i generally try not to say that the LSAT writers are wrong but this one genuinely pissed me off.

lesson learned: don't drill while hungry

i got it right but this one hurt me

i have been going -0 to -1 on LR sections for weeks but i am so tired right now that i completely forgot that "follows logically" = MBT

i knew that it said nothing about other nobel prizes and i still picked B because i am fucking exhausted. i think i need a day off.

oh come on

i hate reading comp

bullshit. bullshit bullshit bullshit.

you love to see it!

I would also like this

@lebronfan Since some criminals with admirable motives deserve mitigated punishments but judges should never mitigate punishments based on motives, punishment of a criminal with an admirable motive that hasn't been mitigated is overly severe. Also, someone with vicious motives who is able to easily present their motive as altruistic who gets a mitigated sentence would be overly lenient. The political theorist is saying that the former is okay and not the latter.

This is the lowest % correct I've ever seen. Odd, because B is the only AC that says anything about punishment.

i hate reading comp i hate reading comp i hate reading comp

life pro tip: read all the answer choices

i am going to lose it

I got it right but is it just me or does the stimulus not make sense

Is that really an assumption? I'm pretty sure that's just what it says.

@AndrewVescio I ended up turning the old PTs off because this one hurt me so badly

just because it's the strongest counter doesn't make it a strong counter

Am I the only one getting most of these questions from the older tests wrong?

thanks i hate it

what

Do I really need a JD

I picked C because I failed to read a "not"

How is this a flaw?