What the actual hell, I hate this test. Don't make an assumption, but then actually make a huge assumption. . . .

@LadyShiva She's just a troll. I mean we could assume shes not a member, but couldn't we assume that she is but maybe she's also an employee or the CEO's daughter. . . I guess I just don't get that part.

@Haleh I agree, why would I assume that Pat wasn't a member, we don't know that she isn't SHE could be a member.

Trying to understand this was like trying to understand a language from a galaxy far far away. I do not understand anything that is being sid, and honestly it's just making me mad, maybe it is the use of 'ought' but as an English major that fact that I don't understand this is frustrating. These are the hardes questions for me. Any help?

Mr. FatCat!

I would just cycle back through the ones you started with. It’s incredibly unlikely you’ll remeber 1000+ questions in detail.

I work 40hours a week, and have two high needs children at home (ages 9 & 6). I study from 5a - 7a and then again from 8:30p-11 or so. It is really fun to be me.

i knew why it was wrong, but I struggle with the way the answers are written the language seems more unnatural than the question. :-( I just don't know how to decipher the answers when they use that sort of abstract vocabulary vs if they had actually used phrases like government agencies etc I would've been able to understnad it in relation to the questions and passage more.

Um . . . I'm 37 and will test in September. I ask myself 'will you be bummed you didn't do this ten years from now, 5 years from now, 2 years from now?' ....

I got this wrong because I didn't read the part about 'humans'. Ugh. I should slow down.

@Mgonz0216 Kittens is the superset, and homes with kids is the subset. They are saying that out of all adopted kittens less than half went to homes with kids. Few = some but less than most. So kittens --- m---> /kids is the answer. Because of all the kittens adopted, a few went to homes with kids, but a few is less than most, so most kittens when to homes without kids.

@joycetheok sure did!

I struggle with these - to me it seems just as likely that the surface would expel heat and that venus would have fissures. . . .

I struggle with these types of questions because I do not understand the vocabulary or language used in the question. Is there a place where this type of question is provided? I struggle to identify the differene between a claim and an observation or 'acceptance of which' or nevertheless false.

In examples like #3 are there good ways to decipher what isn't relevant to the chain? I am struggling because I assume it is, and then I get stuck trying to make the rest of the chain work. I get all of the other portions of the chain correct though.

When you add these into to the CAS portion of LSAC you are able to specifiy if you want that LOR for one school or all schools. Additionally, you want to waive your right to view the letters before they are submitted, this is explained when you are completing the entry as well. Your LOR isn't reviewed for things other than how lovely you are, do you want it to be well written? Of course, but these letters come from all different people, and schools know that not everyone is writing an elevated level. It is nerve wracking but pick people who think highly of you and try not to stress.

Hey! I’m 37 and I just got my degree in May! I would say go for it, but I wouldn’t apply later than Dec. I’d plan for testing in Oct / Nov and submitting apps in Dec. truly though, if you’re not in til ‘28 that’s okay too! Don’t rush it and sell yourself short.

Ths is likely very silly, but is the use of 'then' the trigger for the type of reasoning question it is? Meaning when I see this type of question I should use lawgic and the arrow?

In number 5 why is it not the temperature.... I answered Things being compared: Houses with lower indoor temps vs houses with higher indoor temps - with the measure being percentage of maintained and the winner being 59% with a lower indoor.

@DouglasNeumeyer it understand that it is inferred, but doesn't inferring that mean you have to know something about glacial periods? I'm sorry, but i do not know a damn thing about glacial periods. . . . if this is common knowledge to be inferred, I'm cooked.

Does this question require knowing that autopilot is run by humans? Because that is how I read it.

wouldn't former residents be non - residents?

@AsemanShahsavand I guess what I am struggling with is couldn't a non resident be a former resident. . . . That was what tripped me.

The reason that I got this question wrong wasn't because I didn't understand the passage or the components of it. I didn't understand the phrasing in the answers - subsidiary conclusion, was this mentioned in the overview materials and I missed it?

@Foxe agreed