#help I struggle with D on Q2 because it says in the passage "Materials in an ideal industrial ecosystem would not be depleted anyymore than in a biological [one]..." which means that even in the ideal system there will be some depletion right? I know this isn't directly stating natural resources but how do I not make that assumption under testing conditions when this line directly ties depletion to the ideal industrial ecosystem?

#help , For Question 5, I was vascilating between C and E and didn’t get a clear explanation as to why answer choice C was wrong. I realize that scientists/ scientific knowledge was not explicity mentioned, but I inferred that the risk communicators would not care if the public knew any scientific knowledge, because their goal is just to persaude them to the benefit of the risk communicator. However, the author talks extensively about how important it is to inform the public in a way in which they’ll understand (assumingly) to give them the correct scientific information. I see more support for E stated explicity, but how can I rule answer choices like C out in the future?

for 13, D is just talking about ONE rock. There could potentially be others on Earth that haven't been found. So a survey of the entire surface of mars (answer choice A) which finds no evidence of LHB is more supportive of the theory mentioned in the stim.

I got Question 22 wrong but immediately understood why after seeing the correct answer. The question asks what the passage (i.e., the author) says Billings' research addresses. The paragraph begins with, "What about the potential for the increased uptake of CO2 to decrease the rate of global warming?" Billings’ research directly answers this (no, global warming likely won’t slow due to CO2 uptake because of peat), making C the correct answer.

Answer choice A may seem supported by Billings’ research, but the question isn’t asking what we can infer—it’s asking what the passage states Billings’ research addresses. If anyone has tips on catching nuances like this under time pressure, let me know! My current approach is to reread the stimulus when stuck between two choices without a clear reason to eliminate one

This is not professional advice just what i've heard and read: In general, a letter of recommendation from a school official is always valuable because it verifies your academic proficiency. However, your second letter should come from someone who can speak very highly of you and your work ethic. Ideally, this letter should be recent—within the last year or so—since your school reference letter is already a little older.

For an additional letter, consider a part-time summer internship. These typically last 2–3 months, and the application cycle for them is happening now. Look for opportunities that align with your application story—if you're writing about environmental law, for example, an environmental-focused internship would be ideal. The companies that offer internships also provide letters of recommendation upon completion.

If finding an internship is challenging because you’re not a recent graduate, volunteering can be a great alternative. Choose an organization that aligns with your application, work closely with them for a few months, and build relationships with key people who could later provide a strong recommendation.

Other options include messaging random people on LinkedIn, Reddit, Facebook or other "friend of a friend" avenues, to see who might be willing to write you a letter. This is a very common tactic for people who are not first generation law students. You could also ask your current employer for a letter, but only if you’re confident they will write a strong one. It’s generally better to have one excellent letter than three that are just average.

i dont know if he said it in the video but these were my notes for the question

all scientist know scholarly publications

mansour knows scholarly publication

mansour must be a scientist

he mets a necessary condition, we can not imply that he meets a sufficient one

✅A: this one does not start with ALL but

if flight delayed the connecting flight delayed

frieda’s connecting flight was delayed so the first must have also been delayed

swaps necessary condition for sufficient one once again

D:

all employees 3+ can do retirement plan

gavin is 3+ year employee

he must participate in retirement plan

this confuses being able to do something with HAVING to do it

#HELP I understand why C is wrong. Key words "must" and "either/or" take too strong a position that the author does not comment on. But why is D allowed to call "Since biologists agree that frogs are definitely related to the species of fish from which human beings evolved" an assumption? How is it not a premise? I thought an assumption was something which was taken for granted, but we are given this statement as a fact. Is this just one of those questions where you have to pick the strongest match VIA process of elimination, or does the LSAT change its definition of assumption depending on the context?

i read a comment that said "read an LR stem as if its a juicy piece of gossip that you've been dying to know about" and it actually does work. I find with LR and RC, pretending to be super interested in what the author is saying helps you actually stay focused.

its a little weird how every question type got a detailed summary except Psuedo Sufficient. I have no clue what kind of strategy to take, how PSA questions are different than sufficient assumption etc.. I appreciate the summary of the other types, but I would have liked one for the type that we're meant to be learning about next

i am still a little confused on A and C can anyone help? i kind of get how there is a least a little overlap between original and influential because they both exist in the great art set (but even that is a little confusing, because how can we be sure that the great art that is influential interacts or coincides with the great art that is original?)

and even still, how can you not then say something similar for C? since they both come from the great art set? I get that the "Only" is a indicator of what makes it wrong, but when mapping out the logic I don't see how we couldn't assume that if we could make that assumption for A

To eliminate choices D and E, I needed to recognize that “forcing people to help others” is not exactly the same as “redistributing resources via taxation.” Raphaela’s argument hinges on an implied comparison: she believes that redistributing resources via taxation is morally wrong because it is essentially the same as forcing people to help others. While these two actions are different in practice, Raphaela uses them as an analogy to build her argument. Seperately these two ideas (forcing people to help others and redistribution of taxes) have nothing to do with each other, but when using them comparitively it helps to build her argument. She is implying that this tax policy is morally wrong because it is the same as forcing people to help others.

