During your break, refuel with caffeine, nuts, whatever keeps you going. Happened to me till I did that.
Congrats! how'd ya do it? hehe. or more importantly, what was the timeframe?
Current student in Philly planning on taking the August LSAT, practice test-ing in the 155-160 range looking to get up to 170+ range. Let me know if you're interested, and also preferred method of communication. Thanks :)
Yes! I am also in Philly also studying for the LSAT. PT-ing in the same range - WhatsApp works best for me.
Hi, I'm planning on taking the August LSAT and was looking for any potential advice for trying to close the gap to 170+ by then. Generally, I take practice tests 2-3 times a week, review with the 7sage explanation videos, handwrite the wrong answer journal, and typically take one or two days off every now and then to avoid burnout. Thas been my general strategy - was looking for any insight about whether it might make more sense to drill as opposed to PT, do one a day or something. Thank you!
Just negate each answer and see it it destroys the argument.
Definitely interested as well, currently pt'ing at around 160 and also studying for August. Let me know if there's a chat!
Definitely interested, currently pt'ing around 160 and studying for the August exam. Lmk if there's a chat or something!
Hey everyone! Looking to form a study group for the August LSAT, so focusing mainly on LR/RC. Planning on doing practice tests/sections, reviewing wrong questions, etc. Currently practice testing at around 157-160, goal is 165-170+. Let me know if you're interested!
Conclusion: A recent property development has not affected a wildlife area's wildlife.
Support: a survey just conducted compared to a decade ago shows that there is more wildlife in the area.
What choice must strengthens?
A: the more recent survey, even though both surveyed the same species, found more of each species. Good job! We strengthened the argument, and threw out a potential counterargument that it was simply due to one specie skyrocketing.
General argument structure:
A --> B --> (X or Y)
Thus, /X --> (Y or /A)
A fits this perfectly, with the negations are built in and that is what A/ builds off of.
I chose B just because I ran out of time, but the problem with that answer is that it has A --> B, but then goes (X or Y) --> B, which is not the same answer.
Map:
2 or more overdue books / overdue books not children's books / fined previously --> should be fined.
Answer choice A: 2 or more overdue books (good) / some of the books are not children's books (but does not tell us anything about whether these are the overdue ones, could be that he has ten books and the overdue ones are children's books, not specific enough - BAD)/previously fined (good). A is not the right answer.
Answer choice B: 2 or more overdue books (good) / overdue book(s) not children's books (good, given that one of the overdue books is specifically an adult novel as the answer states)/previously fined (good). B is the right answer.
Chose A, overlooked the fact it does not tell us whether the children's books are overdue.
Argument: prolonged exposure to sulfur fumes permanently damages one's sense of smell. Sulfur workers could identify only 10% of the smells smells, whereas the control group identified 50%.
The central assumption: if the study proved that the workers exposed to sulfur were worse at identifying the smell, then their sense of smell must have been damaged by exposure to the chemical.
Answer A does nothing to weaken the connection of the result to the conclusion, or attack the differentiation in any way: it simply states that the chemicals in the study were close to (but not perfectly) modeling the scent of the natural scents. That does not attack the differentiation between the two specifically, and affects them both equally.
A - "Possible" can refer to just one instance, no matter the size. Also not sure if she is referring to her family/friends or others, which is what tripped me up. Would not matter anyway.
B - correct answer because she does not address highly plausible alternative hypotheses, including that just because they know each other so well. Simply talks about one explanation and deems it as the reason for the possibility.
Successful economy --> flourishing national scientific community (the necessary condition) --> excited young people --> good communication
successful economy --> good communication
/good communication --> /successful economy
C fits this perfectly.
I chose A initially because I thought it connected the communication to the excitement. However, I didn't realize it just mentioned communication, not good communication.
Premise 1: some theorists say that literary critics should try to be value neutral.
Premise 2: literary criticism cannot be value-neutral.
--
Conclusion: some theorists are mistaken when they say LC should strive to be value neutral (the appropriate goal).
My problem with this question is that I didn't understand appropriate goal meant should not even try.
Funnily, I got tripped up on this one because I didn't understand from the prompt that the telephone numbers indicated a specific "order." I chose B, but it is too generic.
DeMorgan's Rule in this instance:
If students are taught with appropriate style AND devote significant time --> mastery of the curriculum
Negate this -- becomes If no mastery is obtained --> then not being taught with appropriate style OR not devoting significant time
Conclusion - if no mastery is obtained --> then not being taught with appropriate method
What we need to make the argument valid: if not devoting significant time --> not being taught with appropriate methods
Contrapositive: being taught with appropriate methods --> will devote significant time --> answer choice: A
Question: The company president states that the company subcontracts their products to other companies, but only ones that maintain complete control over the products they supply. Subcontracting means you lose some of the control over the quality of the original product. What can be inferred?
A: makes the most sense. If the company that they subcontract to were to subcontract it further, they would lose even more control over the quality of the product. However the president says that they only subcontract to those who maintain complete control over the products. Thus, by not allowing further subcontracting, the company president ensures that the subcontractor does maintain complete control.
E: which I chose. Does not talk about the difference between in house compared to others that they subcontract. Simply talks maintaining control to companies they subcontract to.
Question: claims that a blanket can relieve arthritic pain in dogs. Studies were conducted and showed it can be effective in humans in relieving pain. Dogs and humans have the same physiologies, and it would be brought in the same proximity for dogs' joints as for humans. What most strengthens the argument?
E: at least it shows it was a controlled study, and that a placebo did not have the same effect. Thus, lends some credibility to the strength of the original experiment. Correct answer.
B, which I chose: magnets are capable of strengthening the transmission of signals from nerve cells to the brain. So maybe people feel more pain - so what? That does not strengthen the argument in itself, as it does not address anything about the original experiment or the connection between dogs and humans.
this is definitely not a level three lol