Got a 165 in October, PTing between 173-177. Would be interested.

@ I'll try this, thank you very much for taking the time to help. You are indeed a cool human person.

They are the same questions essentially. PSA asks you to find a rule that proves a set of circumstances to be true. Principle gives you the rule and asks for a set of circumstances that fit that rule. They're the same question just reversed.

PSA asks you to "justify" the circumstances, essentially it's asking you for a principle to apply what just happened in the stimulus.

Principle questions give you the principle as the stimulus, and then ask you to find a set of circumstances to apply it to.

some words used in these stimulus:

“Most closely conforms”

“illustrates”

"Principle"

"Example"

"Situation"

It would be hard to confuse them because the answer choices on a principle question will be wordy and read like a stimulus, but even if you did they're the same questions just the other side of the coin.

Did anyone who took in August or September experience this?

For 20 it kind of bothers me that the point is more that smells allow them to make a map no? so if they've built a map of smells throughout their travel to this place I think they would clearly be able to find their way to the range of detectable odors from their home.

#feedback One thing that gets me on these is that it's hard to feel comfortable with the conditional logic of OA→MajDI because they feel more like biconditionals. If you're an older adult you're a member of the group that controls the majority of the nations disposable income. But isn't it also necessary to be an older adult to be a member of the group that controls the majority of the nations disposable income? Or is there some point where you could be a member of a different group that segments the nations income on a different plane than age?

This is a huge issue with conditional logic when there are no logical indicators for me.

Social seems to be doing A LOT of work in this answer. A highly contextual use of the world to say the least. Could social drinkers not drink a lot while drinking socially?

Thanks guys, this was useful

I got this right but I hate the idea that A is the "basis" for their objection to the ban.

The Zimbabwe argument is that conservation policies of other countries is the issue with shrinking elephant populations. All the other answers were really bad but the basis for believing that conservation policies are hurting elephant populations cannot logically flow from the basis "Hey don't do anything to use cause we didn't make this problem"

Like this is a legal test, are we not taking legislators at their word? I loathe entirely the idea of guessing, based on circumstances, that people are lying about why they object to things. Why even include a comment from the country if we're going to tell them why they object.

Am I crazy? That is such an absurdly cynical way of thinking. It's presuming that the Zimbabwe government is literally lying about why it objects to the ban. It literally dismisses their argument and says, "yeah they're just objecting because they don't want to do anything"

I got this correct but I don't love the answers. E in my opinion does somewhat support. It would indicate the question is biased if it does not even ask about an additional factor that many people may care about more than the ones offered, making it worth being skeptical of the conclusions drawn in the survey, and would indicate readers are a self selecting group who aren't reading about social issues even though they're also quite important to man others. I don't see how this doesn't follow. This just doesn't seem like a great question.

Eventually you will begin to see a pattern in the questions and understand more about what they're trying to do. I had an enormous shift in how long a section took me to do when I switched from reading the question first to reading the stimulus first. You begin to the see the loopholes in the stim or what they're looking for and you can cut out an absurd amount of time with the answer choices.

Truth be told I started taking these sections untimed and thinking through each problem until I was satisfied with my answer before I added the time constraint.

I think it's a mistake to not notice that paragraph 2 accepts the idea of corporate responsibly to the public good. Economists do not necessarily accept this premise. I think paragraph two gives away the authors opinion and makes the inevitability of this paragraph abundantly obvious.

Yeah I mean I was sure horoscopes relates to birthday alone. Had no idea geography was involved in horoscopes. Am I gonna lose points on this test because I'm unwilling to buy into batty silly concepts that everyone's weird Aunt is into?

Took me while but I understand for the most part, the technical knowledge is one thing, but if there is this much unclear writing on the LSAT that sucks. This is a terrible argument that made me think that the most explanatory theory of science was a limiting principle that excluded theories posited solely on theoretical grounds and the flaw in it was that it excluded "most" scientific theories, when instead it is an umbrella I think? and the flaw is that it would include too many theories? The language is so wildly unclear.

I had accommodations but none of yours, nor the removal of the experimental section. How did you manage that? Did your doctor mention it specifically?

Conclusion: Ought to consider blemished origins when assessing value.

Premise: Chemistry has blemished origins.

Just because Chemistry has blemished origins doesn't mean we ought to consider them. The author needs to convince me how Chemistry's blemished origins have influenced it's overall value.

So his failure is in not considering the differences between the current practices of chemistry and those of the past.

B.