Oh. Normally when we talk about something being "expensive" and then the AC talks about something being cheap, it's wrong because it is out of scope, and there are variations between (expensive, fair, cheap, very cheap). But in this instance, the opposite of unbalanced is balanced. There is nothing in between. Is that why it isn't out of scope? Same for equally/unequally.

I am thinking that (A)isolation-> (B) reduction of chance in eliciting positive response->(C)participation.

For answer choice C, if it had said "The most important factor influencing a resident's decision as to whether to participate in local politics is the the fact that it is isolated", I could see why it is automatically uncomfortable.

However, C is talking about the reductions in the relation to participation. It says that the effect of reducing the chance IN TURN discourages resident participation, so any reduction would lead to discouragement.

(B) the reduction of chance is eliciting a positive official response in general -> (C) discourages resident participation. Therefore, even if the reduction of chance is not 100%, we know that it has to be at least the most importance factor because (B)->(C).

Or is the IN TURN referencing both the chance of eliciting a positive official response and the isolation. Can somebody help me with this?

The reason I chose D was because I was solely looking at the premise, "the complaint was that certain intellectual skills, such as a powerful memory and extemporaneous eloquence that were intrinsic to oral culture, were being destroyed".

I disregarded the conclusion:

"so, what awaits us is a mere alteration of the human mind rather than its devolution".

Initially I had thought C until I read "did not necessarily have a detrimental effect of the human mind overall". I thought C took additional information from the conclusion, because from the premise alone, I would not be able to make that tie in with the conclusion.

I know the question stem says "argument" (premise and conclusion), but it says the reference as part of the argument so I thought I should look at the premise only.

Can someone clarify this for me?

I don't understand this question. I think to make the assumption that C looks fishy in that if something is more expensive, we should recycle more of it is valid if we assume that most things being manufactured are not made of recycled things. However, I eliminated C immediately because I was thinking that much of plastic products in the context are to be made of recycled products, so if there is a scarcity (oil reserves) maybe they are not to be made at all or less in volume. #help

@ Hi Sami, I was really stoked for NA intensive but couldn’t make it. 2 years later on LR prep and not solid on this :( Any chance you’ll hold another or have additional session or have more reviews on this towards the end of the sessions? Thank you!!❤️

I really don't understand this even after review. I don't see why A MUST be true. If large scale projects NEVER enhances welfare, then it still doesn't wreck the argument. Diminished means less than the state it was in before. That doesn't mean that the opposite of diminished, enhanced, exists. If I'm at -2000, that doesn't mean +5000 is an option. Maybe the only options are stays the same, or diminished. Maybe the welfare was already diminished, and now it is diminished even more from the government of referendum. It says large scale government projects usually benefit a small segment of society...but I think that is too big of a jump to say that it's implying the enhancement of society in general. Even though something is designed to benefit, that doesn't mean it does actually benefit society, or that the possibility of it even enhancing exists, but the consequences (diminished welfare) from the lack of funding for those designs can still happen. :(

#help

Labor law as well! I'm so excited to see that. I think I'm an activist at heart. If money were the sole motivation I would never get through this. My passion is to help leverage more bargaining power for employees in multinational corporations. I want to help not only on an individual/company level (health care, insurance, compensation, pensions, wage gap, social security) but also change practices by inadvertently changing the structure/practices of American businesses while I'm at it. Think income distribution.

Corporations promising big pensions to workers in exchange for 20 long years of low-wage pay and then slashing pensions by 60% when retirement comes around just breaks my heart. America is still young so we never know how things will turn out and what the trend will be!

Not solid on wanting to be a lawyer forever but I know the experience/precision of law will be invaluable for years to come.

I recommend it, especially if you know how to go about a problem but still get them wrong. It's also fun in my opinion, so it goes by fast!

Right now I get about -1 to -4 wrong on LR consistently so I got Loophole. I have finished CC and am halfway through Loophole. I have used the LR Bible and LSAT Trainer as well and still felt like Loophole really helped. A lot of things you will breeze through if you already know the concepts. The other books were great with the technical aspect, but Loophole made the most sense to me after getting creative with it.

