I will be doing a lever 3 reading comp (medium difficulty) and a practice LR section before the test. That gets me into mindset for the LSAT and I tend to perform better on PT's after I do that

Which one was that? The grouping game for volleyball?

Waaait, that’s the one about seasons and seminars. That one was tricky, but once the rules came into place it went quick. A grouping game, 5 parts and 6 board pieces, one repeats. The game revolves around the two pieces or conditional logic and what game piece is being used twice.

Let’s take a MBT question from it, and put H in both seasons. Because H is in fall, M must be in fall, leaving a game piece we can’t determine quite yet. In the spring, we already have H, and since we can’t have another duplicate, it cannot be M, so it must be V (either V or M in both seminars). V being in the spring triggers a conditional rule, and T is in the spring as well. We now have 5 of 6 slots! So, the final piece, O, must go in the fall since it is the only slot available and voila, the board is complete.

One of the questions was which of the following cannot be a partial list of the game pieces, and that one stumped me for a moment. I think the correct answer was

Fall: V

Spring: V, T, M

Why? Well, that only leaves O and H for the fall, and what happens if H is in the fall? M must be there as well, which it cannot be since 1) there are only 3 seminars each season and 2) only one duplicate.

What happens, though, if a partial board is

Fall: V

Spring: H

We actually have a lot of leeway with this board initially, but once we take a look it can be broken down into the following

Fall: V, M, O

Spring: H, V, T

Fall: V, O, M

Spring: H, T, M

Fall: V, T, M

Spring: H, O, M

Fall: V, H, M

Spring: H, O, T

^^ this cannot work, as we do not have V or M in spring.

There may be more than this, BUT, you cannot have H in both, since it messes with M and V in spring, which is the most important part. That’s the gist of this game Hope this helps!

Question 13 directly references passage B paragraph 1, you don’t need to know IP law to get that.

I think 19 boils down to method of reasoning. It is not in regards to the context of the answer itself, but in the dilemma that authorities of each respective government face when issuing fines. In Country A there is a blurred line, implied by the fact that gun ownership is illegal in some cases but legal in others (much like the line is blurred for some blackmailing cases compared to others). However in country B there is no blurred line, because gun ownership is illegal for ALL citizens, much like Roman law makes blackmail illegal in all cases. The inference of passage B is that blackmail is not a subject of debate because there is an explicit belief that if the act occurs it is illegal, while there is no parallel in passage A. Also, E refers to punishment over application of law and that alone is reason enough to discredit it, as the passages discussed the legal basis on which one was convicted, not their punishment.

Going back over question 16, I think that E is right in nature, but A is right solely on the information provided in the passage. Passage B starts simply by demonstrating that there isn't an issue of law in ancient Rome, which is a direct contradiction of Passage A. E is by all means right, but A is just better for the information at hand and forces students to rely on inference based solely on the passage than on real world intuition.