@ is it going to be anonymous?

@ Are we going over PT 60 this Saturday? Or are we only going to be forming the group?

does anyone think that the projected -11 curve (from powerscore) for this LSAT is too low? I also wrote the NOV lsat and this one felt without question harder.

I am definitely in! But I will be proposing earlier meeting times as I live in Europe! Thank you for organizing this @

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

If you have U+, then PT's 81 is in your syllabus. You can also purchase it as an add-on too.

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/preptest-81/

https://classic.7sage.com/addons/ ($5.97 early bird special for a week)

I am only bummed about the non-U+ members who purchased the test and don't get the live commentary. Or maybe I just don't know how to access it... I am only able to get video explanations for the LGs. Regardless, thank you for this super nice gift for the September takers!

There are no video explanations (and the Live Commentary) for LR and RC for PT81 yet. I think J.Y. will post them after these BR sessions.

I actually found it: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/preptest-81-s3-lr-live-commentary/

@ said:

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

If you have U+, then PT's 81 is in your syllabus. You can also purchase it as an add-on too.

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/preptest-81/

https://classic.7sage.com/addons/ ($5.97 early bird special for a week)

I am only bummed about the non-U+ members who purchased the test and don't get the live commentary. Or maybe I just don't know how to access it... I am only able to get video explanations for the LGs. Regardless, thank you for this super nice gift for the September takers!

alarm systems was one of the real LR

I had no idea this is happening but I just joined! @

@ @ Also a Canadian here, but have you guys considered McGill at all?

Has anyone received their score?

@.k13.0 I couldn't make it but I'll be there this coming sunday with fresh powers. Sorry :)

I personally am focusing on section drills to boost up confidence and skipping strategies :)

@ and @ I hope you guys go to the same law school or at least get to work together when you start practicing BROmance (3(/p)

Well that was a little helpful but I was looking for more... In my opinion, C is a necessary assumption AC: if it is the case that in most cases where planets have been found orbiting a distant star, it is not the case that there are more than one planet... Yeah, if that's true, then there is no way that one planet would have been thrown off by another planet. But I don't see how it would strengthen it... Maybe it would because there are at least two planets, therefore making it possible for one planet to change the other's trajectory...

Now B, i like better... If there was an indication that at least one of the planets in out system was affected by another planet, AND SINCE ALL the planets in our system are in circular orbits, then that wrecks the possibility that a planet could be put into an oval trajectory.... Hence weakening the hypothesis that another planet threw off that other planet in that other system....

Or am I completely misusing the necessary assumption negation method for Strengthening questions?

Let me give my reasoning as to why I think A is the wrong AC... I did the same PT as the one where @ took the question from just the other day and I think I might be able to solve our problems here.... In the original question, the species compared are each from the same family...

In other words, like @'s example, we have one type of fish and another type of fish, electric and non-electric... Obviously the shark won't eat the electric ones cause it would get electrocuted, so it focuses on non-electric... (well mind you that's my assumption but the effect is the same... they don't eat electric fish)

Context: sharks do not eat electric fish

Observation: this one type of non-electric fish lights in flashes to confuse the shark even though it uses much energy

Hypothesis: the non-electric fish evolved this feature as a means of avoiding sharks/predators

A) no electric fish lights up like our type of non-electric fish

.... don't you see how this would weaken it? If none of the electric fish light up like it then the potential presumption that the non-electric fish lights up like them in hopes of appearing as electric is destroyed...

I still can't figure out how the others strengthen it, but I have managed to see why A doesn't... -_-

With regards to @'s alternative question, I think the confusion comes from the fact that we are comparing humans to cats... And the assumption that the predator eats the other species is missing too, which is sort of changing the overall argument from the original Question.

@ said:

A parallel to your parallel:

The Crayon Pony Fish lights up in an abrupt series of flashes and colors. While leopard sharks don't eat electric jellyfish, non electric fish like the crayon pony fish need to confuse the leopard shark to escape. Scientists therefore speculate that the crayon pony fish's lights, which burn an extraordinary amount of calories, evolved as a means of confusing the leopard shark.

(A) No electric jellyfish lights up like the crayon pony fish

(B) Getting eaten by leopard sharks is not how most fish die

(C) Many other fish have lights similar to the crayon pony fish

(D) It burns far fewer calories for fish to light up than for aquatic mammals

(E) The leopard shark preys on many non-electric fish.

A) is not the right answer choice, in fact, it would weaken it...

B) I think B has the highest support although to me it's quite hidden. I do have to agree with @'s argument for B... and that goes for @'s stimulus as well.... it seems very plausible...

C,

D, and

E are all hard to defend...

Is there still a spot open?

@ said:

I'm just hoping I grinded out enough LG answers... If I did, a good law school is in my future. Does any one remember how many questions the real LG's section had?

23

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/lsat-vocabulary-flashcards/

@ there's a reason you score 170 and you are a sage. That was a great explanation, and possibly better than JY's... i feel terrible saying this :neutral: But thank you!

anyone else still not received their score?

You can just use the arrows to navigate ;) @

What about negating a "most" statement?

E.g.

"Most of the island's permanent residents oppose the passage of the law"

Would the negation be

"It could be the case that none oppose the law" (Which would also include the possibility that all support the passage of the law") My reasoning here comes from the fact that MOST is in fact a SOME statement, because some includes everything from 1 to 100.

I am very confused. What if there was some other source of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere that caused the levels to increase and all of the regulations were actually followed? Answer choice B assumes so much, and its logic runs contrary to what we are taught: "Never assume stuff". Furthermore, answer choice "D" is a much better choice because the assumption we are asked to make is much weaker than that in answer choice "B": the STIM says that there were regulations imposed on coal plants in order to reduce the pollution... AC D says that coal plants are one of the main sources of pollution... HECK YEAH... if the government had to introduce regulations on them, then that most likely means that they are heavy pollutants... It's so obvious,,...

Good thing I saw this. Never thought that it's so confusing. Thanks for the summed up explanation @