@mlstuard94276 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."

@abarna475 my nerves got to me; I had a slip on G1 that ended taking up more time and nothing was smooth after that.

@eepoon831 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. . .

@abarna475 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.

@xrs187 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.

@cooperjamie55913 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.

@vlj1994980

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.

great catch

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

(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?

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.

(E) states that "most of the great chorale preludes were written for instruments other than the organ" whereas the stimulus states that "most of the great preludes written for the organ were written by J. S. Bach." It's two completely different ideas and why (E) is acceptable.

We cannot infer an exponential decline of the population, and neither is necessary nor sufficient for the other.

(E) strengthens because it ties the correlation between the two better, since we know that amphibians have declined continuously for 50 yrs just as the ozone has been depleted continuously for the last 50 yrs. The fact they both mirror in their depreciation suggests that one may be causing the other. Had the amphibian population been declining 100 yrs ago, then the decline has been happening well before the depletion of the ozone and this suggests something else is the root cause.

Few does mean some but always in the context of not most.

The principle consists of two ideas: "No experience, therefore should not be a judge."

(E) errs on both ideas. It says "if there is any possibility of bias exists," which we know is eliminated by not having the authors' names shown. Also, the latter half is "cannot judge properly" which, sounding similar, is not "should not be a judge." Someone who does not judge properly can still be a judge, albeit not a good one.

The first statement about "none are at risk of collision" is not a supporting statement; it's context, and therefore should not be seen as helping you deduce the MC.

Btw, when you see 'after all', that is cue for anyone that the previous mentioned idea is a conclusion.

We're told that every other relevant variable is held constant so they are the same concentrations in both test groups; therefore, it cannot be another mineral. The only thing changed is the concentration level of sodium so if we're going to reasonably conclude something it's going to be from changing sodium levels to changing levels of fluoride in ground water.

For your second question, we're told of only one comparison made: everything held constant vs everything held constant + high level of sodium. It can be reasonably inferred that 'high' sodium probably means higher than the other level of sodium compared otherwise why would the testwriter use that word. If there is a comparison and one is the 'high', then the other must be the 'low'. So we know there is a comparison being made between low sodium level (really it's just lower than the other level) and a high sodium level (which is really just a higher concentration than the other).

Everything in the ground held constant but one has more sodium in it and we get more fluoride in the water, it's probably that increases in sodium level is causing more fluoride to get into the water. Because the questions stem asks for a reasonably conclude, we need a conclusion that says something on that line, which is (D).

Don't look at (D) as a new conditional statement being injected into the stimulus. Think of it simply as, can you have A. Yes or no¿ Can you have B.

The stimulus is A→B.

Also, A→C→D.

We have D and therefore C and A.

With (D), can we have A¿ No, because we have A. So can we have B. Yes, because with D, we can only conclude C and A.

That's why (D) is correct.