absolutely. My diagnostic was a 144 and my score improved DRASTICALLY. This test is very much learnable; it just takes time and dedication. I also went into my diagnostic with honestly horrible reading comprehension skills, so I just relearned how to approach the test and here I am today not finding the test to be that miserable

I think these are pretty good! My personal opinion-- instead of "What is [idea]", choose a couple words from the paragraph as your low-res to say what that idea actually is. Low-res should be a short-cut, you probably will be tested on the aspects of that idea, and simply putting "What is [idea]" wont really give you any benefit.

For example, a paragraph describes me, I wouldn't say "what is joegav1" but rather "7sage user, studying for the lsat"-- ideas ABOUT me. The passage already exists in the world of me, so it would be hard to lose track that I am the idea. Prevent yourself from having to reread the passage as much as possible

Yes because /B->/A is the same thing as saying A->B

For example, We need to justify this argument that says "All college students use ChatGPT to write their assignments. Therefore, all students are lazy."

The sufficient assumption here is "If one uses ChatGPT to write their assignments, then they are lazy," which fully connects the example's arguement.

But the contrapositive for this would also be true: "If one is not lazy, then they don't use ChatGPT to write their assignments." This is because if we flip and negate this conditional, then we get the exact SA without any negatives that we derived early. The contrapositive works because, in the sufficient, for one to use ChatGPT to write their assignments, they MUST be lazy (it is necessary for a ChatGPT user!). If they are not lazy, then they don't use ChatGPT. It works the same way and means the same exact thing.

You will see the contrapositives more frequently on harder questions-- but that does not mean there is any difference in meaning if you flip and negate that AC.

@emoneyy i do a mix of both! I see the value of sometimes not just doing timed practice, because it is very important to understand the methodology behind questions, and you will not get better at it if you just jump the gun and stress about time. Just gotta keep building and mix it up!

This definitely will not help-- but its literally JUST practice. It's such a hard hump to get over, but the more you do it, the faster you will be. I personally find when I am ignoring the clock, I am usually fine with the time; I just focus on accuracy

Definitely am not taking it at the time I want to either- would you consider taking it online?

Definitely true, but not all SA and PSA questions, which have should in conclusion, don't have an AC with should in it. Put it in your tool kit, but do not fully rely on it

I would say they are definitely representative; however; what makes the actual test difficult is the stake of taking the actual LSAT compared to a practice test where the score almost means nothing. It's a psychological game almost

It's totally normal to be honest to feel this way! I emailed one of my professors twice, who really liked my work in their class and they never got back to me. I got my letters because I made a document on what I'm interested in, what sets me apart, and my goals so my recommender can reference this.

I would say spotting the gap is a good class for that

Just keep doing practice tests!

I learned to keep it 1 page in general, but i'm not sure if that is the same for law school apps! I'm personally trying to just keep it at one page so its concise

Yes- if you know the college then you should submit all transcripts you have. I similarly took classes in high school at a college (this was a class that was offered through my high school, taught by a high school teacher) and i requested a transcript and sent it over to LSAC.

You can only conclude that a work of art is not truly great; therefore, you can only conclude B.

E) Popular opinion does not equal influence

You can honestly answer the question just by PoE. No need for all the math, the other answer choices are not relevant to the price

@KMK Where AC D goes wrong is that it is making too many assumptions outside of the reasoning structure in the given premises. We are jumping from eating snacks to losing weight.

@Azealia Banks The way I approached this was in the context of the stimulus and almost ignored it.

The folktale that claims that a rattlesnake's age can be determined from the number of sections in its rattle is false, but only because the rattles are brittle and sometimes partially or completely break off

I saw the argument start at

So if they were not so brittle, one could reliably determine a rattlesnake's age simply from the number of sections in its rattle, because one new section is formed each time a rattlesnake molts.

The argument exists in a world where the brittleness is basically negligible; we are focusing on the age based on the section because the new section forms when it molts. If (E) were negated, then some influences would diminish the reliability of the number of sections, which destroys the argument.

We need B to be true, because if true that bland and innocuous political opinions are NOT mainstream, then why would the opinions aired be bland and innocuous? The arguement will fall apart with negated

@Sopapilla alo many people who consume large quantities of protein. It says nothing about low carb!

D: treats evidence that the conclusion is probably true (Since they play together every afternoon, Sara probably has the same illness as Michael does) as if that evidence establishes the certainty of the conclusion (Since Michael definitely does not have a streptococcal infection, despite his having some symptoms of one, the illness that Sara has is definitely not a streptococcal infection either.)

Was torn between B and C on this but my thinking with B is that it could be true that the problems have been quite serious, but the Comp. rep relies on sheer numbers to justify his arguement, not by the intensity of issues.