One doesn't have to assume "widespread misuse" as any potential, single case of fatality meets the definition of "dangerous", and a hypothetical, accidental misuse of the drug being fatal makes answer choice D really hard to deem "incorrect".

But as we know, there's always only 1 correct answer choice...

This is the second question I've seen making use of this flawed stimulus/concept.

Here's the problem...

I own my own business in which I am the only person in the company. I really do, in reality, not some hypothetical nor LSAT-created reality... Google it.

ALL of the "-ee" words can be single or double party transactions; and not by some largely-contorted interpretation of the word either, but by a reasonable and common example.

I am my own employer and employee as I'm self-employed. I pay myself also, so I'm the payer and payee, and I'm sure the analogy could continue on to my detention in some not-so-ridiculous way such that I serve both functions onto myself there too. This question is flawed from the very first sentence to the very last answer choice, as every "-ee" word listed here can be self-inflicted. What a mess.

BUT...by putting myself in to the flawed mindset of the author, or the narrator of the question, I can think like they are and figure out that if I escape from somewhere, I've made myself the escapee. I doubt if the author/narrator is high-minded enough to escape from his own mental prison, as he has indicated such inability to recognize the possibility thereof, which does not inherently preclude its existence. Poor narrator :-(

You have to read their minds... You have to just "get it" sometimes, which is ridiculous given the nature of logic and it's support structure. Some degree of this is fine, but there are times when it's just too much, as is how I see it here.

Nilesh is totally right about pre-cooking meals. That's a big time-saver, plus it's really healthy. That's practiced religiously by athletes who spend 10-20 hrs training weekly. As a business owner and competitive athlete who's also starved for time, I can definitely agree with that. Also, studying whenever you can squeeze it in helps; keeping study materials with you (pre-printed LGs to do during a 10-minute down time) is a good idea. Studying in the morning is probably good too; since 3 of the 4 LSATs during the year are given pretty early in the morning, it's a good idea to condition your brain to function that way regularly. It's rough man, only so many hours and you're always tired. I feel ya!

I've been exactly where you are now, and I could write pages and pages about it. I'd love for you to learn from my mistakes, I'm 37 next month and just now in a place in life where I can take the LSAT and hope for law school. Why? Because I compromised my academic career in my early 20s for a typical, mediocre, hourly-paying job. Unless you're making really, really, really good money, I'd strongly recommend focusing on your LSAT and law school. Is there time for a job? Yes. Is there energy too? It's not just your time, but your focus, your enthusiasm etc. If you're drained by spreading yourself so thin, there's no way to just "man up" and tough it out and get the same results you would if you were focused. I hate to preach, but you're asking :) I hate to see people not realize that they're fucking up their life over a mediocre job... It's a trap, it's quicksand, it's a black hole...

I don't know the details of your life, I certainly don't have the answers for you. I can only tell you about me. It's better to do one thing really really well (education) than to do multiple things with compromised efforts. I wish you the best!

A 1991 review of Haraway's Primate Visions, published in the International Journal of Primatology, provides examples of some of the most common critiques of her view of science:[21]

"This is a book that contradicts itself a hundred times; but that is not a criticism of it, because its author thinks contradictions are a sign of intellectual ferment and vitality. This is a book that systematically distorts and selects historical evidence; but that is not a criticism, because its author thinks that all interpretations are biased, and she regards it as her duty to pick and choose her facts to favor her own brand of politics. This is a book full of vaporous, French-intellectual prose that makes Teilhard de Chardin sound like Ernest Hemingway by comparison; but that is not a criticism, because the author likes that sort of prose and has taken lessons in how to write it, and she thinks that plain, homely speech is part of a conspiracy to oppress the poor. This is a book that clatters around in a dark closet of irrelevancies for 450 pages before it bumps accidentally into its index and stops; but that is not a criticism, either, because its author finds it gratifying and refreshing to bang unrelated facts together as a rebuke to stuffy minds. This book infuriated me; but that is not a defect in it, because it is supposed to infuriate people like me, and the author would have been happier still if I had blown out an artery. In short, this book is flawless, because all its deficiencies are deliberate products of art. Given its assumptions, there is nothing here to criticize. The only course open to a reviewer who dislikes this book as much as I do is to question its author’s fundamental assumptions—which are big-ticket items involving the nature and relationships of language, knowledge, and science."

