Imho stay away from Khan Academy. Although I appreciate that it's free, the LSAT material is not organized well or explained well. I was also trying to save money on study materials, but ultimately it was not a good use of my time. Also stay away from prep books and classes from Princeton Review and Kaplan.... I just think they're convoluted and useless. As the person above said: Loophole and Powerscore are so popular for good reasons. I also really liked LSAT Trainer by Mike Kim once I decided to re-start my LSAT prep. I had a friend who was finished studying so I took his used books for free. You can also look on Facebook marketplace, nextdoor, your local public library, or even in the forum here. The ones I liked most were the ones I went onto buy myself. Don't pay for paperback prep-tests, pay for a online subscription so you can look at the same question in a more 'fresh' way (plus the test is online too). Unfortunately the reality is that this process is going to cost $$$, but it's worth some initial investment so that you're getting good material to learn from.

If I got that score and someone said that to me, 99% chance I’d cut them off for at least a few months, mother or not. Ik that can be impossible and harsh but in my opinion it’s impossible to please someone like this. Like… it’s one thing to say “could do better” and another to insist you should give up. I hope that you can make a decision based around what YOU think is best

It seems like adcomms would naturally assume that redacted scores are at least worse than the median. So then at what percentile would you prefer to redact versus to show?

The first arg is that air pollution will decline during this recession bc higher unemployment and less commuting going on.

The first sentence of the second arg hints v strongly that this person doesn’t think that air pollution is going to decline. Second person adds a new piece of information that makes the first person’s premises less able to support the conclusion.

I think this is good :) I looked at your reasons for eliminating ACs and mine were very similar. If (C) were correct, the stim would need to completely justify why it's okay the celebrities are getting community service when it seems like they should get jail time instead.

Being kicked off for over an hour is a significant tech issue. I was only booted once for about a minute altogether. I would contact LSAC asap and request a retake. If you prefer a refund or cancellation that’s up to you!

Sometimes the correct ac for weaken is definitely a stretch but here I think we are only asked to weaken the idea that consumers are the best people to decide on energy use. I didn’t consider the previous stim to be any kind of premise. (E) suggests that some appliance purchasers are not the ones who actually pay for the energy use, which creates a disconnect for the objection.

stretching :) whatever is a good distraction for you. i think the real goal is just to avoid constantly replaying the first two sections in your mind. good luck!

I would take a section, tell yourself you don't really care about the score just yet, and focus intently on getting to all four passage and answering all ~27 questions. If you're not able to finish the whole section now, this should be faster than you are comfortable with. That way, you'll have a better sense for how the pace should feel. I'd work on getting those questions right after that :) Also keep in mind, timing strategies are personal. The ratio of time spent reading versus time spent answering will differ per person, you just have to find what works best for you.

The way it’s stated I would take it as fact. It effectively discredits the first argument that because the stones happen to line up in a certain way, that they were actually intended to line up that way. But even if you destroy one argument, there could still be some other unstated premises that make the conclusion true.

(C) isn't good because the argument refers to the same 'some' group of products in both the premise and conclusion.

For this question # B is the correct AC

E is more like, if the government does approve it (regardless of the reason), then big farms will benefit more than small farms

Imagine there are 10 pianists and 100 non-pianists.

If majority of pianists recognize CS, then let’s say all 10 of them do.

If a majority of non-pianists dont recognize CS, then let’s say 30 of them do (acceptable range is 0-49).

Of the 40 who recognize CS, the majority (30/40) are still non-pianists. If we know Claudette is one of these forty, we really can’t say if she’s a pianist or not.

In other words, you can’t read the following statement backwards (like the argument does) or form a contrapositive: pianists ‑m→ recognize CS

Premise: If you take herbal supplements for a long time, that's how they work best but also when toxic side effects come up .

Conclusion: Some people who take herbal supplements should stop for a day or two to let their bodies get better (aka recover from side effects).

