After work, I do 1-2 hours. If I miss a day, I try and make up those study hours over the weekend. I think 7SAGE's study plan is really great because you can adjust the settings to suit you. I feel motivated by the fact that while it's hard, it's not forever. Once the LSAT is over, that time will be free. Short-term sacrifice for long-term gains. I still prioritize working out and eating healthy, which I think helps.

I understand why "E" is wrong for Passage B. I didn't choose E - but I'm having trouble understanding how we can rule out E after only reading Passage A. Isn't E "criticize characterization of a particular culture" referencing the first sentence of A, "Many commentators have described the blues musician of the US [...] yet one could hardly find two performers with less in common from a sociological perspective." So it is criticizing the characterization by the commentators that blues music is an extension of the griot of West Africa.

I'm also applying for the 2027 cycle and graduated basically in 2023. Feels weird and late but I wanted to work first and save up. My friends already in law school have plenty of older classmates which makes me feel better. Never too late.

The reason I got confused about B was because the 'varies significantly' I did not think HAD to mean some areas had very very little water. Maybe the significant variations could be a little short on water to having way too much water available and no chance of shortage in the near future. I understand why the others are wrong, but that's why B tripped me up.

If part of the iron hypothesis was asking "how can a sun composed largely or iron generate the huge energy output of the sun?" And Payne realized the hypothesis answer needed to be re-examined - she was rejecting the iron hypothesis in part because it could not account for the energy produced by the sun. Nuclear fusion is the answer - which Payne did not know at the time, but she had rejected the hypothesis and doesn't the discussion of nuclear fusion serve to clarify a reason for rejecting the iron hypothesis? Her data (even if she did not know it) did have a way of producing the sun's energy output.

@AndrewWiedenkeller thank you!

For C - isn't there an absence of evidence that the constituents oppose the bill to reduce corporate income tax, and there is the existence of evidence that they do not want high taxes, and the argument is confusing 'they do not want high taxes' for 'they support lowering the corporate income tax.' still having a hard time understanding how C is wrong

@DanielleBucko I think you can get "not justified" out of the second rule, but it just would not be the conclusion. it would be the premise. 'If Carlos is not justified in accessing, then that means for sure there were not reasonable grounds.' It does not mean 'if there are not reasonable grounds, then Carlos is not justified in accessing.' Carlos could potentially not have reasonable grounds, and still be justified in accessing the computer for other reasons.

@RoriHarder Maybe we can discover aliens, just not in the near future because we cannot send spacecraft outside our solar system in the near future. Everything was modified so not just aliens but aliens on planets outside the solar system, and we're only talking about the time frame of discovery in the near future, not say 20,000 years in the future.

@SoniaKulkarni 1) Penn has an exemplary record (and he should not in the correct answer choice) and 2) It separates Franklin saving lives and exceeding what could be reasonably expected of a police officer. Instead of saying he exceeded what could be expected while saving someone's life, it says he saved lives on some occasions, and in other occasions exceeded expectations. It doesn't guarantee an overlap.

@Nickgigs I thought it was too narrow because the stimulus says focus on the comfort of leisure travelers (which includes all comfort on all types of flights) and C only talks about sleeping in comfort and on long flights only. Also, even if it is not their primary concern, it does not tell us why we shouldn't focus on their comfort since they buy most of the tickets. They probably still care about their comfort, they just prioritize cheap seats. If two airlines offered equally cheap seats but one airline was way more comfy, the economy class passengers would all probably choose the comfier airline, even it is not their primary concern.

@Isabella P sufficient --> necessary, /necessary --> /sufficient (If it is a dog, then it is a mammal --> if it is not a mammal, then it is not a dog). (One is justified in accessing information in computer files without securing authorization from the computer's owner only if the computer is typically used in the operation of the business.) only if --> introduces necessary. Becomes: if it is not a computer typically used in the operation of a business, then one is not justified in accessing information in computer files without securing authorization from the computer's owner. The other rule contrapositive is that if accessing the data in the files is not justified, then there were not reasonable grounds for believing that the computer contains data usable as evidence in a legal proceeding or the computer was not used in the operation of business.

@CamilleChmura But say in C, Natalie's computer was instead her personal laptop and had nothing to do with business, even though it ends with not justified it would have been the correct answer. (in a world where answer B isn't there/is different) - you can't rule out 'is not justified' in this question because of the contrapositive of the first rule.

@Nickgigs It's super specific - sleeping in comfort and long flights. Maybe they still want to sit comfortably (lumbar support in the seats? nicer cushions? nicer headphones for watching movies?) or they want the comfort during short flights. Or even if it is not the primary concern, maybe it is still a big concern, just not the biggest one.

@jackghenriquez1 I took it as the 'epidemics known to have been caused by the Ebola virus' are not necessarily all modern day even if it was only discovered recently. If there was an Ebola epidemic in 430 BC Athens, then there could have been ten thousand others scientists know occurred over the last four thousand years that they now realize is Ebola, and of those most of them are usually shorter-lived than the Athenian epidemic.

In the star question brown dwarfs are identified by their mass and whether or not lithium is present in their atmospheres. A brown dwarf’s lithium cannot be consumed because they do not have a functional nuclear furnace. If it says they are identified by whether or not they have lithium, does that really mean all brown dwarfs have lithium? Couldn't they not have lithium in their atmosphere and still be classified as a type of brown dwarf? And then the last sentence would mean if a brown dwarf does have lithium, then it cannot be consumed. But it doesn't have to mean that a brown dwarf has lithium, does it?