#help

For B, couldn't you say something like "just because it's difficult, that doesn't mean it's impossible," right? I feel like I've read a lot of trap answer choices that bait us into making the assumption that "because X is hard, X is impossible," so was wondering if anyone could clarify that ...

@phillipecarson349 said:

For drills, I do 1 passage at a time. Start completely untimed, giving yourself as long as you need to finish the passage and be fairly confident with most/all of your answers. After you can usually go -0 or -1 on the passage, start to introduce timing. My method was to give myself target time + 3 minutes for a passage, working my way down to drilling at target time (while still reliably going -0 or -1). After that point, you should be able to get a full timed section done without feeling super rushed.

For all drilling, you want to sit in the sweet spot where you're not overly rushed and taking mental shortcuts to save time, but you also have enough of a time crunch to feel a bit of pressure to not waste it either.

Hope this helps!

This also makes a ton of sense ... really appreciate you sharing that with me.

@hendricksta225 said:

If you just started, then you really shouldn't be thinking about time. Please take my word for it. The most important thing starting out is understanding how these passages are put together. The next step is getting good habits in place. Only once you can reliably get most, if not all, of the questions right should you think about how long it is taking.

Super helpful to hear this process spelled out like that. Thank you!

I've found the "which one seems to support the other" thought process to be pretty helpful.

I had a completely different way of getting to the right answer here, so sharing the below in case it's helpful to anyone else:

My entire thinking was to anchor myself to the conclusion of "preventing fraud = conducive to progress," because that is just a restatement of the conclusion after all. AC's (B) through (E) said absolutely nothing about that conduciveness to progress, while (A) was the only one to do so.

Doesn't AC (E) force us to make the assumption that Roehmer is the Commentator's adversary? Isn't assuming the truth of that necessary for claiming that that is what the Commentator is doing?

I feel like this is a common issue I have with assumptions. I never know when/where to draw the line for going too far with them.

#help

"August LSAT Test Dates: The August LSAT will be administered on the following dates:

​Saturday, August 14, 2021

Sunday, August 15, 2021

Tuesday, August 17, 2021

Thursday, August 19, 2021 (Registrants with approved accommodations for paper-and-pencil testing only)

You will receive a communication with instructions on how to schedule your testing day and time when the scheduling window opens on Thursday, July 29, 2021."

this isn't the first time either, really frustrating

add me

Genuine question––how are we supposed to interpret that stimulus in 60 seconds?

#help

It seems like there's a lot of phrase indicators.

"if true..." = Weak/Streng

"if valid..." = SA/NA ("if valid...most helps/supports/etc" = PSA)

"role played..." = Argument Part

etc...