No, petition LSAC to create more tests for you right now or alternatively go into the future, get more, then come back to the present.

@saironside744 said:

"Powerscore had predicted that Monday's test is probably going to be a test from the high 60's-mid 70's PTs"

Highly speculative but hey, why not. Do you have the link for that?

You may just be overthinking it. We all tend to do it, especially with things we revere and hold in high esteem, but put your personal statement in the right context in the whole scheme of your applications. My pre-law advisor, who’s no novice at this and who’s known by many admission committees, said he considers the personal statement and the whole application process as something he could do drunk in an hour. Exaggeration aside, the point is not to overdo or overthink it.

I took issue with (A) because I thought there may be a relevant difference between poets and people vs. amoebas and human beings. Poets could be a subset of people under hypnosis while the stimulus is talking about two completely different groups.

It’s not just nonsensically throwing in numbers though. You could be expected to make an inference from the stated fact that at least 1,000 people are needed per 25-acres of farm. (C) would have been correct had it said 50 25-acre farms needs at least 50,000 people (50 x 1,000 = 50,000) but instead it says a population center of 50,000 should support the farm. This is wrong because it unreasonably assumes all people in the population would be customers.

Isn't the range from late Dec to March wide? I would think there would be a big difference applying in Dec than in March alone. I too was concerned about the September vs December difference but I've generally had the response that there's not much of a difference applying right after a September score than it is right after a December score.

Just as "some" statements don't preclude the possibility of "all," so too does "almost" not preclude "all."

If the stimulus said "most" instead of "almost all" we still couldn't rule out the possibility that it includes "all." The only thing is we don't know that it does include "all" so we don't use that presumption to draw a conclusion and we just stick to what's stated. In this case, "almost all" can conservatively be translated to "most" so we stick with this translation to draw a valid conclusion, though we may recognize it doesn't preclude the possibility of "all."

With (D), how do we know the advertisers are selling something that would require changing buying habits? In other words, why can't they be selling things that older people are already into buying regularly?

I'll be the voice of dissent and say go for it on September. There'd be too much pressure on one single take in December since December is really your last shot for the cycle. I don't understand what would be wrong in taking September and then improving your score in December. Why would you be considered any lesser to a school for improving a score? In fact if you're reasonably ready, I'd say September is very valuable because you can try your best and not have the pressure or consequences of it being all or nothing like it would be for December.

While practicing, you don't want to take things easy and have the experimental serve as a convenient cushion for you. If you prepare for the worst, you should be able to handle anything on test day. So I usually put the experimental at the point where I may be at my peak, like the second and fourth sections. I wouldn't do it as the first section because then I'd get the benefit of a warm up and I wouldn't do it as the third or fifth because, arguably, they're the hardest in terms of getting fatigued. You don't want to soften yourself up.

Depends on the school in many cases. Never harmful to just call them and directly ask.

These changes like accepting the GRE and giving more opportunities to take the LSAT, with no limitations on the number of takes no less, seem to indicate that law school is becoming a lot more like business and trade schools. I think this'll encourage older people to apply and will put more pressure on people to have work experience before law school.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-42-section-2-question-12/

At 0:40 - "What about your prostitution budget how much has that gone up by."

Both "gray" and "suspected" are adjectives modifying the respective nouns "rabbit" and "criminal" but is there a grammatically technical difference between the two words to explain why "gray rabbits" is so different from "suspected criminals"?

> @edwardfricker162 said:

> still yet to find the pencil that will get me a 170+

Necessary but not sufficient

Have something to look forward to doing at the end of a full test. Like going to the movies or something. Or, if you're really not feeling it, think in terms of doing up to at least the 15 minute break. You may find afterwards that it's not that big of a deal to just do two more sections. Also sometimes you may just not be ready to take it right that minute. I usually sit down with everything I need, as if I'm about to take the test, but just take my time and play with my phone until I feel more comfortable and ready. Key is to do nothing else but be on my phone even if it takes an hour.

Great points here. Sounds like the consensus is to sequentially go through each game until you come against the unique one and just outright skip it and come back to it at the end without trying it out at all.

This isn't the case here. Also a binary cut per se isn't a flaw.

The lines cited for question 3 say "if anger...were the sole requirement, the novel might well be one of the sole requirements for great literature..."

Isn't this an "if then" conditional statement? (E) is just denying the sufficient condition (if not sole requirement) to conclude the denial of the necessary (then not great literature). How is (E) correct?

Wish this could be recorded for all of us who can't make it.

(B) also talks about ruining their voices "while singing," which is an unfounded modifier. It might be minor, but there are always these little flaws aside from the primary reason an answer choice is incorrect.

I thought (E) talking about how well the VersaTool functions addressed the obvious flaw in the stimulus. Just because the tool has a lot of functions, doesn't mean it performs them well. But (E) goes wrong in addressing "single-function" tools as opposed to multiple-function tools.

(B) says "fewer" substances would be deemed addictive if we employed the adequate definition of addictive substances as opposed to the present definition of addiction. This answer choice can be eliminated because we don't know what the present definition is. But, even if you were to think what was deemed addictive at present was referring to that inadequate definition (about something being addictive only if nobody can get off of it) (B) would still be wrong. More substances, not fewer, would be considered addictive under the adequate definition. This is so because the inadequate definition has a ridiculously high standard for what can be deemed addictive while the adequate definition is far less so.