practice exams everyday day. Immediately stop doing that.

@Bruh To caught up on finding a "rule". An Archaeologist makes argument that the mosaics should not have been removed because future ones studying the site may no have access to their records and be misled. OK we want to Justify/support their reasoning. A - tells us that the only considerations whether the mosaics should have been removed are archaeological. Perfect we have an archaeologist making the argument and this answer choice also blocks the possibility that any other consideration for them being moved is not sufficient. i.e moving because they anticipated it was going to be flooded was not good enough.

@babachanianaren905 Guys - were looking to strengthen the argument. Which is (printed books being replaced by electronic formats are exaggerated because bookstores and public libraries will stock the format of books desired by the general public). Since we are strengthening before i even look at the answer choice i can predict something that would strengthen this idea. i.e the format desired by the general public is print format. B strengthens this idea.

C - has nothing to do with strengthening the argument i pointed out above. if anything my response to it is "so what?" i NEED something that strengthens the idea the print format will stick around. Just because a group (scholars and scientists) dont usually conduct their research in PUBLIC libraries doesnt tell us anything. They have their own RESEARCH libraries.

hope this helps someone. you need to disrespect the answer choice and lit be calling them dumb af when they are.

this is the part to whole flaw written in an entire passage...

You did not need to know what the spleen is made up of to get this question right.

We're told that a specific type of seal (Antarctic) dives to great depths and stay submerged for hours. Next they do not SOLELY rely on oxygen held in lungs but also store extra oxygen in their blood. Then a hypothesis that these seals (Antarctic) also store oxygenated blood in their spleens.

(REMEMBER IF TRUE) - look for 4 that support and the other will not/ do nothing

A - gives us a reason to believe this hypothesis and provides support. If another animal species is known to have this ability its possible that this specific seal can too.

B - cool that wasnt the hypothesis? it was store oxygenated blood in their spleens.

C - if true adds support that another aspect is needed for their deep dives.

D - Larger than other aquatic mammals who do not deep dive adds support if true because it gives us reason to believe the larger size may account for the oxygenated blood in THEIR spleens.

E - THESE spleens of THESE seals have greater concentration of blood vessels which if true provides support that they may be designed for storing the oxygenated blood.

WTF is this

it sucks when you enjoy the passage and think you have a good understanding then go to the answer choices and find them extremely difficult. 5/8

what...

Reading this stim i immediately caught the flaw in the argument and told myself that there could be another reason that causes damage to the throat and cause snoring ( a weakener). The question stem asks us to strengthen the argument which E does and also happens to be the opposite of what I predicted ruling that alternate explanation out.

slimy question

So, is the first sentence a throw away?

Missing questions early on in the section is killing you. For the most part, those are free points at a 160 level and especially at 170+. Slow down and focus on getting those right. if you just got the first 10 -15 right each section you would've picked up 10 more correct answers. you dont need to finish the sections to get a 160+.

I follow the same line of reasoning as most for this question. How do we know that the revised versions were of the 1943 book. But using POE none of the other answers are even remotely stated. SO (B) was the best choice)

Blunt advice - you’re not even remotely close to being ready to write in September. if you hoping for a high 160-170. You will never get THAT lucky on a test. It’s not going to magically click under timed conditions on test day.

Blind review is helpful as it offers some insight into what you really know. But during blind review how many times did you just switch that 50/50 to the other option? How many times did you justify that if you had more time you would’ve selected this answer? The test gets a lot easier when you blind review and now it’s only 4 options to choose from and 3 of those turn out to be absolute garbage. We just switch our answer and tell ourselves we understand.

With that being said. Keep pushing and you will get to your goal score. Stop Trying to force a 30pt gap its only adding to your anxiety and pressure. You also don’t even need to complete the sections to get 160s. So you can save on the time pressure you feel by only completing 16-20 questions. But your accuracy still has to be near perfect for those. AIM to do 10 questions then 15 then 20. Stop focusing on doing all 25-27.

Like seriously - go take a full test or section and do 10 questions then 15 and 20 max. Guess the rest. I bet you will be in the high 150s.

wish you the best of luck and hope you do get the score you’re looking for!!

I chose B since the author says Drescher has reconstructed the populist characteristics of British abolitionism, which appears to have cut across lines of class, party, and religion.

And then at the end of the para says

Drescher does not finally explain how England, a nation deeply divided by class struggles, could mobilize popular support for antislavery measures proposed by otherwise conservative politicians in the House of Lords and approved there with little dissent.