LMFAO, hilarious!

This did however, cause me to google Donna Jeanne Haraway and this book. The passage is a perfect example of simply horrible LSAT writing, but if you want to take "outside the box" beyond the mere lip-service almost always offered by users of the phrase, and really and truly challenge status quo to its very structural root, obtain new and unique perspectives and take learning in general beyond the preconceived structure usually imposed by established means, Haraway appears one of few who can genuinely help you get there. (Hence the discomfort/bewilderment)

The weird "space" in answer choice B is large enough for the word "main"...looks like it was removed with white-out back in '97. Why? If it says "main" it's easier to exclude choice B. The part in question does not support the "main" conclusion, but the following statement of "expect economic growth in near future". It's still wrong because it says "required", but now only for that reason. Sneaky LSAT bullshit...

Hey! I'm a competitive cyclist, and I do weight training and boxing as well. You know how to "peak" for competition I'm sure! Same approach for LSAT. I know EXACTLY what you mean about being mentally drained/calories/time etc. I can make it all work for me, but everyone's situation is unique. I personally think that the October LSAT is WAY out front for you, especially given that you're so far into your studying. The only thing I see with your comments is the timing. It it were me, I'd do the June test for multiple reasons (not the least of which is that the June test is in the afternoon and scores are typically higher...). Having the test 6 months away would cause me to be lax. I thrive under pressure, and without it, I procrastinate and lose discipline and undertake other challenges. The pressure of the June deadline would help me focus, and the wait for Oct. would cause me to lose that focus and perhaps become distracted.

If stimulus says "The sky is blue." and an answer choice says "The sky is not blue." then that answer choice contradicts and must be false.

Stimulus - "investment is not decreasing"

Answer choice A - "investment is decreasing"...

It's impossible for investment to decrease because we've already been told that it's NOT decreasing... No arrows, contrapositives...no nothing. Game over. Answer choice A contradicts and must be false. Am I wrong?

I have a little more trouble with weakening questions too, and I also have issues with the "beam" metaphor. It doesn't really represent support very well for me, but obviously it works for others. That's exactly what it is though, just a metaphor, so if it gives you issue, then consider discarding it...

Also, ask "How does this premis(es) support the conclusion?" You absolutely must understand how the author thinks this premise supports this conclusion. ALL of the answer choices (right or wrong) will either weaken, strengthen or, the trickiest, are irrelevant (So what?).

I use sometimes a rephrasing of the "support".."Oh, so he's saying this supports that because the thing is gonna do this stuff to that, or this happens because that..." whatever. Then say "Yeah, but what about/what if ____A/B/C/D/E_____" to each answer choice. "Yeah, that makes you say hmmmm, I'm not so sure about your conclusion being a result of that premise there, chief..." is the right answer. "So what? WTF cares? That has no bearing on this," is irrelevant (incorrect) and "Well, yeah, that makes even more sense," actually strengthens, so you know that's wrong.

Alot of times, the "alternative explanation" is the right answer, because it's like "Yeah, there's that premise, sure, and yeah, that conclusion is true, but here's why. It's not because your premise supports it, but for this other thing."

The real trouble I have is distinguishing between weaken/irrelevant. If it weakens even the tiniest, stupidest, most insignificant and ridiculous way, then it weakens. It's easy to look right at the correct answer choice and say "So? Who cares???" when it really does weaken, even if only in the very strictest sense and if only according to some LSAT author.

One thing to remember is that the conclusion isn't wrong, and that the premises aren't either. The real trap isn't that incorrect answer choices actually attack premise/conclusion, they just really look like they do when in fact they leave premise/conclusions completely intact...

