Argument:

BW Review rule: if published in regular issue, then must agree that work will be republished in anthology without extra payment

BW Review makes enough money from antology sales to cover most operating costs

CONCLUSION: if your magazine published anthology of poems from your regular magazines, then you can rely less on donations

WHY?

Most poems published in your magazine are similar to poems published in BW Review.

Pre-suppose:

Weakening question, so trying to show that similarities between BW Review and your magazine doesn't mean that your magazine will experience the same success as the BW Review.

Answer Choices

A: Doesn't weaken argument. BWR covers most of its operating costs from the anthology sales, so it already doesn't rely on donations. The conclusion is that with the antology, the magazine will rely LESS on donations. So if the magazine already relies on something else to cover most operating costs and relies somewhat on donations, then the conclusion still works if the anthology sales offsets the reliance on donations even a little.

B: This is irrelevant and doesn't weaken the argument. Just because some of the poets that were published in the BWR had poems rejected from the other magazine doesn't mean that the content is dissimiliar. It could be that some poems from these poets were rejected but some were published. Or it could be that many poets published in BWR were also published in the other magazine. Or it could be that the poems that were published in the magazine might not be from the same poets as BWR but they are similar in style, expression, format, subject matter, etc. etc. This is a relatively weak answer choice.

C: It doesn't matter what the compensation is for publishing in the regular magazine, we care about the anthology and we already know that poet compensation for the anthology is non-existent.

D: Irrelevant to the argument. We already know the BWR uses donations to cover the most of the rest of the operating costs not covered by the anthology sales, since the author mentions that "The Brick Wall Review makes enough money from sales of its anthologies to cover most operating expenses." From this, we can infer something else is covering the rest.

E: This points out that there is a considerable difference between the BWR anthology and the other magazine. If the BWR anthology has content that is new from famous poets, this implies that there is something else that is driving sales other than the republishing of poems that were in prior issues. If the other magazine doesn't have anything similar, then it is unlikely to have the success that BWR has with its anthology sales.

Question: A proponent of the cooling hypothesis would most likely argue that the return of the monsoon rains to sub-Saharan West Africa would indicate that which one of the following has also occurred?

Pre-suppose:

The monsoon is mentioned here:

"According to this hypothesis, as the circumpolar vortex expands, it forces south other components of large-scale atmospheric circulation and, in effect, displaces the northward-moving monsoon that ordinarily brings sub-Saharan rain."

We know also that the vortex is a result of "growing temperature differential between the unusually cool middle and high latitudes and the warm tropical latitudes"

The AC is asking about if the monsoon returns, then what happened to make the monsoon return? Since we only know that the monsoon is a result of the temperature difference between latitudes and the circumpolar vortex, the AC should be something along the lines of the temperatures went back to normal.

A: Increases in ice and snow coverage in the Northern Hemisphere is mentioned here:

Proponents have further argued that this change in atmospheric circulation might be long-term since cooling in the Northern Hemisphere could be perpetuated by increases in ice and snow coverage there, which would lead to reflection of more sunlight away from the Earth, to further cooling, and, indirectly, to further drought in sub-Saharan West Africa.

This shows that increases in ice and snow in the Northern Hemisphere leads to drought in sub-Saharan Africa. However, we don't know about how increase ice/snow affects the monsoon rains.

B: The decrease in the average annual temp of the Northern Hemisphere is a cause of the drought as well, since we know that:

"...cooling in the Northern Hemisphere could be perpetuated by increases in ice and snow coverage there... to further drought in sub-Saharan West Africa."

Since it's a cause of the drought and we don't know how it affects the monsoon, this is not the right answer.

C: What do we know about the atmosphere over the tropics in the Northern Hemisphere? We know that:

"The cooling seemed to be more pronounced in the middle and high latitudes than in the tropics..."

and

"...between 1945 and the early 1970s, the average annual air temperatures over the landmasses of the Northern Hemisphere decreased by about half a degree Fahrenheit."

We know that the average temperature of the Northern hemisphere has decreased and it's more pronounced cooling in the middle and high latitudes than the tropics, but does that necessarily mean that the tropics have increased in temperature? They could have stayed the same, for all we know, while the latitudes around them decreased. So, if the monsoon returns, we could pre-suppose about the temperatures in Northern Hemisphere returning to normal but have no way of knowing that specifically, the tropics increased in temperature since a clear relationship has not been established.

