Thanks!

And yes, my initial mistake was thinking that doing more practice tests (PTs) and drills would somehow drill the understanding into me. For me, that approach didn’t work. Changing your strategy might be the key if you’re investing a decent amount of time into studying but not seeing improvements.

One additional point I didn’t mention earlier, for the sake of brevity, is something I learned from 7Sage: RC strategies. Follow the curriculum closely and learn the five passage types they outline (focused on perspective and engagement styles). Practice their method of creating low-resolution summaries, which can help you retain the main ideas without getting bogged down in unnecessary details.

Also, prioritize engaging with the passage as you read, rather than speeding through it. Check back with the rest of the passage every few lines to ensure you’re threading the ideas together cohesively. This method helped me stay connected to the passage and improved my comprehension.

I hope you achieve the score you’re aiming for!

I saw the part to whole flaw and hunted for it but the tricky language tripped me up

Glad to be of help!

Let's excel on this LSAT!

Love to hear it!

Thanks!!

I would like to see one of these for all question types at the end of the curriculum for LR and RC

The page summary feature is amazing!

@kevinlin124 I had the same question.

Will there be a new RC section up in its place?

#help

is the target time listed under the passage referring to the target time of reading the passage or reading the passage and completing its questions?

Proof of emergence may suggest that the drama captures the spirit of the time, but it does not necessarily mean that Aeschylean drama initiated or introduced this emergence. Answer choices A and B bait us to assume that Aeschylean drama is the cause of this emergence. However, D is the correct answer because Barbu is suggesting that Aeschylean drama serves as evidence that the conception of the individual as a free agent already existed.

Hope this helps!

This question was truly challenging

In my opinion, if you have the tools to get it right, even after several minutes, you are in good shape. I would work on consistently getting questions right in BR, making a log of the ones I get wrong during BR, and focusing on those later.

Once you train your mind to deconstruct the stimulus and question description correctly, you should start increasing in speed.

Seems like a great sign

In this question, the correct answer choice was impressively subtle

I've noticed in the past few lessons that the stimulus tends to quickly shift sets. Then, the conclusion speaks on the newer set. While reading, we're baited to assume the same set is being discussed, or perhaps we're so hyper focused we don't notice the subtle shift. In this case, the NA plays on this transition.

In this question, the stimulus discussed a shortage of qualified teachers "in the region." We're told that if the classroom size shrinks, more teachers have to be hired, but the quality of teachers fails when teachers are unqualified. The stimulus basically concludes that smaller size classes would then suffer. This assumes that the unqualified teachers would be hired.

But why not hire teachers from other regions with qualifications?

When I noticed the trend I mentioned above, I told myself to be alert for these slight-of-hand moves in the stimulus. Then, sure enough, I preempted the move and was able to hunt for the correct answer.

I'm sharing this because it's an insight that's been helpful to me.

Hope this helps!

Blind review tests whether you truly have the tools to arrive at the correct answer and clearly understand why the wrong answers are wrong.

If you are second-guessing yourself, it just means you haven't mastered this type of question yet.

I would suggest to keep doing BR. When you get to the point where you can demonstrate why each answer is right or wrong, second-guessing no longer plays a role.

I suggest logging the ones you get wrong in BR and returning to them later in your studies.

It's insane how hard it was to get this right

Only if is not inherently a common trap answer choice. Only if indicates a necessary condition (right side of the arrow). So, when you're looking for a sufficient condition (left side of the arrow) and you see the wording you need, but it's coming after only if, then it's a trap answer.

But don't internalize that only if it indicates a trap answer, only that only if indicates a necessary condition.

Hope this helps

Another flaw in option D is that simply stating that the ichthyosaurus is different from whales does not prove it is different from all deep-diving mammals. To be correct, the answer choice would need to specify that deep-diving animals have other characteristics that the ichthyosaurus does not possess.

B also fails to consider that offering Azedcorp more than they originally paid assumes the price of the shares remained consistent. However, the price could have gone in the other direction. For instance, if Azedcorp's shares increased by 500% since their initial purchase, the offer would be unreasonable. Essentially, B relies on the assumption that the price of the shares has not increased significantly since the initial purchase.

I am having the same issue

Referencing the stimulus alone, we know microglia are "the brain's immune cells." A reasonable assumption is that these cells protect the brain against disease. Alzheimer's patients no longer get protein BA from the brain, so the microglia eliminate the BA. It's implied that protein BA harms the brain, so the immune cells kill it. This ties into the stimulus's hypothesis that the brain's immune cells are causing cognitive decline in Alzheimers patients because when microglia eliminate BA, they release poision causing cognitive impair.