Hiya. I came to this realization researching the ED at Emory, in Georgia, and I bet I'm not telling you something you don't already know. An ED program takes away all or most of your leverage to negotiate financial aid so if you've got a great application and think you could do better than what they offer through the ED then you should apply in the general application window. I'm pretty sure Northwestern is a full scholarship so that's a slightly different situation than Emory. It also means it's going to be relatively more competitive than ED programs with partials.

Have you done any research on Law School Transparency or Above the Law? Both sites have tons of information on costs and employment outcomes. ATL's law school rankings are almost totally outcome based: debt, employment outcomes, etc. It sounds like you would be willing to follow the money in order to balance a degree and debt. If you think you need to look beyond NYC/Philly they are great places to start.

You could employ a leveraging strategy by pitting acceptances at several schools against each other to get the best deal possible. You wouldn't be able to do that the same year you were accepted into a program via ED.

@

@

damn, did you also have the question re the disagreement on development of land

Yeah, an agree/disagree, right? I stared at that one for a while.

@ Does anyone know if the LR: Doctor / health care plan old and new / # people given medication was real? I had 3 LR

Also seem to be in the minority in thinking the Virus game was easy - makes me think I may have missed something.... :( I actually had a pretty hard time with RC I thought.

Don't remember that one and I had an experimental games section.

@ I had an exp LR and had a question about zebra finches and some other bird and genes/chromosomes diverging? But can't remember what other questions that was included with. Can someone confirm if this was an exp sec? I thought this sec was slightlyy harder

That was not an experimental section. It was in one of my two LR sections. I had an experimental games section.

And there were at least 7 "resolve the discrepancy" questions, which is a bit higher than the analytic-predicted 3.9/LSAT.

I'm into the old tests. Not only are you training your question answering skills you are training your test taking ability. Using "new" (something haven't seen before) material to work on your diagramming and conditional skills as well as your answer sheet bubbling and pencil sharpening can't help but benefit you.

Based on the 15 PTs I've taken so far (a mix of old and new), if I got every NA and flaw question correct I would pull my score up 5 points. These questions are killing me. The first 20 PTs probably have 150-170 of these questions, NA and Flaw. That's a huge resource of "new" questions for me to use to first practice my test taking ability (timed conditions, bubbling, etc) and then to dissect during BR.

I concede the stimuli have changed a lot but the construction of wrong answer choices has not. For flaw questions in particular the first 20 are a huge resource to help develop a search image for formulaic wrong answer choices.

In the entire catalog of test analogies you went with lice.

My two cents: B, C, and D are easy culls. The passage is written around the plight of working parents and focused particularly on the plight of working mothers. E makes a shift to "institutions" that doesn't match the content and message of the passage (as noted above by others). Additionally, the "widen the gap" phrase was a red flag for me. Looking at my notes on this one I wasn't in love with A but it was the lone survivor. During review, I concluded what those above have concluded, it was clear that the content of A: "most men," meaning those working men who don't have childcare responsibilities are in the best position.

I see your point: the stimulus doesn't imply the only way to improve is to go the tech route. So even if you concede there's room for improvement in Europe that doesn't force you to adopt the tech solution. Hmmm, I've got nothing. But my daughter, Alice is watching me respond and she says hi.

Hi. I approach NA by putting the whole argument in parentheses and then making that the SA. JY does this in an early NA lesson. Anyway, if turtles are in danger of extinction because a survey found that nesting females have declined by 2/3 in 15 years then ____________. Slap each answer choice into that and evaluate. Below I paraphrase the entire thing as blah blah blah.

For C: if the survey results are not representative of the population then a conclusion about the population based on said survey may not represent the population. In other words for the conclusion to be valid the survey MUST be representative of the entire population. It's absolutely necessary. If blah blah blah then the decline of nesting females is proportional to the decline of the entire species. That works and works well. Negate the whole thing and the argument falls apart.

Regarding D: it looks likes your analysis of the negation of "few" omitted the possibility that no turtles live in captivity. Negate few that way, no turtles live in captivity, and it strengthens the argument considerably. Negate it the other way, the way you went with, that most turtles live in captivity, and it weakens the argument considerably. Putting it in the equation: if blah blah blah then very few turtles live in captivity. Since you can negate it two ways and those ways conflict D isn't necessary.

The most successful economies have always been those that train as many people as possible in the skills to required to research, develop, and apply technology. Japan is a good example but they have a shortage of technically qualified people and too many laborers. Europe is behind Japan: Europe is lacking skilled labor to use tech, and has a shortage of scientists to develop and apply tech. And Europe has too many laborers.

A) Not supported. All we know is that Europe is short on scientists and skilled people. Engineers aren't mentioned.

B) Not supported. All we know about Japan is it has a model training effort and not enough tech people and too many laborers. Economy is not mentioned.

C) Not supported. The state of Japan's economy is not referenced in the stimulus and "narrow base..." is way too specific.

D) The stimulus clearly says that Europe is lacking skilled labor trained in tech AND scientists who can develop and apply tech. The stimulus also says that Europe is in a "weaker position." So if the strongest economies have people who can "do" all three tech things: use, develop, and apply and Europe is lacking all three, then in order to increase its economic strength they have to train more people in tech.

E) Totally not supported. The author says that Europe is in a weaker position with respect to training but also says they lack people who can do all three parts of the three-part tech-based approach to economic success. There's certainly nothing to support that Europe is in a strong economic position.

I tend to be a "ruler outer" and cut A-C, and E quickly. When I reviewed D it jumped right out as fully supported by the stimulus. I hope this helps.

You mentioned that D is "logically wrong." What about it is logically wrong? Is it possible this is a case where your outside knowledge interfered with your analysis of the stimulus and answer choices?