- Joined
- Jun 2026
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Discussions
i thought these were like separate statements not that that one leads to another
To get this question right, you have to assume "best at X” = “most talented at X". I think this is a big assumption here but oh well it's lsat what can i even do
@SerinJ Thank you so much for taking the time to respond to my post. I’ve been drilling more untimed, and today I decided to completely forget about the clock and take as much time as I needed. My accuracy went up to -2 ~ -1 consistently, which showed me that my accuracy can improve, and I’m really happy about that. I’ll definitely try implementing a 40–45 minute time limit into my practice to gradually get myself used to the time pressure for the upcoming test and I’m still going to prioritize accuracy and hopefully my timing will naturally improve along with it. I’m also happy to say I already registered for October, so I’m not nearly as stressed about the September test anymore! Thank you again :)
I can get around -5 on average on LR sections (best was -2), which I’m still not super satisfied with, but I’m registered for the September LSAT and idk how I’m supposed to get the same results under timed conditions. It usually takes me around 50–60 min to get those scores.
I know the main advice is to keep doing sections untimed and focus on accuracy until the timing naturally gets better, but with my test only a few weeks away, I don’t really have that much time to wait for that to happen. Any tips on what I should do? #help #lsatdrainsthelifeoutofme
how is this a SA question and not NA? if we negate E, the argument would fall apart and that is why argument needs it but how is it sufficient for the conclusion to be properly drawn? #help
I really dislike how B is worded. The coach doesn't misinterpret the critics' claim that the team is unprofessional; he clearly understands that they're calling the team unprofessional. What he misinterprets is what the alleged unprofessionalism applies to. He treats the criticism as being about enthusiasm in general, rather than specifically their enthusiasm in response to both their own successes and their opponents' failures.
got this right but what does preference have to do with the argument then?
he explanation for A is a bit confusing to me :/ We don't know whether Olson agrees with A. Olson only says that the oldest fossils we've found date back 55 million years, so Carrillo's 81.5-million-year estimate isn't reliable. That does not mean Olson believes primates didn't exist before 55 million years ago. Plus, saying the oldest fossils date back 55 million years ≠ saying primates have been around for more than 55 million years
he explanation for A is a bit confusing to me :/ We don't know whether Olson agrees with A. Olson only says that the oldest fossils we've found date back 55 million years, so Carrillo's 81.5-million-year estimate isn't reliable. That does not mean Olson believes primates didn't exist before 55 million years ago. Plus, saying the oldest fossils date back 55 million years ≠ saying primates have been around for more than 55 million years
I think it's more about the fact that, so far, D was the only answer that matched Passage 1. Since the question asks for an answer that's correct for both passages, and D is the only option that fits Passage 1, it's the most likely candidate going into Passage 2 because we don't have any other viable option from Passage 1. If we had two strong contenders after reading Passage 1, then we'd need to wait until reading Passage 2 to eliminate one of them
I chose C because I thought that if the bombardment hadn't decreased, there would be more hypotheses based on recent studies, and these new craters would allow people to study where they originated from better (since the more recent they are, the better they can be analyzed). But if the hypotheses are all centered around this bombardment and what it caused, it probably means it was the strongest of them all. I'm not sure if it's right to think of it this way.
I thought the author was just introducing another hypothesis, just like the previous ones, except this one was more recent. How can we tell it's actually the author's opinion?
@Jsonf I think it is more of a general statement rather than the author's personal opinion, because it refers to weaknesses that have little or no relevance to the legal case, such as revealing unrelated illegal activities a person may have committed in the past. The point is that this information is generally not useful to the case, not necessarily that the author personally believes there is no point in mentioning it.
@CarlosHernandez03 I just double checked a few things from the passage instead of re-reading it entirely
But why do we care if the not studied plants contain any different substances from the ones already discovered when we eventually will have none most likely (both discovered and undiscovred), IF the forest is NOT preserved? why do only the undiscovered ones get affected by this change?
I get why C is correct, but I feel like the argument assumes that “saving money” means saving money overall. Reducing the electric bill is still saving money, even if the savings don’t fully cover the cost of the generators. Why does “saving money” have to mean net savings here?