D: We know that:

"According to this hypothesis, as the circumpolar vortex expands, it forces south other components of large-scale atmospheric circulation and, in effect, displaces the northward-moving monsoon that ordinarily brings sub-Saharan rain."

So if the other components of large-scale atmospheric circulation are still moving south, then the monsoon rains are displaced and thus, incompatible with the question.

E: Correct! We know:

"...a growing temperature differential between the unusually cool middle and high latitudes and the warm tropical latitudes is causing a southward expansion of the circumpolar vortex—the high-altitude westerly winds that circle the Northern Hemisphere at middle latitudes. "

Since the the circumpolar vortex (high altitude westerly winds) cause other components of large-scale atmospheric circulation, then it is a cause of the monsoon. So, if the westerly winds resume their normal pattern, then the monsoon is likely to have returned.

Premises:

"The only preexisting recordings that are transferred onto compact disc are those that record companies believe will sell well enough on compact disc to be profitable."

transferred --> believed profitable

(/believed profitable --> /transferred)

"Few classic jazz recordings are played on the radio."

classic jazz <--s--> radio

which can be translated to:

(classic jazz --m--> /radio)

Conclusion: classic jazz --m--> /transfer

Presuppose: Missing a link between not being played on the radio and not being profitable. (/radio --> /profitable)

A: It doesn't help the argument since we are trying to show MOST classic jazz recordings aren't being transferred.

B: Irrelevant. We don't care about the few CDs that are already played on the radio.

C: radio --> believed profitable

But we need something about not being played on the radio meaning that it's not profitable.

D: Irrelevant about record company motivations.

E: Correct! /radio --> /profitable

STIM -

Context:

Criticism has two issues:

1) Is it intrinsic?

2) Are judgements on quality "objective" or "matter of taste"?

Conclusion: Issues 1 & 2 are related.

Premises:

/intrinsic --> extrinsic

/intrinsic--> matter of taste

Sub conclusion: Thus, issue 2 must be "matter of taste" if art is /intrinsic.

Pre-suppose:

But the author assumes:

extrinsic --> matter of taste

without showing any evidence that extrinsic art must be "matter of taste" and not objective.

A: Author doesn't make this broad claim, the author only mentions that art with not intrinsic value is always a matter of taste.

B: We aren't concerned about people agreeing about judgements.

C: Correct, because the author assumes extrinsic --> matter of taste and therefore, assumes extrinsic --> /objective.

D: The author makes no claims about the works with intrinsic values, only /instrinsic values. It could be the case that intrinsic --> objective and it wouldn't change the argument too much.

E: We don't care about the relationship between the artwork's value and its instrinsic-ness.

Stim:

"Some visitors to the park engage in practices that seriously harm the animals."

visitors <--s--> harm animals

"Surely, no one who knew that these practices seriously harm the animals would engage in them."

knew about harm --> /harm animals

Conclusion:

"So it must be concluded that some of the visitors do not know that these practices seriously harm the animals."

visitors <--s--> /know about harm

Pre-suppose:

A <--s--> B

C --> /B

(assumption: B --> /C)

Therefore: A <--s--> /C

A: Not exactly the same structure and is an invalid argument.

worked on failed project <--s--> fired

this department --> worked on failed project

Thus: this department <--s--> fired

B: Wrong structure.

signed petition <--s--> supporters

signed petition --> denounced

Thus: denounced <--s--> supporters

C: Correct structure!

polled <--s--> outside city

vote --> /outside city

THUS: polled <--s--> /vote

D: Wrong structure (two "all" premises leading to a "some" conclusion)

original planner --> responsible

original planner --> /admit responsibility

THUS: responsible <--s--> /admit responsibility

E: Not a valid argument.

Liberal Party --> in favor

city council --> /in favor

city council <-- s --> /Liberal Party

Context: Govn't has the final say in what rights are because police officers will do what the gov't tells them.

Conclusion: The govn't's view on rights isn't necessarily correct.

WHY? Because if you believe that the govn't view is correct, then you believe that people have only have the rights that the govn't says they have, meaning that they have no moral rights at all

A:This is not the conclusion, this would be something that the author believes that the people who believe the government is correct also believe.

B: This is the conclusion, a rephrase of the statement: The govn't's view on rights isn't necessarily correct. I missed this because I misread and thought that the "officials and courts" were part of the people who were taking orders from the government.

C: This is against what the author is arguing, in that the government isn't entirely correct in their determination of rights.

D: This is irrelevant, since the claim about police is not part of the actual argument.

