@RishabhRaj Yeah, you're right - I need to remember that in the future. Definitely fell for my instinctive bias with the term!

I got this wrong because I interpret "might be a watershed event in the development of indigenous rights in Belize" as applying in a situation when the indigenous rights' claim was successful. If the govt win (i.e., granting of concessions by the govt), I wouldn't see that as a milestone in the development of their rights but a setback.

I'm a little confused why it's ok to say that Answer B for Q23 MP is "too narrow" but the answer A in Q10 is correct but more narrow than B (which was too broad).. I got Q23 right but not Q10, gah.

Sounds great!!

I'm in Austin! Actually about to have a baby next month so I'm not able to meet up for a short while but please do add me to a group :) Will be nice to connect to people in the area aiming for a law career (it'll be my second career, I'm in my mid-30s too)

I'm in Austin! Actually about to have a baby next month so I'm not able to meet up for a short while but please do add me to a group :) Will be nice to connect to people in the area aiming for a law career (it'll be my second career, I'm in my mid-30s too)

Nice idea- I'm 8 months pregnant, taking LSAT for second time at 38 weeks (I know, not ideal). Happy to connect with others (with caveat that I may not be the most available for live online meet ups given my upcoming busy schedule!!) But would be really nice to have connections with others in a similar situation (e.g., being parents to young children).

I'm in my mid-30s, with a baby and husband who works in the area (which restricts where I'm applying to as I'm not keen to live in separate cities)... also have a PhD and pivoting from academia (health sciences).

Happy to connect with fellow second-career folks in a group!

I'm in Austin! Actually about to have a baby next month so I'm not able to meet up for a short while but please do add me to a group :) Will be nice to connect to people in the area aiming for a law career (it'll be my second career, I'm in my mid-30s too)

I interpreted this in the same way as many people here... I'd assumed the imported species had been killed of, not that they were NOW flourishing at the expense of the native species :S I chose B because I thought that TBT killed off food sources that the native species might be eating.... (so less food going around)

Ugh, I didn't think it was a reasonable assumption to think that films that won prizes at LNFF had to also be shown at LNFF.... maybe I don't know enough about film festivals..

@MilaNacca this is a nice example!

@kae Thanks all!

@Kevin_Lin Ahh ok.... thank you!! It's obvious now you mention it (and both 'for' and 'after all' are in my notes as premises) Something about this question just threw me.

One of my challenges with this question is correctly identifying the conclusion. Any tips for why the first line is the conclusion in this specific question?

@scaronnam it’s been nearly 20 years that I was in high school, and I couldn’t remember the acronym we used.. I think it was the “Pea” or “Peal” approach (the L was - to link back to the main argument at the end of each paragraph or between paragraphs) - thank you for reminding me!!!

I was a bit thrown by this question because I wasn't 100% sure if we could interpret the Botai people inhabiting an area 6,000 years ago as 'prehistoric'. I wasn't sure if this was bringing in outside info about what is the prehistoric period. Is it because of the analogy with prehistoric goat herding that it's reasonable to infer it's also a prehistoric period?

Ahh.. probably similar to others here, I hesitated with option A because I didn't see "adopting a policy" the same as "not eliminating funding" (which I see as not axing a policy)

I'm so annoyed by this question... I feel like it's such stereotyping. I'm not originally from the US, but living here I still eat U.S. food. The only reason I really discounted E was because of assuming they eat Indian curries because of their heritage... ugh

If D said "some" lawyers instead of "most", would it still be incorrect, because the passage only gives facts about some lawyers beliefs re: custom-made illustrations... we don't explicitly know their beliefs on textbook vs custom-made illustration?

Essentially, would it be a reasonable inference to make that "some" lawyers believe that textbook illustrations are less prone than custom-made illustrations to misrepresent nature of personal injury?

If diagramming on the test (which I feel is needed for this Q), I feel like this would take so long... any tips?

@samuel.e.belcher same, arghh

@moshi Thank you!