The pattern is about noticing the true 'replicability' of the test itself. It is standardized -- there are not huge differences between the tests.

Similar reasoning & heck, even very similar content, appear again & again. Why? Because it's standardized. LSAT cannot have potentially non-PC material; instead, we see the same sort of 'boring' content (at the most base level of 'patterning')... i.e. traffic accidents, dinosaurs, etc.

At more nuanced levels of patterning, you begin to see the repeat of lawgic. Note the valid & invalid lessons from JY. Again & again, the same wrong answer choices (invalid reasoning) appear.

And at an even more nuanced level, you recall patterns of particular types of reasoning between tests.... i.e. this question reminds me of another question from PrepTest XX. This is what we are after -- the recognition of the repeated 'pattern' & us being able to tackle that pattern with our own skill-set. The skills are about recognition (what type of Q is this? what will the 4 wrong ACs look like? what will the one right AC look like? have I done this before?) and application (tuning into your own rhythm for the test).

There isn't one pattern -- it is the pattern as YOU see it. Through developing knowledge & skills from 7sage and others, you develop your own 'rhythm' for answering questions. Your 'rhythm' is your particular approach. It's a parallel reasoning Q, what do you do? It's a grouping game, are you ready for the set-up? etc etc. You are very unlikely to see anything drastically new -- so the similar rhythm you develop should be applied to each test. And do NOT let one oddball question mess up the rhythm.

Hi @

I'm glad you posted because I feel that I am in a very similar situation.

You don't have to decide *yet* about December -- the money is already a sunk cost. You can keep preparing and continue to assess how you feel. It will not be wasted energy because all of the continued preparation goes toward either test.

You always have the option to cancel. So you could take the test as you had planned & then assess afterwards how you think you did. If you thought it wasn't one of those 179 moments & more like one of those 166 moments, then you could decide to cancel. But even cancelling has its up sides -- you've now seen what the stress/the day of the LSAT feels like!

Looking for any ideas on clarifying my incorrect thought process...

For (C) I thought that we couldn't assume these drums were on multiple printers. We know that you match blemish -- drum -- printer. But couldn't the several drums all be from the same printer? In which case, the same manufacturing nick could be matched...? Not sure when to reign in my over-thinking instincts!

For AC (D), we don't know that the argument does ignore this possibility. In fact, embedded into the vacuum test is the idea that the old vacuum could've picked up plenty of dirt, but it didn't pick up all the dirt. So Super probably picked up less dirt -- but it picked up the dirt that the old one couldn't obtain... and this is meant to be the signal of superiority.

But let's think of this another way. Imagine a gigantic bowl of dog food. We're at the World's Best Dog Eating Contest. The first dog up eats as much as he can from this gigantic bowl of food. He cannot finish the whole thing; he's stuffed. The second dog comes along & you know what ... she finishes the whole bowl! She must be the winner! She did that which the first dog couldn't do!

Do you see that we don't ignore the possibility that the first dog ate a greater amount? He could've eaten 75% of the dog food & the other dog merely picked up the left overs.

But just because the second dog finishes off the bowl -- shows nothing about how much that dog can actually eat. Could she have eaten 75% of the bowl had she gone first? I mean this is a gigantic bowl of dog food.

(E) highlights that we need to know how much the second dog would have munched through had she eaten from the bowl first.

The LEFT OVER is our only basis for comparison & (E) rightly points out that we need to know if the same amount of LEFT OVER could have occurred had Super gone first.

Should this Q be marked with a higher level of difficulty?

JY, you can't shake the feeling you've seen the Q before because this Q's content has been repeated elsewhere! Like Preptest 62, Section 2, Q5.

But what are we able to assume about the chambers for (A)?

Couldn't they be tiny & just for the crayfish? Why are we to presume that the chambers are shared with the larvae & the larvae then benefit from access to water?

Anyone else want to weigh in on why (E) is incorrect for Q21? I actually thought that since the last paragraph discusses "the majority of consumers" and "most adults" that there might be an exception of "few people" who are unable/unwilling.

Thoughts?

Interestingly, Q21 of Section 1 of this preptest is a parallel flaw with whole to parts, whereas this is parts to whole. To be noted as well, this Q deals with "Team 1" and "Team 2" which is a different structure from the stimulus just as the correct AC for Q21 in the earlier section deals with two majors which was also a different structure from the stimulus.

