I believe all the questions in the Question Bank, including the newest 620, are licensed, real questions released by the NCBE (OPE refers to "Online Practice Exam," which are actual NCBE products).

I think the "[t]hey closely reflect the style of the MBE" just means that these newer questions, compared to the older ones, are probably a more accurate reflection of what the MBE is like now. In other words, on the actual exam, you're more likely to see a question similar to one of the newer ones, compared to an old question from 1995 or something.

(But someone with more knowledge can obviously correct me if I'm totally wrong)

The stimulus says that "deep carbon deposits" date back to the formation of the earth, not necessarily that petroleum does. The other scientists are saying that petroleum formed from the carbon deposits, but they don't specify when it formed. It's possible that the petroleum formed later when other living organisms had emerged.

(B) seems to be consistent with the other scientists' view, but I don't think it adds much to the scientist's argument.

The issue is that (D) poses a hypothetical that we can't answer given the information in the stimulus.

Yes, we know that the chairperson didn't consult anyone else. In (A) the question to ask is: "Did they give consent?" The necessary condition fails this.

By contrast, (D) is forcing us to ask: "What would have happened if the members had been consulted? Would they have said yes or no (or whatever)?"

Well, we know they weren't consulted, but that doesn't automatically entail failing the necessary condition because we still have to try to answer the question posed. Think about what (D) is really saying. You can't answer, "no, because they weren't consulted," because that's not what's being asked.

There's a distinct difference between what happened/what we know (members weren't consulted) and what would have happened had the members been asked their opinion, which is what (D) is asking us to consider in order to fail the necessary condition.

I think it's precisely because the language is too strong, which tends to be a red flag on the LSAT. Also, (E) specifically talks about "events," whereas the passage doesn't really make reference to the events the two groups studied. Maybe it's possible that they both focused on the American Civil War, but had different approaches or interpretations of it.

Instead, the passage discusses the different ideas/approaches to history the two groups had, which is rather different than actual events.

Just went grey...

Just watched one final JY video tonight to pick my brain up a bit (I've just done very light studying this week), but I think I'm set. I'm going to watch an episode of Peaky Blinders now and head to bed.

I'm just crossing my fingers and hoping that all my 20 pencils won't break tomorrow! Good luck everyone!!

lol. Thanks for the tips! I'll just put everything in my plastic bag and hope for the best

I think part of the issue with (B) is that it's saying something that isn't part of the stimulus.

(B) says "safety features that fail to reduce the number of injuries." If you check out the stimulus, we're not told if the marked crosswalks reduced the number of accidents or not. We're just too that more injuries occur at marked crosswalks than at non-marked crosswalks.

It never says that the safety features failed to reduce the number of injuries, only that they have more injuries compared to cross-walks without those non-marked, safety features.

It's possible that the marked crosswalks reduced some injuries that wouldn't have happened otherwise, but the author is taking issue with the fact that overall, these "safer" crosswalks still have more injuries than the unmarked ones.

@ngir1293288 I bubble after each question I complete. I think it would be more confusing, error-prone and time-consuming to bubble in after ever page or every few problems.

Thanks @coreyjanson479.janson35! That definitely makes sense. That's probably the main reason I initially eliminated B & C.

I'm pretty sure JY's video and the LSAT Hacks explanation stated that it was the influential people who opposed the bill and they provided other (equally good, I think) explanations for eliminating B & C. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't completely off base for having that additional reason for thinking those answer choices are wrong.

In addition to the wording (competitor’s advertising campaign), I had another issue with (A). All we are told in the conclusion is that the ad campaign was “ill-conceived.”

This strikes me as different than the conclusion in Question 13 of this same section, which states that “putting more people in prison cannot help to reduce crime.” In that answer choice (B), we see that the greater rate of imprisonment could have led to a reduction of crime (compared to if there wasn’t a greater rate of imprisonment.)

I think the issue with (A) is that the conclusion doesn’t say something like “Therefore, the ad led to these worse sales figures.” In that case, you could say “actually, the sales would have been lower without the campaign, so it didn’t lead to worse sales (it actually helped).”

Instead, we have that the ad campaign was “ill conceived.” I don’t think (A) is as effective in this case. “Actually, sales would have been even lower without the ad campaign.” I could imagine the marketing consultant saying, “So? Even if it’s the case, sales figures are still low and new products are selling poorly. The ad might have contributed to some sales and things might be worse without it. However, I still think it’s ill-conceived since sales figures are poor and new products selling poorly.” In other worse, the ad didn’t really help much, did it? An ad that only helps a little can still said to be ill-conceived.

However, (B) is saying that the poor sales might be attributable to an economic downturn. Marketing consultant: “Sales are low and the new products aren’t selling, therefore the ad campaign is ill-conceived.” With (B), someone could say, “Actually, the poor sales are the result of recession, the ad doesn’t have much to do with it.”

What’s the author’s support for saying that the ad campaign was ill-conceived? The low sales and new products selling poorly. Introducing economic factors greatly weakens that premise. If the poor sales can be attributed to economic factors (not the ad), then what support does the author have for saying the campaign was ill-conceived? At that point, he doesn’t really have anything.

"Is it this additional required link that makes D wrong because we are forced to assume what would have happened had they been consulted, but in reality we do not know since they were not consulted?"

