Self-study
Maybe slightly off topic, but anyone have tips for screen sharing and drawing platforms for tablets for LG? Basically like JY's videos, but for screen sharing not recording videos.
PT Questions
jesseasmall57
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
jesseasmall57
Thursday, Jun 28 2018
jesseasmall57
Monday, Sep 25 2017
The fee waiver is valid for 2 years and then you need to reapply
jesseasmall57
Sunday, Sep 24 2017
I wish. I even called LSAC about this. If you get a fee waiver (the same fee waiver for the LSAT) then you get 4 CAS report fees waived. That's it. School's used to have the ability (3+ years ago) to waive the report fee, but they no longer do. So there's no way around the $35 report fee for each school, max you'd get 4 free ones if you have been granted a fee waiver.
jesseasmall57
Monday, Sep 18 2017
Most of the comments from people with an experimental LR have been from people who had:
LR(25)-LG-LR(25)-LR(26)-RC
Where they are trying to figure out if their first or second LR was the experimental.
I had:
LR(25)-LG-LR(26)-LR(26)-RC
Is there any consensus on whether the second or third LR (each with 26 questions) is the experimental?
Is LSAC consistent in that when they have a test with the order I had (the two LRs back to back with 26 each) they would have all tests have the experimental be the same section number? Or has it happened in the past where two people will have two 26 question LR sections back to back and some will have the experimental as the first one and others will have the experimental as the second one even though they are identical sections (just switched the order)?
For those of you who found the RC difficult from the June '17 (PT 81) test and want more practice like that, you should check out PT 5's RC section. I thought it was structured in a really similar way to PT 81 with a similar distribution of difficult among the passages like PT 81.
I'll receive a study buddy request, approve it, then click on the message icon to contact them and then I'll get an error message saying the user doesn't exist. This has happened about 3 times so far. Anyone else having the problem?
jesseasmall57
Friday, Aug 18 2017
I think PT 71, Section 1, #12 is a pretty similar question
jesseasmall57
Friday, Aug 18 2017
Answer choice A is just stating a correlation. Correlation alone does not necessarily support a causal conclusion.
jesseasmall57
Friday, Jul 07 2017
@garicb485-1 I struggle most with inferring an author's position, especially where the inference comes from structure and tone. Tone is slightly easier because there are opinionated word choices I can spot, but sometimes I find myself in a situation where two answer choices that describe the authors tone as "hesitant" and "reluctant," for example, and I'll be like...those are pretty similar. So I try to figure out how they're different, don't end up doing a good job at that, and then almost flip a coin.
I'm not good with making inferences based on structure either. When I'm more or less asked to infer why an author wrote something yet there's no explicit line reference I get uneasy. My gut feeling with some elimination techniques can get me down to two answer choices, but when I pick on my gut instinct from those two I'm only right about half the time. Then when I review the test and look up an explanation I honestly think the other answer choice I was between was so close to being right I would not have a good way of spotting that on the test.
I'm sort of wondering whether there are patterns to RC passages and questions that would specifically help with this situation like there are to LR. Because if that is true, then drilling would probably help me recognize those patterns and gain a point or two.
I took the June 2017 test, scored a 172. Goal was 176+. I definitely have room for improvement on LR, but I think I know how to approach that. RC I'm a little more unsure about. For reference, I was -3 on RC on the June test and that's right around where I usually score.
I've heard of people drilling RC but I don't know what that actually entails. Anyone have experience with that?
I've used PowerScore, LSAT Hacks, LSAT Trainer, and other tutor's videos on how to approach a passage. I've found that notation is distracting and prevents me from reading the passage. I just sort of read the passage, don't move on to the questions until I understand it and then when I answer questions I either go back and reference lines or I just know the answer. In other words, I just wing it.
If you had 6 weeks to dedicate just to RC, how would you structure that time?
jesseasmall57
Thursday, Jun 15 2017
This is the lamest "feedback" report I've ever seen. I'm not sure a few sentence description of each section in general terms counts as feedback...
jesseasmall57
Wednesday, Jun 14 2017
I think the inferring own thoughts passage was about this...Or am I still totally off base?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_fable
jesseasmall57
Tuesday, Jun 13 2017
Can't stop thinking about those RC passages. Can anyone explain them without breaking the forum rules about specific questions and answers?
Anyone know where to buy PT February 1997 for less than $30 new/unmarked? I know it is the basis for ItemWise on LSAC's website, but I was hoping to use it as a full test.
People who have done a lot of PTs often talk about the shift in language in the last 10 PTs, yet don't always know how to articulate what that shift specifically was. I think this is an example of a recent test question where the language has changed as compared to older tests (PTs 20-60).
