Yes please add me as well

A piece of advice my tutor gave to me recently and was the reminder I needed was that burnout is more about the amount of LSAT you're inundating yourself with rather than lack of sleep. There is no mind over matter in regards to burnout. If there is, the mind part is about resting your mind and disassociating yourself with the thing causing the matter. Not so much about powering through it.

I feel you. This one made me pause for awhile.

"Cannot" means you negate the comparative. So "cannot be more bad than good" just becomes "more good."

C: Generally, people have more good than bad intentions.

P: If we thought/believed that everyone had more bad than good intentions, then there would be no trust. And if society can survive, then there has to be trust. [Contra: no trust --> no chance for society]

In other words...

if we thought people more often want to screw us over --> no trust --> no chance for society to survive

Therefore, people have more good than bad intentions

Belief/thoughts vs. actual flaw. The flaw is the truth of the transitive chain. What if our thoughts can become a reality?

If your performance is unsatisfactory, you can get fired. But the regulations don't define unsatisfactory performance. So some people can get fired just because they disagree with their supervisors.

Argument assumes that disagreeing with your supervisor can be construed as unsatisfactory performance.

(A) Other disciplinary measures is irrelevant. The argument is about whether disagreeing with your supervisor gets you fired, not about other disciplinary measures.

(B) Strengthens because if it is up to the supervisor to decide what the vaguely written regulations mean, then makes it more relevant that disagreeing with your supervisor will warrant a dismissal. To add, pretty powerful language: "a prerogative that belongs solely to supervisors".

(C) Misread big time. This says vague regulations allow employees to defend themselves. The argument is about what can get you fired, not about whether to it can be used to defend yourself.

(D) Doesn't matter what positions they are kept in. The conclusion is about whether vague regulations can get you fired for unreasonable reasons (e.g. disagreement).

(E) What the employees think is fair is irrelevant. The argument is about whether disagreement can be construed as unsatisfactory performance. Simply, it's about what can get them fired.

Most people think asteroids strike the earth randomly. But one scientist thinks that asteroids struck earth in a highly organized process. Why? The asteroids come together and strike causing a mass dinosaur extinction.

Assumes the halo-like swath of craters/choreographed asteroid strikes is a highly organized process. Keep my eye on the conclusion: highly organized process.

(A) some asteroids can cause specific natural events and cause extinctions. But this does not tell us whether the asteroid strikes themselves were highly organized.

(B) Could be that pummeling the same spot means an organized process. But this is just a hypothetical situation with consequences. It does nothing for the argument's conclusion, that the asteroid strikes were a highly organized process.

(C) so there was one cluster of meteors. But was it a highly organized process?

(D) Nice, a sequence of events (aka a highly organized process). So before an asteroid strikes, there are gravitational interactions that force orbits before impact. So they group up right before hitting the earth and form that halo-like pattern. Strengthens.

(E) Weakens. If there was never another pattern like this one before, then asteroid strikes are more likely to be random.

Sounds great count me in!

Please add me! Thank you

Correlation: stress releases hormone; crying releases hormone

Causal sub-conclusion: Crying causes release of (removes) hormones.

Causal conclusion: Crying causes stress reduction.

The premise gives us a shared effect (release of same hormones) implying a correlation between crying and stress.

From premise to sub-conclusion the jump is releasing the hormones means to remove the hormone.

From sub-conclusion to main conclusion the jump is removing the hormone means reducing the stress.

Assumption:

removing hormone ≠ reducing stress

removing hormones remove stress

E) matches the anticipation but in wordy LSAT language. simply translated: hormone causes stress.

Takes for granted (assumes) that because certain substances are present (hormones) whenever a condition occurs (stress), those substances (hormones) are a cause of that condition (stress).

PT 86 hands down

I was very much in the same place as you for about two years. Once I got the right help from a tutor, my score jumped to 170 average on PTs. Officially scored 166 in August after three scores in the 150s. I’m still working to reach my goal score. But finding the right private tutor/approach and getting my anxiety under control from the start could have saved me those two years and a lot of heartache.

I would try again and apply with your best score. It’s going to take some time to reach it, but it's worth the wait. Don’t waste what you’ve learned by settling. Keep going! You can endure more than you realize. Feel free to DM for anything. I'm happy to help.

I think this is one of my favorite posts I've seen in some time. You're a true queen!

Great quotes!

Bumping this back up!

Absolutely second @. The same exact experience. This test makes you think you need to devote a ton of hours per week to do well. Not the case at all. Always better to go slow and steady and make sure those new neural connections have time to set in. Rest is a huge factor in letting that happen.

For the harder MSS questions, it helps to note if any statements in the stimulus are logically stronger because correct answers will often relate to strong statements.

B is controversial because of the "known" part but as a MSS question type, answer B was the most provable of the five answer choices.

