This article isn't directly about the topic you've discussed, but it may help to provide you with an answer:

https://www.law.yale.edu/admissions/jd-admissions/ask-asha/scholarship-deadlines-truth-power

Also, you can always call LSAC directly and ask this question; it may be more comforting to hear the answer directly from them.

It really depends on where you want your score to be raised to. I think a month is enough time to significantly improve your LG score, and if by maxing that out it gets you to where you want to be, then maybe it's the route you'll choose to follow. This is generally the section that you can improve fastest in with a lot of hard work, which is the reason for the recommendation. Play around with the numbers a bit in terms of the additional raw score points you'll earn by maxing out the games section to get a better idea of where you'll be with the added points. If it is still off, then refer back to @'s post about postponing, which may ultimately be the wiser option either way.

Good luck!

The only thing that matters is the violation of the precept. This is because there is only one way to violate a precept/ disprove a general rule/ offer a counterexampe/ assign a false truth-value to a conditional statement: the sufficient occurs without the necessary. So the first sentence gives us the general rule. The second sentence says this rule was violated. This HAS to mean that the sufficient occurred without the necessary occurring. We don't need any more information that tells us in a specific instance that the sufficient is in fact occurring; it is implied when we are told the rule has been violated. This question is weird in that the last sentence tells us in some instances the sufficient does not occur (not functional), but this does not matter because there must be one instance in which the sufficient did occur and the necessary did not, or else there wouldn't be a way for the conditional statement to be false/ the rule to have been violated.

For more information, check out the logical implication table here: http://sites.millersville.edu/bikenaga/math-proof/truth-tables/truth-tables.html

The problem with trying to conclude anything from "not functional" is that it is the necessary condition of the contrapositive that you have diagrammed. Nothing can be gleaned from telling us the necessary condition occurs because it can always stand on its own independent of the sufficient.

I worked through this problem like this:

If something is a work of architecture that is to be functional and inviting, then it must be unobtrusive.

We know they have violated this precept. This only occurs when the conditional is a false statement, or has a false truth-value, similar to disproving a general rule. A conditional is false when the sufficient occurs without the necessary, so this is the scenario that the stim describes. Modern architects thusly violate the precept by producing works of architecture (buildings) that are not unobtrusive, which is closest to answer choice B.

The main point is something that must be true, so you can eliminate wrong answers by combing answers for inaccuracies, conflations, and "out-of-scopeness". You may have internalized this already, but taking this as a concerted approach to these questions can help your POE.

Right @, if you just stick a not in the second clause of the dog tail example it's not exactly the negation. Negating the second clause "then you have a tail" would be "then you may not have a tail" or "then you do not necessarily have a tail."

You can follow these rules...

If changes to "even if", and you negate the opposite clause.

Only if changes to "even if", and you negate the same clause.

Unless changes to "even if", and you negate both clauses.

The Bruce voice.

Yes, request a specific letter and a general one. Make sure to specify as much in the requests. Then, when you are choosing which letters to assign to which schools, you'll have the ability to assign the specific one to the school it is tailored to.

@ If you can't see the flaw/gap (and there is one), skip it... The former is the most important factor and the latter is the second most important in my opinion... Sometimes you can let the ACs feed you as long as you know what the conclusion is, so there is hope if you can't identify the flaw/gap right away or put it into words... But if you can't see the conclusion you're just grasping at straws in the dark...

Great advice here. As long as you can find the conclusion, you have a chance; but if you can't, then your best bet is to move on (assuming there is one). Now, the chance is smaller on certain question types, like strengthening/weakening, and larger on others, like flaws, so the strategy often differs depending on your task. If you read the stimulus once or twice, the flaw can often seem obvious in retrospect once you've come across the correct answer, so I like to give myself this opportunity, at least, before skipping the question right off the bat. Your strategy will also vary depending on where you're at in the section, and how much time you have remaining.

Another reason why C is incorrect, which can help show why E is correct, is that it does not address the issue of time that is involved in the stimulus. We are trying to explain a recent trend, but C gives no mention of time. The problem with that is C tells us what is true now and in the past. If we are trying to explain how a change came about, we would not want to point to an explanation that is consistent both before and after the change-- how could this general fact about students being unsure explain the recent trend then?