I think the correct answer, E, requires you infer the author's perspective whereas older tests would have a more conservative interpretation of the stimulus. By saying that juries often make serious mistakes, you have to infer that the author would say making a serious mistake is an undesirable consequence.
In these LR questions where the stimulus has an opinion, it seems as though the test now tests your understanding of that opinion. That if someone is saying something would be a serious mistake, you need to be able to properly infer what that means. In this case, someone who says it would be a serious mistake then that person would also necessarily say that's an undesirable consequence.
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-4-question-17/
I got this wrong because while I did see the author was appealing to authority, I thought it was reasonable to assume that if the author says what an authority figure says, then it can be said that the author would say that too.
Answer Choice E basically says that the Meteorologist did not evaluate the merit of example from the Statistician. I thought by citing experts who are saying that no single thing can cause climate the Meteorologist was evaluating the merit of the example from the Statistician. But then I thought about it some more and it occurred to me that you can't necessarily say the Meteorologist evaluated the merits of the example just because he cited experts who cite a general principle that speaks to the counterexample.
I know this is a rough evaluation of the question and answer choice, but what I wanted to get clarity on is what I concluded above:
If an author cites what someone else says without saying it themselves can that author be said to have said the same thing?
This question makes me think the answer is no, but I was hoping someone could verify that.
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-2-question-25/
PT 77, Section 2, #18 Answer Choices C and D. Does "fails to exclude" mean the same thing more or less as "fails to consider"?
I thought "fails to exclude" was incorrect because the author doesn't need to exclude it, he just failed to consider it.
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-77-section-2-question-18/
In PT 77, Section 2, Questions 5 and 14 they both use the word "linked" in their arguments. When the LSAT uses the word "linked," does it only mean correlation?
jesseasmall57
Wednesday, Apr 12 2017
Not at all, this was helpful, thank you. I suppose the takeaway is that in general with all sufficient assumption question types you want to look for the gap between the support and the conclusion and pick an answer choice that closes that gap. If there is a prescriptive conclusion that only has descriptive premises supporting it then you'll probably want to find an answer choice that addresses that gap between saying what something is and what something should be.
jesseasmall57
Wednesday, Apr 12 2017
Is using that type of prescriptive language ("should," "ought to," etc.) necessary to enable a conclusion with prescriptive language to be properly drawn in an argument that doesn't have premises that suggest a course of action?
What I'm struggling with is whether or not descriptive premises alone could be so strong that they would prove a prescriptive conclusion.
It's difficult to think of an example of what that might look like, but in general terms it might be something like: "We live in a capitalist economy, money is not easy to come by, everything is expensive which makes life difficult, if you take this job then you'll make more money than any other job out there, so you should take the job."
Forgive me if that example is a little rough, but from my perspective, those premises are so strong that they prove the conclusion that "you should take the job" and there's no logical gap. Then again, none of the premises specifically say anything prescriptive, so maybe it's not necessarily logically valid unless you assume something like "if you live in a capitalist economy and money is not easy to come by for you then you should take the job that pays you the most."
Hope this post isn't too confusing. Thanks for your help!
Is it always the case that if an argument for a sufficient assumption question has descriptive premises with a normative conclusion (saying one should do something or ought to do it) then the answer choice must have normative language to close that gap?
Looking at PT 22, Section 4, Q13 and PT 62, Section 2, Q17, I can see many reasons to eliminate the other incorrect answer choices besides them lacking the normative language. However, I'm still hesitant to skip straight to the answer choices that say "should" because I'm still not sure if you need the word "should" or similar language to close the logical gap between the conclusion and premises. Is normative language in the answer choice always necessary to prove a normative conclusion when the premises don't have it?
Thanks!
jesseasmall57
Sunday, Apr 09 2017
No test location in all of California either
What does it mean when an answer choice, as is the case in PT17, Sec. 3, #20, Answer D, says, "Fails to consider the status..." of something?
In other words, in this instance, what is the definition of "status"?
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-3-question-20/
Does anyone else find themselves mistakenly solving flaw questions as weaken questions when considering certain answer choices?
What I will find myself doing when evaluating certain answer choices is saying to myself, "Well if this were true, it wouldn't necessary weaken the argument, so it isn't the flaw of the argument"
I think this is incorrect because the best method for answering those two question types are different, but I don't actually know on a deeper level why the two methods don't sometimes overlap. Or maybe they do and I'm not always wrong in doing that.
Instead, I just accept that that is the wrong way to go about answering the question and try to catch myself when I do it and revert back to the correct method to answering a flaw question.
I know this is a bit abstract, but if someone could help explain more clearly why those two methods don't overlap sometimes when considering certain answer choices that would be helpful.
I vote for Addenda