@

The only

is a sufficient condition indicator.

I think viewing this question as as sufficiency/necessity confusion flaw question is really intuitive. Interesting perspective and thanks for this!

I do!

I think the main issue with your analysis is your understanding of "most" in this context. When approaching this question I eliminated B immediately because its use of "most" was not consistent with my understanding of the stimulus. Nowhere in the stim is the word "most" or concept of most written or even implied. I believe the flawed argument that AC B. is describing would be something along the lines of "Most stones in Ireland are old, we found a stone in Ireland, therefore it must also be old". Where as the stimulus says "all druid stones in Ireland are old, this druid stone was not found in Ireland, therefore it must not be old". AC E. best captures this flaw because it is correct in stating that we just don't know that Irish druid stones are the only ones which are really old, just because all Irish stones are old doesn't mean that ONLY Irish stones are old (ie doesn't preclude Scottish druid stones from also being old). Hope this helps!

I remember struggling with this question too. I think it's most helpful to think of it like this:

Conclusion: Most people would want to be informed if they had a serious medical condition

Why?

Premise: Because a bunch of recent studies say this

AC A. introduces more evidence that would cause us to question the conclusion we drew from the premises above. With the additional evidence in AC A. the argument becomes "most people want to be informed if they had a serious medical condition because some studies confirm this and some studies say the opposite of this" clearly a weaker argument.

Hope this helps!

Glad to know I'm not the only one feeling the struggle of studying for the LSAT and working a full time job on the side!

I typically do BR at work because I can just have a copy of the test and a word document open and that is very discrete.

Honestly I think the inspiring quote below is really important for us former September takers and future December takers to keep in mind

It was an oddball sequencing game that we should have collectively gotten to with more time (it was game 4) and calmed down during.

3 hard boiled eggs, a container of blueberrys, and a large coffee for breakfast and a pack of peanut m&ms and half a 5 hour energy during the break!

@ As I've explained on here before, often admissions people return after the holidays to a deluge of applications, thus, it would be to your advantage to have your in queue ahead of some of these folks. Once your score for Dec comes in, your application will go from "incomplete" to "complete."

FWIW just returned from a law school fair and every admissions rep I spoke to corroborated this explanation with the usual caveat "don't rush to get your application out if your personal statements or LoRs need work"

I took PT 78 about a month and a half ago and did pretty poorly on it and have since drilled each section a couple of times. Can I still participate in the call even though it wont be BR in the traditional sense?

@.k13.0 Thanks for the response. I looked back at my analytics for any discernible pattern and am unable to find one. The question types I missed but did not mark for BR are 1 RRE, 1 NA, 1 MBT, 1 PF and 1 AP. I think I'm just going to back through PT 70 and do those questions again untimed while writing out explanations for each AC. Hopefully that process will help me identify and eliminate flawed understandings of those questions while simultaneously reinforcing some good approaches I already have

Nominating 72. Also the BR on Saturday was super helpful, thanks for leading it! @

@ I would not recommend PowerScore, though I've never used their RC book. Granted, that's often seen as their worst.

I would echo this as well. I think Powerscore is an okay option if you want LR or LG explained in a different way than 7sage and The LSAT Trainer, but I've found the Powerscore RC book to be functionally useless.

@ @ @ thanks for the taking the time to look at this thread! This advice seems on the money, as far as actual studying strategy is concerned, would you say focusing on taking full recent PTs with deep blind review would be the best use of time as opposed to going back through the curriculum? I imagine the score discrepancy was a mix of nerves, being sick the week before and lack of exposure to the newest LSAT material. Hopefully the deep sense of self-hatred the September LSAT has inspired in me will give me the motivation I need to slay December.

After getting my heart broken 3 days in a row for September 2016 Eileen Grey Day, I am expecting January 4th and not a day sooner

@ Have you taken many other PTs from the 70s series?

^this

Or specifically for PT 79 the name of the game for LR was NA and RRE questions. So if you have weaknesses with either of these question types this test maybe exposed them.

Had LR - RC - LR (exp. I think) - LG - LR

I would assess its difficulty this way:

LR1: 2/5

LR2: 4/5

RC: 2/5

LG: 4/5

imo game 3 was far and away the hardest game. Unless I majorly screwed up, game 4 was 2 rules and 1 inference and once you got a handle on that, the questions sort of flew by.

I would be interested in this as well, but due to work would likely be unable to BR until this weekend

Anyone know if the trout fishing NA LR question was real? Spent alot of time there until I realized I was being dumb

PT 9 S3 Game 3 - The School dance game. The sort of game that I would have lost my shit on had it been on the real deal, but taking the time to split the game boards and make all necessary inferences makes the questions a breeze

Anyone know the curve yet?

@ Okay how long after turning grey will we know the number?

In Sept. I got mine about 3 hrs after it turned grey. Very agonizing

For what it's worth USC's application portal says they've received mine as well

Haven't waded through all the comments yet. But do any September takers feel this was substantially easier. That is my immediate takeaway