i'd say in about 3/4 of them

I'm gonna be the one to say yes, you would be crazy.

173 is a fair bet for HYS's medians for next cycle. That 100% extra people who scored a 175+ in the early flex exams are not going to be waiting for next cycle to apply. They have everything they need now, why would they wait?

Scores in general and the number of applicants will also go down. The economy is doing well, thus raising the opportunity cost of spending time studying for the LSAT or going to law school at all. If you apply in October, you'll be a very appetizing candidate right from the beginning. A guaranteed 173/3.92 coupled with strong softs would look very good to HYS.

People scoring in the mid 170s typically don't increase their score upon further retake attempts ( https://www.reddit.com/r/LSAT/comments/n2kn90/amazing_resource_from_lsac_for_retaking_the_lsat/ ). I wouldn't be so confident that you'll do even better even with your PT average.

I got a 173. After almost a year, I'm free at last :)

I got booted out of my exam by connection issues and couldn’t get back in even after trying for close to an hour. I called LSAC and they say they’ll email me, but I’m worried they’ll make me cancel my score since it was my internet. If I do that, I won’t be able to take one again until next testing year :(

i'm googling how proportions work like i'm ten years old

this seems totally right to me, I don't think D is actually necessary

#help

So about D... what if entrapment if scavenging and hunting was just the second most common thing the wolves were doing when getting trapped in the pits? The argument would still work, wouldn't it? If it still happened frequently, it would both suggest that pups didn't accompany adults while fighting (or whatever) and they didn't accompany adults while hunting/scavenging. So it doesn't seem like it's really a necessary assumption to me.

winter is coming

...so it's not actually free, okay...

Why would I think that a handling fee applies to a free offer? Someone should have challenged LSAC on this one. If they did, I would like to read their response.

Another possible issue with this argument that E kinda picks up on too: Even if it was a random sampling of old people, I don't think the conclusion that "the pineal gland produces less melatonin as it ages" is necessarily supported. How do we know that melatonin isn't just as helpful for younger adults? It could just be that everyone has this problem. If that's the case, then it would be wrong to assume that the pineal gland's deficiency is something that increases with age.

it's two arguments eeeeeeee

brutal question. How kind of the flex converter to leave this section out!

13 is annoying me because I feel like D is so incomplete. Olsen's hypothesis doesn't show up until around line 40. Everything before that is context. How can it be an accurate summary if it leaves out all of that context? #help

Is this the first main point question anyone else has ever missed like.. ever

#help (Added by Admin)

C is confusing me. Couldn't there be fewer public gatherings because of the campaign's recommendation to avoid public places? Isn't that something we would expect to happen if the advice was followed? #help

i dunno man, there are definitely some laws that I don't want to have consequences that match their intentions.

did i really get caught by the fucking 'nineteenth century' thing omg. I know the difference and still fell for it

I believe E is also wrong because other schools could be increasing their tuition as well. The proposal would only work if both A is true and if the university could become expensive enough to compare favorably to its competition, not just if its tuition increases.

The tricky part of E is that the reader might think the opposing view is the article the arguer is grumbling about. He doesn't really present any evidence against its claims.

Type: NA

Stim:

1. If theater managers do not believe a film will generate enough revenue for a profit, they won't rent it.

2. Film producers want their films to be shown as widely as possible.

3. Film producers tend to make films that theater managers consider attractive to younger audiences

A) This is not the only variable that goes into how much revenue a film produces. Maybe adult movies are more expensive.

B) If this were false, films that appeal to young people would still be more profitable because they would pull in both young and old viewers

C) not necessary. It's only necessary that concessions + tickets are expensive than tickets alone for the customer, which is a fair assumption to make.

D) Correct. This profitability includes food from concessions. If this were not the case, then it would be unexplainable why theater managers would prefer that film producers rent out films for younger people.

E) This would be a sufficient but not necessary assumption. You don't need films directed toward older audiences to never generate a profit.

Imagine if the statement in A, “many people who buy a frying pan with a manufacturer’s warranty would seek reimbursement should the pan fail to work well or last long,” were not true. Then the manufacturers wouldn’t have anything to worry about if their pans stopped working well. No one would ask for a refund. Therefore, they wouldn’t have any reason to make sure pans they offer a warranty for work well for a long time.

This means that if the statement in A is true, then we have a good reason to think that the manufacturers actually will ensure that those pans don’t suck.

whoops, responded to wrong person

Imagine if the statement in A, "many people who buy a frying pan with a manufacturer's warranty would seek reimbursement should the pan fail to work well or last long," were not true. Then the manufacturers wouldn't have anything to worry about if their pans stopped working well. No one would ask for a refund. Therefore, they wouldn't have any reason to make sure pans they offer a warranty for work well for a long time.

This means that if the statement in A is true, then we have a good reason to think that the manufacturers actually will ensure that those pans don't suck.

#help

Would any 7sage stats whiz like to explain how it's possible that this question got a 120-160-180 curve? I've never seen anything like that on this software before. Does it have something to do with which users take the most recently released preptests?

Type: Strengthen? PSA? Probably somewhere in between, but closer to PSA

Stim:

1. Many prospective home buyers are likely to assume that large appliances in the home would be included with the purchase.

2. Sellers who would be keeping those appliances are morally obligated to either remove them before showing the home or indicate that they aren't included

A) Correct. This sounds almost exactly like the conclusion, but it's not really a restatement. It's stating that if the conditions described in the conclusion are satisfied, then the seller is morally obligated to take the action that the conclusion describes.

B) The conclusion isn't about this. It's about what the seller must do if the buyers are likely to assume the appliances are permanent fixtures.

D) "Deliberately mislead" doesn't cover the behavior that the speaker offers an injunction against. Accidental or careless misleading isn't subsumed by deliberate misleading. The right answer must cover the latter.