I initially got question 22 right but on blind review i ruled out D on 22 because of the phrase "ought most to concern themselves". as i analyzed the passage i struggled to find where and how, specifically, the author is claiming that historians/writers OUGHT/SHOULD concern themselves with how the law was intended to affect women. I can't find where the author is trying to persuade the reader of this. it seems expository and not persuasive to me. can anyone clarify?
this doesn't make any sense to me. there is no correlation between confidence and accuracy. and certain factors can affect confidence - BUT confidence IS NOT CORRELATED with accuracy. so why do we care if their confidence is affected? its not proven to affect their accuracy. can anyone point out how i have misinterpreted this?
I'm usually around -6 or -8 for timed sections. Just got a -10 and am beginning to get frustrated because i feel like I understand games pretty well, but then do terrible on the clock. I also basically never ever experience test anxiety (when studying or on test day) - so "pressure" doesn't seem, to me, to be the issue.
anyone else have similar experience? or would anyone have some advice?
thanks
I finish all of the sections in time and feel like i have a pretty good understanding of how to approach the different question types. RC is my strongest, the LG, then LR. any advice?
i struggle with this because it seems it is the best strategy to take the LSATS wording as literal as possible throughout the test. for "funding to not be eliminated" to equal "adopting a policy" seems like WAY too much inference. I got the answer right first time, then changed it on BR because of this realization.
the phrase in the question is literally insufficient up until it is made sufficient by the last sentence. I don't understand why D is wrong. The teacher does not mention the adoption of a policy. i realize this is a difficult question - however, it seems more like a bad question to me.
how is this not a strengthening question?