This is pretty much why D is wrong.

Conclusion: If chairperson did not consult a single person, then chairperson should not have released the report.

(A) If permissible to release report, then most other members gave consent. This necessary condition was NOT met. We are told that NO ONE was consulted, therefore, NO ONE gave their consent. So, it was not permissible to release the report. I think it’s a fair assumption to make (you can’t give consent if you’re not consulted). JY has a good explanation on this starting at 2:39.

(D) If chairperson justified in releasing report, then each member would have agreed to its being released had they been consulted. I think the focus on why this is wrong isn’t necessarily the word “justified,” but rather because we don’t know if the necessary condition was met or failed. If members would not have agreed had they been consulted, then chairperson not justified in releasing. However, unlike in (A), we don’t know if the members would have agreed or not because that’s not something that’s addressed in the premise.

(A) Did most other members give their consent? No, because we are told they weren’t consulted (can’t give consent if you’re not asked)

(D) Would each other member have agreed to report being released had they been consulted? We don’t know and can’t say yes or no because they weren’t consulted.

"In other words, the only thing we are sure of is that D strengthens the argument." I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. As you mentioned in your first sentence, "It’s true that option D could be harmful to the environment in that it would make people buy products they wouldn’t buy in the first place." I think that's one of the key points of why D is incorrect and does not necessarily strengthen the argument.

Yes, there might not as much environmental damage (compared to just sending out ads indiscriminately to everyone), but as JY says in paintball example, ads could still be sent out to people who would not buy them otherwise.

"Because of D, companies actually target the advertisements and waste less paper than in a scenario where they just send it out carelessly to everyone." This is true, but the fact remains that there is still more garbage resulting from these ads than if they didn't exist at all. So while targeted mail-ads can be better than indiscriminately sent mail-ads, are they really better for the environment than no mail-ads? You could argue that they are IF the ads are for products those people were going to purchase anyways (answer B).

I actually got this question wrong, so I understand that it's a bit confusing. But it's probably best to stay away from answer choices like D that can either strengthen or weaken the argument, depending on how you look at it.

Thanks for the tips!

@fabiolavega2234 Drilling old LGs has definitely helped me with all of the PTs I've taken so far.

@nathanberlashulock805 I actually signed up a few months ago through their website (on the free events page), but I just checked and saw that the proctored exams aren't listed there anymore. My guess is that they remove the listings as soon as a lot of people sign up and the event becomes full.

I know they're offering one this Saturday in NYC, W. 25th St., at 1:30pm, and I *think* they're also offering one on Sunday at the same time. You might try emailing them to see if they still have room.

That said, I've never seen anyone check in, so I think you'd be ok if you show up without signing up online. I've always just walked in the times I've gone. There are always empty seats too (not everyone who signs up always shows up), though it might be a bit more crowded this weekend since it's a week before the actual exam.

This also happens to me, and with a recent PT as well...I missed 8 in the first LR section (including a few very easy ones that I misread/misunderstood at first and quickly caught in BR). In the second LR section I only missed 3, and they were among the most difficult in the section.

I would agree with Alexandra, but I tend to be more alert in the first LR section. However, I also realize that I'm lot more nervous as well, so perhaps I over think things and second guess myself too often.

I always insert a fifth section from another exam at the beginning of my PTs, so my brain is pretty tired by the second LR section. I rely on eliminating wrong answers and usually get it down to two and when I pick the correct one it's often because it "felt" right (I don't have the time or mental energy to over think things at this point).

If I'm having trouble with a passage, even after re-reading it, I jump to the "easy" questions and try to knock those out of the way. Even if I didn't understand the specifics, I tend to have an idea of the main point (it sounds counter-intuitive, but I can usually eliminate wrong answer choices in main point questions pretty quickly...too specific; completely opposite of what the passage is about; etc), so I answer that usual first question.

Then, I look for questions referring to specific lines (what does "blank" mean in line 16; how does the author use "blank" etc). I also avoid any obviously long questions with equally long answers, and go to those only at the end if I have spare time.

I find that answering these "easier" questions can help me grasp the passage a lot more clearly. I then jump to the harder questions (usually the inference ones for me) and through a combination of quickly of re-reading any relevant points and sheer intuition, I knock out wrong answers and make my best educated guess for the correct one.

@974 I hadn't seen your comment before I posted, but I see that some of my strategies aren't too different from yours.

@geniguez205 I know you have the option to withdraw your registration by midnight the day before the exam (so June 7 at 11:59 pm; no refund) if you decide you're not ready to take it.

If you decide to take it and aren't feeling confident about your performance, you have the option of cancelling your score on the answer sheet during the exam. After the exam, you can request a cancellation by submitting a form to the LSAC (they have to receive it within six days of the exam).

Keep in mind that law schools won't know if you decide to withdraw the night before (at least I'm pretty sure this is the case), but they will know if you decide to cancel a score.

Manhattan LSAT offers free, in-person proctored exams in NYC, even if you're not enrolled in any of their courses. I know they're offering sittings every weekend leading up to June, but I'm not sure what the schedule will be like leading up to October. They usually have two exams you can choose from, or you can bring your own (they also provide an experimental section if you forget it).