- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
I doubt that would be a likely scenario, but if a question like that did come up, you would most likely approach it as an Agree question with the correct answer being the negation of whatever it is both affirm to disagree on. Example:
"Alice: I believe beavers' teeth are physically not capable of cutting down metal.
Bob: Forget beaver teeth, they wouldn't even be able to grip the metal to then cut it!
Alice and Bob are most likely to agree on which of the following?
[correct answer] Some physical trait of beavers does not readily enable them to cut metal."
Same. I was getting confident in LR, working my way up from -8 to -4 and finally -0. Got a -9 on this one
Lots to unpack here:
What's your average number missed from pre-80s to 80s?
Are there particular question types you believe you are struggling with now?
Do you find yourself rushing or dragging on some questions? Do you have a consistent timing strategy (e.g., first 10 in 10, first 15 in 15) locked in?
You've hit the nail on the head. However, keep in mind that "It can most reasonably be inferred" matches the language of an MSS question, which require very slight assumptions to work. Of all the ACs, it is the one best supported:
A) Artistic merit? No, we are looking at a single representation that's consistent in Allen's films.
B) The author does not make such a claim.
D) The author does not discuss the multitudes of meanings to Allen's films.
E) The passage does not mention cast members.
For Q10:
- Deconstructing Harry is "the most unequivocally peevish"
- Lines 16-17 say Stardust Memories is "Allen's sourest portrait of artists before Harry"
Even if the author's language might not suggest a proper definition, see if it's clarified later on in the passage!
Consider how the author actually describes Delacroix's works (Lines 47-50):
"His stylistic innovations startled his contemporaries... but most art historians have decided that Delacroix adjusted himself to new social conditions [from] political upheavals that had occurred in 1830..."
I agree that this fragment on its own reads like AC E, but consider that the author structures the paragraph for those lines to represent a "revealing" case for Delacroix that "dramatic changes" did not quickly succeed his innovations. If we are trying to "illustrate an author's claim," then we must take into account not only what the relevant lines themselves mean but also how the author uses them.
So if Delacroix adjusted his work to the post-1830 social conditions in France, then his innovations could not have anticipated those changes, right? That's why AC B works regardless of whether we employ "quickly" as part of that inference.
I got 7/7 on this one timed but only because I'd learned my lesson from PT17 Passage 3 (also a 3-star passage with a really sneaky 5-star question). Practice makes perfect y'all!
Throughout my LSAT journey, I have referred constantly to this post, which noted the most difficult individual PT sections in all three pre-August 2024 LSAT components. I wanted to follow up on it with updates and remarks that I believe may benefit those taking the April and/or June 2024 LSATs.
Most difficult LSAT sections according to 7Sage Analytics, as of March 2024:
LOGIC GAMES:
5-star: 27, B, C, 34, 88
4-star: 5, 18, A, 30, 31, 35, 62
LOGICAL REASONING:
5-star: 5-S1, 7-S4,17-S2, 17-S3, F97-S1, 23-S3, 28-S1
4-star: 1-S3, 3-S4, 4-S1, 5-S3, 8-S1, 8-S4, 9-S2, 10-S4, 11-S4, 12-S4, 14-S2, 14-S4, 18-S2, 21-S3, F97-S3, 22-S4, 24-S2, 26-S2, 27-S1, 28-S3, 33-S1, 39-S2, 45-S1, 62-S2, 69-S4, 70-S4, 71-S3, 72-S2, 76-S2, 78-S1, 81-S2, 84-S3
READING COMPREHENSION:
5-star: 30, 65, 74, C2, 79, 84
4-star: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21, F97, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 35, 38, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 75, 76, 78, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91
A couple of remarks:
I was tripped up on "must be" as well and picked (E), but when I read the passage over again, I realized that (A) actually does follow, if you do:
- "Needed" => "must be" (NB: extreme language can be correct if you rephrase or cite the author's own extreme language)
- "To effect a given level" => "for it to be effective" (can be effective in any way, hence the "20 percent" statistic presented with the writer's estimate)
With these rephrasings, you have the second half of (A). Now, how do you get the first half of (A) and really bulletproof it against (E)? Well, that's where J.Y.'s explanation for (E) comes in. The passage doesn't provide any step-by-step process for calculating a specific concrete tax. If it did, it wouldn't have stated
"At first glance, it is not difficult to estimate roughly the size of the tax..."
but instead something like "We know exactly how to get the size of an effective carbon tax. First, you take the price of coal and multiply it by exactly 40%. Then..."
