Problems with C and a review of D:

1) AC C has a major but quite easy issue to overlook, especially under timed conditions. That issue is in the framing of "For most bus drivers...". The stimulus is talking about a specific transit company's bus drivers.

Do all of the company's drivers fall into the bucket of what AC C is going to say is true of "MOST BUS DRIVERS" in general? We have no idea so on those grounds alone, we can do away with C.

The same would be the case if we negated C. All that would be stated by doing so is that for most bus drivers (in general), x is not true of them. Again, do the drivers of the specific transit company fall into this category or not? Does this fact of knowing what isn't true of most bus drivers in general have any bearing on the transit company's bus drivers? We have no way of knowing.

2) D on the other hand uses referential language to indicate that the drivers in question are those belonging to the transit company mentioned in the stimulus. Further, when you negate D, I think what you come away with is the idea that all the bus drivers in the company are affected in wildly different ways and to different extents in the presence of a supervisor.

For example, perhaps it is the case that some drivers, especially those who typically do a poor job, become highly motivated and even excited when a supervisor is aboard their bus and so they perform exceptionally well but then return to driving poorly "under normal conditions" (i.e., w/o a supervisor aboard).

In the face of such an instance, the conclusion that "...those drivers performing best with a supervisor aboard will also likely be the best drivers under normal conditions" crumbles.

@Asma Thank you for the thoughtful reply! I will try to pay closer attention to how time impacts me.

I'm well aware of the psychological impact that the timing constraints have, but I will have to work to more closely to analyze and determine how it is affecting me on a more practical and strategic level as I work through the test.

D is a sly bastard of an answer choice that I initially chose but then changed to E on blind review.

D is wrong because it fails to engage with the standard for determining which vacuum is better that was set by the argument. And it does so in a way that appeals to our common sense.

We would typically think that the vacuum cleaner that pickups up more dirt than another is the one that is best, and this is the standard set by D.

The standard set in the argument, though, is that the better vacuum is the one that picks up what the other failed to capture. So going back to D, the old vacuum cleaner could have picked up a TON of dirt. The Super XL, though, once it was ran over the same area, picked up dirt that the other just could not pick up.

In essence, it's the power and strength of the vacuum in removing dirt that, according to the argument, determines which is the better vacuum; not the amount.

Fell into the trap under timed conditions, but with a fresh mind and a new take, I see there's actually a third thing wrong with AC C.

Let's say they were, in fact, talking about high-risk industries, and work-related injuries had gone up annually since legislation took effect. That wouldn't weaken the argument. Maybe it's the case that everyone in that industry was getting a small cut on their index finger while working. This would do nothing to throw a wrench into the idea that the new legislation had the effect of lowering the likelihood that a worker would suffer a serious injury.

In my hypothetical, maybe it's the case that due to the legislation it's only the case that everyone is now getting a small index finger cut as opposed to losing an entire arm (aka a serious injury), which is what was happening prior to the enactment of the relevant legislation.

Questions like these are starting to make me reconsider my approach to SA questions. For these questions, I always operated under the idea that SA questions only required mapping and filling in the "gap" with the SA in a very mechanical and formulaic manner - similar to a math problem.

In this argument, though, while there is of course a gap to be filled, it is nevertheless not in a way that requires or even calls for mapping in the manner described above.

That's the reason that on my initial pass throughs on this question (under timed conditions and then on BR), I just looked at and chose those AC's that mention something about making predictions, assessments, inferences, etc., since that was a key word in the conclusion. Upon further review, though, I saw that the content of these AC's either flies in the face of what the stimulus says or do nothing to fill in the gap.

@Lia24788 Screaming internally into the void for answers and waiting for a reply back from said void. Not so much a tip as it is a habit I engage in while studying for the LSAT. So therefore, a study habit (of sorts).

Hope that helps.

Lol you should be doling out to advice to us and not the other way around.

But great job!

@steamboatwillie I think that there are always going to be questions that are trickier to handle and those questions will differ from person to person, which is why I suggest getting to the point (if you haven't already) where you can eliminate most - if not all - of the obviously wrong answer choices and quickly (***Note: it takes time and practice to get to that point). That way, maybe you're left choosing between 2 competing answer choices rather than 4 or 5.

But if you're having issues interpreting or translating answer choices, then you might need to do some brushing up on the core curriculum and lawgic while also practicing more so you can learn which type of answer choices are obviously wrong.