E, on the other hand, says that the courses are being taught in an increasingly methodical fashion. So over the last ten years, it has become more methodical. The problem for the university is, as the class becomes more methodical, the intellectual appeal of the course is dampened. This can explain the recent (i.e. occurring in the last decade) downturn then, because it is now more methodical today than it was in the past. This gives us our change over time that can help explain how an observed effect occurred.

C only tells us that many students are unsure. There's a few problems with this.

First, many students could mean one student, which means that one student is unsure, and if this is the case, then how could this one student account for the dramatic decline?

Second, this choice does not specify the students that are unsure, only that many are. This could mean that only philosophy majors are unsure, or it could mean that every non-chem major is unsure, so we have no way of knowing if the chem majors are included in this unsure group.

Lastly, I don't think it's a fair assumption to make that unsure students mean that they will necessarily change majors. They can begin unsure, but begin to love their classes after the first day. Or they can remain unsure and just never change course because of academic inertia, outside pressure, or whatever other reason. That said, we don't have enough information to say that some vague sense of indecisiveness can account for the dramatic drop.

I think it's useful to phrase these questions in terms of "why/how...... even though....?" For example, this question would read: "how is it that hisssing developed from a common ancestor to fend off predators even though the common ancestor's predators could not have heard the hissing sound?" The right answer will always answer this question. We are looking for a reason that this could be so, which means you are allowed to expand the scope of your answer to include some information that would be helpful in answering (this is why there is an "if true" in the question stem).

You may not be able to prephrase the exact answer here, but that's not necessary to answer the question. What is important is that you key in on how to answer the above question. Here, we need some way that hissing could warn off predators that could not hear. Maybe the hissing is accompanied by a rise in body temperature that can be perceived by predators and is interpreted as a threat. Maybe the hissing was initially accompanied by some sort of venomous spit that scared predators away. Or maybe the hissing was accompanied by an apparent change in body size which makes the bird/reptile more threatening to their predators, as C says. You have to be flexible enough with your understanding to be able to see C and say, "yes this could be an answer to initial question; this answer indicates that hissing was not always just an auditory threat, but also a visual threat as well."

Hope this helps!

There's a difference between memorizing the flaws and familiarizing yourself with them. It's not necessary that you memorize any lists, but you definitely want to take your time to familiarize yourself with the most common flaw types, whether that be through 7sage or The Trainer. The goal is to have a working knowledge of flaws, so as Pacifico said, choose whichever method allows you to do that. I'm partial to the list of 20 or so flaws on 7sage.

Also a side note: The Trainer does have 3 broad categories of flaws, but each category is broken down further into subcategories.

BD-->RWM

Gris believes: PAUBG

-------------------

Gris /BD

SA: PAUBG--->/RWM

This links as such: PAUBG-->/RWM-->/BD

We know that Gris believes PAUBG; thus, Gris /BD.

For what it's worth. This question is from section 4.

A good rule to follow when you're seeking help with a specific question is to include the prep test number (or preferably a link to the video) so that the person looking doesn't have to do extra work. It also helps to be accurate with the section numbers. Both of these issues are probably holding you back at the moment as PTs have only 4 sections.

@ is usually on first call... Anything he can help you with?

@ one of the hidden "secrets" of the LSAT... At the beginning of each section they tell you how many questions are in the section. Right under "Time--35 minutes."

Spoiler Alert: Principally Principles is also in the works. Brought to you by the law firm of Janson & Hopkins. (And @.hopkins is totally fine with being the second name on the wall...)

I think the breaking of momentum is an overstatement, but really it's personal. It would terrify me to bubble after each page, so I methodically bubble after each question. (Side note: I bubble after each page when I enter answers into the 7sage app and my error rate is so much higher than transferring by question; I've never made a bubbling error on a test, but doing it by page into 7sage grader I probably make at least one error every 3 tests). You could make the same argument about breaking up rhythm on behalf of taking longer to bubble an entire page. The counter-argument for this is "it allows you to reset/get your mind right for the next set" but I could say the same for bubbling after each question: taking the second to bubble after each adds a nice finality to the question, gives you a brief pause to collect yourself, and provides you momentum into the next question.

All of this is to say there's no right way; each camp has their arguments. We can all agree on one thing, though: transferring all answers at the end of the section is :'(

You're also making the assumption that street criminals can't afford the most expensive attorneys, which isn't something you can take for granted out of hand. There's nothing to say that criminals who commit "lucrative crimes" are necessarily the most well off; you're filling in some gaps with your own background it seems, assuming that those guilty of said lucrative crimes are necessarily Wall Street barons.