E: We don't know that the author is making this claim since there's nothing in the argument about what personal action one should take, we just know that the author is saying that sometimes the government view on individual rights is wrong.

Diagram:

"Trust, which cannot be sustained in the absence of mutual respect..."

trust --> mutual respect

/mutual respect --> /mutual respect

"Trust is essential to any long-lasting relationship, personal or professional"

long-lasting relationship (pers or pro) --> trust

/trust --> /long-lasting relationship (pers or pro)

"However, personal relationships, such as marriage or friendship, additionally require natural affinity."

personal relationship (friendship or marriage) --> trust AND natural affinity

/trust OR /natural affinity --> /personal relationship

"If a personal relationship is to endure, it must be supported by the twin pillars of mutual respect and affinity."

long-lasting pers. relationship --> mutual respect AND natural affinity

/mutual respect OR /natural affinity --> /long-lasting pers. relationship

The TLDR:

trust --> mutual respect

long-lasting relationships --> trust

long-lasting relationship (personal) --> natural affinity AND trust

THUS (chaining together first premise):

long-lasting relationship (personal) --> natural affinity AND mutual respect

From this, we can also see that:

long-lasting relationship (pro) --> trust --> mutual respect

Answer choices:

A: This is the correct answer. A long-lasting friendship must have mutual respect and natural affinity. Using the contrapositive:

/mutual respect OR /natural affinity --> /long-lasting pers. relationship

Since there is no natural affinity, the friendship cannot be long-lasting since it triggers the sufficient condition in the contrapositive.

B: This is in the context of professional relationships, so the only thing we know about professional relationships is:

long-lasting relationship (pro) --> trust --> mutual respect

"Mutual respect presupposes trust" - this phrase tripped me up when I took this the first time. "Presuppose" functions as a necessary condition indicator.

A presupposes B, so A is the sufficient condition for B (A --> B). For example, being a car presupposes having wheels. So if it's a car, then it has wheels (car --> wheels).

Here, the diagram ends up being: mutual respect --> trust

But the stimulus clearly states that: trust--> mutual respect

To me, this is a really tricky trap answer because I diagrammed B the opposite way and assumed that it was basically restating this conditional statement:

long-lasting relationship (pro) --> trust --> mutual respect

C: mutual respect AND natural affinity --> long lasting personal relationship

This could be false and doesn't follow the conditional statements. All of our conditions about long-lasting relationships are in the sufficient spot, so we can't prove anything about long-last relationships-- only about /long-lasting relationships. This AC confuses sufficiency/necessity.

D: We can't prove statement comparing the longevity of professional relationships vs. personal relationships so it could be false.

E: natural affinity --> long-lasting personal relationship (marriage)

This could be false. We know this:

long-lasting relationship (personal) --> natural affinity AND trust

But we don't know that just having natural affinity is sufficient for a long-lasting relationship. We can't prove "long-lasting personal relationship (marriage)" since the only conditional statement that we can use to prove answer choice C can only prove (natural affinity AND trust) or /long-lasting relationship (personal).

Q: It can be inferred that Eltis cites the views of "certain notables" (third sentence of the last paragraph) in order to...

Pre-suppose:

This is an inference questions so we need to gather what we know about the "certain notables" and how that works within Eltis's argument. We know:

• The certain notables think they should enslave unemployed people.

• Eltis is arguing against Drescher's take, specifically on the notion of what Eltis calls "idealized British traditions of liberty"

• Eltis is citing bad labor practices as well as the actual enslavement of people as his examples that "Well, not everyone was as FREEDOM-minded as Drescher is trying to claim"

• Eltis thinks that abolitionism was economically-driven

A: Correct answer because it is exactly what Eltis is trying to prove with his opening of "eschewing Drescher's idealization" lead by examples of horrible labor practices that are against the ideas of liberty.

B: Eltis wasn't concerned with the importance of a strong labor force, especially since later on, he argues about the impacts of having a paid labor force vs. unpaid (enslaved) labor force.

C: Eltis doesn't think that the certain notables showed how important the institution of slavery because he's not talking about importance. He's trying to prove that the liberty tradition isn't that strong since there are notable people who wanted to enslave random wanderers to ensure a productive workforce. This AC doesn't work as well because they aren't talking about the institution to pre-industrial Britain as a whole -- these are a few notable people who have this opinion to show how people were really thinking during this time and it wasn't liberty.

