I know. I think the real LSAT flex is actually harder than the PTs so the PTs may not truly reflect our performance. I only got one point higher this time than my January test, which is very frustrating, but I am not gonna retake it anymore. I am tired of preparing for such a test whose PTs fail to precisely estimate and predict my real scores, and I know that LSAT is NOT my thing.

My next step is to talk with my family to decide whether I should gap a year or go to a law school and then get transferred. I took this shit for three times (and got the same score twice) as well so I understand how disappointing it is to see that your score doesn’t improve. The score is not what I expected, but I will try to accept it because I did my best to improve it. Congratulations on your hard work btw :) !!

D is wrong because we just need to make sure the discovered species characterizes T. rex features. We don't need to know if it belongs to T. rex.

So rodents are not just ONE species? There can be a lot of rodent species, right?

#help (Added by Admin)

C doesn't weaken the argument because even if C is true, it is still possible that the lake stickleback needs a large body size to protect themselves. It doesn't matter who their predators are or what the body size of their predators is at all.

This question tests how you perceive the relation between percentages and absolute numbers. The percentage of the total amount of fish occupied by the commercial fishing industry INCREASED from 1960 through 2010, but the number of the commercial industry's harvest actually DIDN'T INCREASE after 1995. How could this industry grow the percentage it occupies while not increasing the number of its harvest? That means the total number of fish in the world's oceans must DECREASE after 1995.

Uhh I got tricked by C. The conclusion is only about the attitude of the owner's customers. It doesn't say anything about the neighborhood, although it focuses on the customers' attitude towards something that happens in the neighborhood.

It took me a long time to figure out why D is wrong. I chose D during the test and I failed to see why it is wrong. But maybe the problem with D is that actually, the editor DOESN'T presume that those who rework the downloaded music ALWAYS publish their new creations. The editor can mean that people who rework the downloaded music USUALLY or OFTEN publish their new creations so it is still weird that the 99% of people who download music do not publish any. ALWAYS seems too absolute.

Don’t know why my head is always clearer when watching the explanation videos than when doing the test.

OMG now I see how things work. D is wrong because of the phrase “result in”, which implies causation. But there is nothing like causation involved in the argument. So what results in what? D doesn’t make sense.

Still have no idea why I chose E. The argument has nothing to do with wisdom lol.

I would say what the heck?? B makes more sense because that claim supports the premise which in turn supports the conclusion. OMG God bless me don’t let me see this kind of questions in my official LSAT.

Don’t know why I chose B lol. I think B seems to support the argument by saying that hey Pulaski has proportionally more frequent donors so why don’t we implement the same approach in Pulaski as the one implemented in the other two.

But E sounds good because it shows that nah we cannot implement the same approach in Pulaski because the situations are different bro.

It seems like I was in a rush and just chose an answer choice that looks good without carefully thinking about the other choices.

D is wrong because the argument has nothing to do with whether the candidate is trusted. I don’t know why I chose this one lol.

I chose E because I didn’t think the mature seal in C has anything to do with the conclusion which is about young seals. But E is wrong because 1) we don’t know the age of this attacked seal; 2) E doesn’t mention how this seal learns the ignore those whales that do not eat seals.

C now makes sense because yah, we can make some inferences about a young seal from a mature seal’s behavior.

Feel so stupid that I chose A. I usually forgot to compare and contrast the answer choices with the argument in the stimulus :(

A is wrong because the “solely” and “how much they pay”.

A is wrong not only because it doesn’t resolve the paradox — why these small animals play dead even if it doesn’t seem to help them at all — but also because it requires us to assume that when predators hunt these small animals they always make loud noise or unexpected movement which always surprise the small animals. I don’t know how to say this, but maybe these small animals do not even have time to feel surprised because they are immediately killed lol. So we cannot make this assumption.

I feel like B also requires some assumptions like “when small animals play dead,” or “when predators feel their prey cannot move”, these predators leave them somewhere before eating them.

E is wrong; those quantitive terms may be included in the application of math, but their disagreement is not about the application of math.

C is wrong because Macaulay doesn’t belong to those popular writers the conclusion mentions.

A is wrong because “could have” seems to be too weak. The stimulus says “there is little doubt” and it implies that it is almost certain.

How much these recipients would want to pay for the gifts doesn’t represent how they actually value the gifts, and D exactly attacks this connection by providing another standard used for examining how one values the gifts.

The question stem is kinda tricky because it doesn’t say the reasoning “takes for granted that…” or “fails to consider that…”. I thought the answer choices would try to correct the flaw instead of describing it, and that’s why I got this wrong.

Facilitating an abuse of power DOESN’T mean one is guilty of an abuse of power. It means there will be an abuse of power in the future. That’s why D is wrong.

It is more difficult to see why B is wrong. Having a compelling reason only JUSTIFIES the behavior that might enable an abuse of power, but it doesn’t prevent an abuse of power. OMG I am so messed up.

A is wrong because paying more rent may not necessarily make tenants willing to conserve energy. Maybe they just wanna turn on the air-con and lights all day long and pay more rent and are happy to do that. :|