That's precisely the point. I have to watch the answer choices that i got wrong yet they take so long. I don't need 16 minutes of explanation for 11 lol

@armanc74710 said:

From personal experience, I feel like the LR and RC questions in the 80's are different than the 50's, 60's, and 70's. There felt like there were more "chose the best answer out of 0 good answers" than on earlier tests, where the trick with harder questions seemed to me to usually be spotting the twist among a couple of attractive looking answers. That could just be my interpretation but that is how I felt. Two of my 3 best RC scores came from 87-89, I forget which at the moment, because those, while they felt harder at times, apparently were easier for me. My third best RC score was from 50 though, which is supposed to be the worst for RC, so take that with a grain of salt. In general, the LSAT makers do a pretty good job of evening out the difficulty even if an individual test taker may feel like one or the other was much harder.

I will also say that I was horrendously depressed this weekend before finishing BR on 87 because I was sure that i had my worst score in more than a month the weekend before my Flex. It ended up being just above my average at 176 even though I felt like it was brutally hard. That, while it ruined most of my Saturday, has given me faith that, as JY says, we are terrible at knowing how we did on the test in general and to trust the preparation I have put in. Easier said than done, but I advocate doing the same even if you do have a bad test. It is just one test, your average is a much better predictor.

Lol get over yourself

@rachelh940491 said:

So it seems like many of us found LR and the last game of LG a little difficult.. this may be a dumb question but does this mean the whole test will most likely get curved more?

The curve doesnt really work like that. I won't bore you with details but essentially a -7 on the Flex would get you around a 170. Depending on the difficulty of your section, you may be able to get a -8 to still hit the 170. If your section is easier then it would be like a -6. Overall, the curve really doesn't help too much, only for one-two very difficult questions

What was your reasoning for getting the question right? Did you just draw the same inference J.Y talked about?

Honestly for #7, i never though and still don't think that it's even a fair question lmao. Like what kind of water based transporation? Am i transporting all the LSAC writers to hell for this question? Am i transporting food? Am i transporting myself to get away from this test? What kind of water based transportation? Also, rivers dont tend to be very large (thus them being rivers and not large bodies of water) so i didn't even know that they were to be considered for "water based transportation"

Well done

@ayeshahanaali772 did you do the writing sample?

Really well said

I think Jy did a very poor job of explaining this question. A lot of what into the video only complicated what the flaw is, which ironically enough, JY never even stated.

The flaw in this argument is a False dichotomy. The author concludes that the officer suspended must be the result of him being late, because the other sufficient condition was satisfied (he showed up to the quarterly board meetings). In doing so, the author overlooks the fact that just because two different sets of conditions warrant a suspension, that no other action can do so. For example, if the officer shot and killed an innocent civilian? That would also likely warrant a suspension. There's a multitude of ways the officer could have been suspended beyond the two conditions given by the author, thus leading back to the false dichotomy.

You already know whoever wrote the question hates all aspiring law school students ahah

This video is honestly too long, a better job needs to be done of summarizing the key points of why an AC is incorrect or Correct. Who has an hour to spend on just the AC's of one passage? Ridiculous

That's not true, you're supposed to translate statements if there's indicators. That's really the gist of it. You should also realize that nothing everything is translatable to logic, espeically in later LSATS that place less of an emphasis on it

Not at all. The word can really doesn't make any impact on the argument. "If" is a sufficient indicator which comes before "gear ads mainly towards older adults", which be default makes the necessary condition "maximize products".

Gearing your ads to older adults is sufficient for us to know that it will max our profits.

AC (D) was really well explained, i got the question right but still had a bit of trouble really understanding the core of why D was wrong. Solid work JY

I feel as though AC (B) is still correct and I'm really struggling to see how it isn't.

The conclusion states the the Odyssey and The Iliad aren't written by homer, supported by the premise of the difference in details, vocabulary, and tone. However, if as AC (B) states, that they've come down in manuscripts that have been modified/ had errors, that's a very reasonable assumption to make about how it would affect various aspects of the tone or vocabulary.

I understand how AC (C) is correct, and i contemplated it, but an argument by analogy really doesn't seem that much better than what was stated in AC (B)

D is by far the most bullshit answer choice i've ever seen. Typical LSAT bullshit lol

If the reports are inaccurate, its all the more reason why you dont want those kind of reports coming out and slandering your name, thereby strengthening the conclusio.

For example, imagine if you were running for office and i published three articles, all saying how you hate animals, cheat on your spouse and hate babies. If theyre all extremely inaccurate, then how bad does that look on you?

I genuinely dont understand how a customer stating listing inconvenience as a top reason why they dislike a supermarket cant be considered bad for business. For example, if one of my methods (placing bread in the back) which causes inconvenience for my customers is frowned upon, how the hell is that not considered bad for business?

Love to join as well!

It seems like it! considering a second wave is very likely coupled with no large social gatherings for the near future, and almost all uni's having online classes, id be shocked if it wasnt administered online.

To be honest, with the success of the online administered LSAT i wouldnt be surprised if this is the format for the next little while. It all depends on how much material they have from undisclosed/new tests that they can keep using, but so far it seems to be working just fine.

Moreover, from a financial standpoint, i also think its cheaper online than in person, and if you've paid attention to recent LSAC changes, they love nothing more than getting your $

Well to be honest, the fact that the majority of people usually score their PT avg or even lower, the fact you got 4 points higher is a very good sign. The way I see it, you can study for another couple months and maybe hit the same score again, but Id quit while youre ahead tbh

Just finished, overall, proctor experience was great, no problems at all.

Test: LG/RC/LR

LG: Farmer (fields)

LR: Chimps, Lawyer client/Cooks

RC: Jazz Bebop, Science anecdotes

Overall, a very very fair test, no section was difficult. Kinda missed a rule in the last Logic game and barley reocvered

Question 19, as hard as it is is honestly a beautiful/master type of question. I understood this passage so well yet #19 literally set up the trap with A just waiting for you to pick it. The subtly lies in the wording of the last sentence of the second passage, where the author doesnt imply that that chess players would be bad at other games, only if those games didnt match the configurations of a chess game.(imagine a game where everything was identical to chess except it was "dhess" and it was only played on Alaska). Technically its not chess but a chess master would likely still do well in that game because the sequence of moves would the same.

Answer choice D on the otherhand takes a bit to understand, essentially saying a non-traditional arrangement of chess pieces, meaning even though the pieces are the same, the sequence of moves wouldn't be the same becasue they're not arranged like chess. Thereby being the correct AC.