I guessed on at least 10 questions between LG/LR and did not feel overly confident about the sections. Hoping I at least do better than I did the first time. However, I didn't feel too bad the first time I took it and completely bombed it. Feeling defeated.

My worst nightmare was getting the same score but now I'm worried I did even worse.

This just happened to me with PT89. On that note, it's just one test. I got a 172 on my last one and miserably failed this one. I am just telling myself that I got the failure out of the way and June will be perfect.

Manifest!

Hi, here is the explanation by JY: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/group-3-group-4/.

First, you have to remember that when you pick a group, the other logical indicator becomes a negation. Meaning that the used indicator/group you are using variable will be left alone and whatever the unused indicator/group you are not using variable will be negated.

So, if I pick Group 3 (W) than J's "Cannot" = /, which means I have / J & W

W is left alone because it's following the Group I am using and J is part of the group I did not choose so it gets negated.

If I pick Group 4 (J) than W's "Unless" = /, which means I have J & / W

J is left alone because it's following the Group I am using and W is part of the group I did not choose so it gets negated.

Group 3:

Cannot select J unless W is also selected

Find variables (In this case because I chose Group 3, I will leave the W alone (because it follows unless) and apply the negation to the J which is indicated by the "cannot", "cannot" = /)

So, I have:

/ J W

Apply Group 3 Rule (pick variable J, negate it, make it sufficient)

J - W

Contrapositive: / W - / J

Group 4:

Cannot select J unless W is also selected

Find variables (In this case because I chose Group 4, I will leave the J alone (because it follows the "Cannot") and apply the negation to the W which is indicated by the "unless", "unless" = /)

So, I have:

J / W

Apply Group 4 Rule (pick variable W, negate it, make it necessary)

J - W

Contrapositive: / W - / J

Hope that helps!

For those of you who were, like me, still confused here's how I made sense of it.

Correlation: is a relationship between two things

Causation: is when A causes B

The first part of the passage is talking about the relationship between the success of crops and baby birth weight.

Later, it talks about how that relationship (between the success of crops and baby birth weights) is good enough to show that A ( success of crops = food available to pregnant mother) causes B (baby birth weight = healthy baby).

So, there are two things wrong with this argument.

1.Blatantly assuming that success of crops = food available to pregnant mother AND baby birth weight = healthy baby. While these things may be/are similar they are NOT the same.

You could have successful crops and the mother could still not have enough food available. Also, a baby could be a normal/average weight and not be healthy.

2. Assuming that correlation = causation.

So, essentially, the argument assumes from one relationship that it can make a call about two other things having a relationship. It conflates the success of crops with food available and birth weight with being healthy.

Q14:

The study of law requires a long historical view/outlook, and we know this.

Yet, we aren't studying law within its historical context or questioning how it relates to modern law.

(This is the paradox: we aren't doing something we know we should and which would make our understanding more complete.)

The text isn't actually comparing old laws with modern laws. Instead, it talks about how there is something missing from how we study law.

The conclusion is that environmental damage will end soon so you are looking for the answer that does not cause more damage or continue the level of damage done.

B - E all increase damage or state that the environmental damage will continue so they all weaken the conclusion.

A say's that because of natural developments the damage will be lessened, and therefore, aligns with the conclusion.

#5

Urban: In, relating to, or characteristic of a town or city.

Cosmopolitan: Including or containing people from many different countries

Parochial: Having a limited or narrow outlook or scope.

Rural : In, relating to, or characteristic of the countryside rather than the town

Think of cosmopolitan as more "Worldy". A town or city is more "Worldy" than a rural area. And we know that the Mexican Lit. establishment prefers/concerns itself with more "Worldy" topics. So, a writer whose focus is on more "Worldy" topics will have an easier time gaining a reputation in Mexico than a writer whose writings are not "Worldy".

Interested, thanks!

Going on a long, long vacation.

