The babblers LR was real, my experimental RC had a ridiculous comparative passage about electron orbitals and quantum mechanics.

Damn son

Is the curve determined before or after the test is administered?

Seeing this as a parallel question makes it 100x easier

That was an incredible explanation, well done sir.

Are you supposed to assume that when methane is hit by sunlight and falls apart, that it is no longer methane? I'm not a big science guy, but I was thinking somewhere along the lines that just because something falls apart doesn't necessarily render it something else.

So for the days leading up to Monday (basically this weekend), general advice would be to just review and take it easy?

Anyone know if you have to print out the admission ticket in color of if it can just be in Black and white?

Alright thanks, appreciate it.

Kind of a semantics question but I think its important (basically why I get the question wrong). Why can't the hypothetical given in Passage A be seen as an "instance" for Q16, answer E. I thought instances = examples and examples = hypotheticals. If it said something like "concrete instances", of course I could see how E can be eliminated, but given that it just says "instances" I don't see how that doesn't match Passage A. Unless its because of the plurality and we're only given one instance in the passage...

For Q14 the correct answer choice is based on lines 22-24, however the author merely states that this "may cause" certain effects. When I was answering the question I was reluctant to interpret the "may cause" as something that the author would "likely consider... to be an accurate description", instead of just seeing it as possibility (which may in fact never occur). Any advice on how to determine when you can stretch the meanings and when to stay rigid?

Seeing this as a subset/whole to part confusion makes this pretty easy

K is either after both M and T

or

K is before both M and T

I got this wrong solely because I was against assuming that the Parthenon was Greek, which you need to do in order to make C relevant. Such BS

I think you're deciding between a once in a lifetime experience/opportunity and Law school which will always be there. If I were in your shoes, I think the choice would be pretty easy (assuming you have a love for your project).

Are these recording ever going to get posted?

Why have so many students "wisely" defected to the September test? Or did they just switch BR groups and are still taking the June test?

I'm more along the lines of Quinn.... Those other comments just seem so morbid to me. Life is what you make of it. There are countless reasons to go to law school and everyone's reasons can/will be different. The reasoning may be right or wrong, but as long as you truly value your reasoning for going to law school, than I think you should (so long as you are able/capable). Law school is one (pretty long) chapter, so I wouldn't worry to much about the next chapter, let alone the end of the book.

I actually did a couple of pace laps around the room before realizing this was a sick joke

Same situation here in Atlanta. Finding an empty office to crank out some BR or review some curriculum after work is "the move" for me. I get way too comfortable at home to be able to properly focus and stay on task. I never PT after work, only on the weekends. Also, and I think this is actually really important, if I had a particularly stressful/long day at work, I cut my losses and either study less or not at all that day, and just make sure to get a nice night of sleep.

@jhaldy10325 (or anyone)

Do you mind elaborating on this:

If the author says "the scientists demonstrated" is very different from "the scientists hypothesized"

If he says "Implementation of this technique will lead to improvements" is very different from "if this technique is implemented, it could lead to improvements".

What exactly is the difference in meaning between these examples? I do "feel" like there's a shift in meaning between the two when reading them side by side, but I can't seem to put my finger on it. Really appreciate the comments by the way.

I understand how B is correct but I don't understand why A is wrong. The premise in the stimulus states "to do science" and the conclusion is simply about "science". Similarly, in B the premise states "to run an expanding business" and the conclusion is "to run a business". JY eliminated B because of the absence of "expanding" in the conclusion, however the conclusion in the original stimulus lacks the "to do" in the conclusion. Am I crazy for thinking that B parallels the stimulus even more than A since they both contain the same structure AND have that subtle shift in the conclusion? I understand the shift in meaning may be a little more dramatic for the conclusion of B than for the original stimulus, but nonetheless, B parallels that shift and A does not.