I spent way too long overthinking this question, but I guess that goes to show that sometimes the test isn't trying to trick you... you're doing that to yourself.

A - Nope. The author doesn't point out any contradictions---nor are there any. The automakers are making the same-ish points now and then.

B - Also nope. Facts ARE mentioned, but we have no idea if the automakers were using false data. For all we know, their data was 100% right and we were using different data. Unsupported.

C - No flaws are pointed out because the automakers aren't providing a premise + conclusion combo. Just some statements/claims. Goodbye.

D - Yes! The author is calling out the automakers on their s*** because in the past they tried to pull this stunt and were WRONG, so this time around they're pulling the same stunt and are probably wrong AGAIN. (shoutout me for overthinking this as "way too obvious, therefore obviously wrong"

E - No. This evidence is not provided. The only evidence provided is that the PAST standards were made feasible. Not the new ones.

The paradox in need of solving: why does a minimum sell price need to be set for an item of high desirability? Wouldn't you assume that the high desirability enables sellers to rake in money?

My first gut-reaction was that we need a minimum price so that buyers do not collude with each other to underbid the seller. But that doesn't make sense since if there's only one product being sold, they can't exactly split it. Requires too many assumptions.

The real reason we need to set a minimum for highly desirable items is, I think, to protect the buyer. E is the only answer that shows what the buyer thinks and how they might try to completely outbid the rest with a bid so high that it might be considered utterly unreasonable.

Real world example: There is a 1/1 Magic the Gathering card of the One Ring of Power (from Lord of the Rings). It's one of the rarest TCG cards in the world. Post Malone paid the original owner 2 million dollars for it. A trading card.

I imagine that in this scenario, where there is no minimum price, Post Malone's bid is the exorbitant and economically unfeasible bid. If a minimum had been set (perhaps 100k), then I doubt he would have offered 2 million for it despite it being a highly desirable item. Therefore, the publicized minimum is there not for the seller but for the buyer to see and to reflect their bid off of.

Hi, I'm on try no.4 and I completely empathize with how you're feeling. It's been a soul-crushing 1.5 years for me and the end is in sight whether I like it or not. I expect to take it the full 5 times.

I'm definitely not a consistent 170+ scorer on my PTs but I was seeing immense fluctuation (think: 177 on one PT and then 155 on the immediate following one and almost no consistency across PTs) over months of practicing. Which I took to mean as something is wrong in my brain since I clearly know HOW to do the test, I just wasn't able to execute.

During the official tests (I burned a try on a diagnostic and then burned 2 more because I scheduled thinking I would be ready by the time they rolled around) I had so much anxiety that I physically forgot how to read, which then led to even more anxiety and even more stress. There have been official tests where I literally burst into tears during the break and tests where I exited the exam and knew in my soul that I was going to have to keep studying. My official score shave been nowhere NEAR what I know I am capable of.

My solution has been to see a psychiatrist and get real help and real accommodations. I received an ADHD + Anxiety diagnosis and have gotten proper accommodations from LSAC. Has it fixed everything? No. Testing with accoms is also a HUGE beast and my new issue is endurance. But knowing that my previous tests were results of uncontrollable factors that I now have adequate medical support for has helped me to be more understanding toward myself and to motivate me toward my goal 175+.

I'm happy to chat more privately if it'll help. This test has been the hardest experience of my life and since I've boxed myself into "T14 or Die" (not literally, don't come for me mods) it really does matter That Much.

