Maybe it's the sugar in the coffee? Try black straight.

dw,

For PMR that don't involve conditional logic, I try to make a "motto" or "tag line" to help me remember the relationship of the statements in the stim. In this instance, something like "It would be wrong to conclude that A necessarily implies B because B also implies C" might work. Then you can go through the answer choices and match up the arguments. Does that help?

On another note, I have another question. In this stim, would the relationship be considered causal or conditional? Thanks in advance :)

I think (E) boils down to the word "existing". In the first paragraph, the author describes the insufficient supply of existing literature as a deficiency, so to study it would not fully explain how women were really affected. The author explicitly states that only quantitative studies of cases would be the appropriate course of study.

What if:

In 1990, 200 (mined) -- 100 (consumed) = 100

In 1991, 150 (mined) -- 100 (consumed) = 50

Does this still work? Please tell me if I'm missing something.

Oh wait. Never mind. The answer says from 1991.

Why must it be true that more coal was consumed in 1991 compared to 1990? Can't it be possible that less coal was mined in 1991 but consumption may have remained the same or decreased, leaving total mined minus consumption lower than in 1990?

I got the answer correct but that's because I assumed whatever coal was leftover from 1990 would still be there in 1991, which I don't know is a sound assumption.

Help?

Very appropriate, JY!

Wow. This test was an absolute beast. (LR LR LG RC LR). The mirrors passage was horrid, LG grouping game 2 and weird combo game 3 sucked so much of my time that I didn't get to answer almost all questions on game 4, which was way easier 1:1. I am but nothing compared to you, oh LSAT powers!! I will recline into the hidden abyss and await to meet once more in February (or June.) All jokes aside, I love the challenge of this test and I am growing quite fond of it...it deserve to be respected and is quite inspiring.

Hi JY, is (C)'s conclusion incorrect because it's inferring FP decr. --> /I (income affected) or is it incorrect because it introduces a new term into consideration? In other words, are we allowed to make the jump that increased profits = income affected?

Thanks :)

I chose B :( I just want to understand it a little better, if B were correct would the premise be saying something like "it's not true that businesses are leaving 4/week because we still have 5 businesses here"?

I understand your approach, KS. I also work full time (although I am taking this week off to study) and on many occasions had to split up the prep tests. If you can, however, try to split up the earlier PTs and save the newer PTs for later fully timed tests, especially if you think you might retake in Feb. I was too hasty and now only have a couple new PTs left in the 60s zone with the very likely possibility of a retake in 2 months. Also, I recommend this because I think the newer PTs are more difficult. I took 65 in one sitting yesterday and did my lowest score ever. LOL.

I originally chose B because I reasoned that it could be an intermediate conclusion with the supporting premise being the attractiveness of the trade route linking China and the West, which ultimately supported the main conclusion that trade routes were open earlier than currently believed. In other words, Silk Road attractive→ emigrants to China used it at least 1M years ago-→thus trade routes opened more than 200 BC.

After reviewing it though, is that reasoning incorrect because the passage says the attractiveness of Silk Road "would" have also made it attractive for original emigrants. The indefiniteness of "would" renders that reasoning false, correct?

Edit: On a third look, I think I might have incorrectly equivocated ” between China and West” with “from Africa and Middle East to China” too. Tehe.

Don't worry about it, you're doing fine! I'm taking it in December also. Good luck on your studies :)

Hi Erick26,

For LG, I attempt one game at a time with a loose time constraint (8-12 mins), check answers, and watch video explanation right after. Memorize the inferences, then do that game over and over under strict time constraints (5-8 mins). One game at a time really helped me focus on game-specific inferences and identity weak games. After doing this a few times, your initial loose time constraint will get shorter and shorter. Then I recommend moving on to whole sections at a time under 35 min constraint. Do as many as you can. I did 18-29 PT sections on two days and the cram improved my skills immensely. I score avg. -3 on PTs.

For LR, practice, practice, practice. The questions just kind of took care of themselves when you do enough of them. Do whole sections, identity your weak question types and handle them one at a time. Take notice of questions that you mistakenly thought you got correct because chances are you will repeat the same fallacious reasoning. These are the most important to tackle. After completing about 20 PTs, I avg. at -3 per test.

On the bright side, at least you are already doing well in RC! Are you taking the December test?