However, Edward does not engage with Raphaela’s analogy or the premise that “forcing people to help others” is wrong. Instead, he only focuses on her conclusion that “no government has the right to redistribute taxes.” Edward’s argument is that some governments do have the right to redistribute taxes, provided they allow people to emigrate.

The LSAT is baiting you to believe that the reason Edward came to this conclusion is because if people are free to leave, they are not being forced, and therefore the government isn’t morally wrong in redistributing taxes. But we have no reason (or need) to believe this is why he disagrees with Raphaela. So because D and E all mention a premise (forcing people to help others) that Edward has no comment on, they can not be right.

Yeah I know this can be confusing because "if" and "only" on their own usually suggest different things. "If" typically signals a sufficient condition (e.g., "If it rains, the ground gets wet"—rain is enough for wet ground). But when combined as "only if," it means the condition is necessary (e.g., "You can vote only if you’re a citizen"—being a citizen is required to vote). But it's sometimes difficult to see the "only if" phrasing. In the example, "You can only enter a club if you’re over 21 years old," the focus is on what’s required—being over 21. Even though "if" is there, it’s part of "only if," making age a requirement. The words in between, "enter the club," don't change that.

A good way to see this is to rephrase it: "To enter the club, you must be over 21." This translation can help make it clear that being 21 is required (necessary), but it doesn’t guarantee entry (sufficiency).

omg sure ive been looking for study buddies!

i used to worry about this too but honestly you never remember what the right answer is when a question re-occurs, that's why many people often retake the same prep tests when they've exhuasted other ones. its more about the logic presented and going through the process again, even if you are familiar with the subject.

yeah the first example "you can go to a bar if you are over 21" is perfect because you made being 21 sufficient (good enough to get into the bar). the statement is not saying that she has to go to the bar, or even that she will, but just that she CAN. you're right, she can go to other places and we don't know if she will or won't, we just know for certain that if the bar is on her agenda, she will be allowed to go because she satisfies the sufficient condition. if the sufficient condition is satisifed the necessary will occur. so if she is over 21 she can go to the bar.

the second one, "you can go to a bar only if you are over 21" is saying that if you enter the bar at all, you must be 21. there may be other things you need, we do not know, but being 21 is necessary. so if you go into a bar and see Emily, you know she's 21. for the contrapositive "if you are not over 21 you can not go to the bar" → if emily texts you and tells you it's her 20th birthday, you can say congratulations, but you can not invite her to the club because she will not get in. She does not satisfy the necessary condition.

the only thing that i would say to be careful about in this example is assumming the connection between flavor and minerals. we know water is sufficient for flavor and water is sufficient for minerals. we do not know the relationship between flavor and minerals. the only assumption that could be made is "some drinks that have flavor have minerals as well." i make this sort of mistake when doing LR and the test loves to exploit it so just thought i'd let you know!

since being an almond is sufficient for being a food, you can say that some foods are produced for domestic consumption. it's like saying some cats drink milk therefore some mammals drink milk. mammals is a massive set, but cats are still apart of it.

i had to write this one out because i was lost at first. question 2. "Some alphabets are not phonetic." meaning "At least 1 alphabet is not phonetic" so to negate that would be "It is not the case that at least 1 alphabet is not phonetic," so "no alphabet is not phonetic" is the same as "all alphabets are phonetic"

Wow thank you! I just looked back at the video, I appreciate you for pointing this out!

#help i've had LR questions before where when you make an assumption like that of question 5 it is most likely one of the wrong answer choices. When is it safe to make a "common sense" assumption like politicians are society's elites, and when is it not? Is there any way to build this skill? I often get bogged down in the details which is keeping me in the 160s. Common sense isnt so common haha.

why is there not an option for not killing Robb? i.e. kill Bran and kill Jon

i was taught through other courses that unless, except, until, and without are words which only modify the necessary condition and negate the sufficient. I think following this rule helped clear up a lot of confusion for me instead of just randomly assigning it and trying to see which sentence made more sense.

- The rule says: Students are cited as "late" only if they arrive more than five minutes late. This means arriving more than 5 minutes late is necessary for being cited as late. But arriving late alone doesn't guarantee that the student will be cited—other factors could be involved.

- So, Kumar arriving 17 minutes late fulfills the necessary condition (arriving more than 5 minutes late), but it does not guarantee he will be cited. We don’t have enough information to make that judgment.

- another example -

You can only enter a club if you're over 21 years old.

- Being over 21 is necessary to enter the club, but just being over 21 doesn't guarantee you'll get in. You might also need a membership, a reservation, or be dressed appropriately. So, being over 21 is necessary, but it’s not sufficient on its own to guarantee entry.

In the homeroom bell example:

Students are cited as "late" only if they arrive more than five minutes late.

- Arriving more than 5 minutes late is necessary for being cited as late, but it doesn't guarantee the student will be cited. Something else could also factor into the decision (like maybe the teacher lets it slide or there's an exception made).

I would love to join! Discord: burkeleigh