I honestly have to use process/elimination for harder weaken questions, eliminating strengthen/irrelevant answer choices. I usually get down to 2 remaining choices at worst, they aren't my favorite question types. I get stuck in the "this argument is stupid" distraction, thinking there isn't any "beam" to weaken in the first place on some questions. Or the "there's no answer choice that weakens, just irrelevant" rut... That's lousy.

Pay close attention to stems, watch for "except"...

By the way, there's no "inferring" to the correct answer choice on a weakening question... Understand exactly what an inference actually is, or you're screwed on the LSAT. Words mean really really specific things in the LSAT paradigm, not like when everyday, conversational language is used. It's a good habit to get really strict with your own language both in your head and in your voice, being very precise and correct.

I wrote one of these, it was as long as/longer than my personal statement. I was highly encouraged by the admissions rep to include it and be very thorough. I'll share mine with you if you'd like, just DM me.

I emailed LSAC specifically about my LSAT watch after reading comments on here about them. They replied telling me that mine was ok. They DID want to know exactly which watch it was. I really like mine (top tier timer lsat watch), so I was glad to get to use it. I think the real issue is that some of them have an automatic "reset" button that they feel classifies it as a "timer", like a kitchen timer or a stopwatch. Also, no noises (beeps) of any kind. I'd suggest printing out a confirmation email and taking it with you, including a picture of the watch in the body of the email. They had no issue with mine on test day, and I didn't even need to show them the email.

Leave everything but your zip bag in your car. Don't drink too much water or coffee (bathroom), Hydroxycut Elite, one capsule just prior to going into room and caffeinated cliff bloks, tons of mental focus :)

Agreed; it seems many people get the idea from the video explanations that you're doing this on many of the LR questions just because you recognize a logical indicator term. You simply don't have time to do this on the test for more than a few questions (as mentioned by blah170, MBT/SA/Parallel stuff where you're identifying very specific gaps and/or parallels.) It's great in practice to figure out how the process works, how a gap exists or parallel, but to do really well on the LSAT you have to hone your intuition to see this in your mind, anticipate right answers, and find them quickly and move on without all the arrows. Be aware of contrapositives hidden in answer choices, and watch for tiny words like "not' or prefixes like "un-" and double-negative language that can give completely different meaning, or bury correctness, in extra language. But yeah, my guess is most people posses a decent intuition to begin with, and they shouldn't leave it on the shelf in favor of time consuming translations and arrows. Practice drawing, then practice NOT drawing, and do it only when you must.

ALWAYS is a really strong word. If you haven't purchased the LG Bundle from 7Sage, you really need to while it's still up. Do all the games, all different types. For me, this is better than reviewing the same game a dozen times. On test day, you'll see a game you've never seen before. It's important not to freeze.

Ok, the number of tickets sold is completely irrelevant. If this eludes you because you don't understand what "average price paid" means, you should still arrive at Answer B because of cyt5015's approach of eliminating incorrect answers.

Remember, 4 answers are going to be HORRIBLY WRONG, as is the case here. The other answers are just awful.

It's also good to get out of the mind frame of arguing with the test or arguing with the explanations given here. It will only delay your arrival to a place of LSAT enlightenment. I see a lot of that in the comment sections; people still trying to make the wrong answer right or vice-versa. I've wasted a huge chunk of my life that way, so learn from my experience and suffering.

Also, the test is written in ENGLISH not Lawgic, so you won't always be able to (and very seldom will it be a wise use of time) to draw out every single one of these. Just trust that the structure, the formula is there, and try to see it conceptually. You'll just have letters and arrows and mess all over the place. Think of drawing a star and a triangle...how ridiculous, right? Just hold the ideas of ticket prices or whatever in your head and link them up, in order. ID the MC and Ps available, find the missing P that links up. Super easy.

Stimulus -

"For ANY social system, the introduction of labor-saving technology that makes certain economic roles obsolete will tend to undermine the values in that social system."

Correct answer choice-"not"s removed...

(C) A social system whose values are susceptible to change would be one in which technology can eliminate economic roles.

The key here, which I'm starting to see as a recurring theme with some LSAT questions, is the re-wording through words like "not" in an attempt to clog your brain with extra words.

