But planets are not stars, no?

To fit the definition, Neptune has to be a star, but Neptune is a planet, and planets are not stars.

LG used to be my weakest section. I repeated PT1-30 games about 10 times. I usually did PT1-10 (10 sections, 40 games) a day on weekends. And at least 5 sections (20 games) a day during the week (I was working full-time). I spent months just doing the same games from PT1-30 over and over AND analyzing afterwards. Asking myself why was the question about "H" vs other variables. Why is this question a must be true not a could be true.

It was very time consuming and, I could not even look at games for awhile, but now LG is my strongest section. You don't have to do 30 games per day, but I think repetition is a key for improving LG. Use the earlier PTs to solidify your basic understanding of how LG works. Doing it over and over and over again until i felt like..awww..this is how it works... really worked for me. I hope this is helpful. =)

The more I study for the LSAT, the more I realize I wish I had not wasted a whole year (and lots of money) studying the bibles. The LR bible's formal logic is just downright confusing. The LG bible covers good basics, but you can get similar information for free on-line. The RC bible just a waste of money, and you burn through so many precious RC passages. Bad bad bad!

I was hesitant to purchase the Ultimate package at first, but I have gotten so much more value out of it that I almost feel bad that I did not pay more money for it.

I envy you in a way because you have not been "tainted" by the bibles and are able to start fresh with 7 sage. Go with JY and 7sage.

Hey guys,

I cancelled my Dec score as well. I score 167-173 and aiming to score 175+. I would be interested in a study group. I will send you an email as well.

I have been repeatedly going over Q.8 for awhile because, although I get why (D) is a better answer choice, I was not 100% sure why (E) was wrong. Rainfalls can cause rocks to fall down, and rain was not specifically mentioned as a factor to avoid, and there is a possibility that it can be calibrated. But then I just realized something. The answer choice (E) says "annual" rainfall rates, and the passage specifically emphasizes the slow rate of lichens' growth. And the correct answer choice (D) says kilometers per "century."

I hate to admit it, but sometimes I am impressed with the LSAT writers' cleverness and their obsessive focus on detail.

Anyways, I just wanted to share my "eureka" moment. This question bothered me for months. =)

Thanks for letting us know about "calm.com!" I tried it, and it is great!

It was the playback speed setting. Mystery solved! I

He convinced me too. He really is a good speaker.

I would like to ask for a bit more specific explanation on why (E) is a wrong answer, please?

I generally understand this question, but I have a problem with the wording with the answer choice (B).

I thought "the only" is a sufficient conditional indicator?

I thought I was the only 7 sager in Seoul.

Looking forward to meeting everyone!

My only problem was that in the conclusion it says "others will MOST LIKELY BE, on the whole, self-accepting and.." So, I thought technically it leaves some room open that they might not be self-accepting and accepting of others.

But I guess there is not enough support to say "WILL most likely be," and (D) is still correct.

Is my reasoning correct?

I got the same error again................why.................

Thank you Alan.

You can do it!!!

I just had to clear cache AGAIN!! I am getting tired of having to do it over and over. I wish I did not have to do it but I am happy that at least it works now.

I was, still am, in the exact same situation. I scored in the high 160s consistently. With so many blind reviews and endless hours of PTing, my scores would not freakin' go up. I was completely discouraged and felt maybe I am not smart enough. I took the LSAT two days ago in Asia and could tell that it was going be somewhere in the high 160s again. I cancelled the score and was depressed for the past 2 days, but I found the motivation and courage to try again and start over. So, don't worry. You are not alone. Don't give up. Let's keep trying!

Jonathan

Thank you for your advice. =)

Thank you!

I agree. I am not sure if changing the word "several" to "most" would necessarily make the answer choice correct. I think it still raises the question "Was it caused by sleeping with nightlights as infants?" To effectively weaken the argument with an alternative study, it must establish that even if it is caused by nightlights, nearsightedness does not necessarily disappears with age. Such a tricky question!

If I may give it a shot...

(D) does not, in fact, say "we cannot use the two studies to make any causal conclusion" What it says is "we cannot use the two studies to make any causal conclusion regarding a causal relationship." The stimulus exactly did that. It made a conclusion "regarding" a causal relationship, that the relationship disappears with age, based on the two studies. And (D) tells you "no, no, no, whoever wrote this, you cannot do that. Not enough children."

I am not sure if this helps. Hope it does. =)

So true! I have found out that with "without" especially applying the rule does not always work.

Thank you so much for replying! =)