Can you talk a little about how you decided which law school to go to since you had a high enough score that you had lots of options? Did you go with the highest ranking school that you could? How did you decide between scholarships, preferred city, or other factors?

Also, do you have some outside activities other than the high LSAT score that helped your application really stand out?

I think @ got busy with work or something. I sent a PM and no response yet.

What test does everyone want to BR? My suggestion would be either preptest 38 or preptest 85. What would everyone like to do?

What day is good for a weekly group call? Does Wednesday, Feb 6th at 7pm EST work for everyone to start?

Can someone help me understand how answer C is supported? Answer C is a comparative statement between adult mammals that engaged in similar forms of play and adult mammals that did not engage in similar forms of play. The comparison is which one is more likely to engage in interactive play with their young. Who is the winner? The stimulus doesn't seem to address this at all. We do know from the stimulus that neural connections created by frequent play later become indispensable for the mammal's survival and well being as an adult. What I don't understand is how engaging in interactive play with their young is indispensable for the mammal's survival or well being as an adult. #help

Conclusion - The pundit’s argument is that there is no reason to use the airline's service more frequently, even though town officials recommended that the community do so in order to prevent the airline from discontinuing service.

Premise - The reason the pundit gives for disregarding the town official’s advice is that the town officials did not follow their own advice (they decided to drive to an out of town conference instead of fly).

However, the premise doesn’t support the conclusion unless it’s true that if the town officials don’t follow their own advice, the rest of community shouldn’t either. This is a huge assumption that the pundit makes. It’s an assumption we can call out and use to criticize the pundit’s argument.

A - If anything, this answer choice would support the town officials’ recommendation that the community should fly more frequently. However, the pundit’s argument is that the community SHOULDN’T follow the town official’s advice.

B - There is nothing in the argument that suggests that a profitable airline isn’t a possibility. The only reason the pundit gives for suggesting not to follow the town official’s advice is that the town officials didn’t follow their own advice.

C - It doesn’t matter how the town officials paid for their trip. The pundit didn’t presume one way or the other.

D - Again, this would support the town official’s argument that the community should fly more, not the pundit’s argument that the community should disregard the town official’s advice.

E - CORRECT - this connects the PUNDIT’S premise (the town officials didn’t follow their own advice to fly) to the PUNDIT’S conclusion (therefore there is no reason to fly more).

Principle - it is prudent to always have someone else check your work because other people are better at detecting mistakes in your work than you are.

A - a general principle that this answer choice would illustrate is, people are generally better at teaching something if they had to work harder to learn that thing.

B - the principle in the stimulus says that you should have SOMEONE ELSE check your work for errors, not that YOU must make a special effort to clearly communicate.

C - this answer is wrong for several reason. First, the stimulus said that you should have someone else check your work, not that someone else should be the final authority to make a decision for you. Second, the principle in the stimulus talks about how other people are better at detecting ERRORS, not being better at detecting GOOD arguments. Third, the principle in the stimulus doesn’t suggest that one TYPE of person (non-expert) is better at detecting something than another type of person (expert). The principle only says that SOMEONE OTHER THAN YOURSELF should check your work.

D - CORRECT - in this illustration, one should always have their work (what they wrote) checked (proofread) by someone else (someone who does not know in advance what the writer meant to write) because other people are generally better at detecting mistakes (typographical errors) in the writer’s work than the writer himself.

E - this answer is also wrong for several reasons. The principle says that someone else should check your work to detect errors, not to make something more enjoyable or exciting. Also, the other person is supposed to CHECK your work, NOT MAKE A CHOICE FOR YOU.

Premise - one article claimed that coffee is dangerous

Premise - a different article argued that coffee has some benefits

Subconclusion - these opinions are contradictory

Conclusion - therefore experts are useless for guiding decisions about health

The first article claimed that coffee is dangerous (maybe because it causes heart attacks and strokes). The author of the second article might completely agree that coffee is dangerous even though he wrote an article that talks about some health benefits (how much energy it gives you, etc). However, this argument just assumes that these two articles are contradictory. Then, based on that assumption concludes that these two articles are enough evidence to show that experts are USELESS. This is way too strong of a conclusion to jump to from the information given in the argument. Also, we don't even know for sure if these articles were written by experts. This is a terrible argument all around.

A - the argument doesn't take this for granted, it only says that ONE ARTICLE CLAIMED coffee is dangerous.

B - the argument does not presume that people ALWAYS want expert guidance regarding health. This is factually inaccurate.

C - this argument is about expert guidance for decisions about health. Expert opinions in other areas are irrelevant.

D - the argument doesn't presume that expert opinion is trustworthy. Quite the opposite actually.

E - CORRECT - the argument depends on the assumption that coffee cannot be dangerous and also have some benefits at the same time. This answer points out that this isn't true.

Naima - the proposed new computer system would have some benefits over the current system, so we should make the conversion as soon as possible.

Nakai - the cost of converting is even greater than any predicted benefits, so we should delay the conversion as long as possible.

A - Naima seems to think that the new computer system will operate more smoothly and efficiently, if it is fully implemented. Nakai does not agree or disagree with this position. Instead, he says that the cost of converting would be greater than ANY predicted benefits.

B - neither person says anything about needing the BEST computer system available. They are only discussing whether they should convert to the proposed system.

C - Naima definitely seems to think it's technically possible. Her argument would fall apart if that wasn't the case. Again, Nakai gives no opinion on this matter.