Good luck!

I wouldn't totally disregard them, but I would largely stop looking and keeping at the forefront of my mind (as you seem to be doing) the timing metrics provided by 7sage. That would trip almost anybody up if while trying to read and understand the stimulus and answer choices you were also thinking about how 7sage timing analytics suggests you need to answer this type of question in "x" amount of seconds/minutes.

At this point, focus only on the question. Clearly, you're making progress if you can identify the things you mentioned in your post faster, but do you know what strategies to implement for every given question type? Can you employ those strategies without having to think too much about them? Are you at a point where you can pretty quickly and confidently eliminate what you might perceive to be "wrong" answer choices (you may not always be right when doing this but being able to get to a point where you can quickly eliminate or disregard most competing answer choices will be proof of improvement in my experience). If you can, great! If not, then use these as goal posts to reach as they will help you in your journey.

Also, I'll pass on some advice from someone who was kind enough to share it with me. If you struggle with getting through all the RC passages/questions (like I did and still do to some extent), skip over the last 2 questions for each passage and return to them only if you have time. This way, instead of only being able to get through 2 or so passages like I was doing, I can now get to the 4th and answer more questions rather than on focusing on answering all the questions for all the passages. 17 or 18 out of 25 questions answered (with the rest guessed on) is better than 10 or 11 out of 25 while guessing on the remainder of the questions.

@Karl! I think it's incorrect to say timing issues don't exist but right to say, as you do, that beneath timing issues lie more foundational issues that need addressing. Further, I think there is a conflation of "lack of skill" and "lack of understanding" in the makeup analogy, which to me seem to be distinct problems. For example, you can understand how to apply makeup but maybe do it in a less than timely manner because you haven't practiced it enough (skill issue). Just like I can, for example, play through an entire piece of music and understand how to do it but perhaps not execute it flawlessly and within the typical duration due to lack of familiarity with the piece, inconsistent or improper practice, nerves, etc.

With that said, there can of course be overlap and influence between the two "lacks" (i.e. lack of skill and lack of understanding) but identifying and teasing out whether you misunderstand or just need to practice (or both) more - and correctly - to where it comes easier and flows is what's important for @steamboatwillie .

Placing way too much pressure on yourself and expecting something approaching a miracle. Not trying to be negative as lord knows I have my own struggles, but going from a 160 in January to a 175 (or close) in April is setting yourself up for future disappointment.

I'd take more time to practice and study and only when you're PT'ing at or near 175 consistently should you expect to execute at that level on test day and even then, there can be slight variance to your score, but at least your odds will be better.

Good luck.

Unless you're a glutton for punishment, stop what you're doing and focus on finishing undergrad and enjoying your youth. Law school will still be there and it won't be the end of the world if you start law school at 25 or even 30 (not advising you do but just saying).

Literally chill out, finish undergrad and then get back on the studying horse while understanding that this will take time. Get some work experience while you're at it and save some money. Unless you have an extremely solid understanding and or background in the sort of concepts that the LSAT tests you on, you will need to spend a good amount of time on this process (at least 1 year - maybe less depending on how you structure your study time). Do the entire Core Curriculum.

This is a hard test but with time you will get there if this is really what you have your sights set on.

Good luck.

Accept the losses and carry on? You are doing great and have an enviable score if you're PT'ing at 168.

The only advice I can give is to read more on your own time and practice RC more. Where do you think you're getting tripped up? Is it a timing issue? Not understanding or fumbling on a specific question type? etc.

@Aar In that case, keep drilling and practicing but it is still going to take some time to get to the level of executing a 165 come test day.

If you've taken practice tests, what is your blind review score?

The best strategy moving forward is to not underestimate the amount of time it takes to learn the material this test covers, which you seem to be doing. Unless the test material comes naturally to you and/or you have a strong background in the material it covers, you need to spend a lot more time studying and practicing before you're executing with a 165 come test day.

Go through the entirety of the core curriculum and do all or at the very least, most of, the practice questions/drills at the end of each module. The time this will take will depend on what your schedule/other commitments are like, but plan for at least 1 year.

After that, you'll be much better positioned to get the kind of score you're looking for.

What is your blind review score on practice tests?