D: Eltis actually says that laboring classes had a lot of support for abolition; however, this is not important to the point he is trying to make. Eltis "eschews Drescher's idealization of British traditions of liberty" -- so he mentions that there's notable British people who want slavery. It doesn't matter if the laboring classes were against slavery, Eltis is making the point that the idealization that Drescher is making is NOT strong enough to make his point valid because he has this example.

E: Irrelevant; Eltis doesn't make a point about civil rights of laborers.

@KennedyPearson As I understand it, the AC is saying "usually, the extra sleep that they get is during the day". It's not mentioned anywhere in the stim that the "beneficial" sleep is only during the night, just that the daily average (which includes night sleep or naps during the day). So if the stimulated baby sleep 10 hours daily and a less stimulated baby sleeps 12 hours daily (but the 2 extra hours are naps during the day), it still doesn't take away from the fact that the babies sleep more (and therefore, doesn't weaken the conclusion).

Q: Which one of the following most accurately describes the author's attitude toward proposals to introduce personal stories into legal discourse?

Pre-suppose: We know that the author is advocating for the personal stories and doesn't say much on its weaknesses. The author also voices most of her personal opinions in the last paragraph of the passage.

A: Anti-supported, she supports the proposals.

B: Anti-supported, she supports the proposals and doesn't mention anything to imply sketicism.

C: The author is not ambivalent (having mixed feelings) about the proposal. If she mentioned that there are significant weaknesses to this approach or stronger "mixed feelings" language in her evaluation, then there would be a case for this. The author mentions that the "ngaging power of narrative might play a crucial, positive role in the process", which suggested some ambivalence to me; however, the author has stronger language in that sentence to suggest support over uncertainty, such as "engaging", "crucial", and "positive".

D: This is correct, since the author uses strong, positive language to indicate her support for this proposal, including "compelling force", "shatter the complacency", and "crucial, positive role".

E: "Unreservedly optimistic" is too strong to use here since the author never asserts that the proposals will succeed, instead mentioning that they "might play a positive role". If the author had said something like "will undoubtedly play a profoundly positive role", then there would be a stronger case for this answer choice.

A: The author doesn't imply that the psychoanalytical interpretation challenges the political interpretation, just that it has not been as exhaustively studied.

B: B is the most strongly supported. The author mentions that the psychoanalytical study of her work has been exhaustive but the political content hasn't been as studied. Immediately following that sentence, the author says, "Yet Kahlo was an ardent political activist who in her art sought not only to explore her own roots, but also to champion Mexico's struggle for an independent political and cultural identity." So that implies that there might be two interpretations of Kahlo's work that are in-line with her own goals for her art and therefore, complementary to each other.

C: Nothing is mentioned about revisions to previous interpretations of her work, especially in regards to the new political interpretations.

D: I got this answer the first time I took this. I thought that the author was implying that only the psychoanalytical interpretations were using her biographical facts (e.i. her accident and her marriage). However, it seems like the author is using the fact that Kahlo was influenced by Marxism as a biographical fact within the political interpretation of her work. The author also mentions that "These images of destruction coupled with creation speak not only to Kahlo's personal battle for life, but also to the Mexican struggle to emerge as a nation", which implies that there's a personal aspect to the art as well as a political one. It's very subtle.

E: This is anti-supported, the mythic status is from the use of familiar symbols, not from the psychoanalytical content as mentioned in the last paragraph.

Context:

Recent study - speed of recovery for 60 different psych problems measured as people attended therapy (diverse sample size)

Premise: 75% of 60 problems recovered w/i 50 weeks of therapy

Conclusion: 50 weeks of therapy is what most people need

Pre-suppose: Are those 75% psych problems that cleared up as common in the general population? It could be that the remaining 25% problems are what most people experience in the general population.

A: The arg doesn't make the claim that there aren't any psych problems that take longer than 50 weeks to clear up, just that for most people, 50 weeks is enough.

B: Matches my pre-suppose.

C: The author doesn't make the claim that there aren't any more psych problems than are studied -- they are making the assumption that most people are afflicted with the 75% that are cured w/i 50 weeks.

D: Author is specifically talking about behavioral therapy and states that there are effective behavioral treatments.

E: Whether or not the subjects in the study had more psych problems than the population as a whole is irrelevant since the arg is concerning the time it took to recover.

