Dude, quit while you're ahead. There are so many amazing occupations out there. I'm sure I'll get blasted for writing this, but that is a really tough score to improve upon. You're going to have to improve by 20+ points just to have a shot at T3 schools. Maybe you have a 4.0, and can compensate for that score with a stratospheric GPA, but I'd question your compatibility with the law school curriculum. I'm not being elitist. I'm not a gifted LSAT test taker. This test isn't about intelligence. There are very bright people who are terrible at it, as well as the inverse. But practicality is really important, especially as the U.S. enters another recession. You don't want to be faced with a constant uphill battle, in a hyper saturated field, in an unsavory economic climate. Read the ABA reports from 2010-2017. Not a pretty picture. Not trying to sh** on your dreams, but there's a real contrast in attitude between practicing lawyers and pre-law students. The later are overly optimistic and idealize the occupation, while the former frequently advise young law school hopefuls to do something else. I'm sure you're going to get some "you can do it, follow your dreams" responses, so I'm balancing out that feedback with my cynicism. I'm really not trying to be an a**.

I like how for the explanation of 16, JY just passes over lines 23-25. Answer A is literally spelled out in those lines. Its not confirmed until the end of the paragraph, when you find out that the hypothesis in question is successful. Sometimes he really over complicates shit though.

9)

A is perfect. At the conclusion of passage 2, the author states that their position is unethical, and the position is that an "artistically coherent autobiography" necessarily involves lying (41-43). The author of passage 1 never says or implies anything like this.

B) Only applies to author of first passage.

C) Only applies to author of first passage.

D) Isn't ever stated in passage 2. Passage 1 doesn't even discuss autobiographies.

E) Similar to B and C, E covers something that passage two never discusses. Additionally, passage 1 doesn't imply or refer to a "significant difference" between lies.

Stimulus: Insurance companies claim higher rates of accidents among drivers of red cars. If Its true, than lives would be saved by outlawing red cars.

The key here is to recognize that while there are several flaws involved in the argument, one of them is much, much more significant than the other(s). There's an implicit assumption required by the conclusion. The argument interprets the insurance company claim (greater % of red cars in accidents) as evidence that red cars are the cause of the higher accident rates. Obviously this is flawed logic. Maybe the correlation is due to random coincidence. Perhaps most red cars tend to be dangerously fast performance cars, and the different accident rate is a result of that.

The relevant point is that the argument requires the assumption that red cars cause the higher rate of accidents. The argument turns on this assumption. Without this, the argument is nothing. The stimulus is based entirely on interpreting the insurance company's claim as supporting a causal relationship between red cars and accidents. Destroy this supposed relationship and the speaker is left with nothing.

It's true that the conclusion assumes that some accidents may result in fatalities, but this isn't the major flaw. If you identify this as the primary issue, then you neglect the glaringly ridiculous causal assumption that underpins the whole argument.

It's true that E can easily be eliminated by recognizing that it overstates. But regardless, it's important to recognize that even if the verbiage in E were corrected, it still would be wrong.

I am not consistently scoring -0 in RC, but my last timed PT was -0, and I score plenty of -2's/-3's.I've noticed that I struggle with art and cultural passages. Spending more time with these in BR helped. I got a subscription to NY review of books to try and emulate the style of these passages. This is where I have to agree with Brittney. I started reading so many articles after starting LSAT prep. I read for a few hours early in the morning and this has seriously helped a lot.

Aside from this, JY's RC method is really useful, and I think spreeder is a tool worth using.

https://www.spreeder.com

Best of luck.

I think JY actually misses an fairly important point on q15. He says that E is true but has an incorrect focus. I think E is actually false. Nowhere does the passage state that increased CO2 would lead to an increased global warming rate. The last paragraph merely says that the increased plant growth can't compensate for the increased decomposition of peat under the permafrost layer (or whatever the its called). You have to make assumptions to claim that the increased CO2 levels are sufficient to affect the 'global warming rate.'

Nuts are high in calories. More calories, more weight. But nut eaters are less likely to be overweight than non-nut eaters.

A) Doesn't say which of the category (nut eaters //non nut eaters) the exercisers fit into. No bearing on argument.

B) That's great. Maybe people eat past satiation? Even if people are satiated and stop eating, does the calorie influx from nuts still put them at a caloric surplus? Not much to take away from this.

