@matthandsfield726 @satia-longe4 Did it feel more like the 80's or 90's tests?

Its the former. So what the argument does is it tries to make a binary cut. There are those who disliked, so what he is assuming that there must be others who do like it. Okay, but what about others who are just indifferent? There is no information given about those who feel indifferent.

So here we go-> if you stop deforestation->Save Koala. What B does is satisfy the sufficient condition. If you satisfy it then the koala is saved, not going extinct.

So before I take a test or drill, I drink a small cup (like half to a quarter) and then take a nootropic for focus and memory. Really feel it helps me.

No it does not because the logical structure is the same. So it would be correct. However, if you have an answer choice that had the correct D->F you would have to pick that AC. But, the lsat wouldnt do that because there cant be two correct AC's.

Took me a year lol

When you practice, just change the settings to untimed and when you finish look at the timer in the top right corner and you will see the total time.

In my opinion, I really think Flaw is the way to go because it can help you with all other questions and have the greatest amount on tests in general

Down. Scoring between 164-168

Focus should be on the 80's and above. I have recently been doing RC from older passages and feel those are what I have experienced on newer tests.

One of the big things that has helped me and that I am still working on is underconfidence. During practice sets I will read the passage and answer the questions with a level of confidence. If I am 80% on confidence I will select the answer and move on. Because we are so time constricted on RC, you dont have time to make sure the answer is correct. You have to be confident in the answer you choose. Often, you only have about 45 sec. to choose an AC. So, also work on getting really good at eliminating ACs. Being able to predict an answer on about 75% of the Q's will also help with elimination. Highlighting could also be a timing issue but that varies from student to student

When I drill sections I do. I havent really done them on PT's but I will start doing it. It helps me because it makes you focus more on the question at hand. Plus, when you start drilling sections a lot you learn to have a sense of how you are on time.

@jhaldy10325 That would be awesome! I would definitely attend

@chelseapichor156 said:

@jhaldy10325 how were you able to master your time management and efficiency?

Great question

Think of it this way: If you go to the grocery store with a list of items you need, what are the chances you forget something? Very low. What if you just go to the store without a list? Chances are you will forget something. So when you read the stim, and then go to the QS, chances are you forget something in the stim that could be critical to you answering the question which then makes you waste time. If you know you need to weaken, you know there is something in that argument that needs to be weakened. Now, that DOES NOT MEAN that you take apart the stim as much as possible to understand it. You need to truly read it and understand its key elements. Where students go wrong with the QS first approach is that they read the stem first and then they dont do a full analysis they kind of half ass it because they think they know what they are looking for. They then get into the AC's and get screwed because they didnt fully understand what they read. That is my biggest argument against QS first. But, if you can truly engage with the stim and the argument structure without skipping steps, QS first all the way.

Is it a timing issue? What is your RC BR score? Because if your -1 or -2 in BR or even -0 it could be timing. Often times I will go -6 because of the timing approaching the last passage. I always do the comparative last because even with less time I can at least read Passage A and get questions correct. But, my BR score is around -2. So, it could be timing. Often I notice that my perfect zone for reading the passage is 4 min. But, I sometimes get caught in the AC and so it costs me time. I am working on being able to eliminate AC by using my LR skills and being really critical of each AC. Also, I always try to predict an AC. On RC, you can at least I would say predict 75% of the questions.

I feel this post. I have that BL or bust mentality as well. For the type of law I want to practice (Emerging Companies, Capital Markets, VC work) I almost have to go to a T14 school and so I struggle with this a lot. I am 26 and feel the getting older part of life and feel I need to go to law school now. I feel the pressure especially from my parents. But, it depends on the region you want to practice in. For example, if you go to a top regional school, you will have to finish in the top 15% for biglaw or just have outstanding network and interview skills where they will look past it. But, GPA is the number one thing getting you in the door for regional BL. If you go to a T14, the name pays for itself. If you finish in the top 50%, the chances of getting biglaw are very high just because of the school you go to. So at the end of the day you have to choose your battles. Put in as much work as you can for the LSAT and get a 170+ to get a shot at a T14. Or, get a great scholarship to a regional school and compete with 200+ other students for those top spots. There is no right answer, you have to decide where you are comfortable being at. Personally, I would hate my life if I went to a regional school, didnt do well and ended up doing litigation. I would rather wait another year or 2 and kill the lsat. But that is just me.

