If the colleague were deceived, then they could truthfully state that Ms. Chan will not retire, while also being correct. Sure, this uses the "stating what one believes" definition of truth rather than the "stating what is correct" definition. But no one would say the colleague is lying. I fail to see why AC C is wrong. It accurately describes what happened, and accounts for a flaw in the conclusion "one of them is lying". #help

I don't understand why 21E is wrong. The last sentence of the first paragraph points out an unresolved question, and then the first sentence of the second claims that the mystery will be solved. Thus, a theory is amended. Amend means to improve or to make better. What am I missing? #help

I highly recommend against trying to learn to speed read. Trying to improve speed and comprehension could end up hurting you. Work on improving your comprehension by focusing on grammatical constructions and words that confuse you for lower hanging fruit. Try what carlos.raiz23 said.

Check if your undergrad has a career office with law school focused people, many do. You might get free "admissions consulting" from them. Especially if it's a big private school.

"Most people" makes the AC flawed because the stimulus makes no claim or conclusion about what other people do. I think "most people" would only support a claim if knowing what most people do allowed you to infer something about what happens in the argument. If the author said "Darklord will go to the store today", then "Most people go to the store" strengthens the argument. But here, the author says "The claim is trivial and we don't have to take it seriously", then answer C offers the logical support, no trivial claims are worthy of serious consideration.

Trivial Claim

(Trivial claim --> ~~Serious Consideration~~)

Don't take it seriously

I hope that helps!

They'll make you show the room, yeah. Depends if you want to pick up the monitor.

Thanks for the responses! Other application elements are complete, so no need to worry about those.

Could someone explain why there's a risk if I do worse though? Don't schools really only care about the highest score?

You need a webcam. It can be separate from the computer though. LSAC has a pretty extensive list of what's allowed and not allowed in. the FAQs https://www.lsac.org/update-coronavirus-and-lsat/lsat-flex.

This would be a great feature.

Still need #help

https://classic.7sage.com/admissions/predictor/

For your odds of at least one top 20 school, multiply (1-estimated_chance) together for all the schools, then do 1 - that number. For you, odds of at least 1 top 20 school (just based on this calculator) are about 99.99999997%.

nb This pretends that each application is totally independent of the others. Take that assumption at your own risk.

Consider the negation, "a lack of general education does not affect the ability to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate calls for reform." Then, people with education would be just as vulnerable to clever demagogues as uneducated people.

The Historian's argument follows literacy + education -> ability to distinguish, but literacy without education -> inability to distinguish.

If negated D is true, education has no relationship to ability to distinguish. So literacy alone would be sufficient for ability to distinguish. This contradicts the historian's argument. Does that make sense?

This makes plenty of sense to me if we assume that microbes are not alive. However, this is not true; they are alive. https://www.uib.no/en/geobio/56846/what-are-microorganisms

I am confused why I should disregard this fact on the test.

Discussion of answer D starts about ten seconds before the indicator

Why does it matter what her profession is? That's not part of the logical structure. #help