While I feel your pain, just imagine for a moment how it feels to have studied on and off (and for the past 2 years+, very much ON) for this test since 2020, which included going through the CC twice only to get, on your first PT, a whopping 153, followed by another 153 on another PT a month later, and then a 148 on a PT 2-3 months after that all while having blind review scores in the range of 163-177.

That's where I'm at so it could be much, MUCH worse and demoralizing than it is as you haven't sunk anywhere near that amount of time into studying (and the better for you!).

All's that is to say that you're doing great and progressing at a good rate.

Now, everyone is different and I don't want to project here, but I think 170+ by June from a 155 is asking for a lot. I think you should take more time. You can get that score, but realistically, it'll take more time than 2 1/2 months.

Just my perspective and .02 cents...

Answer Choice A also allows for making the reasonable assumption that the banning of the pesticide that adversely affects most North American wildlife stretches to include the natural predators of the deer (e.g., wolves, etc.).

This has the effect of helping to explain not only the rise in the number of deer, but also the co-occurring rise in the number of natural predators mentioned in the stimulus.

The way I eventually arrived at the right answer was to frame this differently than JY.

Just because you are for/against or want/don't want something, doesn't mean that when the rubber hits the road, your actions will follow in accordance with your given stance or tastes.

For example, Jane can say she refuses to live downtown, but it doesn't follow that when it comes time to pick a place to live, she won't rent a place downtown despite her refusal. Maybe it's the only place available that she can afford.

Same with Denise. She can want to rent a penthouse apartment, but it doesn't mean she will certainly do so. She might not be able to afford it despite what she wants.

Same with the Councillors. Miller can be in opposition or even historically have opposed proposals to raise taxes. That doesn't mean he will oppose Callari's proposal; maybe they have a quid pro quo thing going on. You know? Politics. He votes in favor of the proposal, even though he opposes it in theory, and Callari agrees to vote in favor of one of his propsals.

And for Philopoulos, he might be for increased funding for schools but that doesn't necessarily mean he'll support Callari's proposal to raise property taxes. After all, he might be for increased funding for schools but not at the cost of increasing property taxes.

The only way any of these arguments can be made more sound is by changing from certainty to likelihood (from will to likely, probably, etc.).

Hope this helps someone.

AC E has to be more glaringly and obviously wrong due to the use of "will probably be of little use", which would roughly translate to "will probably be somewhat, although not totally, useful".

That is, certainly different from the conclusion of "not likely to be useful". The former being more optimistic and positive while the latter, negative and not hopeful of the prospect.

I admit that this part got me.

Now, JY's analysis of some of the incongruency of language in E with the stimulus just doesn't land right for me.

I think "considerable damage" for example, is subsumed under "catastrophic damage", no? If an earthquake caused what could be described as "catastrophic damage", would it be wrong or off the mark if in surveying that same damage someone said, "there's been considerable damage here"? Would the language police really step in and tell that person they misspoke? I don't think so.

Now the marginally perceptible vs imperceptibly small thing I can understand and that one also got me because of how easy it was to miss or gloss over.

@haena Thank you so much again! I will take everything you wrote above into consideration as I go on to practice/study. Really appreciate the insights from the tutoring as well.

Wish you the best!

@haena

Firstly, thanks for taking the time to not only read my post but also thoughtfully and substantively reply to it. I very much appreciate that! Thank you as well for the encouragement and tips.

Now, I read your first bit of advice regarding my taking practice tests for purposes of helping with endurance and timing to imply that perhaps I should be laying off those for now. Is that a correct reading? If so, would you recommend just doing drills in the interim before going back to the PT's? Reason I ask is because my current practice strategy, after doing the core curriculum and many, many question type drills, involves doing the PT's and reviewing those as practice instead of doing an untold number of drills. What's worked best for you?

Also, I like the idea of trying to get through all four passages and maybe guessing on the last two questions as this seems to free up some time. Have you totally weaned yourself off the memory method JY uses when it comes to RC? I've been trying to get off of it, although I'm not sure if it should be abandoned altogether, so as to also help with improving my timing.

I think a common problem for me with both RC and LR that contributes to timing issues is processing speed. It's not that I don't grasp what's being asked or read or that I don't know or remember how to approach certain question types but rather that I don't always grasp things within a frame of time that would enable me to work through the test at a faster rate than I am currently. Not sure how to get around that.

Anyways, thanks again.