C) What? "Should be." next.

D) We aren't arguing that they are equally likely to put on weight.

E) If you eat nuts, you eat less foods that give you the munchies. This is good.

P1=2 largest retail seed companies had increased sales of x%.

P2=price of produce spiked

C=increased produce prices lead to increase in garden plantings.

A) Doesn't have any bearing on relationship between price of produce and seed purchase, (and therefore gardens). It just gives an explanation for why produce prices often go up. This on its own doesn't do anything.

B) So what. Does this mean the garden size has decreased over the past year? nope. That's the time frame we're concerned with.

C) This one just sucks

D) We don't know if this scenario occurs during a downturn.

E) If a large retailer goes out of business, then this would account for the increase in sales. The argument is then weakened because the insolvency could be responsible for the increased sales and not the increase in produce costs.

P1=the food at T is mediocre, but the restaurant is more popular than M, which has great food.

P2=T's location by itself os almost enough to promise consistent clientele.

C=Therefore, this discrepancy isn't surprising.

A) This probably weakens the argument if anything

B) So what? How does that make T more popular than M? If we make this true, it could be the case that T becomes incrementally more popular, but not as popular as M.

C) Doesn't help the argument at all.

E) This doesn't strengthen the argument. This statement helps to justify the conclusion, if considered a premise on its own. However we're being asked to strengthen the argument. E just ignores the argument and does its own thing.

@ Looks like you opened up a can of worms. Would love to get the list too if possible. Thanks so much in advance, and sorry you got inundated with requests.

I think all this talk of disappointment about scores is annoying. If you want to go to law school then pick a school and just start your journey. You can always transfer into your "Top School" after your first year. Or you can do 3years at a law school and come back and do an LLM. You guys are literally stressing yourself out because you can't get into a certain school. Just GO. The road of your journey is beautiful and unique and only you can determine how far you're going to go in life. Not every "famous/high-paid" lawyer went to a top school. In parting, run your own race! There are some people (some not all) who went to a top law school and they don't even use their degrees. Just think about.>

This is not good advice. First off, transferring to substantially better programs (i.e. programs that make a transfer worth the effort) requires that you score within the top 10-25% of your class. Mileage may very, but the current consensus among LS consulting groups and transferees seems to be that a leap from a T30 to high T14 requires performance in the top 10-15%, and t2 to t1 necessitates the same leap.

Also, an LLM is not something you complete haphazardly because you're unhappy with your career prospects. I'm not overly familiar with the degree but I my understanding is that your interests need to be aligned with a fairly esoteric part of the law (tax comes to mind).

I understand what the user is getting at though, and I think there is merit in their overall message. I'm applying late this cycle. I take the LSAT again in January. I used to stress about applications until I sought out ways of re-contextualizing my situation and seeing it for what it is. This whole process really isn't that big of a deal if you recognize that what is important is the process and not the outcome. There are very successful lawyers who did not perform well on the LSAT, and were not top students. Test taking ability is not the only effective metric for competency. But focusing on the actual process; setting up LG the right way, making the inferences, executing your systematized LR method, summarizing RC as you read, etc.. In other words, performing what you've practiced instead of putting the pressure on yourself to score "x" is really liberating. Put the work in and forget the score. I think this is vital for life in general because if whenever you have something lofty to achieve, you trip out about the outcome and psyche yourself out, reaching your potential is not likely.

Stress and speculation only widens the divide between you and your goals.

Hopefully this is helpful. Best of luck!

P=Our country has the most unfair court system and shouldn't be a model.

C= Therefore our highest court system is the most unfair and shouldn't be a model.

Flaw=assumes that parts of a whole necessarily share the same characteristics as the whole. This is incorrect. What is true of the whole may not be true of the parts.

A) Monica is a resident of the town though. That qualifies her as being just as smart. This doesn't follow the mold.

C) Makes an identity assumption, but about two different categories; race vs. passenger cars. For it to be right, it would need to refer to a segment of the race cars or something

D) Sh*t answer

E) Word soup

B) is good. Phil/engineering are the most demanding majors. Therefore, the intro courses are the most demanding intro courses. Makes the same whole // parts flaw.

p=OPV causes 12 vaccine induced cases of polio.

P=IPV will cut this vaccine induced number in half.

C= Vaccine use should switch from OPV to IPV.

