I enjoyed the loophole. I also thought it helped my understanding of the underlying structure of logical reasoning. It's not like you read it and you can just see the answers and get 0 wrong every section but for me it really helps me think critically about each question type. I haven't gotten the chance to take a full PT but I get a few more questions right each section i take which puts me between -3/-5. IF you have a lot of time to study I would go through all the logical reasoning stuff on here first BUT if you're pressed for time I seriously encourage EVERYONE to buy it as a really good foundation for LR.

I would seriously break down the specifics. I was really inconsistent with LR until I made an excel sheet and broke down which questions I was missing A LOT. Turns out I wasn't actually inconsistent, some sections/PT's just had more of the questions I sucked at and less of the ones i was really good at. The solution? Get REALLY good at the ones you suck at. Sometimes it isn't about just doing what your supposed to be doing, it is about getting really into it and breaking everything down so you understand what more you need to do.

What has helped me is doing untimed individual passages for RC. I try to take my time fully understanding the passage and then I answer the questions aiming for 3 minutes for all 5-6 questions.

With LR you just have to blind review. I would recomend doing a wrong answer journal and going over it often.

I went from an average of -8 on LR to -3/4 in just a matter of weeks doing this

I would say you would be safe getting a part time job. Honestly most days I feel like I can only effectively study 2-3 hours at a time. I work as a substitute teacher which Is nice because I work when I want and I have no obligations other than to show up to the class

4 days wont hurt, it might even clear up your mind:)

Give us some more insight into your studying habits.... Did you do timed sections and PT's prior to the real test? If not and you just learned theory that could be why. If you aren't doing PT's and timed sections all that theory you've been learning is pretty worthless. You need to learn that stuff and then learn the LSAT and mix them. Learning only theory and principle would be like me having you take an online class about how to build a skyscraper and then giving you all the materials and asking you to build one when you never actually have. The LSAT is less about knowledge and more about skill. Through practice you find patterns in trick answers in LG, practice reading and understanding RC passages, and fool proofing logic games.

This is why JY tells us to only do timed sections and timed PT's. If the LSAT was untimed and we could have an hour per section EVERYONE would do better. Don't freak out though. You have the ability to score that well in timed PT's but you need to practice. I would advice to take a few more months or take the jan test knowing that you will retake.

I've heard that newer PT's are particularly more vague in the RC and LR sections. However, most people tell me not to worry because if you've prepped sufficiently your score really shouldn't deviate at all. There are plenty of difficult old PT's

Hmmmm are you doing your PT's under timed conditions? If so, do you get test anxiety? If you do get test anxiety, if you retake it again focus on your mental stability in terms of the test. Really you have nothing to lose, a 163 is a great score, 80th+ percentile. you can get into some great schools with that score. Just go into your next test knowing you have a great fall back score. Relaxing and taking the test feeling how you feel when you take self administered PT's will get you there

I am technically 1st generation college graduate. My two older sisters graduated with their degree before me but none of my family prior us had gone to college. However it did not feel like we were first generation, my parents had a great income, even compared to people with high paying degrees. I would say our household income was mid 200K. I never considered myself first generation because I always felt that first generation was usually designated to individuals who overcame great struggles (poverty, immigration, abuse, etc) to become the first in their family. I know my definition is technically wrong, and without a bachelors degree the job market becomes very restricted, I just always had this "stigma" in my head.

I think you are first generation because you put aside years of your life to obtain your degree. While your father's achievements are no less impressive and important, he might have put himself in a situation where getting a bachelors degree was a no brainer and possibly even easy. Whereas you set out to pursue and obtain your degree.

Either way I think a degree is SO important. Comparing average income of college grads and non college grads reveals that having a degree not only increases your pay, but it opens up so many careers that just are not possible without a degree. (lawyers, doctors, engineers, therapists, teachers, professors, many fields in technology, I mean the list just goes on)

First off, you have plenty of time. Keeping your GPA up is your number 1 priority, not going to law school fresh out of undergrad isn't the end of the world.

What section did you under perform on? AKA what section did you do worse on than you normally do?

Hey There,

So I think it is important to realize that undergraduate GPA by no means necessarily dictates how well you would do in law school. If you have made a correction in the way you study and absorb information you should be able to put in the work and do well. Also, LSAT scores are weighed much more heavily in the application process than GPA, I've seen rough estimates that law schools value of the LSAT to GPA ratio is something like 70% (LSAT) and 30% (GPA). This is the optimistic side of things. By no means could someone get into a law school with a 4.0 GPA BUT a 140 on the LSAT, however you are not in that situation. So getting a better score on the LSAT is definitely worth your time.

As far as the January LSAT goes, I would say that the majority of schools will accept a score this late in the cycle, however, remember that applying later in the application process lessons your chance of being offered a seat (because they've already began to fill your seat).

The last piece of advice I would give is do WHATEVER you can that is completely within your control to make a law school look at you. Imagine you and 99 other applicants applied with the same GPA and LSAT score, what would make them pick you? This is where personal statements and all that other good stuff come into play.

I am by no means an expert about this, this is just my personal opinion mixed with some of my knowledge.

So what I understand here is that in weakening questions we absolutely DO NOT attack the premise or conclusion, meaning that the correct answer choice, the one that weakens the argument the most, usually introduces some new idea? Like if we have the argument:

John loves Peanut butter and he also loves Jelly. (premise)

Therefore he must also love peanut butter and jelly sandwiches sandwiches. (conclusion)

A weaken argument would be: John has said that he does not like bread. This would destroy the argument because it would register the conclusion invalid and not supported at all. Silly example but is this a good way to dumb down weakening questions and arguments?

