(1) Grew up in a rural, 200-person town. Have been one of the top national debaters since high school. Attend a liberal arts school with a 3.95

(2) The LSAT

(3) Have played the violin since 3 y/o (performed at a very high level at young age & could have played professionally in a symphony orchestra). That or debate.

2/week isn't a bad idea unless it's a change to your routine. Just do what you've been doing.

@ I'd like to argue that this is not true as I have spoken with admissions personnel who have mentioned that they look at each school differently. If a 3.2 GPA from MIT is in the 95th+ percentile of his or her graduating class and a 3.9 GPA from a community college is in the 75th percentile, those two will be taken into consideration differently. The person with the mediocre GPA with a STEM background is highly likely to be accepted in that scenario (given a solid LSAT score).

This is a dangerous misconception and admissions officers are lying to you for PR. A 3.8 from clown college is generally more valuable outside of Y/S than a 3.7 at MIT (assuming equal LSAT). Also, re STEM vs. knitting-- unless USNWR comes out with a category for this in the next year that affects rankings, consider it almost entirely irrelevant

Took me 2 months. I watched on 1.2x speed & probably should have spent more time on BR

Missed this one. Preemptively scratched out E after reading the word 'abnormally'. But still confused--seems B works because of the (reasonable, common RRE-type) assumption/explanation that maybe these people with low blood pressure are eating none of the other foods that increase blood pressure, while the other "normal" people eat them. This is the reason why they, despite high salt intake, continue to have low blood pressure.

My worthless 2 cents on why this question is problematic: "C" could resolve the issue because with increased production costs, fewer sodas are produced and thus fewer are sold. This is an assumption, but RRE questions heavily use common sense and this isn't that far from the mark. Also, to say "A" resolves the issue is like saying this pear tree will not grow, and why? Well, because all pear trees are not growing right now. This tells me nothing about why the individual pear tree isn't growing.

Internships are pretty much irrelevant. LSAT & GPA combined weight ~90% in terms of your admissions chances outside of Y/S & assuming you're not a URM. The only softs that significantly help are Rhodes, Olympian, etc.

PT 60 game 3 is a really odd one

Do you have the link to where she said that? I have been searching for 20 minutes trying to find where/if she said that. I checked her blog, a few interviews, and TLS...

I couldn't find the source. I'm almost positive I read/watched Asha say this and it isn't just tls heresay. I'll keep looking.

Location becomes increasingly important as the schools you're targeting become increasingly regional. If you want to practice in NY, NYU is a moderately better choice than UChi given equal scholarship money, etc. But if you're talking about schools like Fordham vs. USC, Fordham will place significantly better in NY

Yale's current dean of admissions said they look down on retakes. Pretty sure that's where the tls platitude come from

Checking in. Aiming for a 173+. Averaging above this, but only by a point or so over my last 10 tests, so slightly worried. Recently lost my BR partner if anybody is interested. Will be doing the most recent PTs over the next several weeks

A counter example is a type of contradiction. A contradiction doesn't have to be a counter example.

Know you can always take in December. September is just a realistic PT for December

@'drama ;) I see Y in your future

I use the memory method with Scientific American & The Economist articles. It's one way to get solid practice and not burn through PTs. Honestly, I would never use the memory method on real PTs because it slows me down and doesn't increase my accuracy. Others swear by it though, so ymmv

Worst LSAT question I have encountered."most strongly supported" means "least wrong" for this question. The AC is literally the fallacy A is worse than B so A is bad. Relative comparisons don't yield "usually", which is >50% and an absolute term. JY's explanation is totally insufficient. I got this question right but was 100% convinced I missed something. Still feel like I must be missing something

checking in

Aside from obvious trolling/overconfidence, self selection at TLS generally explains the 29%. The people that frequent the forum are generally on the more neurotic side of all LSAT studiers and high scorers group together

Checking in from the East Bay. Will DM

You should do it if you feel like you are helping out and it is rewarding. Don't volunteer for a line on your resume. Law schools couldn't care less if/where/how long you volunteered.

The above + getting better at/quicker with conditional logic is often key for tough LR questions

I'll be starting to PT in ~2 weeks. Totally down to meet somewhere in Berkeley with you guys