@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.
For me, studying for the LSAT felt like learning a new sport where they give you all the theoretical knowledge up front but you can't apply it well enough all at once, you have to go one skill at a time until it becomes muscle memory and then you layer on a new skill. The curriculum throws a LOT of new stuff at you, especially if you weren't really thinking about arguments or rhetoric before. It takes time to process and apply the skills in practice so I think being patient and allowing yourself time to understand what the LSAT is asking is key. It took me something like 7 months to finally "get it" but I went through a lot of ups and downs in my scores during that time. What helped me improve is slowing down, doing less questions but deep diving into the ones I got wrong, and then reviewing the fundamentals using different sources (7sage, powerscore, The Loophole).
I tend to retake the entire test during my Blind Review so I'd love to see how long it actually takes me to do a question without time pressure vs. with time pressure. Also, it would be helpful as more of an accountability feature since I tend to spend more time on Blind Review than needed when I should be focusing on dissecting what I got wrong.
How are you reviewing what you missed? I realized that I wasn't improving when I would just speed through the ones I got wrong without deep diving into the explanation. I've found keeping a physical notebook for my wrong answer journal keeps me accountable. I write down explanations in my own words for each answer choice for why it's right/wrong.
@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.