A close example is a buddy of mine who got a full ride to San Diego Law and now is doing transactional work for a smaller boutique firm but he is doing what he wants to do. Probably will make 80K out of law school almost debt free (besides living expenses which are astronomical because of CA) and he finished in the middle of his class at a middle tier firm and hes happy. So, you just really have to figure out what you want to do at the end of the day. People can come on here and give you the greatest advice in the world but you still have to make that decision.

Just to help, try not to focus on when you will take the test date. If your goal is to get 170+ make that your goal. If you put a time on there you are going to feel rushed to get that score by those dates. Dont rush the process and focus on hammering down your fundamentals and really reviewing your wrong answers and if you are PTing in your range, perfect take the test. If not it is completely okay.

So B is a subtle answer choice in my opinion. The overall conclusion is that we as a company should implement the variations. Why? Because it doesnt lose computer compatibility and also unauthorized access could be virtually eliminated. Okay, so you did give some good reasons as to why we should implement. The Q stem is asking us to strengthen so there must be some weakness. Okay, I am thinking of cost/benefit here. You have only given me two reasons as to why we should implement the varations. But what if they downside is greater compared to the 2 things that you gave? What if the variations do something to the system that the virus doesnt do? Another key thing to take away is the word "much". It states the vandal can destroy MUCH of the data. Okay but how much? We dont know! Our intuitions tell us that much means a lot, but we cant pinpoint an exact number. What if the variations make us lose data? I know common sense tells me that I can lose data with variations in the system while the variations are still compatible with the system. So lets get to strengthening. How can we show that the variations are still a stronger candidate? B gives another reason. Specifically dealing with the virus. If correcting the damage from the virus is more expensive than preventing the damage, then it lends credence to actually implement the variations! It goes back to this-What if the virus really isnt that bad? What if it is super fixable. We are never given this info but the stim makes us assume the virus is absolutely horrible and there is nothing we can do. But we cant assume this. Therefore, B gives us a reason to show that fixing the virus is actually a downside because of the COST to fix, and that is why we should use the variation instead.

Sorry for the long winded response but I hope that helps!

A and B are the same logically and there is no way for them to both be write. A is L->C, b is saying Not C-> Not L they are the exact same logically. But what happens if our society has SOME laws? you would infer that there has to be SOME crime why? because if there were no laws, there would be no crime. What is the contrapositive of that? C->L. So, is some included in all? Yes so D has to be correct.

I think B really hinders on "believe in until after... ". The reason I say this is because we are not given anything in the stim that shows what the decision makers ideas really are. They could believe one thing or another. They could still have a firm belief in what they are saying to the group, but they are kind of feeling it out if that makes sense. B is almost saying that the decision makers have no ideas of their own until after they have gotten feedback from the group. We just dont have that info in the stim. In the stim it says "making up his or her mind". Does that mean that the decision maker doesnt know what idea he/she has or they just seeing what everyone thinks? Put it this way, if you were firm set in an idea, but really wanted to know what others think, does that mean you dont have that strong belief against something or other until AFTER the alternatives have been given? Nope.

Hope that helps!

Very Interested!

Submit whenever you feel you have put together the best application possible, doesnt matter when you apply. Wont make a huge difference if you apply in Sept v Oct.

Really all depends on what your goal score is and where you are starting. If you are starting at a 150 and goal is 160 I think that is completely doable. However, if your goal score is 170+ it may take longer.

You have it backwards. The argument is that they DID come from Eurasia, just a more distant part. So A does weaken because if the projectile does not resemble ANY projectile before or during. Then you cant conclude that the settlers came from Eurasia. Make sure to not mistake a more distant part for a meaning of not from Eurasia.

Hope that helps.