P1: Consultants - "most efficient managers have the great time management skills"

Conclusion: to improve productivity, make a time management seminar available for middle managers

Pre-suppose: This is a weaken EXCEPT question, so most of the ACs will be weakening the idea that having a seminar available to middle managers will improve productivity. The argument itself is making a causation/correlation error -- it's saying since those efficient managers are also really good at time management, learning time management will make our other managers more productive.

A: Weakens. If the consultants are using the same criteria to measure efficiency vs. time management, are they actually measuring a meaningful relationship?

B: Weakens. If successful time management is more dependent on motivation than good technique, then it wouldn't make sense to teach the managers time management skills via a seminar. Why spend all that time creating a seminar if you can put a few motivational posters in the hallway?

C: Weakens. The seminars aren't a useful tool so why use them?

D: Correct answer. It's a pretty neutral choice. The argument is about possibly not-efficient middle managers - so an answer choice about managers who are already efficient and don't need to improve their productivity doesn't do much. The argument also never says that all managers need to attend or use the seminar.

E: Weakens. If the efficient managers never needed a seminar, why would creating a seminar produce more efficient managers?

P1: Trad norms:

/sincerity --> ignore unpleasant realities

(/ignore unpleasant realities --> sincerity)

P2: /trust --> /succeed

(succeed --> trust)

Conclusion: succeed --> /ignore unpleasant realities

Pre-suppose: The gap is between trusting one another and facing unpleasant realities. Something like: trust --> sincerity

A: ⭐️ Correct answer ⭐️

trust --> sincerity

So, we know that if the community is to succeed, we need trust. But we have a gap between the relationship between trust/succeed and succeed/not ignore unpleasant realities. In order to get to "not ignoring unpleasant realities", answer choice A provides a relationship between trust and sincerity. Since trust --> sincerity, then it would lead to /ignore unpleasant realities.

B: Step ladder answer. This doesn't allow the conclusion to follow logically, it just restates the relationship between sincerity and success.

C: This doesn't help the conclusion, it just muddies otherwise clear relationships between the conditions.

D: sincerity --> ignore unpleasant realities

Doesn't close the gap enough to guarantee a conclusion about success in the community.

E: /succeed -m-> ignore unpleasant realities

This establishes a causation for /succeed so it doesn't help the argument.

Notes: I was rushing and got D because I figured that we needed something to bridge the gap between sincerity and unpleasant realities. What I see now is that this answer might have been reached without much diagramming since only one answer choice establishes a relationship between trust and sincerity, which would bridge P1 and P2 together.

Context: T's testimony inside the courtroom wasn't heard outside the courtroom but she said afterwards, that she thought Pemberton's guilty.

Premise: The jury found Pemberton not guilty.

Conclusion: Not all jury members believed T's testimony. (Some jury members did not believe T's testimony)

Pre-suppose:

-Loophole: What if T's testimony was not important for the jury to find P not guilty?

A: I didn't get this at first, but it does identify the gap that what this witness thinks might not be relevant to the jury's decision.

It doesn't necessarily follow that Tagowa's testimony implicated Pemberton just because she later said she believed he was guilty. She could have been an expert witness who testified about a piece of evidence that in no way implicated him. After the trial, she could still have said, "I think he's guilty." In that case, all of the jurors could have believed every word of her testimony and still voted not guilty because the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

B: Nothing in the conclusion indicates something "should/ought to" be the case.

C: Nothing the author mentions is directly about whether the defendants committed the crimes. The conclusion is about whether the jury believed T's testimony.

D: There isn't anything indicating dishonesty within the conclusion, the conclusion isn't saying that the not guilty verdict means the witnesses who testified against the defendant was lying, only that the jury didn't believe the witness.

E: Since the author mentions that "not all jury members" believed T's testimony, the author has considered this. The jury members might disagree with each other on the significance of a testimony but still vote unanimously on a verdict.

Context: "Indicator species" serve as "canaries in the coal mine" -- if their pollution goes down, environmentalists use them as an indicator of problems from pollution.

P1: Sometimes declines in indicator species populations signal environmental problems BUT just as often, are natural occurrences.

P2: Change is normal in nature.

Conclusion: Environmentalists are misguided if they say that pollution is the sole cause of the population decline of indicator species.

Pre-suppose: Environmentalists would be wrong if they attribute every indicator species decline due to pollution.

A: Author doesn't mention anything about what is a proper reaction to the loss of specific population.

B: Rephrase of conclusion - "yet environmentalists would be misguided if they attributed the loss of a population to pollution in all cases."

C: "Often problematic" in relation to the usefulness of the practice is too strong to use here when the author conclusion is "sometimes the environmentalists are misguided" with this practice.

