E is wrong for this reason: Even if we did know that modern literature was as conducive to societal good as the literature of earlier eras, that may not be conducive at all. What if the literature of earlier eras was only minorly conducive to societal good? It's irrelevant to the conclusion.

I also noticed that C provided a negative outcome that mirrors the stimulus, while A did not.

This was tricky for me.

A tripped me up. What if there is no more salt in a high salt diet than there is in a rat's normal diet? That's a real loophole. If the high salt diet was no different than the diet the rats eat to begin with, then maybe there was some other reason that they had high blood pressure.

D says how many rats, which to me, implies a number, not a percentage. I realized after the fact that it must be denoting a percentage, because we aren't even provided the total number of rats being studied. I figured D couldn't be the right answer. Even if 1,000 rats had high blood pressure, that info would be meaningless. Apparently, I assumed too much.

C almost feels like it could be added on to the last statement and be part of a sufficient assumption for the conclusion.

I picked C during my first take but didn't think about the fact that it is a comparative statement and is not necessarily made true by the conclusion. If A is not true, then the conclusion gets destroyed.

The reason B is right is because it blows up the gap between the premises. So what if athletes experience less injuries if the injuries are more severe and take longer to heal. So what if the natural grass costs more to maintain if the school is going to have to pay out the ass to help their athletes recover. I'll be honest, I didn't think that colleges normally pay the medical bills when their athletes get injured. This assumption made me look at the other ACs.

Interested

Hi Oscar - interested in joining. Would you send me a fresh link?

I'm interested!

Yep, got it today. Got to make these last few weeks count! Good luck!

I read the The Loophole in LSAT Logical Reasoning: https://www.amazon.com/Loophole-LSAT-Logical-Reasoning/dp/1732749000/ref=asc_df_1732749000/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312734536225&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=2098258884104721166&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9010869&hvtargid=pla-607309411674&psc=1

The question type analysis and drills in this book helped me to improve from between

-10 and - 8 to between -6 and -4 on my past 3 PTs.

Also use Analytics on here to find out what LR question types you are high priority for you then review book on these question types and drill 5 - 10 problem sets on here of only those question types (I just use the ones from the core curriculum).

Yes on on blind review for LG just take your time and start from scratch on each game and pretend like it's the first time you are looking at it. You will be surprised how much you pick up inference-wise by studying this way. It's a pain but will become second nature to you the more you do it.

Contact LSAC. I was also disconnected and lost about 30 seconds in Section 3. Not a significant loss by any means but I had to wait for 5-10 minutes for them to reconnect me to the exam. I lost 2-3 min during RC as well because my laptop was dying and I had to plug in the charger. After, I plugged in the laptop, the proctor made me stop and do a full pan around the room again.

Definitely seeing some inconsistencies in terms of proctor quality and their knowledge of the rules. I had to remind my proctor that an analog watch was allowed. She made me move my entire desk across the room so she could see the door to my office behind me. This kind of threw me off because my seating arrangement felt unfamiliar. Also, lost 2 min of my 10 min break waiting for the proctor to give their blessing.

@ - I hope you and everyone else's test goes off without a hitch. I wouldn't worry about things that are out of your control - stay positive and focus on the test.

If it does happen, I would advise your proctor and see if they can reset your exam. Based on what I perosnally experienced and what I've read here, they either will or wont do this for you upon request. Regardless, if you experience technical difficulties like the ones described above at all during your test, I would finish the exam and call LSAC afterwards. Unless it is approved by the proctor, I would not recommend reaching for your phone at all during the test.

Thinking of you all today. Give 'em hell.

Repeated translation drills will build your ability to take super wordy, fancy jargon contained in badly written compound sentences and more easily translate it into layman's terms. Once you do it enough, it feels like you're reading every question with a magic lens.

CLIR is great because one of the easiest things to do on each question is determine whether are looking at an Argument, a Premise Set, a Debate, or a Paradox. When you use either C, L, I, or R, depending on the stimulus type, you are better equipped to narrow it down to the answer choice that looks most like what you came up with.