"Luke is a Jedi." is the same as "Luke is not not a Jedi." Or try "Luke is a Jedi because he uses the Force." compared with "Luke is not a Jedi because Luke does not use the Force".

Remove the double-negative "not"s from the correct answer choice as I have shown above (which is grammatically correct) and you simply have a re-statement of another statement already found in the stimulus. It's almost as if (C) is lifted directly from the stimulus and paraphrased; its clearly supported without fault. They say the same thing.

"A social system" falls within the definition/paradigm of "any" social system, and the rest of the language is fine too.

I got it wrong both times through...

@ So sorry for the gender confusion! Misleading avatars and all...

Anyway, that's a really great choice/realization you're making about life in general. A bigger picture answer is always a better one. As my fitness level was also nonexistent when I began, I can say that it's really important to do something fun, and not to do too much too quickly. Pretty much any type of excercise will do; as you realize this is a change in lifestyle as opposed to a "goal" that you will attain. Many people fail because they don't realize the approach and all that it entails, including the journey having no "end" where you arrive and you're done. It also affects every aspect of your life, causing the occasional conflict but the overall effect being, perhaps, the most positive and profound one can experience. Your understanding of personal wellness as a whole also shows great insight, and I'd suggest you pursue your new area of self-improvement as such. I started with cycling for pretty random reasons, but it stuck. It's low/no-impact, which makes it easy to repeat daily and recover from quickly (especially at the entry-level), it gets you outside and covers a lot of ground, which stimulates the mind and other senses, and it is limitless in where you can expand/develop to keep it fresh. I've known people to become incredibly fit with swimming as well (which I hate). I lost lots of weight doing moderate weight/high rep training also (resistance cardio). I'd recommend starting slow, easing into whatever you chose to try.

Do your research on eating real food; if you'd like, I have some materials on that I can share with you that were written by my professional coaching team. The gist is to eat real food in more, smaller meals during the day. You can also do a lot with very very few carbs. You will develop mental sharpness and other tools that will prove beneficial in all things, including LSAT/law school etc.(your feedback loop...), but as for helping with the June test itself I'd just say that that is an experience unique to you. Don't let a new undertaking distract you! Major dietary changes and new physical workloads can significantly affect your overall energy levels as your body says "WTF is going on dude??" and sleep/mental focus etc. can be thrown off. Just be aware! Bike racers have rules about trying new things because it can cause problems.

I wish you the best with this! I can personally say its the best decision I ever made for my life.

Looking forward to this; the responses here should be amusing... :)

I lost approx. 100lbs over the course of a few years, and won 3 USA Cycling time trial championships on my bicycle in the process and I'm a level 3 cycling coach. I box and I weight-train. Am I a fitness snob? Yeah. Sure. Whatever. I'm am to fitness what the 180 LSAT taker is to the LSAT, and with tons of respect for blah170blah and his contributions to this site, I'm somewhat curious what the thought process is here. Why do you want to tackle fitness as part of your LSAT prep? What is your current state of fitness? What do you hope to achieve?

I will say this, anywhere from 75-90% of it is your diet/hydration/sleep...

Ha, yeah, just for the record, I didn't get 180/Yale, it's a joke about last night's comments from people awaiting scores and some untrue posts by suspect characters. I'm not that good at LSAT.

I wanted to ponder this for 24hrs before replying, plus now I got my 180 score from LSAC last night and my scholarship to Yale is sealed, so I can focus more clearly on my 7Sage posts ;-)

Should they be allowed to provide information they saw fit to gather in the first place? Yes. If the question were “should they be required to” or “are there any legal issues if they do” the question would be a bit tougher. This question is a simple yes, however what follows is relevant.

If a law school wants this information, LSAC should be allowed to provide it. I’m a die-hard believer in the idea that transparency is always better than a lack thereof. Withholding information, regardless of intention or what one feels is justified, whatever, is always less honest than providing it correctly and completely. “The truth, the whole truth and nothing but…”, as they say. What one decides to do with information they possess is a different discussion, and is honestly how I see people addressing the question at hand. We’re talking about providing information, not deciding whether to admit or deny someone.

