Might just have been me, but very difficult test.

LR,LG,LR,LR,RC

First LR is a blur but am pretty sure it was experimental and threw me off.

LG was countries and the first game had S as the 3rd person not slot which ritually screwed me

LR 2 had dire wolf in tar pits—anyone have this?

LR 3 had fish with teeth and a hard disagree except

RC has computer chips and the stupid hard passage about nonfiction movies? And the comparative was hard as well.

Factor in your GPA (is it at median or higher for target?) and where that puts you, plus the "softs" like URM/work/military/diversity/undergrad rigor. If you have your admissions package together already and are ready to apply, you could hit send on those and ask for schools to wait on your November LSAT as well, to at least get on their radar.

Also, if bombing a section means you'd get 4 points or lower than your 172, then that is a considerable risk, otherwise it isn't. Two cancellations would look worse than now, but say you get a 169 on the November, then you're still in your predicted range of scores (3 up and 3 down) and schools will base admission and scholarship decisions on your 172 (highest on file). Answering those Qs would drive the decision in my less-than-expert opinion.

Do we know if July is actually shown on our reports? I heard either that it isn't due to the digital/paper mix, or at least that schools aren't really paying attention to a July cancellation.

Definitely know what you mean on this. One thing that I felt I did too late was ask for help. I kept my studying confined to me and myself, and learned I couldn't always hold myself accountable nor could I break some bad habits. I took the July LSAT after haphazardly studying for a few months and it didn't pay off for me, which has pushed back when I will submit applications this year. One way to hold myself accountable after the July test was to get a tutor. I know there are tutors on 7Sage that have varying costs, but having a tutor does help as you have someone you are (A) paying (like a gym membership, it is a financial incentive) and (B) will lead to breakthroughs (which spur motivation). Another way, if money is a concern, is to find study partners (will take more work to do this) and get involved in the online community.

I’m right there with you. I’m going to just lightly review over the holidays and put my head down for a week and a half and give it this last shot. What I get is what I get at this point. If you’re like me, I know I’ve left it all out there and it’s just a test. I can prove myself in school. Hopefully you are applying to safety and targets with your best score and if things work out in January you can shoot for some reaches. Best of luck

Within the world of M's mines:

V mine --m--> /VER/

Gold mine --->VER

------------------------------

V mine --m-->/VER/--->/Gold mine/

A--m-->B--->C

(a) incorrect; do not know other companies comparison

(b) incorrect; what if 100 mines in V and 2 in World

(c) incorrect; see (b)

(d) correct

(e) incorrect; unknown info

Summary: if a person knowingly brings misfortune, then should be blamed for it. some cases, a person unwittingly does the same should not be blamed. example is conclusion: reasonably forseen --> blame

prephrase: can only conclude blame or reasonably forseen

(a) incorrect; fails sufficient

(b) correct; triggers sufficient

(c) incorrect; can't conclude blame

(d) incorrect; can't conclude blame

(e) incorrect; fails sufficient

I'm interested as well! If it is not too late to join. Thanks!

@ looks like the function is working! thanks, and I'm digging the redesign

The conclusion of the argument is that manufacturers should not overstate dangers of their products.

Why? The premise is that if one overstates dangers then it must be with the intention to reduce injuries.

In order for the conclusion to be properly drawn, the argument should state that manufacturers warnings do not intend to reduce injuries (and thus should not overstate warnings).

Instead, the argument proceeds to commit a flaw of stating that manufacturers overstate warnings with the intention to avoid lawsuits. The argument makes the false assumption that an intention to avoid lawsuits equates to failing to intend to reduce injuries. In other words, the argument makes the assumption that having one intention of avoiding lawsuits, precludes one from also having an intention of reducing injuries.

AC E states best this flaw by saying the argument assumes that the only way to achieve an effect (i.e. reduce injuries) is to take an action (i.e. overstate warning) that solely intends to do so.

The argument's conclusion is that TA's are not university employees and thus not entitled to university employee benefits.

The reasoning is that a TA is distinct from a university employee because they are (1) pursuing a degree at the university and (2) they are employed (as a TA) by the university to enable them to fund their education.

If the individual were to fail either (1) or (2) above, they then would not be a TA. In fact, if they were to fail (1) then they would necessarily fail (2). Assuming they would be employed otherwise by the university, they would be then considered a university employee and thus entitled to those benefits. In other words, being a TA disqualifies one from being a university employee because of conditions (1) and (2).

AC C targets this by stating the University is going against the above reasoning by treating TAs as faculty (i.e. university employees) despite the distinction drawn in the argument, and this proposal exposes the reasoning of a TA being distinct from a university employee as potentially false.

AC B discusses another distinct type of employee at the university and this is not relevant to the argument of TAs vs 'faculty'

AC D discusses the amount they are paid, but does not fail the condition that a TA is still employed by the university to fund their education. Being paid more than the cost of tuition does not imply that the TA is not using their compensation to fund their education.