It's assuming that there's actually at least one person who's taking these supplements long enough for the toxic side effects to appear. That's why A is correct.

Bc it's NA, we are trying to make the conclusion as true as possible. For E, that means we trigger the sufficient condition, but we don't know if stopping for a day will actually do anything. That's another inherent assumption the argument makes, but that we don't know if it's true or not.

that's fine because the stim says that there is a positive correlation between cholesterol level and heart attack risk. you're just looking at it in the other way

I eliminated A, B and E because we don't know how their grades changed. If an AC said, all the students who didn't participate in the program saw an increase in grades around the same time, that would probably be a good weakener. For D, it's irrelevant. Do they play chess or what?

I think this is normal. There’s so much that goes into how we do: not every test is the same difficulty, some tests will be better suited to our strengthens than others, the environment around us, how we’re feeling that given day/moment, etc.

Easier said than done but try to not see one score as exactly representative of what you’re capable of. An avg of full on proper tests (not sections), IMO, is a much better way to see where you’re at.

If you’re struggling with RC, try to figure out what the root of the issue is. If you have someone you can talk to, bounce ideas and thoughts. Maybe you’re struggling to grasp concepts or maybe you’re not reading for structure, etc. Getting things wrong, however shitty and relatable it absolutely is, is also a chance to learn. Good luck!

I’d agree! I don’t think the conclusion is outwardly stated but we can comfortably assume that it’s a refutation of the proponents argument

Take this pseudo argument: I’m shorter than Shaq, therefore I’m a short person.

Being shorter than Shaq does not imply that I’m actually short because he’s taller than almost everyone in the world.

^ being said, I could still be a short person for many other reasons aside from being shorter than Shaq. I’m shorter than most people in the world, which would mean I’m at least shorter than avg.

Basically the premise doesn’t support the conclusion, but the conclusion could still be right.

Relating “being too big to escape climate change” to “too big to escape humans” is a false assumption you’re making.

What if these animals have a great defense system against predators like humans? Maybe that’s why they’re so big and hulking.

Premise: these people persisted with beliefs formed on information that they know to be wrong

Conclusion: this demonstrates that people are willing to hold onto wrong beliefs even when there is no supporting evidence

Assumption: you’re very close, but I think the conclusion basically assumes that these people haven’t done any outside research to check their beliefs before keeping them. Like maybe they googled it after they got home. This ultimately weakens the conclusion.

(A) is wrong because we don’t know if the study participants are aware of how truthful their beliefs are. Let’s say someone told me that lizards are a mammal, so now I think some mammals have tails. Later someone tells me the original lizard statement is a lie. Even if my belief is true (eg dogs, cats), I could still be basing my belief on the lie. This still supports the conclusion.

First paragraph describes the dominating school of thought (utilitarianism) that existed pre Rawls and then a problem with it. But if we were to reject utilitarianism, then what would we do/believe? On line 19 it says that Rawls has an ingenious solution to this problem which seems to be the strongest indication that their idea was “novel”

Hm… an air filter so there are less fuzzies? Do you have the air con/ heat on in the room? Maybe dirty vents are adding to the problem. Have you tried windex?

Hypothesis: Expressionist paintings are less pleasing or equally pleasing compared to kids paintings.

Experiment: Subjects consistently rated the expressionist paintings as more pleasing than kid paintings.

Conclusion: Expressionist paintings are pleasing.

The problem is that it takes a relative difference as an absolute quality. Being shorter than someone does not mean that I’m short. But we’re concerned with making sure that this is okay here. If you negate (B) you get “most of the kids paintings were not pleasing”, and it opens the possibility that the expressionist paintings are just mediocre (still better tho). My sense is that this AC also works as a SA; I’m really curious to hear your/ others thoughts on this. #help

I also picked (A) initially and the easiest way for me to see that it was wrong was to negate it. The negation leaves open the possibility that a person is equally good at judging the value when a painting is alone and when the painting is being compared. That doesn’t affect the argument.