@claudiod0140833 said:

i mean if your heart is set on a t14 school, you prolly want to do a little higher than a 160 anyway. focusing LG is definitely the most productive thing you can do to get score up

from their post: "Hello everyone. So for context, I’m not looking to go to a T14 so a 160 is pretty much what I need to get into my picks for law schools."

For future application cycles, where would one go to apply?

yea and/or you should ask your proctor

following

if you genuinely need them? then sure, but I wouldn't say that more time translates to you scoring exponentially better. also, without assuming your circumstances, would emphasize that if you truly, medically need it? then go for it. but if you're trying to game the system? that's problematic

bc it never says this.

second this!

no, you’re assuming that in saying “these pesticides” the stimulus is directly equating those manufactured and exported with those imported to the US. The stimulus explicitly says this. Also, yeah I didn’t negate anything because I don’t think there’s a need to negate in this case — it’s just looking at the Q and seeing where the gap is. From my pov, the gap was in that unsaid assumption that the manufactured and exported items were the exact same as the imported ones, leading the author to think that the US was poisoning others and itself.

Also, sure you could assume that latter piece that you’re hitting on, aka that there are significantly more imports of the same pesticide from other countries, but (1) that’s not even in the ACs and (2) you’re setting the bar so high. In the context of the question, even just having one import that differed from the export is fine. AC C doesn’t specify a comparison or that it needs to be a lot more. You just prephrased that. And, again, while it’s not wrong and makes sense, it’s not necessary.

I ruled out C by comparing its conclusion to that in the stimulus. saying "it is" is way too absolute relative to "we can". I think the same applies for a lot of the ACs

the link is between the certain pesticides made and exported from the US and pesticides that are typically used on crops imported into

the stimulus never says they are the same thing, so that's the assumption that we have to make: that maybe the exported pesticides aren't the same as those that are imported. to get to this, maybe the correct AC makes a distinction between the type of pesticide, or maybe it distinguishes where the pesticide came from.

the latter is what AC C does.

relative to AC C, AC A is pretty weak.

even if the presence of wolves in an area tends to discourage other predators from moving into the area, how does this explain why the wolves initiative specifically failed? given that they were brought in for the purpose of controlling the moose pop, but didn't (and yet somehow thrived)?

so what if other animals came in: it still doesn't solve the mystery around how wolves were introduced, "prospered" (aka were able to reduce the herd), yet weren't able to stop the destruction of vegetation

this doesn't align with what we're told:

1) if gen --> intended to ben recipe AND worth more than what's expected/normal

2) if selfish --> meant to ben the giver OR less val than usual

for AC B, where does her brother being "hurt or offended by it" align with either of the above for "if selfish"? we dk if it's less val than usual but we do know that it was intended to ben the receiver (and not the giver), so this isn't selfish

I think it's easier to see why it's B when you rule out why it's not the other answers

a) this isn't the main point. it just further emphasizes that there's a gap in the theory of

c) "no one will ever be sure" is too strong

d) earthquakes making a ton of heat, and this going undetected, is like a -- in that it further emphasizes the presence of a gap without actually saying there's a gap

e) too strong

with B, "data" does feel a little random but it's another way of saying "info that we know and have collected". Using this, B makes sense in that it's saying "the current theory doesn't fully explain what we know/the info collected re EQs aka how they are formed through plates pushing together"

the two days leading up to my test, I didn't study at all (despite my trying) and I scored the highest I've scored on a PT. listen to your body, but generally be okay with the fact that "studying" anything a day or two before won't make a huge leap in your score.

Came to say that I know the exact game this Q is based off of and just would like to say that I truly feel you lol

The thing that threw me off is "in a significant number of cases". Where did this come from? How did we make the jump from the line quoted in the passage to saying that line is applicable to a notable, relatively large amount of cases?

Q27 is still a blur for me. I kinda get it but kinda don't #help

@sunilasteephen376 hm they emailed everyone with it on the 26th. I would 2x check your email: I got the email and was able to sign up for a test date and time then.

#help what is the "problem" that stems from Utilitarianism? The passage seems to list multiple, so I'm confused what the singular problem is and want to make sure I have a grasp on this

I originally chose D timed but then changed by answer to B during BR. smh.

I think, during my second take, seeing "dramatic depictions" made me think that -- bc the first person didn't explicitly mention anything about the movies being dramatic -- it couldn't have been true they both agreed on this. should have went with my initial gut

update: I got approved!

@johnsonkayla45374 said:

I did initially but honestly the Analytics on 7sage are way better to hone in on your problem areas. It was so much work and I wrote too much on my own.

Would push back on this! I think there's something really helpful about having to walk through why the mistake you made was a mistake. The first time or two I did it, it took forever. It still honestly takes a while, but it takes significantly less time and has helped me so much -- especially as someone who needs to know the "why" behind just about everything, including an error that I've made.

So, really think you should implement one. I do mine in Google sheets. There's an option to draw, which I use when making LG board replications

you were correct: this was in fact a better explanation. thank you!

this question was demonic and criminal. respectfully.

If you have an learning disability or something that would require you to read aloud, you can request accommodations! You would need to provide proof of your disability, though, which is usually a diagnosis and supporting documents from a doctor or professional.