Lesson learned: Read carefully! I though that (D) could not explain the discrepancy because I wrongly glossed over "LOW vitamin A DEFICIENCY". I assumed that (D) linked increased carrot consumption with those with low vitamin A.... but instead, it is those with low deficiency, i.e. those with enough vitamin A.

I've watched so many videos of JY drawing out explanations (always very helpful), but I've never made drawings.

For this particular Q, however, I was finally tempted to sketch out what was going on during the test. And in doing so, I had a diagram with two countries (blobs really) one which the US exported to & imported from & one which the US only imported from. Such a visualization allowed me to choose AC (C) confidently.

Thanks for helping us think through such questions visually, JY!

This was a surprising parallel question because (B) relies on the use of "or" whereas there is no such use in the stimulus. However, the more general shift of "whole to parts" is paralleled.

For myself, I missed the distinction between "racing cars" and "passenger cars" in (C). I assumed that "passenger cars" was referring to one of the types of racing cars from the company & thereby, it was also a whole to parts argument.

This Q requires the application of the principle. Which principle? Preventing problems associated with conflicts of interest -- mainly, there should be disclosure.

The ACs require us to think outside the realm of this specific example (scientists, their commercial holdings, their publications, and the need for disclosure) to another parallel realm (some other players, some other need for disclosure).

(A) "should not make...." -- Making or not making investments does NOT equal disclosure.

(B) "effectiveness" "studies" -- This may be true (and may play off our bias that we think it should be true), but it does NOT equal an application of disclosure.

(C) "sell or purchase" -- Selling or purchasing does NOT equal disclosure.

(D) "invest" -- Just like AC (A), making or not making investments does NOT equal disclosure.

(E) "should inform" "any incentives" -- Finally, we have the right verb of "informing" which does equal an act of disclosure.

Definitely not overkill on going over (A) -- very helpful as a way of looking for application of the principle.

Another problem with (B), besides the problem of an illness mistmatch, is that we don't know if all the dishes the waiter served were seafood dishes. We have to make the connection with contaminated seafood.

Another reason why (B) and (D) are different is the reference to global warming. We are not only concerned with reducing levels -- but reducing levels "enough to halt" the global warming effect. (B) does not mention global warming & (D) does.

For speed, a few tips:

I mark the passages very minimally -- mostly, not at all.

I usually have those moments of "what did I just read, I need to read again" at the very beginning of a passage. It's as if I get the 'jitters' over & done with at the beginning.. and then I feel more resolved not to waste any more time & push forward.

I also think it is important to be interested -- increased interest = increased attentiveness = increased speed. I genuinely want to find out what interesting facts might be included in the passage. Heck, I usually know nothing about the subject matter, so it's like finding out about a whole new world of information!

I also have DRILLED RC sections -- I took one preptest book & only did the RC passages one after another, as if I were doing a five-section test composed only of RC passages.

I'd still love to know about suggestions for what to do with left over time though! As I have encountered that the Q's I do get wrong are not always those that I even circled.

@ any patterns in the *content* itself? Perhaps they are not related via Question types but are related in that they are the more 'abstract' stimuli of the section or rely most heavily on lawgic or rely on conditional statements or deal with those accident rates/speed limits etc etc. You might see a trend in the content -- so that is worth checking.

Just to reiterate what other people have written, I definitely think this sounds like the case of needing a 'warm-up'. I would see what works for you, whether warming up with LR or LG -- but just to get the brain into LSAT thinking mode.

It is great that you've noticed this now because I also think you should take this approach to the test itself -- do some warm-up questions that morning to get into the routine. Have your favorite questions ready or even fresh questions ready. But I'd say you don't need to bother even checking the right answers -- just go through the motions of LSAT thinking. It's like stretching before the race!

And that's the worry @ -- I'd love to aim for those very schools! Harvard updated their policy to include acceptance of the highest scores. But other policies are more ambiguous.

What are you leaning more towards @ ?

Thanks for your suggestion @ !

Personally, I like the metaphor of low-hanging fruit. Why waste your energy climbing allllll the way up to the tippy top of the tree to get that one fruit when you have just as tasty, easier-to-grab fruits right next to you? Gotta conserve energy & KEEP MOVING ALONG.

In comparing (D) to (E), I was taking issue with 'historical fact' as I thought 'historical context' better explained "for otherwise photography....". The historical fact isn't explicit; it's implicit: photography didn't do that.

What I should have taken issue with instead was "to support a claim" vs. "to defend". The author isn't actually defending these preferences, but simply describing them.

For (C) I was wondering if the "try to" was strong enough language for rectifying a situation.