Observation= What about the naturally occurring polio? Will IPV keep that rate low as well. If there are at least some cases of naturally occurring, it's a wash.

B) So why not switch? IPV might not have the same correlate disease issue. This is just too vague. You have to make large assumptions for it to actually weaken.

C) What? Pass...

D) Who cares about what so and so prefers / doesn't prefer. Not relevant.

E) The key clause here is "like most vaccines." If this was absent, or it was made clear that OPV doesn't have this issue, then this would be a good answer.

A) is good. If IPV allows for at least some cases of naturally occurring, then what's the point of the switch?

P=Regional dialects are responses by individual communities to their own specific communication needs.

C=so when universal language is adopted in trade communication, dialects will invariably develop.

The assumption here is that communities will have trade needs which differ from one another. What if in trade everyone has the same need? In that case, no regional dialect will develop.

A) This goes too far. We don't need to have an assumption this strong to guarantee the conclusion. You could have like 2 different needs out of a population of 2 billion people and have 2 dialects.

B) We don't care about premise. That's just a given and we accept it. We're concerned with the relationship between P and C.

C) same thing applies here. The focus is wrong.

D) I really don't know what this answer is trying to do. So what... There are less languages. What does this have to do with the dialects that develop from the universal language?

E) is really good. It describes the assumption nicely.

Displacement pulses are believed to be present in all earthquakes. Tall buildings are especially vulnerable to these pulses according to scientific models. But there are instances where powerful earthquakes don't significantly impact tall buildings.

A) wtf. pass

C) Nice, how does this resolve the discrepancy?

D) That's nice. But we've already been told that high intensity quakes haven't impacted tall buildings in the investigations. Being told that high intensity quakes have greater displacement pulses than low intensity ones doesn't do anything to the discrepancy.

E) What does this have to do with the kind of seismic shock we're concerned with?

B) is good. If scientific predictions often fail in the real world, then this could be an example of such a failure.

Chair won't sign protest letter (which he is quietly in support of) concerning legislator because he endorsed that same legislator's critique of a wasteful military expenditure.

A) Maybe the chair gave careful consideration. This doesn't do anything to the relationship between not signing protest letter and supporting comments in the past.

B) This has nothing to do with the "grounds" that we're looking for (that he supported the politician's move to criticize the military expense.

D) Again, this doesn't address the chair's "grounds."

E) what?

C is good. It relates the grounds to the 'conclusion.' The chair praised the lawmaker. Those that praise lawmakers shouldn't criticize those same lawmakers later for taking issue with matters that concern their (chair// academic's) professional interests. Therefore, the chair shouldn't criticize.

Buy lots of denim, rep the Toronto Maple Leafs and get a Justin Trudeau bumper sticker.

Drink 2 GoGirls before your next PT, and you'll achieve the score you're seeking. A 154 to a 170 shouldn't take more than 2-3 days.

I am now ready to score a 220 on the Jan lsat, get a letter of rec from Michelle Obama, and consequently, earn a $1mill scholarship to Harvard Law. Impossible is nothing. In the words of Charlie Sanders, "Kids, You can literally fly.."

I'm into the reverse Robin-Hood vibe; rob the poor to feed the rich. This ethos fuels me. Props to all of those altruistic-y, world-improvement types, but there needs to be some Yin to the Yang. #AynRand

For people searching the forum for this question, I thought I'd add to the explanation of why E is wrong. I found it fairly easy to see why B is strengthens, but had difficulty totally eliminating E. Powerscore // manhattan explanations for the elimination of E were pretty hand wavy.

We want to strengthen contention that if library is relocated, it will be within waking distance to more users.

The mistake E makes is to focus on the the people who are walking vs. the # of people within walking distance. We don't care about how far people are walking to the library in Redville. Sure, maybe everyone that walks to the library isn't within walking distance. This doesn't actually help the argument. According to E, It could be that there are far more people / library users within walking distance to the library at it's current location in Redville than there would be if it were moved. Maybe the users that are currently within walking distance choose to drive, or moped, or ride their mules to the library. # of people Actually walking vs. # of people within walking distance= two different things. So this doesn't do anything for the argument. It misses the point.

The key to this question is figuring out which premise in S's argument is more important to their conclusion. This can be more easily done by understanding holistically how S responds to V.

