Hey so I've recently been running into an issue where I perform a lot better on individual sections when I do them in isolation, compared to doing sections consecutively on a full preptest, and I feel a bit contributing factor to that is switching gears from RC to LR can be quite difficult for me. Recently I did a PT where I'd just finished an RC and moved onto the next LR sections, I literally spent several minutes blank staring at the first 2 questions. On the other hand, switching from LR to RC I feel like I'm forgetting to use basic RC skills like slowing down and doing low res summaries, and it didn't come back to me until later in the section. I think I'm going to try doing more LR and RC drills back to back to deal with this. Has anyone had similar experience/dealt with this before?
- Joined
- Jul 2025
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Discussions
At first I thought E had the relationship backwards. I was looking for an answer like "the parts determine the whole", as it is the evil in people that make institutions imperfect. But I guess this explanation makes sense too, basically saying institutions have no effect on individuals.
I beg your pardon??? Role played in the argument by the UNSTATED ASSUMPTION????
I didn't like any of the answers here at first because the way passage B was describing false memories as having a real emotional impact worth talking about, I didn't feel super comfortable characterising them the same as the mistakes Passage A is talking about.
go back to the basics for each question type and understand what you're looking for. fundamentally there's nothing different between a 1 star and a 5 star.
why did you pick the wrong answer, why is the answer you picked wrong, and why is the correct answer right. if you cant write down each of these things then you haven't understood the question.
The key to a faster RC is literally just to be able to understand the passage better in a shorter amount of time. And the best way to do this ironically is to practice slowing down when drilling. Spend 4-5 mins in untimed drills before going to the questions, even if you finish in 3 mins force yourself to make low res summaries. The more you do this you'll find that your reading ability will actually get faster. Its like learning how to walk before learning how to run
what is the author's intention for citing the evidence here? Is it to prove that women are capable doctors in ancient times? No the author doesn't really care about their effectiveness. He simply wants to prove that they existed.
its quite the jump in logic from the one word "sovereignty" to conclude that the parliament can back out any commitment with international bodies. Like its very possible what if the UK makes a commitment, they back out, and then they get sanctioned? This is just not a reasonable assumption.
I picked B even though at the time of answer I thought hmmmm it doesnt have to be the case that independent stores just sell a completely different set of books, because I missed "has been to the detriment of book consumers" in the stim.
I went -2 on this section and but this one had me the most stumped because i couldn't for the life of me figure out the relationship between the company's current operations and what the food service industry has to do with it.
I see why E is wrong, but I don’t think B even logically make sense. Yes this is MSS and the answer doesn’t have to be strong, and yes B says “unlikely to be useful” but that is just not enough to ensure that this is the only way you can use C14 to date earthquakes. This could literally be a LR flaw question if you assume this. Like consider this:
Q: C14 is usually used by identifying faults and measuring the amount of C14 left
AC: C14 dating is likely useless for dating earthquakes without identifying faults.
Flaw: illicitly presumes that because C14 is primarily used in one method that the method is the only way C14 could be used in this context.
@MnM I think both of you guys are missing my point. I know what the placebo effect is. My point is there's not really an indication that the experiment was set up in a way where the control group knows that they are in fact the control group, and vice versa the experiment group knows that they are the experiment group. It could be the case that the control group which received no treatment got what looked like magnetic beads but in fact have no effect and therefore isn't a treatment like the stim said.
At the end of the day it comes down to how you interpret "treatment", which you could either interpret as treatment which only have positive effects in actuality like I mistakenly did (so if you give the control group a fake medicine in this instance that would not count is giving them ACTUAL treatment), or treatment is something that even remotely resembles any form of remedy (basically if you told the control group to just try their best to heal and voila).
Its easy to interpret C is talking about the water pollution as it is being treated in the plant, but its actually talking about the water pollution AFTER the treatment. Maybe my english is just shit but referring to this as "pollution FROM the water treatment plant" is ridiculously vague.
You see, my stupid ass didn't register that the trash incinerator is something else entirely from the powerplant.
Yes I see why E is wrong, but for it to be wrong you'd have to either assume or have prior knowledge about the idea that the chicks are already conceived and therefore is a totally different scenario than the theory addresses, which I feel like isn't made very clear.
I'm confused at people saying that there's no such "fact" that D is referring to. The fact is that this new theory cannot distinguish between sibling species that would otherwise be distinguished. I think the bigger reason for why this doesn't work is because showing a theory to be incompatible with one fact is absolutely a valid reason to reject a theory, but the argument rejects the theory without properly demonstrating why this incompatibility is an issue.
@Kihla333 if you can get everything ready after you get a good score in April then you can try it by all means, but statistically it is just much harder to get in with late apps. May save you some time, to just wait a few months, refine your application perhaps, and spend the application fees during a time when you have a better shot
I wouldn't sweat it lol. I took the Feb LSAT earlier this year and took my writing section like 2 weeks after cuz i kept putting it off. Still got my scores on time
yes its true that the studies talked about in B needs to be done in order for the proper research to happen, but that's not what the sentence is referring to. I picked B too, but upon reviewing the referential phrasing, its actually referring to the research in C, which starts from the previous paragraph
For some reason it didn't click with me that sale of land = real estate, i fear this career path may not be for me
For D, although there's a chance that it means the overall population decreased, it equally leaves open the door for the possibility that overall population has increased. E completely shuts this down, and it doesn't need the population to decrease to weaken the conclusion.

was checking my answers, this one almost got me