What's the over/under on misses for this question because they neglected the "except" part? Lol this has always been a bad tendency i have on these types. I would not be surprised if most misses were from neglecting this.
I got all three of these correct, yet it says i only got 1/3. Has anyone else had this issue and if so how was it resolved or what possible mistake may I have made that led to mismarked answers
My rationale for not choosing (E) was more or less based on the fact that it was a disagreement on relevant factors regarding restitution amount and not the procedure to be employed when processing the claims.
I see how this could be a trap answer for this reason or why people found it attractive. Technically both factors could be employed in case by case procedure and neither makes any procedural claims in regards to executing restitution.
The explanations both on the answer and JY seem to be different than mine. Is it the case that my reasoning for not choosing (E) may be flawed or is this still a valid conclusion to make as to why it is incorrect?
This one is insanely frustrating for me. To those that did well on this, what was your strategy? I cant get any consistency with the formulas. The english translations are not too hard but i cant translate for the life of me.
This one is insanely frustrating for me. To those that did well on this, what was your strategy? I cant get any consistency with the formulas. The english translations are not too hard but i cant translate for the life of me.
J.Y. - "You see where this is going. I've structured the curriculum in a deliberate way to reveal the patterns that hide beneath seemingly very different questions. That's, of course, not how it's going to be on an actual LR section. In fact, the test writers are deliberately trying to obfuscate the patterns."
I love how i just noticed this the other day lol. As I was going through the curriculum I noticed this pattern and thought to myself how this is a well organized curriculum because every unit/lesson blends in with each other so well.
Remember pattern recognition is KEY!
While many state that IQ is not a factor on the LSAT i have to disagree for the fact that IQ tests rely heavily both on pattern recognition and reasoning. This does not mean that a high IQ guarantees a high score or that a high score is unattainable without an exceptionally high IQ. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of college graduate's possess an exceptional level of intelligence and its just a matter of bringing forth what is already within us.
When we are cognizant of this we can focus on the skills we need to develop to reach our highest potential.
I fell for the bait of E but would have picked B if i didn't let myself get finessed.
I saw B to be correct in my initial review by creating a causal chain that would show how those who were very old developed SC because they got sunburn from not using SS when they were very young. In essence stating that the causal link was from not using sunscreen.
/use ss when VY -c-> more sunburns -c-> greater chance of SC
use ss when VY -c-> less sunburn -c-> less chance of SC
Although this reasoning helped me to justify B as the correct answer, I see how it is different from JY's explanation where he attacks the correlation, most specifically the time gap difference between B and the stimulus.
I guess you could say I was attacking the conclusion although I did address the reasoning but I would like to see if someone could explain how this method I employed was not used by JY.
If, so on the basis that it is flawed, what is the flaw and how would it create problems for me on harder questions following up with why the focus on correlation is more effective for these types going forward
the correct answer is A for Antares!
I got spirit bombs for the opposing counsel or maybe a present for you like hercule!
yooo J.Y. its commie-hammi-ha not come-he-hu-he-hu-he 😂
Finally got one right in a solid time (+4sec). All of the lessons from this unit have to be drilled into the subconscious to become second nature. just pay attention to the conjunctions and/or disjunctions and these become much easier. The answer will always follow logically to exactly what is being said in the stimulus.
Eugenic Shrimp > Inbred Shrimp
If Mr. White grows weed (A), then he also cooks meth(B). If he synthesizes LSD(C), then he cannot cook meth. He can make heroin(D) only if he synthesizes LSD.
weed-⛽️, meth-🧊, LSD🦄, Heroin 🐉
If, ⛽️→🧊
If, /🧊→/⛽️
If, 🦄→/🧊
If, 🧊→/🦄
🐉 →🦄
/🦄→/🐉
Conclusion 1: ⛽️→🧊→/🦄→/🐉
Conclusion 2 (contrapositive): 🐉→🦄→/🧊→/⛽️
I initially had every premise correct with the exception of heroin→LSD as i initially had them out of order. Had correct conclusions but unlinked. This one was fun 😏!
No, from all research I have done they only factor in your best score. Anchor point data is a real thing but there is only a one point difference between those scores. Only reason I could see why you would feel it is necessary is to explain why its a 169 and not a 170 but I do not think that would be necessary either. Remember this is all based off the aggregate of my research regarding the LSAT in admissions and I have not taken it myself and thus do not have personal experience regarding this situation. I would just try to find people who had similar situations and ask about their experience handling it. That would probably be your best bet to find out how you should go forth in handling this situation.
I take it you're trying to go to LS in California. That sounds like a solid offer but if you don't mind missing out on a year of income then sure but it also depends on how bad you want to go to your choices of schools. Not sure if you're considering USC or UCLA but if you can get up into the 170's you would have a solid shot at getting into there next cycle. I am not too knowledgeable of the other schools you mentioned either but I guess this all comes down to money and/or personal preference.
If money is a very important factor to you though then i'm not sure if I would pass that up. While Southwestern may not be a very prestigious school, that does not mean you can't have a successful career as a SW grad. Marvin Micthelson - one of the most powerful Hollywood divorce attorneys of the 20th century was a southwest grad.
Also consider what practice area interests you most as some schools have a better reputation in some areas than others.
That 200k offer is not something you should pass up without thorough consideration, but do what you think is best for you.
If I can get five people to commit to meeting (preferably) in person or online in the metro Atlanta area then I will organize and lead a study group so we can analyze our work and give each other greater perspective for this exam. I am looking to take the April 26 LSAT. I know people are busy so I am just looking to organize a group that will be willing to meet once or maybe twice a week.
4/5 and timing was under target exvept for 3 with only +:02 at that. A redo of some lesson drills helped as I had seen two of these before. 4 was incorrect because C tricked me and I overlooked the E which was the correct one. Eventually got it correct via BR. I am satisfied with my improvement in both accuracy and speed but need to get accuracy perfect before worrying about speed.
4 was incorrect and right on the timing maker if 1:00. Taking a max of 30 more seconds would have probably been a difference of correct or incorrect.
I have completed 2 5Q MC drills in the past two days
8.5/10 (.5 is for BR correct on a miss)
timing has been great, only one over 15 seconds with 7 under the time goal
OF COURSE I MISS THE EASIEST ONES IN BOTH!!
No doubt these have been my best drills so far-delighted with the improvement after the MC unit.
B does not weaken because it is practically (almost) irrelevant to the question where as the others offer alternate explanations for declining admissions and the decline in choosing art history as a career path. We can maybe assume that fewer applicants is the reason the age increased on average but thats a stretch.
E provides us with an alternate explanation as to why there are less of the former.
B is correct because it does not offer the alternate explanation. An increase in the average age of applicants does not give us reason to believe that it affects the argument one way or another. In citing JY in the intro for the weaken chapter, it surely does not make our "kamehameha" beam any less thinner.