Overview

V's Conclusion: Art museum's aren't staying true to purpose.

V's Premise: because intent was to dedicate same amt of attention to contemp as to earlier art, but contemp collection is smaller.

The assumption V makes is that size of the collection relates to amt of attention dedicated. The two are un related. Maybe museum markets and advertises the hell out of the contemporary exhibit and places little emphasis on the others (think Monta lisa at the Louve). Size has nothing to do with it.

S's Conclusion: Small collection of contemp is just fine.

P1: Its an art museum, not an ehtno...

P2: The reason for the small size is due to curator's belief that there isn't much good art from contemp.

S's response is that the size of collection is fine because the curators believe that there's not much contemp art that's quality. In other words, the small size isn't due to a difference in the amt of attention devoted, it results from view that most of it sucks.

P1 Doesn't do much for the response. It makes a distinction, but it really doesn't work toward the conclusion.

So the assumption S makes is that what the curators want is appropriate. What if what they want is just shit? Maybe they have bad taste.

Answer A addresses this and helps fill in the gap some.

Started at 145, now scoring in the high 160's (168/169, etc). Trying to break 170 too. It's totally possible, but it's even more work than people say it is. Undergrad // jobs, etc were easy compared to improving at this test (for me at least). I will say that I don't think it's possible to raise your score 30 points in that time frame. I think you'd need at least a year, and even then, you'll need to study very intelligently and very diligently to make that kind of leap. A lot of 7sage users have dedicated 1.5/2+ years to make big improvements. It takes time. There are probably people out there who have started with low diagnostics and accelerated quickly, but usually there are good reasons for a low score, and it takes a lot of tedious work to improve. My first diagnostic, I went -20 in LG. It was not a fluke or mishap, I was literally that shitty at LG. It has taken me countless hours to improve at logic games. It would be embarrassing for me to actually relay the number of hours spent if I had bothered keeping track. The point is that it's possible, but tons and tons of work. There's a reason a 170 is the 97.1 percentile.

I struggled with LG for over a year. I'm finally scoring in the high 160's, but it took hundreds of hours (maybe even thousands) of practicing LG. I found that mastering the easy games was really important to allow enough time to even get to the last game. I was consistently short on time.

Do you finish all of the questions before the time is up? If not, I'd work on really mastering the basic sequencing and grouping games that tend to be placed at the beginning of the section. This means becoming very proficient at stringing conditional rules together and sequencing ordered chains correctly. If you are at all shaky with these skills, then focus on strengthening them.

Arguably the most important aspect of LG is the setup. Does it take you a long time to figure out the set up for each game? If so, create problem sets with only one kind of game and drill away. Do this with any game type set-ups you have trouble with. For set-ups you're really struggling with, set the game up repeatedly without even proceeding to the questions.

Relatedly, knowing when to split vs. dive right into the questions is super, super important. Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast rules for determining this. Lots of people advise not to split if there are more than 6 game boards. But this leaves open a lot of room for interpretation. Personally, I believe intuition that results from repetition is really the answer. I can say that I wouldn't recommend over-splitting. I see user comments in JY's video's outlining a 6 board split that "saved tons of time" for a three star game. I doubt that this actually works out for them in a timed setting. What I've found particularly effective is to do 'partial splits' with tricky games that would require 5+ boards/worlds, so that I have less information filled in (aka less placed pieces), but only a few boards. I realized that these were surprisingly helpful and allowed me to conceptualize things a lot easier without the huge time sink. JY does a really good job at this in his setups. He knows the right balance.

Take some untimed LG sections. Removing the time will help you I.D. your weak points. I wish I would've taken more untimed practice sections earlier in my study process. Timing isn't going to improve quickly if there are significant proficiency issues. It's hard to see these roadblocks when you're always racing from one question to the next. Blind review is helpful in this regard, but I found that my concentration was way better when I took untimed sections vs. B.R.

Best of luck

I barely got this right and wanted to really understand why B is correct.

-S gold=most pure and never refined ( 92%)

-Other coins had purer gold content but were refined.

So if S gold is the purest, but can't be included in the refinement process, than the "other kinds of coins" (which were refined-line 8) must have been less than 92%. Again, this must be the case since we know that some coins were minted. Consequently, these coins weren't S gold, and S gold is the highest purity. So these coins must have originated from gold less than 92%.