I was also wondering the same thing because I don't see anywhere on LSAC any information about whether Sept one was disclosed/nondisclosed or any information regarding my answer sheet next to my score release.

This question took way too freaking long for me to understand:

So, in the study we have people who drink only tea but no coffee and then people who drank coffee and no tea. These are the two groups.

However, our conclusion is very broad and it makes a claim about tea BOOSTING immune system, which means drinking tea did more to boost the immune system than what our normal immune system really is like and how we measure that is by blood cell response time. So tea has to have done "better" than the normal blood response for us to say that drinking tea BOOSTED our immune system.

But let's say that our normal blood cell response is 10 and then by drinking tea our blood cell response is still 10, then did tea really do "better" (boosted) than the normal level?

So, if coffee was just doubling the cell response and tea stayed the same as normal then tea isn't really helping our immune system, coffee is just making it worse. So we need coffee blood cell response to not have a worsening effect because if it did then we can't say tea necessarily BOOSTED the immune system. We could say drinking tea is at least better than coffee because it doesn't do anything bad to your immune system at least but we can't jump to say drinking tea HELPED make our immune system better its just coffee sucks so we should avoid coffee.

I'd say make a list of schools based on the range of score you think you'll get. So for example if you think you'll score between 150-160 then make a list of schools that have median scores within this range, if you think you'll score between 165-175 make a list of schools that accept students that score within this range. Then, start researching schools that interest you based on what you want out of the law school experience.

As for letter of recs, I'd ask now since you want to turn in your application by December! This will give them enough time. Most schools want 2 academic but if you have been working for some time, then they'll accept one from your workplace. But it's nice to have a 3rd one that might speak to your leadership abilities if you're submitting two academic ones.

For personal statement, make mini deadlines for yourself until December. For example, try to have a first draft ready by mid oct and then send it out to friends/fam to review it then have a second deadline by oct end and then send it out for review again.

hope this helps!

"the size indicates strength or endurance" had me weak

#help was it wrong for me to eliminate A because it says "of poetry" and the stimulus is about "epic poetry" because epic poetry are a genre of poetry whereas A is so broad it doesn't have to be true for all poetry?

And then E is wrong because we don't know if other kinds of poetry do that too.

ohhh so you don't NEED (must in the conclusion) to act responsibly if you can LOOK socially responsible by doing other stuff

LOL D makes total sense now that I read the damn thing again. The stimulus is talking about either appearance or chemical compounds produced. Key being plural "compounds"

The study added each compound that's normally present INDIVIDUALLY. But the damn predators ate the pellets anyway. So the study concluded that compounds reason must be not be responsible. But the study fails to acknowledge that maybe the chemical compounds CAN be responsible if the compounds are all present or some sort of combination is present. That's why the study infers about the whole damn group on the basis of individual compounds not working against predators.

on the surface level, AC B is very attractive.

But here's how I went about thinking it: it's saying that the quality investigator is assuming in his argument that field officers were just as likely to pick defective vs nondefective items and because he is assuming this of course he is saying yeah the suppliers are bsing w us because we had a rate of 20% defective when suppliers actually said it'd be 5% or less. But, this answer choice depends on ANOTHER assumption and that is we have as many defective vs nondefective items in the total population, so that's why officers are just equally likely to pick defective vs nondefective. BUT that's precisely why B is wrong becasue we actually don't know what's the reality of the population. If let's say in the total population of hammers being produced, we did have 100 defective and 100 non-defective. Then the inspector has an equal chance of picking either which means if the rate turned out to be 20% defective then damn suppliers did fuck the contract up. But, we don't know the population of hammers. It could very well be 400 nondefective hammers and 50 defective hammers, and if the rate turned out to be 20% defective then we could explain it by AC D which is what if the inspectors were just picking out the ones they think are defective intentionally and sending them over... if they are intentionally doing this, then yeah it's likely that the 20% rate can be attributed to that and not the suppliers fucking the contract up.

anyone else who's native language is not english find this difficult for no reason lol because after he explained the stimulus the correct AC makes so much more sense lol

can someone confirm if this is the right way to think about this:

So, these witnessess made less inaccurate details in the first round. But then when it came for the second round, their inaccuracies were greater than the other group. Why?

Because if these witnesses are headstrong, then that makes sense that they had less inaccuracies after the lawyer was tryna trick them into giving inaccurate testimonies. If they're headstrong then they said fuck you to the first lawyer and stuck with their answers.

The second time around, when the 2nd lawyer comes in and tells both groups that hey you need to correct your damn testimonies, of course the 2nd group who made far greater inaccuracies is gonna have more inaccuracies to correct than the first group. So, when the first group was asked to correct their testimonies, if this group already thought that they gave correct answers, then why would they need to go back and correct more. Hence, they had greater inaccuracies than the 2nd group bc most of these people didn't feel the need to go back and correct their initial statements.

has anyone ever wondered that what makes a good lawyer might be finding out bs reasons to support something to make it look like a great argument? bc I feel like I could come up with a lot of bs to support some of these AC to fit as the right answer (ofc i'd be making assumptions). my point is you may be just "bad" at LSAT because ur letting ur brain be too creative when it needs to just focus on the specifics of how LSAT wants you think ya know

these are just my thoughts after watching suits bc Harvey Specter doesn't come up with great logical things to win, he comes up with BS to make it look like he has answers to everything

A is not right because if let's say we continue funding museum, we know we don't have the money to support the other program to we HAVE to stop funding the other. And let's say the city decides to go with funding the tv program, then we know we HAVE to stop funding the museum.. The word "need" confused me before. But they aren't concerned about whether they need to or not need to stop funding one over the other... they know they HAVE to choose one over the other. So since the sufficient condition is that the city chose to fund the museum, then we know we NEED/HAVE to stop funding the tv because we don't got no money.

I did not read this properly:))))))))))))))))))))))

everytime he says tik-taa-aalik has me crying

I honestly got this after process of elimination, I was stuck between B and D but I thought that D didn't have to be really true because scientists could have just detected methane hidden somewhere in the mars where theres no sunlight yet...

Why B is wrong:

understand that the premise is saying: sunscreens don't effectively block radiation which causes cancer.

Then they cite these studies and say well because those who used sunscreen still got cancer compared to those who don't use sunscreens so that's why sunscreens are losers at effectively blocking radiation.

B says: Moore didn't distinguish between the relative number of skin cancers and the severity of those skin cancers in measuring effectiveness at skin cancer prevention.

And yes, B is right that Moore didn't do this but even if Moore did do B and account for the severity of the cases, he would still be allowed to say that sunscreens are not effective at blocking radiation. Because the argument is about sunscreens not being effective at all.

This is where E jumps in and says well you're overlooking the fact that those who use sunscreen just prolly spend more time at the beach, so you can't really go and blame the sunscreen for not being effective... you gotta go blame something else other than the sunscreen.

bro this question dumb asf bc B is stupid. I mean it's the best answer choice so you can get to it w/ process of elimination. But stimulus says they get valuable training THROUGH they assignments... and you can easily get valuable training THROUGH your assignments even if you've been working there for 25 years because the assignments could be let's say new and you get valuable training through them...

every question be cookie cutter for him man lol