I have (I wouldn't say crippling) horrible anxiety for 6 years as well as being tested for ADHD right now and have other health stuff. I just quit during a PT cause I was getting so frazzled and want to cry. My diagnostic was May 2 and I haven't even finished the core curriculum. My diagnostic was a 148 (I was impressed), did another first week of studying = 148, then I got a 142 and 145 after doing a lot more studying. [all of my tests I haven't guessed if I don't know an answer - I just leave it blank to see how many I'm actually getting write - but I also don't get to all of the questions - I can't answer the last passage and usually miss 3-5 LR] I feel like I'm watching law school slip through my fingers. If I don't study one day or only do a couple hours I feel guilty and am hard on myself for not being productive. I was working FT and went to PT to study and it is not paying off. I'm writing Oct 1 and 2.5 months is not enough - I don't neeedddd a 170 but I need to be able to get in and I really don't want to go to a law school outside of my city because of cost of living. Every day I get more anxious because I am not seeing any increase. I can't afford a tutor.
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
i got beat up
my original notes were @ this rate of TMD = no effect
80% don't eat - the other 20% eat avg or some eat more than avg
prephrase - onus is not on the consumer or if there is any risk dont use TMD
A - sure data could always become available and change our stance but thats not what I'm concerned with right now - read data and moved on
B - majority doesn't apply here because 80% are unlikely to ingest given the facts
C - I thought this was LSAT writers knowing our common sense / opinion - I didn't like the only and any words but I kept it
D- did not like the narrow scope of children
E- I didnt like how this was stated nor how it said serious harm when we dont know the extent - its common sense or moral to state this but we dont know if the disproproportionate consumtion causes serious harm or just a belly ache
then I returned to C because I dont want to let only statements trip me up and cross it out immediately
I didn't choose A but now I look at is as the strengthen answers that block or deny alternative hypotheses - we need A to allow the conclusion to be drawn because devil's advocate could say there are other reasons those should have been left alone.
Ok I'm getting frustrated. On WSE I thought I learned something in one lesson, went to the next and applied it and got it wrong but what I would've chosen without it was right. This time w PSA I chose the wrong answer last lesson and realized I chose one that had no conditional language. I had B chosen for over 30 seconds here then went to check the answers again and said oh wait no there’s no if then rendition but had more issues with the other questions then I chose A because I liked it except for the word ONLY and it was freaking B the whole time. I wonder how many times on the PT I am changing my answer from the first pass correct one. I'm trying to lean into the "they give you the right answer - there’s 4 wrong ones - identify why they’re wrong” mentality and it is not helping because I second guess every question based on what I'm learning and what I've got wrong before.
I had C chosen for most of my time then I tried applying C and thought that someone would have had to be apologized to before the physician - I crossed it off. I was caught up on the end of C because it only made sense to me in the application of the counselor NOT the physician. But I'm realizing the rule doesn’t have to be universal or widely accepted. It could be just the counselors rule/perspective. Without that realization I could defend D to my grave (that shows how well I’m doing studying). E is attractive but in the negative
hunny this lesson didnt make the question make any more sense. i would happily guess and move on on test day
I'm trying to lean into finding the right answer and moving on because my biggest challenge for the test is time - getting to all of the questions - now when I chose C I was reluctant to "move on" without reading D and E - will there be an answer that strengthens but one that does it more like in our MSS questions? or here is it one that strengthens and the others weaken or are irrelevant and thats where I find the comfort in moving on after one AC strengthens
if the stimulus uses most and the answer choice doesnt use most can I cross it out?
I was really happy with the way I went about this question in my mind - as I read the answers I wasnt really paying attention to their specifics - I was inputting 10c or 15c and if it was backwards or negated or completely irrelevant (adding in new info/perspectives) I moved on ... if you could visualize it in this sense maybe that will help! I don't know if I'll be able to do this with every question but it helped here
for the shallow dip strategy - im checking the situation/domain, looking for the rule application/fact premise(s) in the same succession - not flipping negative/positive statements, checking for any handcuffing - happening outside of a vacuum
Am I missing any other SHALLOW points?
This is general to the whole LSAT but why can't the online test have a text box for us to take notes instead of having just paper pencil
I know I will regret jinxing this but I think AP questions are gonna be my u know what - (we're only the second you try in and I'm getting cocky)
support for Ginsburg resurgence in documentation and spread of tradition
against Weiner - videography and production is in same values of traditions
is there a sense of admiration or uplifting this visual anthropologist???
this goes further than Ginsburg to prove their beliefs in a culture
Weiner's opponents: CONTEND Weiner's views go against a nostalgia of the idea of the noble savage.
Other side of divide (Faye Ginsburg group) CONCEDE NO western object entered cultural circulation since 15th cent has been neutral - so excuse? but its a bit more than boilerplate (?) technological determinism (the ontology in prior para?) that using a cam makes it western.
Unlike Weiner, Ginsburg maintains non-western/indigenous ppls use western media WITHOUT adopting conventions - stay true to culture.
they think these films can be used for resurgence.
one group of the divide (James Weiner group) sees proliferation (don't know what this word is without a dictionary so let's move on) something about video and television is the final result of Western values on Indigenous culture - so is this the imputation of Western life = colonization?
Weiner argues video is a devaluation - decrease value- of the different (of the Indigenous? do devalue them) why? resulting in replacing a genuine historical, linguistic, social, cultural difference and difference of images the difference of Indigenous life and Western and difference in portrayal to reality.
Weiner believes vid techniques push a Western ontology - isnt ideology but let's go w the word ontology whatever that is... something based on realism, immediacy, and self-expression.... so the videographers think they're doing something good like a documentary?
So Weiner concludes that these vids take away the Indigenous culture being filmed.
Maintains that anthropologists attribute a paramount truth value to these films (over Indigenous reality?) because they are made by Indigenous people (not really they are just ON Indigenous people) are theoretically naive (because they don't know as much as a visual anthropologist? says who? because they might use inexpensive camera equipment or be oppressed? ok not convincing.
Decades trying to get rid of (unself-conscious) colonial gaze (factor) in early ethnographic (studying something for a length of time) films, visual anthropologists (the people making ethnographic films?) from the industrialized West (specifically) who study Indigenous cultures are struggling RIGHT NOW with a more profound transformation than trying to eliminate the colonial gaze in early ethnographic films... so visual anthropologists aren't who make those films? we're just saying there are people doing something harder?
Indigenous people now documenting themselves instead of settlers filming them. Why? inexpensive camera equipment! but don't get so excited. this phenomenon has a divided reaction from western anthropologists. Prediction? the Emma (me) group that think this is great to not be filmed like guinea pigs or capitalize on adversities and the others who want to continue capitlizing OR if they think they hav an eye and are better at documenting.
this is how I was reading this - only way to keep me from falling asleep was putting commentary on what i was reading and making my studying take wayyyyy longer.
WHY DO I CHANGE MY ANSWER