Can anyone attend office hrs? Or is it limited to specific membership types?

whenever i traveled, i took a PT before the flight and then printed it out with all of the BR suggested questions circled. and then i spent the entire flight just doing blind review of the PT i'd taken

interested!

interested

interested

definitely agree with all the advice already given, but wanted to add my 2 cents

what pushed me from 150s to 160s was understanding question types at a very high level. it's reading the question stem and knowing innately what sorts of answers we're looking for (i.e. if it's a sufficient assumption, then i will have to look for a gap and fill it to the tee, if it's an MSS then the stimulus will lead to the answer, etc.) but also reading suspiciously. if you go in thinking the question is going to bait you with an assumption, then it becomes easier to see.

i dont agree with only drilling 4-5 star questions. while i think studying for 1 stars is a little pointless, the vast majority of your test will be 3-5 stars and the 3 star questions offer you the opportunity to see a really large array of the different ways lsat writers can warp the question types and trip you up. i think quantity is very important when youre starting out as long as you review and understand why you got the question wrong.

study-wise, i took 1 pt a week and that worked for me. i think with blind review and wrong answer journaling, 1 is more than enough. especially if you're also drilling on the side. on top of that, i attended a lot of the live sessions that 7sage offers and drilled on my own on the side. when i started out, i had a tutor that had me doing stair climber drills (3x1 star, 3x2 star, 3x3, etc. only progress upward when you get all of them right) for the question types i struggled with the most. as of now im just taking a section or two a day, blind reviewing, and WAJ. moreso trying to iron out errors in thought process and maintaining a good reading speed at this point.

im not gonna lie, going from 150 --> 165 was harder for me knowledge-wise than 160 --> 170+. once you take a TON of these questions, you start anticipating what sorts of answers will crop up, whether they're correct or traps.

started in the 150s, now scoring in the 160s-170s. i also study full time 6 days a week (Mon-Sat), around 4-8 hours a day, although im a bit loose with it since i travel a lot :)))

i make a point to start at 9 am every day (pretending i'm clocking in for my job) and do a warmup (5x1 star, and 10x any star). after that every day is usually a mixed bag of taking a ton of the live session classes (cannot recommend enough) and try to get a solid grasp on the nitty gritty details. i try to do at least 1 full LR or RC section with blind review and wrong answer journal after. every saturday i take a PT to finish off the week. the next monday i begin with blind review on the past test and then straight into WAJ.

when i was starting out, i did the 7S 1-1 tutoring for MANY weeks and i don't really think it was worth it. so dont buy in. just get the live session membership.

currently reworking my system and schedule a little since i've changed my 7S membership back down to the regular one so i can focus more on honing in better timing and reading skills. open to any tips!

edit: i will say, i neglected blind review a LOT when i was starting out. DO NOT make my mistake. blind review is your best friend and the new 7S platform really makes it a lot easier to do.

in iowa. i'm down to join

@Mdwa1999 A few days before the test, I typed up and printed a sheet of things that I normally catch myself erring on during PTs (reading too quickly, not focusing, not catching literal language, A->B and A-m->C = B-s->C, etc. etc.) and just scanned over that a couple times to keep the worst parts fresh.

I also retook 10 questions of varying difficulty (timed) just to get into the groove of reading and answering quickly, but did not check the score afterward so I wouldn't discourage myself.

At the end of the day, I still locked up but having done a first round, I feel more prepared in knowing what awaits me. Just gotta keep grinding at it.

IDK if this is prevalent to your case, but I have craaazy test-based anxiety and definitely lock up during tests. What I've done to mitigate it is to take PT's in as similar of conditions to the real deal (I plan to take remotely in Nov). What helps most for me is attending the proctored Saturday exam time that 7Sage offers.

Aside from that, when I lock up during an exam, I take the few seconds to close my eyes and take two really deep breaths. I remind myself to read carefully and try to remember the goal of the question stem. That helps in filtering out what is relevant/not.

My strategy for reducing time is to answer the initial 10-15 questions in a section quickly and efficiently so that I can bank time for later on where questions tend to get very tricky/need diagramming. The key to any LR Q is to know exactly what it's asking of you (i.e. Necessary Assumption, Flaw, Conditionals, etc.)

As for grinding PTs, I would say yes but make sure you're very aware why you got the question wrong and how you plan to mitigate that in the future. That helps so that you're not mindlessly burning away at your question database. Quantity =/= Quality.