I think if you're not comfortable asking questions during the session then that's ok. But you can ask about anything that you need clarification on, or if you're curious about an aspect of the program. I don't think there's a wrong question here.
The important action item to me is following up with the admissions person after the event, like you would do with an interview. That's where you can stand apart from the crowd and the admissions person can get to know you. I typically remark about something new I learned from the session and ask a question. They're always more than happy to answer and pleased by a follow-up.
I'm looking for an RC study partner or 2 where we go over at least 1 passage in depth every other night leading up to the October exam so we can all become more consistent in our strategies and answers. I'm PTing in the mid 160's but scored below that on the August exam so I'd like a study partner who is in the same range as me and dedicated to improving. We've got this!
7 is tough because it's not explicitly stated, definitely more implied. But, if you look at the first paragraph, it tells us why forests are helpful: world economic output, recreation, reduced flooding, and reduced soil erosion that clogs rivers. So for a most strongly supported question here, we can think if forests help with these aspects, then deforestation could have negative impacts on those aspects.
The way I eliminated A was that the stimulus says it's the mere threat of renewed competition that keeps prices reasonable. So we don't actually need to inevitably induce competition in the market, we just need the threat of competition. A is too strong and goes beyond the required assumption. We just need to bridge the gap between premise and conclusion which gives us- if prices are kept reasonable, then that practice should be allowed.
I think I understand all of your questions, so I'll give it a shot answering them.
1. Weaken- the main focus is weakening the Premise -> Conclusion relationship. Sometimes the assumption is pretty obvious, sometimes it's hidden. So look for causation (X causes Y), or Chronology (X happened before Y), or an alternative hypothesis, and use those methods to question the support. For example if the stimulus says X causes Y, then think of a way for something else to cause both X and Y, or that Y in fact causes X.
2. Strengthen- You're doing the opposite of weaken. In this case strengthening Premise -> Conclusion. So instead of using those tools to question the support, use them to give additional support. If X causes Y, then look for an example of that occurring, or block an alternative cause.
3. Necessary Assumption- For these questions I mainly look at the conclusion and think to myself what is necessary so this conclusion holds. Then I look for the most subtle answer choice that doesn't really seem to add much. If I can negate the answer choice and it wrecks the conclusion, then that's the correct answer.
Feel free to PM me if you have more questions
For weaken questions we want to weaken the support structure between Premise -> Conclusion. We don't want to flat out say the premise is wrong, or the conclusion is wrong; rather give a reason to question the support of the argument. Sometimes it's hard for me to determine the assumption for weaken questions so I think to myself what could make people question this stimulus' argument?
For this question I though to myself "hmm the stimulus supports the comet collision causing dino death, what if it was something else or there's no actual correlation between dino death and comets."
B gives this to us. By saying same era and similar physiology, then we know these animals are a good comparison for the dinosaurs. Did not become extinct when the dinos did, then lets say they were all alive at the same time, if a comet hypothetically killed the dinosaurs, then why would the comet not kill the animals of a very similar physiology? This makes us question that a comet caused dino death and weakens the argument.
I don't think specifying modern scholars versus scholars in general is that important to note. But from the question stem, we know to think of a late Renaissance scientific Latin text. How would a Latin language specialist tackle a scientific text? They would find it tough because of the subject matter. How would an intellectual historian tackle a Latin text? They wouldn't understand because they want it translated into English. AC C sums that up for us.
It's definitely a 10. Recognizing conditional logic and translating it instantly like it's second nature is critical for LG and LR. Especially with complex LR questions that use embedded conditionals or unusual logic chains. Conclusion and Premise indicators are just as important because they indicate the argument; that's where most of the correct answers will stem from.
Hey, I'm also studying for the August exam. At this point I am taking 1 PT a week and typically spending 2 days BR. I'm trying to cut back on that BR time and improve my question confidence though by being more thoughtful of questions I flag and only writing out my reasoning for those questions; initially I was doing that for every question to improve Conclusion/Premise/wrong AC comprehension. The rest of the week I do LR question type drills, LG fool proofing, and RC fool proofing. I'm PTing every couple of exams starting in the 60's and up and then using the earlier tests for drills.
I'm still in my LSAT phase (applying for fall 2021), but someone shared this resource with me that might prove useful! Harvard has an online zeroL course that explains some simple law concepts so they don't seem so foreign when you first arrive at law school.
https://today.law.harvard.edu/harvard-makes-online-course-for-incoming-students-available-to-all-law-schools-for-free-this-summer/?fbclid=IwAR1KeERd1D57VRNYUEFKoSBSwGgfj_rsKxJHfTWmyhY4tQSPuLYxluttZxY
I fool proof each LG section. I'm noticing my toughest spot is timing (wasting too much on a basic sequencing 1st game for example) and I run out of time by the end of the section. So now I have a stop watch next to me so I can keep track of how much I spend on each game.
I typically take 1 section, BR, watch JYs videos, and then take the same section 3 more times throughout the week. I just make a fresh copy of the LG section on the problem set tab instead of printing them out. I figured that there's no point in getting used to marking up the section since the exam is digital now. I'm keeping a fool proof excel sheet so I write down my times, score, and notes for each LG section.
I will say that it's important to go back and retry games that give you trouble for two reasons. 1st, it reinforces tricky or obscure inferences, game board setups, and proper test taking techniques. 2nd, it really keeps track of your growth and whether or not you actually understood why you made the errors you did so you don't make the same errors in the future.
I also want to add that printing out 10 copies and marking them up might not be helpful anymore since the exam is online. My best practice is taking an online LG sections (computer, tablet, whatever works) and then making the inferences and game setups on my scratch paper. There's an option to create fresh copies for any of the problem sets you create on 7Sage. So I create a problem set with 4 games from a PT and then make however many copies I think is necessary as I move along in the fool proof method. Works better for the digital exam and is more environmentally friendly :smile:
I'm looking for a study buddy too, I need that extra motivation to keep studying even when it gets tough! Feel free to DM me too and we can all figure something out.
I agree with what @elenalevan880 said. But if they are supervisors/managers, then you could always get LORs from them and assign them to certain schools. With CAS you can receive multiple LOR and then assign them wherever you want depending on that schools' LOR limits. For example you could submit the 2 academic and 1 professional if there's a 3 LOR limit or 1 each if there's a 2 LOR limit.
When I asked my professors, I sent them my resume, an explanation of my interest in law school, and different papers I wrote for their classes. If you send material like that, or anything to jog the professor's memory, I bet it would help your professor write a good LOR about you!