- Joined
- Jul 2025
- Subscription
- Live
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
good morning! i am interested in connecting with test takers located in the dc metropolitan area who would like to meet up at least 1x/week to go over problems, discuss issues and hold each other accountable.
for context, i am a first-gen nontraditional applicant. i have also taken the LSAT a few times and i am currently averaging PT scores within the mid to high 150s. my goal is to break into the 170s and take the october 2026 test. however, my timeline is subject to change as i will be applying to start in Fall 2028.
if you're interested, please join if you:
are committed to meeting at least 1x/week, either virtually or in-person (if in-person, please make sure you're located in an area serviced by WMATA)
have an average PT of 155+ and want to score 170+
can do daily check-ins of practice sessions (what you covered, what you did well on, what you'd like to improve, etc.)
are comfortable talking through questions and dissecting them for better understanding
have already graduated/are also a nontraditional applicant
are open to the group remaining active past test prep (i.e. essay review, brainstorming, timeline mapping, etc.)
are serious about making progress and can actively participate in the group
plan to apply within the next year (either 2026 or 2027 app cycle)
my availability throughout the week varies, but i'm free to meet on weekdays from 8:30-10PM (virtually) with occasional availability in the morning. my weekends are also pretty open, but i prefer to meet in the morning/early afternoon to provide the chance to meet in-person.
if you're interested, please feel free to join the group!
ended up getting this correct, though i nearly got this wrong! here's my reasoning:
stimulus: the author makes the argument that when there was no speed limit set in previous years, the rate of accidents on highways increased. since setting the speed limit about 10 yrs ago to 55mph (or 90kph), the rate of accidents have decreased significantly (by at least 15%).
however, the author is making an assumption that it's the speed limit that contributed to the decreased rate of accidents on the highway. in other words, the argument is committing the causation ≠ correlation flaw. because of this, it's possible there could be other factors contributing to the decreased accident rate, and that's the answer you'd be looking for in the ACs.
*i did this question untimed, and usually i'll create alt. hypotheses that could be answers for the question. but sometimes those predictions don't appear in the ACs, so just keep that in mind if you end up doing that. but if not, just focus on finding something that provides an alt. explanation to what's being proposed in the argument.
answer choices (ACs):
A, B, & C- these don't really weaken the argument... personally i didn't think these were relevant factors either (as far as providing an alt. explanation for the argument).
E- this focuses more on harm than on the rate of accidents. totally irrelevant. eliminated.
D- the correct answer! when i first saw this, i didn't really think it was as important because having better control of a vehicle in a dangerous situation may not always lead to avoiding an accident. but that doesn't really matter. the point is the change in automobile design could lead drivers to have a better handle on their cars/driving when in a dangerous situation (like hydroplaning, brake failure, etc.) which would lead to improved driving safety and, ultimately, a decreased rate of accidents on the highway.
doesn't really follow exactly what the explanations say for this question/ACs, but i hope this helped!