D - the test writers are trying to trick us into thinking that Naima agrees and Nakai disagrees with this statement. However, Naima doesn't say that the current system doesn't work well, he only says that the proposed system would be smoother and more efficient. Additionally, Nakai doesn't say that the current system does what it's supposed to do. Maybe she thinks that computer systems aren't even necessary in the first place.

E - CORRECT - Naima says that they should accomplish the conversion as soon as possible. Nakai says that they should delay the conversion as long as possible.

Now we are supposed to strengthen the anthropologist's counterargument that she didn't commit fraud based on the fact that the powder was tested in an acidic solution.

There are two gaps that I see. First, if the results were invalid, does that mean she didn't commit fraud? We would assume so, but the argument would be strengthened if this was explicitly stated. Second, how does testing the powder in an acidic solution make the test invalid? Is this problematic for the experiment for some reason? We don't know because the argument doesn't tell us.

A - in order to strengthen the anthropologist's counterargument we need to strengthen the support that her premise gives to the argument. We can't just make a separate argument that ignores the anthropologist's argument.

B - we don't know if the powder was stored for a long time. And, even if it was, this has nothing to do with the counterargument that the anthropologist is making.

C - CORRECT - the powder WAS put into an acidic solution, so this explains her counterargument that the test was invalid by connecting these two ideas.

D - this would tend to strengthen the chemist's argument, not the anthropologist's counterargument.

E - we don't care if the type of analysis used was insensitive to very small amounts. The experiment was testing for SIGNIFICANT amounts.

Chemist's charge - the anthropologist committed fraud by not reporting the results of her test when they were not favorable to her hypothesis.

The gap here is that we don't know why the anthropologist didn't report the test results. Maybe her lab has a policy that all tests are to be run twice to ensure accuracy before the results are reported. Maybe her dog peed on the experiment and she was concerned that the results could have been contaminated. There are many reasons someone might not report the results of a test that have nothing to do with fraud.

However, we are looking for a principle that supports the chemist's charge so our job is to connect the fact that the anthropologist didn't report the results to the conclusion that she committed fraud. Answer choice E does this perfectly.

A - the anthropologist didn't report the results, so neither of these principles could support any argument about the anthropologist, at least not by using the information given in the stimulus.

B - again, the anthropologist did NOT report the results so this is irrelevant

C - the chemist charged the anthropologist with fraud. This principle is going in the wrong direction.

D - again, the anthropologist didn't report anything so this is irrelevant.

E - CORRECT - the anthropologist didn't report her experiment. Also, the experiment could be interpreted as disconfirming her hypothesis because the results of the test were negative and her hypothesis was that they would be positive. This principle allows us to conclude that she committed fraud.

Did we pick a date to start?

Did you particularly want to go to NYU or was it just a decision based on ranking and offers made?

It seems like the biggest advantage will be being able to see which questions were skipped and being able to go back to them easily. Definitely requires a different strategy for marking questions that you want to take a second look at though, and for keeping track of which answers you’ve already eliminated. Does anybody have suggestions for how to go about that?

@ said:

The webinar yesterday was terrific! I missed the end of it though, did someone win the Edit Once?

Not that I know of yet. Does anybody else know if a winner was announced?

Great webinar today! Thank you for taking the time to do this!

What time of the day/week is good?

@ said:

Quick question - what will we actually do if we get together for [online] study sessions? Like, what content will we cover together Vs do individually? How will the leader organize the content we go over, and is it expected that we finish the CC entirely before group studying?

I haven't group studied for the LSAT before, so just curious.

The groups I've seen before have picked a preptest for everyone to take and then blind review the LR sections together before checking the answers. This gives you a chance to defend the answer you think is right and allows other people in the group to either convince you or not convince you that another answer is right. It helps you better remember WHY an answer choice is right or wrong.

I don't think there is any need to be finished with the CC entirely before starting group study. The biggest issue I've run into myself is not wanting to "burn" preptests too early on.

@, I just noticed that your post was from a month ago. Did you guys end up having any study sessions?

I’m in southern Illinois. I’d like to join as well

Would the online study session be like the GoTo meetings that JY has?

What about the alarm clock and the star?

@ I have been having the exact same issue. It takes so long to print now. I almost sent my printer back to Best Buy! So glad I found this page.

Anyway, I tried clicking on the little link underneath the PDF to see the old flipbook format. When I click the dropdown I get the flip book, but there is no option to print. When I scroll over the flip book it says "Click to view in full screen", but when I click it nothing happens. There are no other options shown. Is there anything else I can try?

Are you all still using the google sheet to list questions for discussion? It doesn't look like much is written on there.

Also, how long was the last SG conference call? Should I expect it to be around 2 hours or so?

I would like to join as well

@ said:

🍌, for daring to make only 1 prediction

I can't believe our tags have been updated with 🍌 😂😂

What do the other tags mean? I guess I never paid any attention before.

Where are you at in the course? Are you done with the core curriculum?

I noticed at the end of your post you said that for some of the questions you didn't read an answer choice at all. I'm not sure if you meant during blind review or just during the timed take. I just wanted to make sure you know that should never happen during BR. Not only should you read every answer choice, but for every question you should also be 100 percent certain WHY each of the wrong answer choices is wrong and WHY each right answer is right. This method works.

When I finished the CC I decided to re-watch the videos about how to BR as a refresher. At first I kind of thought it would be a waste of time because I already "knew" how to BR. I was wrong. There is definitely a right and wrong way to do it. There are 9 short videos in a row. Totally worth it.

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/the-blind-review-is-a-habit/

I hope this helps!

I don't think there is a chart on the website. JY just uses that as an outline in his basic lesson videos. If I'm wrong, someone please let me know.