This was a really good section for my confidence: I had 3 minutes left over after finishing all questions and got only a -2 (usually I'm scrambling for time and end up with -4 to -6). First time I got all questions in 21-25 correct, too. Wow, I feel pretty good about LR now :)
@rdyoung12433 Are you implying you're not able to make new discussions as an Alum? If so, that's... very weird on the part of 7Sage
Some of the Powerscore LSAT Podcast episodes are golden. Here are my favorites, all Spotify links:
The LSAT Logical Reasoning Knowledge Test
Reading Comprehension Skill Tests
How to Get Faster at Logic Games
Causal Reasoning Parts 1 and 2
Reversal of Fortune: How to Recover From a Bad Practice Test
Dave and Jon are also just hilarious and really attack the issue from every perspective. I'm not super fond of their announcing what cocktails they're drinking at the start of each episode, but if you're into that, then many more cocktails for you to try :smile:
Is it just me or does JY's audio in this video sound... super crunchy
First 180-ended LR question I've gotten right on a timed section let's gooooo
The historian essentially argues that a democracy's citizens are not adequately "prepared" for when democracy may encounter challenges because those citizens' historical awareness is distorted. What exactly distorts it, though? According to the historian, it's the study of history through popular narratives that employ a certain overly broad narrative device (namely, that of "heroes and villains")
Where (B) fails is that it attacks the form through which citizens are misled by that device, not the device itself. What about historical narratives that don't reduce history to "heroes and villains"?
To illustrate, Les Misérables, for its length, cannot possibly be completely historically accurate to the Parisian Rebellion of 1832, in large part because it focuses primarily on "heroes" (Jean Valjean, Fantine, Cosette, Marius, and so on). It still seems like a more interesting experience than, say, 10,000 pages accounting for every little detail about that rebellion, right? The fact is, though, that our perception of the rebellion ends up a little more distorted after reading Les Misérables than it would after reading a giant stack of an objective narrative covering all details of the rebellion.
It follows, then, that if you read so many of those "hero histories" over purely objective narratives, you will most likely start to see all history as "hero history." That's precisely what the historian addresses and precisely why (E) is correct.
@jjchoi793829 said:
But Translation simply means reading closely in a way that makes it easier for you to remember what the stimulus is saying. To me, that was just slowing down and thinking about what each sentence said before you go on.
And CLIR is simply just predicting the answer before you go into the answers.
Isn't this literally just "personalizing the argument" and "paraphrasing" from 7Sage LR core curriculum / Powerscore LR Bible?
That has to be the phattest score distribution I've seen on any 7Sage question
It's just process of elimination once you consider that lichenometry is recommended only with rockfall and only for natural processes that occurred within at least the last 500 years.
(A) Maybe flooding can lead to rockfall, but 1000 > 500 years
(B) Nope. Skeletons and rockfall have nothing to do with each other, and "many thousands of years" > 500 years
(C) We aren't informed if lichens can colonize rock surfaces underwater in the same way they can on land, so this one can't be it
(E) This one's tempting because if fits the 500 years criteria, but rainfall might not necessarily lead to rockfall, so this is wrong
Yeah, you basically got it.
C says more efficient, which could very well contribute to more lamps being produced in the Magdalenian part of the Upper Paleolithic period (more efficient -> easier to produce more of -> numbers skewed in favor of M).
E cannot contribute to more lamps being produced because there's no way to link more kinds -> "more of" -> numbers skewed in favor of M. If, for example, the Solutreans (the culture preceding the Magdalenians) had only one kind of lamp while the Magdalenians had 100, we still can't assume anything about the quantity produced by both cultures. Maybe the Solutreans were so good at making that one kind of lamp that they made more of it than the Magdalenians did with 100
Just wanted to make a comment on this part of your post:
I have a Master of Art in Teaching and graduated dean's list with a 4.0 (although I know schools don't care much for grad).
Your graduate GPA itself doesn't factor into your application, but to have that accomplishment along with all the work experience in teaching you have under your belt will help you stand out considerably when applying. If you can write personal statements that reflect your unwavering interest in education and particularly educational law, I think you'll be golden from a holistic standpoint
@marynuez206 said:
@alexaleknaz554 You can find the writing sample component of the PrepTests at the very end of each PrepTest in PDF format. Please note that the LSAC stopped including the writing topics in published PrepTests starting with PrepTest 87. However, all other PrepTests starting from 1 to 86 have writing samples.
Let me know if you any further questions!
TriplePrep Volume 1 (PTs 90-92) actually has three writing samples, but they're included in a distinct "writing sample" section and not as part of the PTs. Wondering why they did that?
I chose C during my timed PT but ended up recognizing in blind review that it was talking about who knew the Han purple technique after it was already developed. Whether or not two chemists in all of China or every chemist in China came to know of the Han purple technique, the means by which it came to exist at all ("probably by fortuitous accident") are one and done. A helps the "fortuitous accident" conclusion by suggesting, though somewhat weakly, that the Han purple and white glass processes were less likely to have been independent of each other
Protected -> legitimate purpose + public authorities (not just the public)
AC (B) would actually be legal under Roman law, note "public authorities" in its language