#9, I feel like (A) is still not a bad choice even after going over Manhattan Prep and JY's explanation. I read the (A) as the research's results having application on actual trials, not that the research is based on actual trials.

I'm curious if it really errs because we cannot infer psychological explanation with psychologists and simulated trials with research conducted by legal scholars?

Anyone could, in fact, read up on studies done by psychologists and carry ideas from psychology onto the topic at hand, thus not requiring a psychologist to make an psychological explanation. Similarly, the simulated trial could have been conducted by anyone, and does not necessitate a legal scholar.

I thought (D) helped strengthen since if the materials were easy to obtain, then you can produce more of it. Producing more of something gives you ample opportunities to accidentally discover something new in the process. No?

This question is a very good example of modern LSAT's where the AC isn't smack-you-in-the-face-obvious.

I have a problem with consent=consult. At my workplace, our department often does not consult our manager about changes we will do in the workplace, yet we know our manager consents on these changes since he rarely disapproves of them. . .so why must something be consulted for it to be approved?

I thought (D) picked up on the assumption that direct-mail advertising could be wasteful based on the amount of paper used. By only sending mail to those interested, it limits its carbon footprint by limiting unnecessary waste.

@ I try not to think if they were easy or not. I made the mistake last time because I breezed through the LR and RC yet came out under-performing. . .I don't want to get ahead of myself again by saying whether or not I found it easy. Definitely some time sinkers though that made me scratch my head and rely on POE.

And another thing, I'm finding myself relying on POE a lot more than before. Some of the newer AC's for LR and RC are just so weak that at first glance they make you hesitate. In older PT's, I never found myself in that situation; it was always, "Yup, it's X for w/e reason." Definitely a trend as I'm noticing on ManhattanPrep there is a lot more explanations that go along the lines of, "The rest suck more so therefore X."

@ my nerves got to me; I had a slip on G1 that ended taking up more time and nothing was smooth after that.

@ what DEC_LSAT said. Just relax; maybe review a little if that's what helps you. But you are as ready as ready can be, and you'll have plenty of time to freak out just before the test and afterwards, so don't fret now.

You honestly need 1. Just 1. Though I suggest 2 just in case you snap 1 out of frustration.

Hey, I'm in the cesspool with you. 3rd take, and I dropped the ball on LG. Felt like I was gonna cry and make a scene until a girl beat me to the punch and bawled her eyes out. Not exaggerating; I mean REALLY bawling her eyes out. How really? Carly Rae Jepsen "Really" to the nth degree really. I felt incredibly bad for her and kinda forgot about my situation.

If your GPA sucks, any chance you can add an addendum to explain your situation. Maybe turn it around and show how it has improved you as a person?

Unfortunately, your next retake is Feb 2018. . .

@ I can tell you what's gonna put me down. . .LG. I choked. . .again!

Sorry to beat the dead horse, but I honestly think focusing on LR is the best since 50% of the test is LR and it's got better carry over to RC since RC is essentially one giant LR question. As for LG, it has been really hit and miss for a lot of people now with the addition of a weird game every PT, such that nailing 0 on it has become a lot more difficult. You should still focus on it, and drill it, but going in with the mindset of 0 on LG is not what it used to be.

I honestly feel like there is a difference. Let's not talk about the old ones because those are just weird. With in the newer one's, which I feel start at around 72 and onward, the LR and RC rely more on details, ie specific wording, so, we really need to get our active reading down. With older LSAT's, I felt like I could get away by understanding the general gist of the arguments and still score well. Not the case anymore. Also, I'm starting to see a lot of assumption questions both in the LR and the RC. . .or maybe it's just me.

@ so you know if the LR sections are randomized too, that being what is 134 for you might be my 431? I had 134 too for LR but section 1 seemed so much more difficult than 3 and 4 for me, though 4 took me the longest because I was absolutely NOT expecting LR back to back.

@ It will absolutely help. I once made a complaint because the test centre did not turn on the heat until the test started. . .so by the time the room actually got decently warm, the test was over. I still remember the guy on my left in his scarf wrapped around his face, while writing the test, but the proctors didn't care because it was that cold!

LSAC's response was, because no one else complained, they were not going to do anything about it. So, absolutely complain. I'd hate for another person to be in my position when lack of proof is tantamount to falsity.

@

That's how it was for me too.

I'm gonna butt in and talk about something else, not about the test itself but the centre.

At my test centre, the ratio of men to women was like 1:4; my room was like 1:5/6. I lol'd hard when the lineup to use the woman's washroom went around the corner and all the way to China, and the guy's lineup didn't even reach out the door.

And on another note, there must have been around 12-15 people who did not fill in that paragraph we had to copy verbatim at the beginning of the test. . .it was almost like listening to a clown car (if that's even possible) as the proctor just kept naming one person after another. I kept thinking I was going to be called, and even stood up when someone else's was called (because I kept thinking she's going to call me next). But I passed it off by pretending I needed to stretch.

Ugh, for 14#, I tied ultimately profitable to earning respect. . .

By any chance, is there any recording of the last one with him?

Depending on the school, many care only about results. I believe for Yale, you could be scoring all over the place, going from 160 to 145 to 167 to 158 and finally 179; in the end, they take your highest into consideration. If you're looking at a school that averages out your LSAT, so a 140 and 180=160, such as Harvard, then it's best you have an addendum.

(A) quality that shows understanding of people = good manager, because good manager→understanding people

confused it with being a necessary for understanding people, since if understanding people→good manager, then you get the flaw JY mentioned which is that "defuse situation" points to good manager.

So why is (A) wrong?

Great example of modern LSAT LR questions that throws a brick wall of words at you hoping you wouldn't catch the small assumption jump. Read carefully.

What's interesting about (C) is that the conclusion concerns at least the same amount of freedom of expression so technically internet forums can be important tools of democracy yet do it without freedom of expression, assuming public squares also did it without freedom of expression. I guess it's an implicit assumption that freedom of expression is necessary to democracy.

Thoughts?

I found (B) rather attractive because of its ambiguous tone that is prevalent in modern LSATs. It reads a lot like that advertisement-yogurt-milk question from another recent modern LSAT, where the answer choice is not explicit but hints at some overarching thing that is messing up everything. Assuming you check the other answers though, (E) jumps right off the page.