I heard two AdComs advise against this somewhere. I am pretty sure it was the Personal Statement episode from the "Navigating Law School Admissions" podcast. I would check it out.

I really appreciate the guidance it offers and have used it to inform my studying. However, it is confusing. There are types of questions listed that are not discussed anywhere in the curriculum and seem to encompasses multiple types of questions (example: Value Judgement). Also, the priority value seems slightly ambiguous when we don't know the math that goes into calculating the number. It is hard to determine the significance of a value when we do not know the possible range.

The three most common structural patterns they described were the following:

Debate: Competing hypotheses, phenom 1, phenom 2, and resolution

Old Hypo: Old hypothesis, background knowledge, phenom, current thoughts

Alternative Hypo: Hypothesis, conflicting phenom, alternative hypo, resolution

This question rocked my world but after 3+ minutes in blind review, I got the correct answer somehow. Don't ask me how I did it, I just did it, it was hard.

I think that we are falling for a trap by thinking that a decrease in traffic congestion is necessary for profit increases. Is this not a necessity?

I made the same error. However, I think the "will guarantee" relationship earlier in the chain basically supersedes the later "unless" part of the chain. I am still fuzzy on the logic so I would love further discussion.

We had the same idea.... I opened a chat about this and yes it is recommended for LR.