Thanks to Loophole, I finally don't trip up on SA and NA questions despite knowing what to do. (And it took me about 10 minutes to finish that chapter!) As a creative oriented person, I always overthought these types of questions. That alone made the book worth it to me. I just had to have someone make my own answers for it to click. Loophole has a lot of fill in the blank type of activities wherein you write your own premises, NA, SA which really helps, and lots of pop quizzes. I also agree with doing the Translation Drills.

What's different about the Loophole is that it's creative and uses a lot of nonsense subjects and verbs, so that you actually see structure and patterns, and not get fixated on what each thing means.. The author repeatedly insists that you don't skip around in the book, so I think that it is really thought out to ensure progress...you start off doing some basic stuff, but I trust that it's part of rewiring your brain.

If you are a "by the book" type of person, then the other books and CC may be more helpful. Personally I felt that knowing all the different types of flaws that others books provided was overkill, since most answers you can deduce by imagining what the flaw may be before you see the AC. I didn't need to know the technical name of the flaw and ID them, such as "strawman" or "false delimma" to see or understand the flaw. I think of Loophole as a way to "reprogram" your brain just by going through the book in order, sort of like how it's recommended to read dense material other than LSAT to study for Reading Comprehension. It still explains to you the definitions, and how to go about the types of questions, but the activities and examples in it feels more "off the grid" than the other books. It's more like a workbook which I really appreciate because I felt like the other books were more textbook-y, followed by solving questions cherry picked from PTs (Felt like BRing!)

Whether Asians are overrepresented in law schools, Asians are overrepresented in higher education. The goal of AA isn't just to help certain races that are generally tied to a lower SES, but to include them because they are underrepresented in other ways as well. AA doesn't factor in sub-sects of Asian minorities though, which I believe is problematic to certain groups that don't have it favorably education-wise/SES/representation. Southeast Asians are underrepresented in law schools and higher education, but the umbrella for "Asian" currently is very broad. You might want to consider mentioning your ethnicity in the Diversity statement though. My friend specified her ethnicity in the statement and she is a type of Southeast Asian. She did well in admissions (probably was not preferred because of the diversity statement, but didn't hurt?). Even if you don't get a point boost, it's something to consider for admissions as well as a contribution to the stats.

@ I thought it was “one man”. But now I see it’s “to play many parts”. Oh I get it, now. Thanks. I misinterpreted what it was saying.

@

On day 1 of BR, I watch JY's video until I see my mistake. For most difficult questions, if I don't fully get it after 20 minutes or so, I just leave it be and return again the next day for a few minutes or within the same day. A lot of times, something just clicks at random times. Sometimes, you can't force something to make sense in one sitting. I spent a lot of time contesting the right answer because I didn't agree. As long as the first review was "in depth" (I think one hour to two hours max is enough for one section with -6 and more than that isn't necessary), then the next few days in only takes a few minutes/seconds for it to click.

Usually misreading or not understanding the question can seem like just a careless mistake on your end, but it's well intentioned by LSAT writers. My problem was not misplacing a modifier and not knowing exactly what it was referring to. So, study the type in which you made the mistake. Then, you will know that for MSS, they tend to switch up the subject, use words that change the frequency, most, some, etc. whereas in other types, they don't do that. Once you study a few questions in depth, you'll see the pattern.

Know the types that you can anticipate flaw BEFORE you go to AC. For example, for flaw and weakening types, you should identify the flaw in the stimulus BEFORE reading the AC, and in especially parallel (not strengthening or SA). When you know their tricks for the question type, you know what words to pay attention to. this will reduce the misreads by a lot because attractive wrong answers do not describe the flaw that you identified in your head and it will cut the amount of time substantially.

I also suggest when BRing, to know the tricks of the wrong answers to the question type, and note them according: opposite answer, game shell, mistaken reversal, out of scope, effect happens without the case, third factor introduced, etc. in a way that transfers to another similar question of that type because LSAT uses the same tricks again and again within the same type. Even the structure in ways that they get you to misread is often repeated. (first sentence when it says most, likely, etc.) If the notes are too detailed or only helps that one particular question, then it necessarily help another question. Look for structure.

