Our interpretation of the prompt seems the same. my concern was not with the prompt's hypo but that JV did not evaluate B correctly because he

made up a causal hypothesis that 'money does not have an impact on anxiety' and says B is consistent with it. But B arguably weakens that hypothesis by showing a relation between a certain spending level and reduced anxiety.

B is much more consistent when we instead weigh it on the actual conclusion of the prompt, as it shows high spenders could drop spending with no impact. JV could have evaluated B faster and better by just using the prompt more closely instead of a shaky contrived causal hypo.

Absolutely, I think 'provides a basis for rejecting' is different here than 'must be false', but it is unclear because you could read 'basis' as 'argument' but others might read it as 'valid argument'.

I think its closer to the former. (E) is not watertight, the prompt's saying 'cannot prohibit people from smoking in their own homes' is distinct from 'cannot prevent any smoking in any homes whatsoever'.

Im interested!

LSAC unfortunately makes you pay for access to prep tests, and they do release them to a third party like 7sage for free either.

You need to purchase a LSAC Lawhub subscription, then you can connect that subscription to 7sage. Then you can take tests on 7sage.

The lawhub subscription is $120/yr., but you can get it for free if you qualify for a fee waiver with LSAC.

Admittedly I haven't been able to find good data on this, but from what I've heard, because logic games was the easiest to improve on, the raw scores are not expected to go up much by its removal, raw scores could even go down. So there shouldn't be a need to compensate with extra difficulty.

If the test is unusually difficult, that will be compensated for by the curve anyways.

I have a 3.0 and totally feel ya. T14 seems about impossible but top 30-40 some of which have about a third of their classes going into big law is definitely possible with 170+.

Yes, that is my reading of it.

I don't think B is correctly evaluated. The causal hypothesis is being fixated on, when the conclusion is more important here.

B shows high spenders might actually lower their anxiety by spending less. This strongly supports the conclusion that high spenders would not heighten their anxiety by spending less.

B shows reducing/increasing your spending actually can have an impact on anxiety. B might actually weaken the causal hypothesis.

This strategy seems like a strange roundabout way to answer the question.

Why spend extra time coming up with alternate hypothesis in order to find an answer that 'dispels' the alternate hypothesis? This is forcing a square peg into a round hole.

Instead of simply looking for 'what makes X more likely', we're being told to imagine 'Not X' and then find 'what makes not X less likely'. Why? #feedback

#feedback

It is a reasonable assumption. Why hire consultants you don't listen to?

The assumption gap makes sense because we only need what 'most weakens' - if it was completely airtight, it would not just weaken but totally dispel, which is overkill.

Yes.

Take no.5 as an example-

It is wrong to intentionally misrepresent another person’s beliefs unless one’s purpose in doing so is to act in the interest of that other person.

/act-interest && misrepresent -> wrong

CP: /wrong -> act-interest OR /mispresent

Why would it be incorrect to write this as:

J→F

L→J

L→F

I do not see how it is not a sufficiency necessity relationship. Being Luke is sufficient to be a Jedi, and therefore sufficient to be a force-user. Being a jedi/force user is conversely necessary, not sufficient to be Luke.