So... what to do if you have a small breakdown while taking practice test 76 at your June test center? I opened up my booklet, started the test and that immediate "I'm drunk and reading" feeling came over me... paralysis.

Does anybody know how the rolling admission process works with multiple LSATs?

Say you send in an application with your June LSAT score and then you retake again in September. Will they take a second look?

I actually scored better in June than I did in September... after 2 extra months of full time studying and another 15 PTs... At this point, the LSAT feels more luck of the draw than anything else

"What no. Who cares?"

- JY's opinion on 4/5 Supreme Court cases

This is a MSS question.

Ths stimulus says that some educators claim it is best to cover only basic subjects, but go deep within those subjects. AKA: learn a lot about a little. Then students can explore the breadth of the subject matter on their own after. But if they learn a little about a lot, then they won’t know how to explore/self-study

A. What does this have to go with going deep on a few subjects? Is learning how they are "useful" = going deep? Does "classifying" plants and animals = exploring the breadth of the subject matter... Hmm this answer choice is ambiguous

B. What? The stimulus said nothing about enthusiasm during lecture

C. There was no distinction between personal versus independent study

D. Yes - after you have dug deep into a few Greek tragedies and analyzed them in detail, it is easier to understand ANY (aka: the breadth of Greek tragedies). Though I beg to differ - the Greek tragedies are hardly considered basic material

E. Compared to "D," this one doesnt fit the bill. This answer choice seems to turn on the distinction between "many" vs. "few" and "simple" vs. "complicated." Our stimulus was focused on depth rather than difficulty

Flaw/Descriptive Weakening Question

Premise: In determining the authenticity of a painting, connoisseurs claim to be guided by the painting's emotional impact. Ex: Rembrand. HOWEVER, emotional impact varies widely among people. So, connoisseur's assessment cannot be trusted.

Gap: Just because feelings may vary widely from person to person does not mean that the same happens for connoisseurs. Maybe they are professionals and they have a widespread consensus of a paintings' emotional impact.

A. No - it explicitly takes into account that "emotional impact differs wildly from person to person."

B. Rembrandt is just used as an example. Having an example doesn't make it flawed.

C.Yes - This addresses the gap between premise and conclusion. This dis-analogizes the relationship between people's emotional impact and connoisseurs' emotional impact.

D. No - this is close to restating the conclusion but our job is to address the gap between the "emotional impact differing wildly from person to person" and why "a connoisseur's assessment cannot be given credence"

E. No.

People complain about their legislative reps being ineffectual. But this comes with the territory of the job. Legislative reps have to make compromises and we just naturally interpret that as being ineffectual.

Conclusion: So, if we express dissatisfaction rest assured - they are just doing their job.

Flaw: Jumps from "complaining about ineffectuality" to "expressing dissatisfaction." This is a huge leap in terms of criticism. Premise highlights a single aspect of criticism and the conclusion jumps to a generalization.

A. Yes - The flaw in the argument is that it assumes there is only one reason why we can be dissatisfied with our leg. representatives. There can be other reasons.

B. No - I dont see this as passing the Flaw test 1 (descriptively accurate).

C. Maybe? Who knows? We dont know how they would respond. Furthermore, this is not the argument's gap. The gap is that there are other reasons to be dissatisfied

D. We know that one reason we complain is because of compromise, but that doesn't mean that every single compromise leads to dissatisfaction.

E. No.

I'll be there!

NA question.

30 years ago, the percentage of British people who traveled abroad for vacation was very small compared to today. Traveling abroad has always been expensive. Therefore, people have more money to spend on vacations now.

Mm.... Or maybe now its just trendier to vacay abroad. People want to go to the south of France because its all the rage, not because they have more $$$.

We need to eliminate this type of idea and prove that its just a money issue.

A. Is saying "Even if they had more money, it still wouldn't have been enough money"... I mean, thats a sad story but that is not required for the argument. To be right, this should say they took more vacations abroad. That would make sense.