I would suggest suggest drilling in MSS if you want to be very adept at not misreading because they utilize the most convoluted language in my opinion. Studying causation, correlation type questions "studies show fat increases as cholesterol.." type questions will also help with that because the misreading will be in the same spots.

Another would be weakening/flaw types because you can anticipate the wrong answers.

What types of questions do you miss? Drill the types of the questions you get wrong only. They may be the ones that come up most often as well, so it will help tenfold. I was also stuck around the -4/-5 in the mid 160s until I started slowing down on the PTs. Initially, I did tons of PTs (30-40) and even kept a scrapbook of wrong answers, but rarely looked back on them, which was really a progress killer. I thought I reviewed things in depth already and no way it's this hard to do better or that I'm not smart enough because I've tried so hard so I tried something new lol.

I reviewed in Trainer and other books for the type of question I get wrong and take notes as well as do the drills for that type of question again. Then, I applied the way they teach why wrong answers are wrong to the problem I missed. (Shell Game, Opposite Answer, etc). That way, it forces me to see patterns of wrong answers. Remember, the flaws are recycled over and over again and nothing is new. Knowing your job for that question type is key. The more consistent language you can use for wrong answers, the better eg. "addresses the premise and conclusion but not between them, defender answer, rogue element, opposite answer, mistaken reversal, etc, too extreme, etc."

What helped me the most was doing the same LR questions that I missed from one LR section and reviewed them again the next few days. I took notes of why the answer is right, and why each answer is wrong on day 1, and reviewed them throughout the week by reading the notes again/looking them up online. If you want to do more than that, I would suggest doing 5 sections max and then review them in rotation throughout the week. I know that with the test coming up soon, doing more PTs seem like a good idea, but I have found that doing the same ones are more helpful because the next one is going to utilize the same tricks anyway. The reason for this is that it takes time for things to sink in, so going over a problem for one hour in one day might not make you understand it more, but when it is gone over for more days in the week (which takes only a couple of minutes a day!), a lot of times I have a lightbulb moment and don't think the same way that I did initially. Even if I don't truly get it 100%, some kind of intuitive sense is developed going forward when I see the same type of again because the wrong answers sound very similar. I also think there is a limit to how "in depth" you can understand a particular question. Usually being 80% sure is more than enough. What's more helpful and developing an intuitive feel for LSAT tricks. Take notes of any "insights" you discover on the way and review them regularly. It may not be that you don't understand a particular question fully, since you've done many questions, but that you don't understand in the way that LSAT wants you to that can be applied all across the board. I also get creative sometimes and do videos of me explaining an question, explain it to someone else, see comments for the questions. As long as I practice the same question every day for a couple of minutes.

My problem areas have become my best question types and go by the quickest! Slowing down and reviewing 5 LR sections for me has been way more helpful than doing 30 LR sections. I think if you slow down and review the question type you miss, you'll improve at least 1-2 more points in a week because you'll move faster and be able to tackle the ones during the end of the test better/have more time to go over the ones you've skipped! The difference between a mid 160s scorer and 170 is timing, which will surely follow. The misreading is intentional by LSAT writers. So once you see their misread tricks, you won't miss them again. :-)

PS. for most types questions (if it can be anticipated by type), it pays off to go slower on reading the stimulus and think of flaws to the argument, before reading the ACs. (Flaw, Assumptions..and ESPECIALLY parallel towards the end!)

Now I'm around -2/-3 and right at 168-170 in 2 weeks so you can definitely see it soon :-)

Firstly, I think you might be going about it the wrong way. There isn't an argument here, so you don't have to bomb your brain in trying to understand everything lol. You are not comparing arguments.

A bunch of statements are introduced, accept what is given and make sense of it, and your task is to find anything in the AC that would contradict the stuff given. Be open here. Usually the answer will just contradict one sentence. For some reason, it is usually at a place that is not loaded with heavy information. You don't have to put difficult ideas together. If I say, “Salami is the most delicious food ever” and “No food is as delicious as salami, but some food are as delicious”, these two statements are INCOMPATIBLE.

Incompatible DOES NOT mean stuff that doesn't really seem to be addressed and appears to be random (cerebrospinal fluid). The least compatible answer will be one that CONTRADICTS the argument. Therefore, when you see random stuff, they are actually COMPATIBLE.

