- Joined
- Jul 2025
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
I’m trying to diagnose some pretty big RC inconsistency. I’ve scored as well as -6 on a full RC section before, but my last two full sections were -11.
On PT150.S4 today, I went 6/6 on Passage 3 in about 8 minutes, but I spent about 11 minutes on Passage 1 and 10 minutes on Passage 2 while still missing several questions, which left me only about 5 minutes for the comparative passage and I had to guess on a lot of it.
In review, I’ve noticed that on some misses I actually understood the passage pretty well but wasn’t scrutinizing the answer choices carefully enough, e.g. things like subtle term shifts, overstrong comparisons, and answer choices that were “mostly right” but had one bad word.
For people who had volatile RC and eventually became more consistent, what helped most: better passage mapping, more disciplined answer-choice evaluation, or getting better at cutting losses on a passage that isn’t clicking?
I’m especially curious how to interpret going 6/6 on one passage inside a -11 section. Does that usually suggest the core comprehension ability is there but execution/timing is inconsistent?
I always have to remember that people who work on airlines are humans too. Just because there is a reliable long-standing record of something doesn't necessarily mean that it contains mostly positive information. It can contain negative information as well. I think I give the argument more credit than it needs. (C) points out this flaw. What if the records just show how unsafe these major airline flights have really been? We can't say then that premise can lead to a conclusion saying that passengers are safer on major airlines when (C) is true. (A) is wrong because equating the two major airlines and having equal amounts of accidents can indicate major airlines are safer, especially because they're long-lasting or more long-lasting than the low-fair airlines. (B) The argument doesn't draw a general conclusion. (D) Reliably documenting things doesn't necessarily help people become safer. (E) So? Surely low-fare airlines have had some accidents as well. Realistically, sometimes people aren't surprised when hearing about an airplane crash. It's a common phenomenon.
I tried to go into a prediction or fix where I was looking for something like "What if the long-standing records don't indicate that the passengers are safe?" and I ultimately didn't trust my gut again. Behavioral miss. It's really hard to trust your gut on this test, the LSAT writers are clever
Is "They claim that the Moon's evidence merely provides a view of the period concluding billions of years of a continuous, declining heavy bombardment throughout the inner solar system" saying that they believe that less heavy bombardments have been happening meaning that cratering in general has decreased significantly? That's why (C) is the correct answer? I chose (E) and overlooked (C).
I understand why it's (C). What threw me off is that, while otters may make it easier to obtain the 1st necessary condition to go from small to large abalone shellfish ("spend less energy on finding food"). What about the rest of the necessary conditions? They have to spend less energy avoiding predators, like otters. I ended up choosing (E). I thought, okay, if otters prefer large abalones than that means that the small ones won't be prey and have time to develop into large abalones and that would explain why large abalones and otters were in the same waters.
Hi there is a typo in the summary, "natinal" instead of national.
#help I eliminated (B) because I thought when the author said pravastatin has "one of the effects of which is to reduce cholesterol" when used for treatment, the argument is not overlooking other possibilities that pravastatin may reduce the risk of heart disease since it doesn't say that it's only effect is to reduce cholesterol.
Great video! I’m loving the RC curriculum I’m about 60% done. I’m shooting for a 165 by October and the best PT I’ve gotten is a 155 and I’ve been drilling in the high 160s but haven’t PT’ed. RC is a struggle sometimes, I’ve really had to change how I read but I’m working on it. Best I’ve done timed is a -6. My main reason for me telling you this is that I wanted to ask is RC more of a mind game where the LSAT tests your confidence of your read essentially?