B. Travel to Britain? huh? This is not the group that we are talking about.

C. This doesn't have to be true. Maybe they spent they spent that money on food, college. Negating this does not wreck the argument

D.Yes. If we negate this, it wrecks our argument. It would mean that the lack of vacay abroad is not a money issue (its a preferences issue).

E. Tricky answer choice that just restates the conclusion. We dont know that British people are wealthier just because they spend more money on international vacations.

P: The more slowly a car drives, the more time it spends spewing exhaust into the air and the more time running the risk of collision

C: Reducing the speed limit does not save lives nor protect environment.

Gap: Just because you spend more time on the road doesn't necessarily mean your impact on the environment is worse. Nor does more roadtime make you a greater risk to someone's life.

You gonna tell me my g-ma is now a greater threat to society because she drives slow? What?! nah.

Maybe the WAY you drive is just as impactful. Although you are on the road longer, maybe your overall carbon footprint is smaller because you drive slower. Maybe driving slower makes you more aware --> safer driver.

A. This argument neglects a lot of thing - the weather conditions, the traffic flow. Flaw questions have to pass the 2 step test. This is descriptively accurate but doesn't address the flaw. Also "some" is suspicious. Is it "1" or all? We don't know

B. Yeah. It ignores a lot of things. But we aren't concerned with other benefits. The stimulus specifically wants us to focus on environmental and safety concerns.

C.Ok... sure. So what? Let's say we do consider this - it could strengthen the argument. More cars --> more pollution. Now our argument is even less "flawed"

D. Yes - this addresses the gap between premise and conclusion. The argument assumes that "time on the road" is enough to make a judgement call about pollution and safety.

E. "significant risk" ehh.. This is a conditional relationship, whereas the argument is addressing a correlation. Furthermore, this doesn't pass Test 1 (descriptively accurate) - the argument does not presume that drivers run a significant risk ONLY IF they spend a lot of time on the road

Quick query - after the curriculum, is there an average number of PT's people go through before they hit the high 160's/170's?

This is a Resolve-Reconcile-Explain question (with a twist - "except")

Find 4 that explain the conundrum, 1 that doesn't.

Stimulus: When we look 5 months out, we find that laid-off C people are less likely to find a job than S people. Why does this happen?

Hmm...Is it discrimination? Maybe conscientious people come to their interviews smelling like patchouli and its a turn-off

A. More S people looking for jobs. Huh? This doesn't explain why there's such a discrepany in the hiring rates. Weird... let's keep reading just in case

B. C people are more "choose-y" - YES

C. C people sometimes bomb the interviews - YES

D. S people exaggerate credentials - YES

E.C people take their sweet time finding a job because they have $ - Yes

19. First round of thought:

A. Uh... What? Maybe yes, maybe no - NEXT

B. More than once a week? Stimulus specifically said "once a week" not "more than once" - OUT

C. Hmm.. Lets try and negate this. "Traditional self help groups dont do shit. If I have any success, its because of the Individual counseling." That means that hatha yoga is just some BS they added to my rehab schedule to fill in the day. - YES

D. Physical damage - who cares! - OUT

E. And pigeon-pose is more effective than lotus flower pose to quit smoking. Again, who cares. We aren't trying to rank yoga-quitting-smoking styles. - OUT

To save paper and still get it done, I got some page protectors, and fine tip dry erase markers.

Make a double-sided copy of each game and slide that ish into a page protector.

Front is where you do the drilling in dry erase. Back side has all the inferences and answers in pencil. I used Pacifico's log sheet to chart my time after each rep.

Aint nobody got time to print out 10 clean copies.

Blind ambition baby. Blind ambition.

Nicely done! and quick response at that. I can't wait to get in that kind of mindset. Thanks!

If you have a PowerScore RC Bible.... I would love to hear the Good Gospel.

@

SO true. Sound advice and I love the metaphor. I think I am spending too much time over-analyzing some LR questions and not finishing as a result, especially those parallel reasoning questions that are so damn long to read. Do you recommend the 15-in-15 or the 20 in 20 method?

me too!

All claimed! I'll let you know if anyone does not come through with Venmo and in that case, it will go to the next lucky winner!