My rational based on this was the author thinks Drescher introduces this (Idea) but does not fully explain/support it. So Dreschers explanation concerning liberty is incomplete or unrealistic based on what we "know" of British liberty.

you could also easily do POE for this question.

A - not support

B - supported

C - not supported

D - not even closely supported

E - not even closely supported

very tricky use of the phrasing might not be prepared to join. It reads as if its saying that group would not join the other 26%. But what it really means is the argument is failing to consider that some of those who would donate would not also join the party. Leaving us with the possibility that we can get 30% or more.

Many people seem to be overlooking the conclusion. Remember, when the author gives their opinion about why something happened or why something should happen, that's almost always the conclusion. In this stimulus, the conclusion is essentially: it's not because of this factor; it's because the public is more interested. I think identifying those "it's not X, it's Y" statements is one of the most reliable ways to find the conclusion.

Ironically, I overlooked this in my own analysis at first and thought the opening sentence was the conclusion. On my first read, I liked choices A, B, and E. Once I narrowed it down to those three, I knew I had misunderstood something in the stimulus, so I went back and reread it.

One thing you have to keep reminding yourself on the LSAT is: don't choose an answer you can't fully explain or can't say with certainty is supported by the stimulus.

Here's how I worked through the remaining choices:

• A: I liked the first half, but the claim that more coverage than crime rate alone justifies the increased public interest was never stated. That language goes beyond what the stimulus says.

• B: After rereading the stimulus, I realized it had the relationship backwards, so I eliminated it.

• E: No tricks, no unnecessary language. It simply describes what the author did. The author rejected one explanation and offered an alternative explanation. It couldn't be much clearer than that. There are no extra fluff words or hidden assumptions—just a straightforward description of the argument.

I think it's worth being careful about what Blind Review is actually telling you.

If you're scoring 7/15 on an already untimed first attempt, that's probably the best reflection of your current understanding. Scoring 14/15 on the Blind Review of that same untimed set doesn't necessarily mean your understanding is at a 14/15 level.

More often than not, during Blind Review you're only revisiting the questions you flagged or got wrong. You also already know which answer you picked the first time, so you're effectively choosing between your original answer and the remaining options. That's a very different task than solving the question from scratch. If you truly understood why the credited answer was correct on your first pass, you likely would have selected it then. Of course, there are exceptions—misreads, momentary lapses, or accidental clicks happen.

That's why I don't think an untimed first attempt followed by a much higher untimed Blind Review demonstrates what people sometimes think it does. It's different if the original attempt was timed and then your Blind Review score jumps significantly. In that case, the gap can point to a timing issue rather than a gap in understanding. I would focus on doing timed sections or groupings and comparing that to your BL scores.

I got this right on BR when i had some extra time to really sort out the pattern of reasoning. i.e Should have this thing, if not bad thing, example of bad thing. My struggle with (B) does being less physically fit mean that you can incur health risks? Im not sure, I know you solve for the answer most similar but on first take this was hard to digest.

@HimajaReddy My problem with A is that it did not mention any landowner. I thought it was going to be a trap answer. For all we know it could be city owed and the rules dont apply to them. we just dont know.

whoops picked A and when i read animals as symbols. i quickly connected the mentioning of the "trickster" with the fox that represents the trickster from another RC passage about spanish oral traditions lool.

Im still not sure how the argument does not take (B) for granted. the question asks us "The argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that it takes for granted that". How is it not taking for granted, that the majority of people followed this new speed limit? you could've lowered the speed limit and no one follows it and continues going the usual speed. if thats the case you are then taking for granted the reduced speed = less fatalities. Everyone could still be going the same speed but fatalities went down for some other reason. At the same time (E) also gives us that alternate explanation where it may have nothing to do with speed. Im not trying to prove (B) is better than (E) im just unsure HOW I can confidently eliminate answer choices like (B) on other question.

@LowriThomas My issue with this is that I considered if there had only been two complaints against Moore with no other plumbers in town that it still doesn't mean he's not a shit plumber. I also agree the presmies don't support the conclusion that complaints = Poor Plumber who cant do the job. I really dont' see how (B) makes the argument questionable...

@Daisy228 But is says complaints filed against Moore. Not against his business or employees.

What do you think has changed? I am being held back by my RC and reviewing doesn't really seem to close the gap. Thank you!