I wrote out flash cards of all the different question stem types and that also helped me to better recognize and understand my mission on each question. Flash cards also give you an excuse to get away from your computer and study with your friends or family for a minute.

Finished the Loophole about 2 weeks ago, transitioned back to taking PTs now and noticing i'm slightly faster on LR and so far only see a minor score improvement. I sometimes have trouble differentiating between Premise Sets and Arguments. Would love to join if you have an LR study session.

Same thing! It started on second section...I told my proctor on break but he was like "oh don't worry, just click 'Wait' You need to finish the test and call LSAC after." He even had to talk to me about it for like 30 seconds into the beginning of the LG section. This continued to happen all the way until the end of my test. Text was completely blocked and I couldn't select answer choices until I acknowledged the stupid pop ups. Called LSAC and now I am in limbo...I feel a little tramautized by the whole experience to be honest.

There is no way this is going to count, I am going to make sure of it. I was totally impaired.

In the same boat, I feel like it's a hit or miss for me. Right now I have scored anywhere from -5 to -11 on PTs. I have noticed that when I stop at the beginning of the RC section and try to read the one or two sections with the most questions first, my score tends to be higher. I know it's a pretty common tip, but you may want to see if this works for you if you are not doing it already.

@ would you please also send me a copy of the checklist?

I'm going to score a 180 on the November LSAT.

Are you talking about question 22?

Same boat... I agree with everyone's comments above. Until you reach your goal score on the LSAT you should think long term and make it work with your schedule, otherwise, you'll burn out and ultimately waste more time. I have studied for over a year so far and taken the test 2x, but I am still not where I want to be. However, I have made progress. I've gone from a 149 diagnostic to consistent 157- 160 PTs and 170 - 173 on BRs.

I try to study 2-3 hours each day M-F. During this time, I do timed drills on one or two full sections from earlier tests (PT 1 - 36) and thoroughly review each section. If I take a full PT - I have taken over 30 full PTs - then I dedicate a Saturday or Sunday just to take the timed PT and a Sunday or Monday to conduct a thorough BR. A PT is 2 hr. 20 min of hard mental exercise. I don't try to do anything else on those days except maybe some flash cards later in the evening. I have also read several books that have helped me along the way: LSAT for Dummies, Loophole in LSAT LR, and Powerscore LG Bible.

I'm not perfect, I have taken nights off. At one point, I took a few weeks off. I even took a week-long vacation and studied flashcards every day on the cruise ship after my NOV 21 take. You may hear it a lot, but quality is more important than quantity. Don't rush yourself or let anyone else rush you in this process...you should look at this like a life changing mission. It will take as long as it takes. Don't beat yourself up, remember the fact that you have a full-time job. You are different than someone who can dedicate 40 hours per week to studying. Also, don't get burned out. Strictly adhere to your study schedule. Consciously make time to take breaks, exercise, relax, and spend time with family and friends. I have done it both ways - 6 hrs. per day vs. 3 hrs. per day. I study more effectively when I have a balanced life and I believe that it will ultimately take less time to get to my goal score with this approach.

I believe the conclusion narrowing this down to the species level makes all of the difference in determining C to be a wrong answer choice. If the premises and conclusion were, "Insects are definitely of the former sort. Hence, no insects are threatened"then, C would be correct. Similarly, if C were "the only way a species of insect can avoid being threatened is to spread into virtually every ecosystem" then, it would be correct. In short, AC C describes classes of animals while the conclusion is made about a species.

First, the question asks specifically about Charrier v. Bell, not the entire passage. Second, the common law doctrine of abandonment specifically talks about buried property. Let's say your pet goldfish dies and you go bury him or her and his or her fishbowl in abandoned field somewhere. Whether or not the land this fishbowl was buried under is abandoned does not determine whether the fishbowl is also abandoned. You intended to have a memorial site for your deceased pet gold fish and his or her home that he or she swam around in. You didn't bury the bowl so some kid could dig it up and turn it in to an astronaut helmet.

Getting 160 on PTs now and would love to join

Interested

I was wrong on the Warhol question ... i misread the AC.