Hi! I also work full-time, in Data Analytics.

I usually only study 1 - 3 hours a day and take day's off when I need them. I try to not study on the weekends and get all the studying done on the weekend, and then take a PT on the weekend.

So during the week I will review the PT I took on the weekend and go over the test 3 - 5 times. Doing the LG section multiple times, timed, and writing why my answers were wrong/right for RC and LR. And I've recently started going over the 7sage questions that I have the most trouble with and writing down why they are right/wrong.

I think one of the things this community pushes the most, and all LSAT communities I've seen is that the LSAT should be your entire life and if you aren't studying all day, everyday, that you are somehow doing something wrong. It's important to realize that you still need sleep, exercise, doing things with friends and family and mental breaks and that's okay.

I have been studying for a year and a half and when I started I was doing 4 - 6 hours a day, on top of my work and organization's I am apart of, which did not work. I have actually improved my score more in that last couple of months and I have been studying a lot less. I think a big part of it is because I am not burnout. I am taking care of myself and I enjoy studying more because I don't feel like it's intruding on my life.

When you are having rough day's, and you will, remind yourself why you want this. I want to work in Child Advocacy so I constantly remind myself of the people I want to help and why I want to help and it helps when I am feeling discouraged or frustrated.

Hope that helps, and best of luck. You CAN do this.

In English:

Any course that teaches students how to write well will serve them later in life.

Some Philosophy classes teach students how to write well.

Conclusion: any Philosophy course will serve students later in life.

CAN'T draw a conclusion from "some" to "all".

In English:

The argument assumes that the law is useless based on the behavior of 2 groups of people who are at extremes. One group always follows the law and the other always breaks it.

The argument is forgetting about those people who sometimes break it but not always and who sometimes follow it but not always. For these people, the law may prevent them from breaking the law since they are not goodie goodies who always follow it. That extra incentive, the law, may serve to prevent them from crossing the street.

In English:

The critics assume that bad methodology = food is not safe.

However, the ONLY thing they can assume from bad methodology is that the animal studies suck as proof of evidence that the food is safe.

Food could still be safe or unsafe, we don't know. We just know that the animal studies cannot be used to argue that food is safe because they were flawed.

In English:

There are two extremes, those who are A types and care about school like their lives depend on it, and those who are B types and don't care at all.

From these two groups, the author assumes that grades don't matter. Why? Because those who care, just care, and those who don't, just don't.

But the author is forgetting about all those students who kinda care and for whom grades could be an incentive since they are not "intensely interested" nor are they completely apathetic. So, for them, grades could be the thing that motivates them to do well in school or at the very least take some interest in the curriculum.

Hello, if you are following this thread and I liked your comment already then I sent you a message with the link to the group chat.

Hello all, we can still add some more people.

Interested!

Yes, after getting a 156 on my first take I decided to wait. I know that this core can go up and I just need to put in more time and effort.

As counterproductive as this may seem you need to take a break. I am not a firefighter/paramedic but I am currently working full-time and have responsibilities at home and so we, unlike many of the people on this site (no shade just true for a lot of people on here), can't study for hours on end after or before working our jobs. You have to give your body and mind a break.

Trust me, I had this happen but it was because I was studying like I had all the free time in the world and it affected both my LSAT results and my work because I was just worn out.

Take a break. Only study for a certain amount of hours on certain days (I only study 3 - 4 hours a day and usually take Thursday or Sunday off and sometimes both if I feel like I need it). Find a realistic schedule that works for you!

You got this!

Same here and it is not fixed yet.

Hi Sophie! I was in the same boat and decided to postpone till January and currently considering postponing another year. My highest PT was a 162/169 BR and I got a 156 on the October test. I would not bank on getting a 160, and I personally decided to reschedule from November till January to not overstress myself.

Take into consideration that schools also care about how many times you take the LSAT and cancel your score. That's another reason I decided to wait.

Just things to consider and good luck.