I got this answer correct, however, it wasn't till afterwards that I realized that D might seem kind of like a trap, the mayor DOES say that commuting by train is becoming cheaper than driving. This could lead you to conclude that it would be intuitive to travel by train rather than drive (Answer Choice D), however, it is too general for the information we have. Commuting by train in the context of this argument is only cheaper than driving relative to the city center. We do not know, for example, if people in this suburb work in other places, or what if their job isn't reachable by this train?

The "fucking" threw me off hahaha, I like it, LSAC is always right and if I get a question wrong it is always my logic that is incorrect, not theirs.

I think you might be complicating this too much, if B were incorrect then the entire argument would be void, because if I could exercise my back unequally and it would not lead to unbalanced muscle development, then the argument would be wrong. and that is exactly why answer choice B is the correct answer

For me, this question was difficult because the the issue at hand is relatively abstract. It infers that nations are not people, cannot do actions. Then counters that in a way by saying well, in order for this nation to survive, the citizens of this nation must attribute moral rights and responsibilities to it, therefore the citizens are doing an act that is somewhat symbolic but is actually false. The nature of what they are doing is attributing morals or responsibilities to the “nation”, like Americans might attribute some common moral to be “American”, however, this does not mean that “America” in the since of the physical country (land, geographical location) has anything to do with this moral, instead it has to do with its inhabitants, people. And for the survival of America, American’s must attribute these qualities because it somehow results in survival (Patriotism, etc.)

For me it came down to A or B, and since this entire passage was extremely abstract, I chose A because it was less-so and therefore more understandable,leading me to the wrong answer. The correct answer was entirely just as abstract as the passage:

the author states that this false idea is required for the survival of the country,

The question stem asks to logically complete the passage (conclusion)

Therefore there must be people within this country who believe or practice this falsehood in order to survive

Answer choice B states that survival is impossible (cannot) happen unless many of the citizens have some sort of belief of the false premise.

C, like JY mentioned, could be true, however it would be a move in the wrong direction of the authors logical thought process, sure maybe they can’t be held responsible because it is not the nation, its the people, however it simply would not logically follow

A was difficult to understand why it is wrong (even in understanding that B is correct) but what A is saying is that in order to survive, something else is necessary other than this false belief (doesn’t matter what) is necessary, when in one of the premises the author clearly states that the incorrect view IS NECESSARY (absolute) and while another characteristic COULD help in theory, it is not supported by any premise and therefore would not constitute a properly drawn conclusion.

For me, this question was difficult because the the issue at hand is relatively abstract. It infers that nations are not people, cannot do actions. Then counters that in a way by saying well, in order for this nation to survive, the citizens of this nation must attribute moral rights and responsibilities to it, therefore the citizens are doing an act that is somewhat symbolic but is actually false. The nature of what they are doing is attributing morals or responsibilities to the "nation", like Americans might attribute some common moral to be "American", however, this does not mean that "America" in the since of the physical country (land, geographical location) has anything to do with this moral, instead it has to do with its inhabitants, people. And for the survival of America, American's must attribute these qualities because it somehow results in survival (Patriotism, etc.)

For me it came down to A or B, and since this entire passage was extremely abstract, I chose A because it was less-so and therefore more understandable,leading me to the wrong answer. The correct answer was entirely just as abstract as the passage:

the author states that this false idea is required for the survival of the country,

The question stem asks to logically complete the passage (conclusion)

Therefore there must be people within this country who believe or practice this falsehood in order to survive

Answer choice B states that survival is impossible (cannot) happen unless many of the citizens have some sort of belief of the false premise.

C, like JY mentioned, could be true, however it would be a move in the wrong direction of the authors logical thought process, sure maybe they can't be held responsible because it is not the nation, its the people, however it simply would not logically follow

A was difficult to understand why it is wrong (even in understanding that B is correct) but what A is saying is that in order to survive, something else is necessary other than this false belief (doesn't matter what) is necessary, when in one of the premises the author clearly states that the incorrect view IS NECESSARY (absolute) and while another characteristic COULD help in theory, it is not supported by any premise and therefore would not constitute a properly drawn conclusion.

I chose C, and I see why C is wrong now. C is wrong simply because it assumes that Cognitive psychotherapy is the only therapy to focus on conscious beliefs, however, all we know from the passage that it DOES focus on conscious beliefs and this is somehow better than therapies who do not. Therefore an assumption we need is there is no other way for a therapy, or psychotherapy for that matter, to be effective unless it focuses on conscious beliefs, B is the closest thing to that and B is correct.

I'm having a hard time understanding why B is correct, in the passage the claim is essentially that "some", an undisclosed number, of scientist are skeptical. Fast forward to the correct answer and this "some" has become "most", is that not an overreach?

I see why D is wrong: the scientist could, and probably do offer hypothesis, whether they are correct or incorrect doesn't matter

A: is wrong because we have no knowledge of what is out of accordance with scientific standards and to our knowledge they seem to be in accordance

C: This requires some knowledge about hypothesis, just because something is not proven wrong, does not necessarily mean it is true, we just have no reason to believe it is wrong

E: is assuming too much, we simply do not know this

However, this question would still leave me very confused and tempted to chose a different answer because of the word "most" Please help!

I need help, I got this question correct, however, I determined C was incorrect because it is already stated in the arguments premise, basically that every vaccine will only protect against one form of the virus. is that a correct way to disqualify an answer? #help

I think with this type of question and the harder LR questions that come in this section, breaking down the incorrect answers is extremely valuable because the correct answer was subtle.