Never did this but it sounds like a cool idea. Do all the Passage A only questions before your memory get's contaminated with Passage B. And since a single passage is so short, the odds of getting all the Passage A questions right are in your favour. I'd consider that. In fact, Imma do that from now on.

I limited the answer to A and E. But ended up choosing E (more white glass were made than were Han Purple) because this would mean that white glass wasn't discovered fortuitously during the making of Han Purple.

LOL a lot of the times it's only after-the-fact that the right answer starts making sense

I'm crossing my fingers on that experimental being a LG for Oct. Wish us luck

@.janson35 yes I think so too. But since OP successfully induced my paranoia, Imma try to figure this out.

All because = solely because. Sounds like sufficient condition to me. The presentation, however, can be made more clear. I.E. All because of you the war is lost => All because you failed the war is lost.

If you fail => war is lost. Yup sufficient condition

I started practicing timed right from the start to get a feel of how much time I have + not developing bad habits of drooling over questions. In your case dude I think you might be better off postponing the exam and do time management from the very beginning. Missing 5 questions per section isn't that big of a deal. -20 can land you in the mid 160s, which compared to 140 is a terrific score (especially considering the fact that you only get near 170 with untimed exams). If you can make sure that every question you DO get to you get right, then it could be a strategy.

In regards to that lawyer who said you don't need to study for the LSAT, if a third tier law school is your ultimate goal then by all means don't study. You CAN get into law school with a 150. But for 7sagers I think the real question is WHICH school.

LG got easier and LRs got trickier. RC stayed RC. That's my take.

Btw taking the 72nd tomorrow. I'll come back and comment after I'm done.

@ Oh my dear 7sage brotherenth, I have envy and respect pouring out of my nostrils for you right now

@ That's how you measure the difficulty of an item in metrics, the percentage of people who get it right vs. the percentage of people who get it wrong. But you're right I'm banking on 7sagers being a reliable sample though

Also answer D is reverse logic.

Agriculture requires knowledge of natural processes. True.

If Agriculture --> SNP

But having SNP alone does not necessitate agriculture. So it's logically incorrect to say that non-agriculture societies didn't study natural processes.

17. People cannot devote themselves to the study of natural processes unless they have leisure, and people have leisure when resources are plentiful, not when resources are scarce. Although some anthropologists claim that agriculture, the cultivation of crops, actually began under conditions of drought and hunger, the early societies that domesticated plants must first have discovered how the plants they cultivated reproduced themselves and grew to maturity. These complex discoveries were the result of the active study of natural processes.

P1: People devote SNP (study natural processes) --> leisure

P2: Leisure -> Plentiful

P3: third sentence

C1: Early societies conducted SNP

(Therefore: Early societies had resources)

A) reversal of P1/P2 formal logic. Wrong

B) out of scope (although sort of an assumption too)

C) Fits the hidden conclusion (after "therefore"), but uses "agricultures first began". Let's wait and see.

D) Out of scope. The passage mentions neither non-agricultural nor natural sciences (it says natural processes)

E) Could, yes. But irrelevant to the stem.

So yeah this is a hard question. The correct answer C is worded in a way that resembles wrong answer choices (interchange terms early societies and societies in which agriculture first began). But process of elimination says it's correct.

Don't worry brah these wording styles rarely appear in later PTs. Honestly just jump to PT 35 and start from there instead.

pass-me-downs from upperclassmen. Didn't spend a dime. But now i gotta go find PT 74 and 75

Not sure about other stuff, but in the 60+ PTs a major change from previous ones is that the 2 LR sections are no longer the same difficulty as each other. Before, especially in the 40s I found that each LR section in one PT is independent of a difficulty of...say X. This is supported by the number of five-star questions in each section, which is the only thing that matters because those are the questions that sink the most time.

In the newer PTs one LR is difficulty Z and the other one is Y, and they even out to be an X. However, the result of this subtle change is that the time management skills we've established using 60 or so tests for difficulty X is now moot. That took a lot of getting use to. Furthermore in more cases than not the harder section is the later section, so you really gotta build up that stamina to do it well.

I was doing one a day (weekends off so 5 per week) for many weeks and it increases both your score and endurance. That is for sure. You start to get a feel for the questions and the trend. Especially for LR I found that at the end of the week I was so familiar with the question structures I can KNOW what the test makers are looking for. High-intensity repeated exposure is useful in that sense.

That being said though I do not recommend this method because it will most definitely lead to burnout. If you have a lot of time to recover you "might" like to test it out for an extra boost. But you have been warned. Just...for the sake of your neurons please, don't force it if you find it too much.

AHH an MSS question. Those always get me. Lets figure this beech out.

Scientist examined diamonds that were formed on Earth about 2.9 billion years ago. These diamonds had a higher-than-normal concentration of sulfur-33. This concentration can be explained only by certain chemical reactions that are stimulated by ultraviolet light. If there had been more than a trace of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere 2.9 billion years ago, then not enough ultraviolet light would have reached Earth's surface to stimulate in chemical reactions.

So:

If higher-than-normal S33 ---> chemical reaction UV

If more than a trace of oxygen --> ~chemical reaction UV

From this we can infer that if more an a trace of oxygen is present, the there cannot be a higher than normal S33.

Therefore: the correct answer should be somewhere along the lines of that there isn't more than a trace of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere 2.9 billion years ago.

A) is not correct. We don't care about "most diamonds", we only care about "these diamonds" that are relevant to the stimulus.

B) Restates premise 1

C) Feels like the correct answer to me

D) Out of scope? I mean the stimulus gives us nothing about what happens before or after 2.9 billion years

E) Feels like one of those DAFAQ answer choices. I mean...WHAT?

I actually went back to the answer key and checked this question. The answer is in fact C, not E. Phew, I haven't lost my mind.

@.hopkins had two month to study and only a little over a month to practice actual questions. Figured that's the only way to finish enough preptests. LOL foolish foolish decision. Don't do what I did everyone. DON'T.

I'm in the same boat brah albeit doing a lot worse than you. I was PTing with an average on 171, fluctuating between 170 to 177, and BRing at 177-179. I was doing one PT a day since I started because I was short on time. Last week I had my last PT in the 170s (172), and since then dropped 10 points into the 160s for the 6th PT now. I'm also registered for the October exam and am now scared as fkkk.

People have been telling me that it's probably just burnout and I'm hoping wholeheartedly that I'm gonna recover by test day. Good luck to you mate.

I was doing a PT a day and dropped 10 points. It's been a week and I'm still not back in the 170s. HALP guys

@ is on to something here. This question gets you on a very minute detail but it is there.

The stimulus says that kids who completed the program showed INCREASED performance in everything. Therefore chess playing CAUSES increase in academic performance. Basically; some major paraphrasing here.

B) says that the kids who completed the program were smarter (aka had stronger performance) to begin with. This DOES NOT NEGATE the argument. Even if the kids who completed the program were better students to begin with, it doesn't undermine the fact that playing chess INCREASED their performance EVEN MORE. The premise stays, no assumptions being challenged, conclusion not negated => argument not undermined.

C) however, does undermine the argument because it attacks the causal relationship that is inferred in the stimulus. Remember the techniques to refute a X causes Y, aka X -> Y, argument. Either refute it with Y -> X or Z -> Y. Choice C) uses Z -> Y.

Stimulus says playing chess (X) causes higher grades (Y), X ->Y

C) says the increased academic performance (Y) of the children who completed the program is caused by their motivation to join the chess club that requires high GPA (Z), hence Z -> Y; argument is undermined.

I got that question wrong too but dude your level of overthinking is insane