 question cohort. If I'm doing a set of level 4 questions, then it's particularly useful to know how I managed my time in aggregate, rather than just for each question, since questions will inevitably vary regarding how much time it takes to answer correctly, and what's really important is the big picture view of tme management -- not just per question. I can calculate this myself by adding/subtracting results for each question in the cohort but you guys should do that automatically for me, please.
- Joined
- Jun 2025
- Subscription
- Core
The news is the sole property of LSAC. You may discuss but not describe the news. Any attempt to say what the news actually is may result in no further news.
@Alastor1815 That's right. And the author would have to add as well, "Don't infer that I endorse this position just because I declared simply and unequivocally that this is how "the original wrong can most easily be righted..." After all, I might just be talking out of my ass. And doesn't everyone love talking out of their ass? I certainly do."
You need to realize that if you blow this test, your life is basically over. And that means if you answer any question incorrectly, a little bit of your life is over, right then and there -- that's just math. So the most important thing you need to remember is, DON'T BE NERVOUS, because if you are, you'll just make it much more likely that the test will be a complete, irreversible, life changing catastrophe. Oh and also, remember: We're all counting on you.
I hope this helps.
I take the OP's point -- brevity is a virtue -- but I'd ask you to balance that against the value of going into detail. If I'm reading or watching an explanation, it's because there's something I don't understand. I've gained a lot from some of the expansive explanations that explore subtle issues in detail and at length.
@KatarinaS You can have a most or some arrow there; it won't change the argument. Consider:
Joe sometimes (or often or mostly) eats apples.
Apples cause indigestion.
Joe sometimes has indigestion.
@J.Y. Ping Yes exactly. I realize I can add up the individual target times, but it would be good if you can calculate that automatically. Thank you!
@J.Y. Ping For example, JY: I do a 3 question L5 LR drill. First question target time is 1:50, 2nd question target time is 2:00; 3rd question target time is 1:40. Aggregate time I spent on that drill is let's say exactly 6 minutes. How can I tell whether my timing is good? By knowing the aggregate target time of 5:30 -- that tells me what I need to know re timing for that particular drill.
@J.Y. Ping That's almost what I want; I want aggregate time with respect to aggregate target time. If I'm doing a set of L4 questions, or a set of wrong answer x 2 questions, the target time will vary given the higher difficulty level of those questions. I need to know if I'm on track, timewise; only the aggregate time measured against target time will tell me that. Thanks JY -- you have no idea how deep in my brain your video explanations reside.
Kevin's video explanation does a great job explaining why confusing "routine" nonpunishment with "sometimes" nonpunishment is the argument's flaw.
@jwilton798 Orange juice is good for you. I drink orange juice. So I may live to be 100.
The fact that I drink orange juice doesn't ensure even that tentative conclusion is correct because maybe I vomit every time I drink orange juice (and maybe every asteroid that left Mars with living organisms never reached Earth).
I think that's why ac D is wrong.
@jessegrewal08585 I got this wrong and really struggled to understand JY's explanation. I reduce it to this: The translator argues that since you don't know what someone means, you also don't know what they did not mean. And that's not true. When I gave you the car keys I didn't know where you meant to go. But I did know you did not mean to crash the car. I think that's AC E.
I started with classic 7sage and moved to the new version only about a month after subscribing. That was about 9 months ago. I think there’s no comparison: the new 7sage is vastly better. It’s more gracefully designed and powerful, with options to define study areas and retrieve analytics that the classic version didn’t have.
That said, I’m impressed that someone who has found a way to more than double the allotted time on an exam whose most challenging feature is the constraint of time, conferring a huge advantage over all those who observe the standard rules, would still find something to complain about.
I saw it as you did, and got this wrong on actual take and then again on BR. "worsen" was in fact the poison pill for this frustrating question, because nowhere does the passage state or imply that the ineffectual proposed remedy would be even worse than the current crappy system allowing lawyers to charge exorbitant fees. It only makes the case that the proposal sucks, leaving ac E as the only tenable choice.
This is very helpful. I've been wondering what my stats on only PT's are. Now I know.
Given the life you're leading, working full time with a demanding job, and given you've spent a month on this adventure, I think your aspiration to a 170 in January is unrealistic. I think it would be unrealistic if you were independently wealthy and unemployed. I would delay law school application until next year if 170 is essential for your application.
I moved through the core curriculum quickly several months ago, not watching any of the videos -- and paid for that haste. I wound up referring to it frequently as it became clear to me by my wrong LR answers that I had not understood some important fundamentals. My time would have been more efficiently spent completing the core curriculum exactly as it's designed, at a reasonable pace, including most of the videos, really making sure I was comfortable and conversant with the concepts. It's a well designed, thoughtful program -- that's my 2 cents.
@mdrossi27935 I don't think that's the problem with AC A, which is wrong simply because it's irrelevant. The philosophers of science make no claim about preference for laws that are easy or difficult to discover.
Bank president to his subordinate: "Thank you, Jenkins, for showing us we were dummies to think we could earn interest by storing cash in trash bags on the roof. By debunking it, you've made a useful contribution to that theory. We're going to make a lot of money now, Jenkins!"
I understand (D) is the best answer because all other answers are clearly wrong. But let's concede you can contribute to a theory by criticizing it. There's even a name for that -- constructive criticism, on which all scientific inquiry depends.
@Catpop (A) supports both facts in the stimulus: There are fewer thefts and (A) notes there are fewer thieves, which explains fewer thefts. And as (A) notes that more thieves are hanging on to the cars they've stolen, rather than abandon them, the thieves are therefore more likely to be caught and convicted (as the stimulus reports) because they can be connected to the stolen vehicle.
@nano1995 Can't be so because we know from the stimulus that nearly all correctly addressed mail arrives in 2 days and is undamaged.
@spindlynoodles "will likely still be quite cold" acknowledges possible warmth and therefore snow melt, I think.
@jeffrey Been doing 7sage for about 6 months. First time I've laughed out loud, reading something here. Thanks.
I appreciate the other responses here, but your question is really about how to deal with two conditional indicators in one sentence. I think you have to start with translating "unless", even though with two conditional indicators present, "cannot" and "unless", you'd think you can start with either; here's why: consider this simple group 4 indicator statement:
Students cannot attend the prom if they are under 18.
Cannot is a group 4 indicator so:
Negate either idea and make it the necessary condition:
If under 18, then must not attend the prom. Or is contrapositive:
If attend the prom, then must be not under 18.
But now consider an exact analogy to your question:
Students cannot attend the prom unless they are 18 or older.
You’re right; there is a group 4 and group 3 indicator in the stem. But I can only see one way to proceed – address the “unless’ indicator first, or you can’t wind up with a conditional statement. So:
Negate sufficient to get:
If not 18 or older, then must not attend the problem. Or its contrapositive:
If attend the prom, then must be 18 or older.
If you try to solve this statement by addressing "cannot" first, it can't be done, I think, because the sentence's structure won't support it as long as "unless" is present.