I initially concluded that 2 billion years ago, the ocean would have to be frozen (given that's what would happen today) so I then operated on the assumption that there was a time (3.8 billion years ago) that the oceans were liquid and had life, then at 2B years ago the oceans froze, and then at some point since then the oceans melted. Definitely an assumption I should not have made. I think the key here is reading the stimmy and realizing that there is nothing to suggest that the sun's dimness and its effect on our oceans can be 1 to 1 compared with 2 billion years ago. The stimmy seems contradictory because we make an assumption that the two time periods would respond the same to a 30% dimmer sun, but that's not the case and AC A gives us a reason as to why the two time periods can't be compared in such a way. neat dude

Honestly, I didn't understand why the stimulus randomly jumped to urban agricultural production as a solution, because I didn't see the relation between that and the migration problem. Thing is, I think that's the point, because C then bridges the gap between the two parts of the stimulus by telling us that agricultural problems would result from the migration, which would then bring some clarity as to why the economists asserted that urban pops should produce goods.

I am in the same boat as OP, and though I’m struggling to remain optimistic about it (because I fear that a January app will hurt my chances) the fact of the matter is that it’s very a) school dependent b) absolutely the best option vs sending in a subpar November LSAT score because you wanted the early app advantage. It’s important to remember that the early app advantage can help, but a much better LSAT score will help significantly more. It’s also important to realize that a very high LSAT (170’s, or >75th percentile) will probably fair better in a January app than a score closer to the median of the school. Stay positive, I know I’m trying to! Let’s just do our best :)

Part of my confusion here is differentiating between repressors' characteristics. I understand why AC D can be chosen off the basis of the nested claim, but I don't understand how I was supposed to differentiate between "characteristics of repressors" (which I though would include "tend to repress to maintain social/academic success) vs "characteristics of repressors that bring forth advantage." #help

B vs. D makes me want to throw up

This one juked me out since up until now I've been looking for options that suggest the possibility of an alternative conclusion, since a correct weakening AC thins out the relationship within the argument. This question almost felt like a strengthening question, since we were solidifying why the conclusion was indeed legit. Ugh tricky

So is the first sentence like an intermediate/sub conclusion? I'm confused as to the role it plays in the overall stimulus #help

@ said:

I always tell students to check the schools they are applying to. It doesn't matter if that date is fine for 99% of the schools if it's too late for the one you want to go to. That being said, it should be OK for the vast majority.

Maybe this is a silly question, but when we check with schools, what exactly should we say? Something along the lines of

"do you still accept applications with a January LSAT score?"

or something asking for more nuance, like

"Will applying with a January LSAT score put me at a greater disadvantage in this cycle? How could this influence scholarship?"

Is that too blunt? I'm unsure