- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
Ive been studying for the LSAT for a while now, I've done the core curriculum and all that. I write my LSAT in January to apply for fall admission. For months now I'm scoring 158-163 spamming PT's everyday, and I just seem to have hit my peak.
I only need to improve a couple points so I score in the 160-165 range consistently, as that will get me in the school I want. I'm just not sure how to improve anymore. It feels like I'm not getting better, I'm just doing PT's and getting the same score. Typically -5 on LR, -3 or 4 on LG, and -8 to -10 on RC.
Any tips? I wanted to do a tutoring session, but its too expensive for me.
I eliminated B because I didn't consider questionable and factually wrong the same thing... the LSAT man.
@quicktjc771 . I quit Coffee too, only drink ice water. The coffee made my brain foggy I swear, and I got jitters. Sticking to water was better for me.
"Raising the minimum wage will lead to more disposable income for a large segment of the working population"
"In many factories in Country X, most workers are paid more than minimum wage".
I took this to say, "In atleast 51% of factories, at least 51% of workers are paid more than minimum wage. To me, this directly contradicts the premise that raising minimum wage will lead to more disposable income for a LARGE segment of the working population, because it won't.
I guess because it said "many" instead of "all" factories or workers makes it wrong? Tough question.
Is D not wrong because it says existing revenue? They are talking about the new revenue, well atleast Regina is. Only Amal mentions old revenue.
I found all answers wrong, this is a dog question. Try again.
I genuinely still feel like D is a better option. You have no idea what people are accustomed and use to. It is such a large assumption.
With C, Charleston being fairly warm during the day is irrelevant, there is no specific numerical number associated with this premise. It says temperatures drop STEEPLY at night, meaning a lot. This means significant heating is required.
I don't understand this question.
So we are suppose to assume that "easier to adhere to" meant they forgot to put out trash in the past? Seems a little sus, sometimes this zero assumption stuff is really annoying and convoluting.
JY even says, maybe if they can adhere easier they can put out more recyclables. MAYBE is the key word, we are not sure from that statement whether or not it will change anything. Seems like a big assumption to me.
Agreed, this question is dog. "effectiveness" or a synonym is never mentioned in the question. Brutal question.
I eliminated E because I decided they didn't violate it based on the "command" aspect of the question stem. They had to take a lower price to ensure majority ownership, therefore they could not command a higher price. Not really sure about this question in general, seems kinda suspect.
Anyone able to explain to me why E is the overall better choice?
#help (Added by Admin)
There are 5 billion + people considered legally to be an "adult" worldwide, how in the hell is 1000 people a good reason to believe its a representative sample lol.
Question 11 is a circus. This is a dog water question. So opinionated. Do better LSAT writers.
I chose this same answer, thought it was the only one with relevance, I didn't see the analogy.
I think the chemical composition of drugs can definitely be described as a fundamental principle of medicine though, not sure I like JY's explanation here.
30 minute explanation required for this question but nah man answer the question in 60 seconds get wrecked.
I was down to C and D, and I chose D because the question stim never states the country has began industrialization. We have to draw this assumption on our own. I thought maybe them having per capita output of $5000 implied they were industrializing, but that isn't stated in the stim either.
#help
This question completely confuses me. I used the term unless as group 3 and negated sufficient. I kind of combined the first part of the question. I kind of just had, /S -> ISC , meaning if you are not skeptic, than you share interests that coincide, and the contrapositive, if you do not have interests that coincide, you should be skeptic.
The way JY dissects this question is very strange to me and I'm not really following.
#help
I didn't choose D because I didn't think his argument was a specific example, rather a more general claim. I still don't really see the statement being considered an example.
You have to assume that there was left over coal from 90 that was counted in 91? Maybe they only count the coal mined in that specific year?
This seems like a garbage question.
It's not possible to have negative amounts of coal as they don't import or export, and the question states they had a considerable less amount in 91 than in 90, perceiving that they still had coal left in 91.
Idk maybe I'm dumb, this just seems like a shit question.
Proportion is defined as an amount related to SOMETHING ELSE, that something else being the amount of molecules in cloud. This is what messed me up, once seeing the explanation, this question seems pretty easy.
This is absolutely wild. I think I lost 20 IQ points just reading this 15 times.
I was drawn to C because of the tip that NA questions usually have weaker language in the answer, like some. D was stronger. I played myself.