I think everyone should study like this. Most the time people nail a question down to two ACs, so if you know you got it wrong the blind reviews winds up pretty simple

Lets go

NEVER GIVE UP

Please don't apply this cycle

Just dont start the next section until it matches your accommodated break

You're too late in the cycle you need to apply by mid july youre cooked

I feel like this is their way to combat lsat inflation just making the format as bad as possible and make sure no one is comfortable with it

@mitchmcconnellburner From my understanding it's based on real admission information from the last cycle so there may still be some noise in the data, i.e. an uncommon amount of really good 166 scorers applied to Columbia and NYU last cycle, or some combination of yield protection (colleges denying applicants they think will chose another school, remember it benefits a law school to deny you) - so I bet they are ironing stuff like that out but I bet theres where it comes from

And the inflation continues to get worse

Thank you this seems much more accurate it previously had my 174 as a "safety" at uchicago lmao

@ZingyIndustriousProperty Yes, base it on the school data page. The my applications page right now just says super reach for every school.

There isn't a point practicing with the old format. The more time you spend with the new format the better as you will have to test with it

@ReeseWalter But they're prepared to donate to it, so the total amount prepared to either join or donate may be greater than 30%

@vayne_top_main Its 4.50

I feel like no one is mentioning while A is better than C. Yes, they both require assumptions that both the incidence of food-borne was actually reduced by the hand washing, and the fewer public gatherings were evidence of the public heeding the campaign, but the reason A is right is because the promoted hand-washing is directly one of the tenets of the campaign. There is no wish-washing that. But I few like telling people to avoid public places when they get sick is actually not the same as there being fewer large public gatherings. They would be held either way, it's just sick people wouldn't attend. C has that extra assumption that ties the two together that makes it worse than A.

@GabrielLerma We don't even know if the mom loves the sis more regardless that's another assumption - I think the lsat writers just had their own concept of healthy families in mind to think this is a reasonable assumption that it would cause emotional harm, but not in many families I know

I understand the sufficiency/necessity problem with C, but in what world would two people give a sole reason as the cause for restaurant's failure, would you not assume that if the sole reason was removed, then the two people would then believe the restaurant would not fail. This wasn't a logic question, it was about what we can infer Xavier and Miranda agree about. I think it's clear they agree with C.

It also feels so wrong to think that Xavier thought the new restaurant was a "risky" venture. Maybe I see it. I just hate this question

I understand why B is correct, but I don't get why A is wrong. The belief is that people when looking as the abstract art so it is equally as pleasing as a child's art. So when you get participants and ask them to judge it's aesthetic pleasingness compared to another artwork and take that judgement as proof of your argument, don't we need to assume that they are better at judging in this case than the general case of the popular complaint? Otherwise, why would we care about this study?

WERE LOCKED LETS GOOOO

If the conditions are the same everywhere, then he is presuming by definition that it is also the "normal" condition. I don't see how a condition that appears no where in the country/region is the "normal" condition. Additionally, I feel as though in this case, getting three cars that consistently do very worse on a metric touted is pretty good evidence that something is wrong. If you buy a product that falls very short of the advertised specs, like a computer piece or car, you don't just chalk it up to not having a big enough sample. I think this question is ridiculous.

Got D by POE but it's really loaded with an absurd amount of assumptions

In the Blind Review portion of the desk you can hover over the circled question number, and it will tell you why it was highlighted for BR. Reasons could be answering incorrectly, taking too long, changing your answer often, answering way too fast, and there may be more I don't remember. Unless you have many questions to BR, I prefer not to check the reason and try to reason through the question with no time constraint, squeezing everything out of the question and the ACS. Most of the time, I will know then if I got it wrong or if it was circled for a different reason.

It's useful at this point because I am used to it, so the number gives me a good estimate of how well I did on a drill compared to the expected difficulty of the drill or section, like a golf score. But I don't ever use it to estimate if I am getting closer to my goal scores. My PrepTest equivalent on full sections is generally several points lower than the average scores I get on my Prep Tests. Also, I hope it's reliable for full tests ;)

If the economy was prosperous in both 75 and 76, why did it take until 76 for the amount collected to rise substantially?

So we're supposed to assume they are vegetables who can't accurately talk about anything in the world