Hi all, I am taking the lsat in september, and i am scoring in the low 160's rn. I am looking to create a virtual study group to meet everyday for 4 hours, where we can study, and exchange tips/ tricks. Please let me know if you are interested:)
Honestly real. This is a clown circus, we are learning to tame a tiger and jump a flaming hoop. All to say is that we need to sometimes step back take the space, and come back when we are collected. so that our will to live does not dwindle.
how i went about answering this:
a- at first i crossed it out cuz i was like... this is too much of a jump to conclusions
b- heck yea, all my indicator words... but then i looked at all the other options,
c-talks about russia, but too specific so i rule it out
d- eco fact.. not mentioned in the reading or anything alluding to the levels of the seals, so cross
e-how do we know this? was it proved, or stated?
ok with POE we are left with 2 options:
a- well it says that the seal treaty prohibited the hunting of seals, and i would assume because it didn't specify the traditional exemptions, even Alaskan natives were not allowed, that means the MMPA ALLOWED the use of tradition
b-it says in this MMPA treaty it was stated? using my low res map, i look to the text and it never mentions that so.... cross it out
SO A is the answer!
How i approached this question:Which one of the following best summarizes the author's view of the results of Zanotto's study? could be wrong reasoning
a- makes sense, the glass researches(ie scientist) implied they were confused as to why people have this myth.
b- its not a settled argument.. clearly people are still confused
c- this to me is not considered a plausible explanation
d- there is no reconciling of the 2 hypothesis
e- just no... because we clearly identify craftsmanship/ manufacturing as a cause to the thicker glass from the medieval ages.
That's so motivating to hear! Great work!
yes you can! you are given 3 coloured highlighting options and one under lining feature.
You know what? This section wasn’t bad. Did I get a few wrong? Yes. Was it because I doubted myself during blind review? Also yes.
But I want to share one piece of advice I stumbled upon before I started studying for the LSAT — and fair warning, it might be controversial. (No harm or offense intended; this is just the mindset that’s been keeping me going ever since I got my ass handed to me by the NA and SA sections.)
If you get questions wrong both timed and untimed — that’s a skill issue. so go back, take it slow, and work on the foundation.
If you get them wrong timed but right untimed — that’s a timing issue. so you gotta drill in the techniques for AC's that pertain to each question type.
This really resonated with me. Obviously, timing is crucial on the LSAT — it's often the difference between a good score and a great one. But when you’re working through the curriculum, the key is mastering the foundation. Once you’ve got that down, everything else builds on it.
I am with you! This is not an easy journey, and i commend everyone for getting this far.
same! i dont know how to work on my timing. advice for you, maybe try to up the difficulty of the questions and mix in other types to see how you identify them and if you really understand how to answer them, or if it is only in an isolated section
my trick(doesnt work for everyone): but when the question asks for an except, we automatically assume its for the inverse (strenghtens, excpet or ect). BUT, the question stem does not directly ask you for what would weaken the argument. so, to simply answer this, an except questions answer needs to be something that is one of the following
1. not related
2. not supportive to the question stem
3. or does weaken
idk if this makes sense...but works for me!
i was between A and E , like most of the others in the chat, but i realized that A answered the first part of the stimulus, but it was not the hypothesis. so with POE i went to E and was like up this makes sense.
here is my thinking; i could be flawed in my reasoning here...but thought i would share
the stimulus alludes to the gap in the argument about why some characters are more developed than others. for me it was an immediate red flag(why is it only one character and the rest are half-handed). this has to mean that because they didn't own a copy of the full play they had to rely on passive knowledge to make their rendition. so i hunted for possible explanations will doing POE.
here is my thinking; i could be flawed in my reasoning here...but thought i would share
the stimulus alludes to the gap in the argument about why, even though they studied the same species of birds, the captured ones didn't change. an inference that could be made is climate, evolution, or necessity to survive.
an analogy i made is to useless human body parts. over time we dont need some like appendix (dont quote my gr.9 bio). similarly, birds over time in the wild needed to evolve to adapt to their habitat. say their beak was too big to fit in tree burrows to gather food, over time the size would decrease right?
and in comparison to the other answers it MOST makes sense. as the other answers alluded to the capture of 2 different species..
#claim... no bad juju
i jumped to that too, BUT then realized that we could implement the few clause here (transforming the quantifier of few into some are = most are not).
could be wrong- also this is something that works for me. honestly, diagraming lawgic for me comes after i first read the question and then the prompt given so i know what to focus on when reading. because the question is asking for the application, we just need to remember that the prompt was a conjunction. meaning to be able to buy this old object you need to be able to authenticate it BUT also like it personally (v generalized). now the application part of the prompt says that the buyer didn't end up purchasing the antique. this should sound alarms that they did not fulfil one of the 2 MANDATORY CONDITIONS to be able to purchase this object (or neither- meaning that they had none of the conditions met).
so to justify the application the answer needs to replicate that missing gap.
how i understood, could be wrong:
QUESTION 1: Any newly arrived cat at Anjellicle Cats Rescue will not be available for adoption if there are other cats waiting for longer than four weeks. Mittens, a newly arrived cat, is available for adoption.
Variables:
nc- new cat
longer than 4weeks- +4w
adoption- a
Anjellicle Cats Rescue- ACR
M- Mittens
so, the question starts by stating ANY(no room for interpretation)
so, any new cat(no exceptions) at ACR (shelter) CANNOT be addpted (/a) IF, there are other cats that are +4w.
in this case, M →/+4w; but the question indicates that they are up for adoption, hence ACR has no current cats that are +4w
to chain this all up:
M → A → /+4w
this means that mittens is able to be adopted AS there were no other cats that were waiting at the shelter for longer than 4 weeks at the shelter
I could be wrong, but in the prompt due to the use of the word always (Bruno Mars always doesn’t feel like picking up his phone when he sings The Lazy Song.) this leads to a necessary condition fulfilling group 2. so i would argue that it is a valid argument, as if bruno always does not pick up the phone on lazy days, then we can assume that if he did pick up the phone it was in fact not a lazy day.
my way - could be totally wrong: Original phrase:
"Farmers do not know their income for a given calendar year until tax returns are calculated and submitted the following April."
What it's saying in plain terms:
Farmers only learn (or know) their income after they calculate and submit their tax returns.
So before tax returns are calculated and submitted, farmers do not know their income.
Your interpretation:
"NOT having your tax returns would LEAD you to not knowing your income for that given year."
That’s essentially correct. Here's how we might formalize it using logic:
In conditional (lawgic) form:
Let:
𝐾
K: Farmers know their income
𝑇
T: Tax returns are calculated and submitted
The relationship is:
If not T, then not K=/T→/K
Which is logically equivalent to:
If K, then T= K→T
So yes — not having your tax returns done leads to not knowing your income.
Important note: it is NECESSARY to know your tax return, to know how much you make per year
Before Y, not X; Once Y, then X.
here is my thinking, (could be totally wrong) The phrase: "Jane is a faster eater than either Mary or Jon."
This does imply that Jane eats faster than both Mary and Jon individually — not just one of them. Here's why:
The word "either" in this context refers to each of the two options considered individually.
So, "faster than either Mary or Jon" means:
Faster than Mary.
AND
Faster than Jon.
This is equivalent in meaning to:
"Jane is a faster eater than both Mary and Jon."
It does not set up a conditional or an ultimatum, nor does it imply anything like:
"If Jane eats faster than Mary, then Jon eats faster than both."
That kind of conditional logic isn’t implied here. The sentence is just making a comparison between Jane and each of the two individuals separately.
Hi, I am interested. I am scoring in the low 160's but would love to learn from/ with all of you