Question: Is it better to apply later (November/December) w/ a slightly higher score than applying in October w/ a slightly lower score? For example... is a 170 application in November/December better than a 166 application in October?
Quick question––will the 4th unscored section for the LSAT be one of the two LR sections? Or can it be any one of the three section types?
"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."
I'm curious to see if anyone else has found themselves with an implicit bias against selecting answer choices A and E, particularly towards the back half of LR sections when the questions get tougher. I've found myself reading an attractive answer choice in both of those spots, and then thinking to myself "of course they'd place it there as a trap" ... sometimes it's actually worked really well, other times it obviously hasn't ...
Posting this to see if anyone else has become tripped up by the same mindset, and ultimately if anyone has any tips on how to spot those "traps" in I guess a more successful way?
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...
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
#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 ...
this isn't the first time either, really frustrating
@ 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.
@ 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 just started studying for RC. Does anyone have any thoughts on whether it's best to (1) give myself extra time during drills so that I can "learn how to do it slow before learn how to do it fast," or should I (2) stick to the exact time that I'll have on test day so that I don't get too used to/comfortable with that extra time?
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.