Incompatible questions typically throw in a bunch of irrelevant stuff in the AC to throw you off because they seem incompatible and random, but that's actually what makes them compatible.

For example,

Hotdogs are awesome and delicious. However, small puppies are mean and nasty.

These two statements are COMPATIBLE, because they are addressing two different things. They are so different that they cannot contradict each other. They can both be true! Fortunately, in these types of questions, there will be at least one of these trap answers in the AC and they are easy to spot and eliminate. C is one of those randoms! If it wasn't talked about, it isn't incompatible with anything.

I see how each sentence relates to one another (structure) in simple terms and what is happening instead of trying to consume all the details. Make note of introductions to new terms and actions. Also, you should always at least have a general understanding of the stimulus within the first read before seeing the AC. Re-read if you have to. This time, seeing the structure and how they relate. If not, it would be a massive waste of time to match AC to stimulus. It should not feel "fuzzy". Small details are usually not important.

MSS

Definition given (relates to MSS) action

MSS can now be treated (detail related to MSS)

Suspect MSS is triggered by viral infections. New element: Viral infections.

Test Gamma Interferon (new element)

Definition of Gamma Interferon and action (relates to Gamma Interferon)

Result: Bad

I pay attention from "so in 1984" to "dramatically worse" because the conclusion is always important (patients getting worse). "So" usually introduces something important. Also, you can bank on some stuff being fluff because the question is so long. Knowing that some stuff are fluff, which parts would you take out if you had to take out one? That's usually it. I don't really know how to explain how to anticipate these. It's usually the statements that explain something further, doesn't introduce a new element, and isn't the conclusion. "Medical science now has a drug.." They just don't really fit into the structure of anything else in the stimulus and are additional details. Anticipating fluff comes with practice.

Often the conclusion in LR questions say, "So because of X, then Y (conclusion)". So I think in this format.

General Argument:

Stimulus: X, X, and X happened. Conclusion: So because of [reiteration of X], Z is the result.

We don't see that exact format here, but [reiteration of X] is the interferon, because X, X, and X led to the interferon being investigated. Basically, the stuff right after "So.." is usually important, conclusions are important, and the idea that leads right up to the conclusion is important. Usually appears at the end.

I actually had to reread A to understand it because I glossed over it. However, A is suspect in tough questions because it is often the right answer since it is easy to dismiss in a state of confusion and students are stuck wasting time waffling between other AC. I got to A from process of elimination. B, D, and E are out of scope. (If it’s out of scope, then it cannot be contradictory because it is a bunch of mumbo jumbo). Then, since A is left, I tried to find something in the stimulus that would be incompatible with A. A isn't an airtight answer, but if gamma interferons stop myelin sheath destroying compounds, then it seems to contradict the result we would expect. We know that MS is white blood cells attacking the myelin sheath, so why would something that eliminate this be a bad thing? There wasn't anything else in the stimulus to put against A except the MS thing anyway.

PS. PT 28 question 11 Sharks is a good example of this type of question.

Hope that makes sense :)

We have two situations:

dried grass clippings ->better-than-average plant growth

fresh grass clippings->poorer-than-average plant growth

In general for RRE questions, if two elements are presented to be similar (grass clippings), but have different results, we can anticipate that the correct AC will show how these elements are different.

We want to reconcile why dried grass is beneficial but fresh grass is not.

D. Reveals an element where the two grasses are different. Unlike dried grass that decomposes gradually and thereby provides nutrients for beneficial soil bacteria, fresh grass decomposes rapidly and creates heat that kills beneficial soil bacteria. This explains why one has one result, and the other has an opposite result. They decompose differently.

E. Is out of scope. If dried grass equals a good result, and fresh grass causes a bad result, E is saying dried grass and fresh grass together causes a bad result. How does that explain why dried grass alone is bad? It doesn't.

Example: Adding this generic ketchup to my pizza results in deliciousness. However, adding organic ketchup to my pizza makes it taste disgusting. Why is that? What is up with my organic ketchup?

E is saying adding both generic ketchup and organic ketchup makes it taste worse. So what?

Hope that helps :)