I took it without the spell check and just made sure to be really careful when checking it. Just take it.

Thank you so much! I will definitely try your tips!

Hi guys! A little update... I'm trying to make the jump from 167 to 170. My BR score right now is 177. I missed 16 on PT 68 and missed 18 on 71. What is your advise? I'm planning to take the LSAT this November. I'm aiming for the top 14, so I don't know if 167 would still be a decent score. I really do want to break into the 170s if possible though. I'm studying full time so please give me your tips

PT68 S1 2019-10-30 1 week ago RC -4 -3

PT68 S2 2019-10-30 1 week ago LR -4 -1

PT68 S3 2019-10-30 1 week ago LR -5 -1

PT68 S4 2019-10-30 1 week ago LG -3 -1

PT71 S1 2019-11-07 6 mins ago LR -5 -3

PT71 S2 2019-11-07 6 mins ago LG -1 -0

PT71 S3 2019-11-07 6 mins ago LR -6 -2

PT71 S4 2019-11-07 6 mins ago RC -6 -1

leads to the conclusion...MSS. if there was already a conclusion in the stimulus, then it would be Main Point.

In main point..the conclusion is in the stimulus and it's just rephrased in the answer choices.

In MSS, the conclusion is in the answer choices and you have the premises in the stimulus

Yeah I was confused when setting it up and got it through eliminating as well. After watching the video, I was able to understand it a little bit more clearly. With questions like this, I like to just write them down in my notebook to review and just write the explanations out too. It helps to see where you're messing up and see the patterns!

There is a video that has all the different question stem types and a PDF too. If not, I know there are some in the discussion boards. I'll try to find it for you if I can!

That the author was similar and sharing the same thoughts as people in that time.

C is the better answer compared to D because we are making less assumptions in that. With D, we are having to assume that MOST of the problems are from politicians. What if most problems are from doctors and only like 1 percent is from politicians? I think the main reason that D is eliminated is because the language is way too strong.

I don't think so. I think its best to diagram as JY is because it helps to understand his methods for the future questions too.

NA. Necessary assumption. Key words for NA is relies on, depends on, is necessary

We are trying to weaken this argument so by saying handling charge is super high, we are able to be like well see it is in their interest to make such an offer. We are trying to add shade to why is the company giving this offer? Because they will get MONEY from a different way.

With D, tt's saying the same thing as you wrote...that it ignores the fact that an action is unlikely to produce societal benefit unless the action is motivated by a desire to produce societal benefit. Take the contrapositive. If you are motivated by a desire to produce societal benefit, only then you will produce societal benefit.

Does that make sense? I feel like it just clicked for me because the whole argument is saying oh we need to really care about doing this to actually be able to do it. So what? I don't care, but I can still successfully pull it off.

It isn't the main conclusion because it links up to provide support. Try to ask yourself why for each sentence. If a certain sentence answers that why...then it is probably a premise and then it all adds up to the conclusion .

Same! It can be helpful to just use normal English with NA questions. Have you tried the negating technique? Sometimes, I feel like that helps me to realize which ones are truly necessary or not. Watch the video if you haven't tried that yet.

Necessary Assumption!

Avoiding future pain does not necessarily mean that you're going to gain pleasure. We don't know anything about avoiding future pain from the stimulus. We are told that if you're scared to do something and you still do it, only then you are courageous which is what D is saying

I thought B was the correct answer because we are trying to say that PIE didn't necessarily have to live in a cold climate isolated from ocean. The argument is saying they did, but we are trying to weaken that by saying WAIIIITTT we don't really know that. By introducing B, we are saying but there's also like French or whatever that doesn't have some words for things that may be prominent elements. Just because there isn't a word doesn't mean that it isn't prominent. It's basically trying to make that connection by adding doubt that wait if there's other languages who might be missing some words for prominent things, then maybe PIE is just missing the word.

We're trying to convince people to not avoid these foods. The argument is to avoid the food, but we are saying no no it's fine to not avoid them in order to weaken the argument. With D, it's saying that it doesn't really matter because natural chemicals would be way more than the ones in the irradiated ones. It's actually better then. Does that make sense? Let me know if the explanation was confusing.

Hey! The way I thought of this was that the native oysters which are the endangered ones aren't increasing. The issue is that we did once have TBT which did make the numbers decrease. But now we don't even have the TBT, so why aren't the numbers increasing now? The only explanation that made sense to me was C. The numbers aren't growing because there are OTHER oysters that are in competition with the original native ones and are killing them essentially in order to survive. I'm sorry if that was confusing, but I hope it helped a little bit.

I don't know of any, but what I did was basically copy the grammar PDF that was given, but write that out myself. I find that I learn best by writing stuff and then just having it on my study table to look over everyday.

I think it could be helpful if you had real questions to ask them. You can always call them and speak to someone. They usually do get your information and may even offer you a fee waiver!

I think that's a great idea if you think he will write an amazing letter. Probably sit and talk with him about what your goals are and what you think he specifically can speak to that others cannot about you. I did have a supervisor from my internship write a letter for me and I think she saw a different side of me rather than just professors in a classroom setting.

Hey! I completely understand your frustration and confusion. What I recommend is taking timed sections of tests and then BR-ing the test thoroughly. I've been able to increase my score greatly in logical reasoning by doing that. Also, use the analytics tool to see what areas you may be weaker in and then drill those certain question types. I feel like after you see questions for so long and write the explanations out, it finally starts to click. Take a break and don't feel guilty either! Try to just do at least one timed section with thorough BR/watch videos :)