D: The author doesn't mention anything about taking action so that makes the second part of this answer choice irrelevant ("in such cases, should not be resisted").

E: The author doesn't say that the loss of the specific population DUE TO pollution is natural -- the author does make a distinction between environmental degradation due to pollution and environmental degradation due to natural evolution of an ecosystem.

@Mannatk The "before" in this case refers to the beginning of the cloudy season, so the cloudy season doesn't stop before the popcorn in the fields begin to dry but rather continues on during the popcorn drying season. So if it's cloudy outside and there's no sun during the drying season, indoors becomes the only option.

@businessgoose It doesn't necessarily bolster the position that law enforcement is effective at preventing violent crime. We are trying to argue against the position that law enforcement is effective.

To paraphrase D: "We have increased the amount of law enforcement in our city to the amount recommended by experts to be enough to serve the current size of the population"

BUT are those police effective? Even if we increase the police presence, are they all doing their job well at preventing crime? It could be the case that the police department is wildly mismanaged and the policemen aren't trained well, so increasing their presence around the city isn't effective at deterring violent crime. So, even if the murder rates decreased while the police increased, it doesn't necessarily mean that that decrease was because of the increased policemen and therefore, doesn't tell us anything about whether police are effective at preventing violent crime. D doesn't tell us anything useful to strengthen the causal chain between murder rate and law enforcement. So we are not able to use this as a counter against the city official since it doesn't weaken the argument.

Citizen: Increasing number of murders every year since 1970. This is because law enforcement is decreasingly effective at preventing violent crime.

City official: But the population has been increasing since 1970! Number of murders per 100 people has fallen slightly since 1970.

(The city official is assuming that law enforcement is still effective at preventing violent crime, since the murder rate has fallen and proposes an alternative explanation for the decreased murder rate -- population growth)

Goal: How can we respond to the city official? We need to counter the idea that murder rate is down because of the population growth.

A: Irrelevant since we don't know how fraud relates to violent crime.

B: We know that the murder rate is down, so it's not helpful to know in what age groups specifically.

C: Murders and other violent crimes being more likely to be reported now than in 1970 would strengthen the city official's position. More reporting and decreased crime rate might imply that maybe the police are effective.

D: The city law enforcement experts' judgment on the sufficiency of the number of police officers doesn't help counter the city official's argument since it doesn't say anything about the effectiveness of the police. There can have more police in the city but that doesn't mean they are effective at preventing crime.

E: Provides an alternative explanation to why the murder rate has fallen. It's saying that the difference between now and 1970 is that the healthcare is better so more victims of violent crime are surviving. So if the decrease in the murder rate cited by the city official is explained away by better healthcare today, then the city official's argument is weaker.

Hm, not a tutor or anything but.... I think D is wrong because the claim that "nations do not have consciences" is not directly supporting the main conclusion ("Hence, any ascription of praise or blame to a group must be translated into some statement about individuals if we are to evaluate it properly").

You're right that "nations" is an instance of a "group", but that premise itself is supporting the intermediate conclusion ("Groups are not the type of entity that can be worthy of praise or blame.").

Premise 1: Nations don't have consciences

Premise 2: Families are not agents

Premise 3: Blameworthiness implies conscience and agency.

Intermediate Conclusion (supported by P1, P2, & P3): Groups are not the type of entity that can be worthy of praise or blame.

Main Conclusion (Supported by Intermediate Conclusion): Hence, any ascription of praise or blame to a group must be translated into some statement about individuals if we are to evaluate it properly.

That's my breakdown, following to see the answer since I'm curious if that's correct!

Interested! I'm in California and looking to take it in June but probably retake in September

Yes! Usually the admissions people are there in office during the weekdays even if schools are not in session and would be more than happy to talk to a prospective student. A lot of law schools will even give you an admissions fee waiver for visiting (at least, UCLA and USC do). I'd research the schools before hand to be able to ask about specific programs/workshops/clinics you're interested in, the culture at the school, and advice for students similar to whatever your background is. A lot of admissions advisors might even connect you with a current student so you can ask more specific questions to someone in the program!

I got the advice from a tutor that timing is the last thing to focus on -- usually, running out of time on a section means that you don't know the material well enough, so focusing on understanding the questions and noticing patterns over time will likely be more helpful in the long run than trying to get faster for the sake of getting faster.

interested!

Hi! I'm in Los Angeles and am interested!