It is officially about 3 months away from the February LSAT and I am extremely stoked but still a little nervous. People have suggested three months as the best amount of time one should spend in studying. But I find that despite this effort, one might still fall short of one's intended goal due to a number of different factors. One factor which I believe is crucial for progress is the ability to study efficiently.
When it comes to standardized testing, I suck at studying efficiently. I sometimes find myself spending enormous amount of time studying but never breaking the "plateau". With that being said, I would like to get some insights on how you all study. Outside of the 7sage curriculum, how do you all fine tune the skills needed (e.g. speed etc). For example, as a philosophy major I try to spend time really understanding the subtleties embedded in arguments in the readings that I'm assigned as a helping tool. What else do you all recommend?
Also, I know it can be hard to study for the LSAT while one is still in school but this is a reality for many of us. In school, I work best when I follow a routine that I've set for myself, otherwise I'll procrastinate my whole life away. I've been thinking of ways to fuse these two into my schedule but I would also like to hear other thoughts as well.
It may help to focus on the conclusion drawn and the reason for the conclusion
Premise: Panel of independent scientists found that tests conducted to determine the safety of irradiated foods were flawed.
Conclusion: Therefore, Irradiated food is not safe to eat
The activists is assuming that a flawed method guarantees a wrong conclusion. But it is quite possible to use a flawed method to arrive at the right conclusion. Merely pointing out the flaw in a certain method does not prove that results of that method are also flawed/wrong.
Answer choice A basically states that "the activist is treating the flaws found in the methodology of the test as proof that the results of the tests as false."