If I’m a law school admissions decider, I can’t imagine a world where I can make a better decision with less information. I’m screening applications, and to perform this task in the “best” way, I’m trying to decide primarily the following two things:

1) What does this applicant bring to my classroom? How does his admission benefit the school’s faculty, staff and student body?

2) What are the chances of success for this applicant? If I let them in, will they succeed? To what degree?

Discussions about “leveling the playing field” miss the point. This is a very long and inviting area of debate that happens to be irrelevant to the question at hand regardless of how interesting and important that discussion is. However, it is noteworthy that being able to level the playing field, assuming it can indeed be leveled to some satisfactory status, is dependent on the transparency in question.

Every application should be viewed as unique, because it is. Each person is exactly that, a human being, not a statistic, not an LSAT score, not a member of an ethnic group, not a disability with a label slapped on. Bob Dylan used to say “I’m not a folk singer…” all the time. It’s important to try to understand how and why he said that, the wisdom contained is profound and valuable.

Each law school is also unique. Uniqueness including but not limited to what it offers, it what it wants to offer, in what it’s capable of offering each student.

Following this rationale, and continuing the idea that I’m the admissions guy at Law School State, I might say, “What is the nature of this person’s disability? What accommodations do they require, and if met, how will they perform? Do I have the means to provide them, and at what cost? What cost to the other people of this school? Is it fair for one person to receive such attention and effort at the expense of other students? Will this student’s presence be a hindrance to everyone else?” I don’t know to what degree I can accurately answer these questions minus critical information.

I may well decide that having such a person would enhance the environment at my school for everyone. It is very conceivable that such a person’s presence would lead to more complete, well-rounded attorneys graduating from my school, as well as a more capable and experienced staff and faculty. I could also be equally justified in deciding that this particular applicant should not attend because the entire situation could be a disaster. One has no idea if information is withheld.

Perhaps most importantly, I would also have questions about the potential success of the student. While it may be the case that a student with special requirements could reach a high degree of success in my school, a likelihood that favors admittance, it also may be the case that this person is highly unlikely to succeed even with every imaginable accommodation in place. No one wants to let someone in just to see them fail. If the idea is to help the student succeed, I cannot imagine how not knowing their disability and special needs favors their chances of success, regardless of end decision of admission.

On my application to law school, I was asked information on my ethnic background as well as sexual orientation (both, it is noteworthy, are socially constructed concepts). Why? What bearing on my 2 questions could the information provided have? Without disregard for the individual’s uniqueness, as well as grand assumptions about the nature of the groups in general, into which the admissions council wishes to pigeonhole everyone, the answers to such questions provide no indication whatsoever on admissions criteria. Its ridiculous to ask about this, and yet a measurable, diagnosable disability that will directly impact the success of the applicant as well as the learning environment which they wish to join should be kept secret? I disagree. If a law school wants this information from LSAC, they should be allowed to provide it.

I have my score. I'm going to Yale and I got a 180. Nah... just kiddin'. I do have my score though.

Looks like there are some really good advice replies for you so far. I'm 37 and I'm waiting for my February score. I know how it feels, but don't worry as much about the delay in your life, focus more on getting yourself right and improving your situation so that you can take the next step. Do that and you're in better position to succeed than these kids who know little else but academics. I too struggle with depression, and I've been buried in debt for much of my adult life. One thing I've learned is not to just continue plowing into something when you're feeling so powerless and unmotivated. You don't really do yourself any good, and you risk developing an aversion to the objective you pursue, as well as making your depression and overall situation etc. worse. Back off, take inventory, be good to yourself, focus on the positives, like the things you are good at, the accomplishments (no matter how small) you have under your belt and the things you do have going for you. Regroup and position yourself to make a good, solid effort at something.

An addendum to my application's Personal Statement spoke about overcoming depression, debt and obesity, and making something of myself. If you'd like to read it, I'll email it to you. DM me your address.

I really do know how you must feel...it sucks. There's literally millions of people in our same position. You can always make your situation worse, you can always make it better, but you're not powerless over your own life's circumstance.

Good luck to you.