Walked away from the September LSAT with a 166. My GPA for my best three years is a 3.86 and a 3.92 for my best two years. Planning on going to school in Ontario. Should I write again in October?
My last 15 PTs have all been over 170.
"All Jedi use the Force"
Walked away from the September LSAT with a 166. My GPA for my best three years is a 3.86 and a 3.92 for my best two years. Planning on going to school in Ontario. Should I write again in October?
My last 15 PTs have all been over 170.
I was talking to a friend of mine who took the last LSAT; apparently LSAC has done away with the experimental section and instead incorporated experimental questions into the five sections of the test. That way students have no ability to cross reference with other students to find out which exact section is experimental. Does anyone know about this?
Thanks
Cant make that inference. "Most" simply means more than half, perhaps all. Even if you're given the statement, "51 out of every 100 dogs are cute, therefore most dogs are cute," I don't think you should infer that 49 out of every 100 dogs is not cute. Why? because the statement has not said anything about those other 49 dogs and their cuteness. The statement, "99 out of every 100 dogs is cute," is logically consistent with the statement "51 out of every 100 dogs are cute." If there are 99 cute dogs than there are definitely 51 cute dogs. Thats all to say that we cant infer from the statement that 51 dogs are cute, that the rest are not because it could be that all but one are cute. Maybe all of them are cute. we dont know and thats why we cant make an inference like that.
The stimuli is not discussing people who drink caffeinated beverages, that is just an assumption we make when reading this passage. It says that listing caffeine content makes it easier to limit ones caffeine intake which, in turn, improves health. We assume, most naturally, that listing caffeine content improves health by reducing the intake of caffeinated beverages in at least some people. Yet that need not be the case. What if listing caffeine content resulted in the chemical release of neurotoxins in the people who read the label and that neurotoxin made it easier to limit but not eliminate caffeine? Well then, if the stimuli is true, they would get healthier. We don't know if thats how it happens because they don't say, but A would still be the right choice. All that matter here is that X leads to Y leads to Z and so X leads to Z. How it happens is irrelevant.
Wow, that was insane. I only had one LG section and it was the one with the flowers, and kittens/puppies. Hardest I've ever come across; I could answer maybe 13 and I usually get -2/-0. I have a feeling that the Swahili temples question LR section was experimental. Can any confirm?