Human health research usually use lab mice in small cages. Not normal and not healthy to be in cages. If animals are in abnormal environment, then research results are less reliable.

Overlapping point is not normal environment. Triggers the sufficient, satisfies the necessary. So can conclude the study will have less reliable results.

Mathematically, easy right answer. Harder to explain wrong answers.

A) futurizing answer. Speculating what will happen in the future when nothing in the stimulus give us what will happen in the future. Don't know anything about technician's motivation. Need relevant definite support.

B) "appropriate" is the wrong word. Even if removed one source of potential reliability, does not mean everything is suddenly fine.

C) right kind of research and draws the conclusion the conditions compromise the research. If the research using the abnormal conditions, makes them less reliable and therefore compromised.

D) speculates about the future like B. All we know is the research is compromised. Don't know if researchers are going to fix it. From all we know these researchers are going to keep doing the wrong thing.

E) makes us assume other kinds of mice research use bigger cages. No basis to assume. Just because you have something true in one case does not mean it is false in other cases.

All gems are certified in writing so all sold at a fair price.

What if the writing is changed by the assessor? Who is doing the writing? Want to make sure Gem World is different from the the other fraudulent stores. An answer that shows a third party vetted it or verified it legitimately will be the correct answer. Got to beef up the writing part.

A) some other stores also certify in writing. So what? We need to strengthen the conclusion, Gem World's writing makes their prices legit and better than the other crooks at other stores.

B) baits you to think experience means credibility or legitimacy. But can we assume that? Nope. They could be experienced crooks with bias to make a sale.

C) better quality diamonds at Gem World. Just because the diamonds are better doesn't mean the prices themselves are fair or accurate. Could be the diamonds are still unfairly priced. Could still inflate prices on nicer diamonds even more. Can't strengthen the idea that the premise (certification writing) supports our conclusion (Gem World's diamonds are sold at fair prices).

D) speaks only about the "most expensive" diamonds. What about all the other diamonds they sell? Can't assume that the most expensive diamonds are like all the other diamonds. The conclusion and premise is about ALL the diamonds Gem World sells. Secondly, this one actually weakens, because if the prices are volatile then it's harder to rely on the written certifications.

E) matches anticipation. If certifications are not written by the assessor with bias to sell, then they don't have the same motive to inflate the price. Gives a little more strength that the prices are fair.

Flavius discouraged the arts by taking away funding. He was unpopular with his subjects because there were a lot of satirical plays about him during his administration.

Sampling/Part to whole issue: Just because the plays were anti-Flavius doesn’t mean the society was.

Equivocation: Assuming that satirical plays means unpopular. What if the plays are indicative of popularity? Pop culture likes to make parodies of famous people who are popular like RBG.

(A) possibly a small percentage of Flavius plays. Does not affect the argument's reasoning.

(B) tackles both flaws. Unrepresentative sample and equivocates plays to indicate popularity.

(C) not assuming this. They actually say this. Assuming is by definition “without evidence”.

(D) assuming he succeeded in his discouragement? No.

(E) doesn’t matter how widely regarded it was. This is trying to explain “why” he was unpopular. But the argument is solely about whether or not the number of plays indicate his popularity with the rest of society.

Just charge ahead. Don't allow yourself to remain disappointed for too long! Re-evaluate and start again.

Congratulations!

Don’t need to master fire to migrate because controlled fire was used 400K years ago.

The argument assumes people migrated without fire before 400K years ago.

Mayor said paid for all the presented bills so he did not take bribes.

What if some were bills given to consultant?

What if the mayor didn’t get all the bills?

B) exposes the subset of bills precisely.

Infants can’t breathe few weeks after being born so they breathe through thin skin while in the mother’s pouch. They are unlike other warm-blooded animals that need thick skin to maintain temperature and reduce water loss.

Anticipation: They’re unique, therefore they do not have thick skin to stay warm and reduce water loss. What keeps the marsupials warm and reduce water loss? The mom's pouch? Some other genetic trait?

A) respiratory muscles develop a few days after being born. We know that they have trouble breathing a few weeks after. Irrelevant and super tangential to solving the paradox.

B) higher temperature than “some” other animals. They’re relative temperature to other mammals doesn’t explain what keeps them warm and reduce water loss.

C) wrong subject. we're talking about baby dunnarts

D) supplies the mechanism that keeps their temperature and reduce water loss

E) weak answer. Some dunnarts. Needs to speak for all infant dunnarts. High temp and dry climate is ambiguous when placed in context. What if high isn’t high enough to maintain body temp? What if dry climate isn’t enough to reduce its water loss?

The key here is that there is a limit. X is below the limit. Y is even lower than X. So the Y must be below the limit too.

this question might help illustrate: 34.3.19