Yes, I run out of time on every section. As an example, on my recent test I got 14 wrong on RC, 11 wrong on LR, and 7 wrong on LG. When I did blind review I got 9 wrong on RC, 5 wrong on LR, and 3 wrong on LG. So, what is my problem? Is this 10+ point difference between real prep test and blind review normal? What can I do?

I am in the same boat except I am continuously scoring 151, and my blind review score is 163. I have gone through all of PowerScore materials, all of 7Sage, and have even met with a tutor for many hours. How do I improve my score? Any help is appreciated.

#help Okay, I believe I am correct in saying that the ethicists assumption is that a promise to meet a friend at a certain time is an obligation. Promise = obligation, which connects the example to the ethicists argument. And D is supposed to explain this assumption, correct? I do not get how D does that.

This question was lost on me. I was so confused.

My issue is timing too. I am also taking the January exam. The best advice I think is to drill, drill, drill. I can get nearly 100% on the LSAT if I do it untimed. My timed I get like 152.

I think only drilling will help us.

It seems like most people including myself are confused with A. I will tell you why I think A is wrong:

A is proposing a hypothetical world different from the one we are in with the stimulus. In A's hypothetical world, the subjects are always guessing that the next image appears at the top. A goes onto say that this guessing is not based on any sequence that the subjects believe they saw. But how are we to know from our stimulus that in the hypothetical world the subjects do not believe they see a pattern? We do not know anything about this hypothetical world, and we cannot say for certain what the subjects in this world believe. As soon as A states "if the subjects had always guessed top," we know it is wrong because the stimulus cannot prove anything with respect to the subjects only guessing top. The stimulus only mentions the pattern the subjects thought they saw with respect to their original guessing strategy.

You must remember that in a must be true you are using the STIMULUS to prove the answer choice. Support is going from the stimulus down to the answer choice. And nothing in the stimulus supports A, because nothing in the stimulus talks about this hypothetical world.

The beginning of the "to point out that such..." sentence took me 10 minutes to understand and I am still confused lol.

PSA: I got this question wrong because I was applying the stimulus principle of "more enjoyment → more practice." However, that wasn't the analysis. The analysis was "success in meeting the first objective will bring about success in meeting the second objective."

Remember to only apply the analysis!

#feedback (No hate to JY, I love 7Sage) When JY was going over C and D for question 25, I felt like the explanation was not thorough enough. JY was pretty much advising just to guess (trusting your "psychological reaction" is pretty much just guessing as you cannot say for sure if it is right or wrong). With that said, how do 170+ test takers get these questions right? Do they remember everything that was stated in the passage? If we do not remember if something was stated in the passage, are we pretty much hooped? Do we need to guess? Or is there a way to figure it out? For example, the newer tests allow students to use the F search feature - could that help in a question like this?

Thank you!

#help Is this question a part-to-whole flaw? The author takes a fact about identical twins, and then applies it to everybody by stating "many of our inclinations must be genetic in origin."

Medical books → Fewer doc visits

Improved health → Fewer doc visits

Therefore, Medical books → Improved health

D: "Two different states of affairs (Medical books and Improved health) could each casually contribute to the same effect (Fewer doc visits) even though neither causally contributes to the other."

If the abstract expressionist painting is aesthetically BETTER than the preschooler painting, than in order to conclude the abstract expressionist painting is aesthetically PLEASING, the preschoolers painting must have some degree of aesthetic pleasure. This leads us to B: "Most of the preschoolers paintings used in the study were not aesthetically displeasing."

I think this question is way harder than a 3/5! The wording of C makes it hard to see that it is the correct answer. If C removed the bit about TBT killing imported varieties and just said "imported varieties live in the water and they flourish at the expense of native species," then it would have been easier to see. However, when I read C I thought, "well imported species cannot be killing the native species because TBT killed off all of the imported species."

Ugh..

Idk why but when I did this question for a PT I was lost. I guess I didn't understand the stimulus so I was hooped for the answer choices. But after JY quickly explained the stimulus, I immediately selected D.

@ The most important thing is to believe in yourself. I am taking the November test as well. I have faith that we can both do well and get the score we want and deserve. We have put in the studying and we have worked hard for this! Do not forget that, and good luck! :)

What the heck - we are expected to know that Martian means from Mars? When I read "Mars" in the conclusion I thought where the hell did Mars come from. I had to search up what Martian meant.

#help Why don't we diagram this as a some statement, considering it has the word "many?" I am confused. I diagrammed this as a conditional statement but apparently it is causal?

#help I just have one clarification question. So, in parallel questions, it is okay if the answer choice follows the stimulus argument form, but crosses out one of the terms? I am assuming this is okay as the correct answer choice in this question does that.

#help The conclusion of Mary's argument made this question tricky for me. Mary states "obviously, your statements taken together are absurd." This leaves me guessing why Mary thinks this. Would there ever be a stimulus where Mary straight up states: "obviously Jamal's statements are absurd as he is using the word right in two different contexts?"

#feedback The explanation on this question was incredible. Loved the chart outlining why the percent risk at each stage does not equal the percent risk overall.

#help I get why this question is flawed. However, I do not get how the language in the stimulus allows for this flaw. How does the phrase "considerable controversy among scientific experts about how reliable these tests are" equate to scientists all being reliable to varying degrees? Doesn't the "considerable controversy" mean that there is a wide variety of beliefs with respect to reliability? Thank you! :)

#help#feedback I am having trouble with translating a sentence that does not sound conditional, into a conditional statement. For example, when the stimulus states "it is unlikely that a majority of Dalton's residents would favour the proposal..., thus, it is unlikely that the airport will be built," I took this to mean "maj favour → built."

Therefore, I eliminated answer choice A as my statement was not taking the original sufficient condition for the airport's being built (maj favour) as a necessary.

However, now I see that if I had looked at the contrapositives my question would be answered. The contrapositive of the statement I made is "built → maj favour." If I compare this to the original statement "maj favour → built," then my statement is taking a sufficient condition to be necessary.

Can anyone confirm that my thinking is correct?

#help#help Wait a minute... "the only" is sufficient (group one)? I do not have that in my notes. I took "the only" to be the same as only (necessary, group two). Can anyone explain why "the only" is sufficient (group one)? Thank you! :)

#help Is there a lesson where causal claims are contrasted with conditional claims? For example, JY states that the following claim is causal: "life as we know it could evolve only in the presence of liquid water." However, I wrote this out as a conditional statement: "If life evolving → liquid water." Would my interpretation still be correct?

Also, I identified the confusion of the sufficient and necessary conditions. I searched for this in the answer choice but did not find it (I now know the correct answer). However, I am confused. Would I be correct in saying that there could be more than one flaw, and not all flaws need to be described in the answer choices? For example, in this case, the sufficient/necessary confusion flaw was not described in the answer choices. * EDIT: I did some further digging and apparently the correct answer choice does describe the sufficient/necessary confusion flaw?

Hi! I am in the exact same boat and I am interested!