I came out of the test thinking the first LR was my worst section (LR RC LR LR LG) and after reading through this and the reddit post it seems that was my experimental section...

Honesty I felt that this RC was easier than normal and the A/B passage (that normally confounds me) wasn't so bad. Passage A was just two short paragraphs and I was able to eliminate a fair amount using it so confidence was high. Hopefully it was justified! As far as LG the games seemed pretty straight forward and the 5yr/10yr bond game, was just an in/out game so nothing unexpected.

I actually ended up having fun during the essay arguing for the artsy/restaurant district. I called the Conton supports shortsighted :smile: haha No offense to anyone that choose that side

I misread D to say: "provides no justification for favoring one of the literary critics' beliefs over the other ...literary critics..." So I thought, where are these others critics? There's only one group of critics. Now I see 'other' is referencing the other belief and the answer seems painfully obvious.

I need to stay aware in LR that when I go into POE mode and I'm stuck between two choices that I don't like (This case C and E) there's a chance I misread one of the other answers choices and eliminated it in error.

Fun Fact: Technology has outpaced the LSAT. Today some android devices automatically detect and connect to WiFi with no passwords. In your face Kendra

https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/6327199

I've read this post several times over the months I've been seriously studying and it has helped me immensely over the long haul. I've listen to my body when it's telling me to go for a run or watch some animated show that gives me the feels to an embarrassing extent. It's worked, I've learned and improved. I'm no JY but mastery has been my goal and in my room under timed conditions I've hit and surpassed my original target score.

My question is about the short term since I have 11 left days until the June exam.

My training has always reinforced the idea of a negative split, which is a racing strategy that involves completing the second half of a race faster than the first half. It is defined by the intentional setting of a slower initial pace, followed by a gradual or sudden increase of speed towards the end of the race. So far in my life this general strategy has worked out pretty well in lots of different situations.

I'm not to saying that I intentionally studied slowly in the beginning, I think my work/study/relax balance has been pretty good up to this point and this post was a big part of that. But now I'm approaching the end and my instincts are telling me to accelerate. My gut says it's a good idea to lock myself in my apartment until test day and study like a maniac. To put my phone on airplane mode a few days before test day and stop myself from seeing my friends, going on facebook, or engaging in other non-LSAT/non-test prep activity. As far is discipline is concerned, I know I can do this, I've done it in the past.

But part of me is aware that my intensity can sometimes get in the way of my goals. Once I had a very important wrestling match that, like the LSAT, consumed my entire focus. I ended up over training in the days leading up to it and the day of the match my body was so worn out and sore I performed much worse than my usual, let alone my best. I remember vividly in the days leading up to the match visualizing myself on match day and putting in maximum effort, genuinely thinking that was the best way to position myself for success. Those 2 or 3 works outs leading up to that single match ended up defining my final days in the sport and in hindsight are the only regret I have from a long career of wrestling.

So I'm torn. I can list countless examples where sprinting to the finish has worked out for me and before this morning I had already anticipated going that route. I just happened to be going through my journal last night and was reminded of that poor decision turned tragedy. The gravity of the LSAT and the work I've put in up to this point too closely parallel that experience for me to ignore the similarities. I'm afraid of repeating the mistakes of the past and this hesitation has opened the door to my lifelong nemesis, self-doubt.

It's very likely I'm overthinking things, which is a tendency of mine, but I'm at a cross roads. Do I double down as usual or do I pump the breaks to avoid burnout? I'm looking for some Sage advice to help restore my confidence in these final days. I can do whatever I decide to do, I just don't know what the best route looks like.

@mmocco1626 if you find a good recourse for more difficult/oddball questions please share!! and thank you for starting this!!

I'll try and do a better job of recording what I notice as oddball to post in this thread. In the meantime, this question is phrased pretty normal but the way the right AC is supported is 'weird'

PT 39.S1.Q22

I thought trainer was helpful to solidify the fundamentals that JY covered in core curriculum, took me about 3 weeks to honestly do the exercises and get through it. But if you've already increased 17 points (awesome btw!!) you'd probably be best served in the limited time left to continue fool proofing games and BR

If you decide to postpone, or aren't sure if you'll take it again after June then the LSAT trainer would probably be nice new perspective as you approach the LSAT for another time

Edit: I mistook the question

Some A are not B is the logical equivalent to not all A are B.

Which is not the same thing as the logical negation of some, which has a potential range of 0-99 in a 0-100 world.

Check video a bit over a minute in for logical negation. https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/advanced-negate-some-statements/

@chahyong966 thanks for the tag, helped clear this up for me!

@ivettechow129

because a low numbered plastic turns to a high numbered plastic.

In other words, the stimulus assumes that the higher numbered plastics were high numbered to begin with, so if one were to stop buying them then there would be less high numbered plastics that go without being recycled. Answer choice C disproves that assumption.

Kind of make sense?

Totally makes sense, didn't see that assumption at all but now (c) fits. Thank you!!

@rahelaalam514 Very clear leading me to the proper conclusion. Thank you!!

I agree and fell for that trap.

Passage break down:

Anomaly: Pathogens evolve to incapacitate

Explanation: Produce so extensively lead to transmission

Implication: Virulence is a function of mode of transmission

Example 1: Rhinovirus how low virulence because it incapacitates host through extensive reproduction and reduces chance of direct transmission

Example 2: Vector transmission (Malaria) has severe virulence because it incapacitates host through extensive reproduction and increases chance of vector transmission because any site mosquito lands on has pathogen.

General belief: Vectors more virulent than direct transmission

Exception to general belief: Diphtheria and Tuberculosis just as lethal because they sit and wait.

Implication: Pathogens that use direction transmission and can "sit and wait" are among the most dangerous.

Notice how the examples take the explanation for granted in order to showcase the implication.

The use of the final implication in answer choice B is a dirty LSAC trick. It throws us off the scent of the subtle difference between illustrating the examples vs implication.

The reason I fell for the trap was that I read too quickly. I rushed through the answer choices and didn't even notice the words were different between A and B for what the examples were about. Then because I saw the final implication was omitted from A, I felt B was the proper choice. When in reality the third part of B makes it factually inaccurate.

It felt like they were asking, "what color is the white horse?."

The trick here for me was that Celia can be reasonable/unreasonable or certifiably insane. As long as a reasonable person wouldn't read the policy and Celia's (policy holder's) expectation was reasonable, we satisfy the sufficient condition.

I came here because I was working on PT 23 S3 Q25. I had stumbled across a case of 'except' being used as a group 3 indicator and wanted to determine if it could be added to that group as a rule (now I believe it can). The search engine found @mmocco1626's second example and brought me to this page.

Thank you. Not only have you answered my question, but also introduced me to extrapolations on-top of the curriculum that will bring me closer to mastery.

And J.Y.'s humanizing moment makes my goal seem all the more attainable.

Good Thread: 10/10

Your three-sentence biography.

I am in the midst of a year off, studying for the LSAT while helping to manage my family's real estate business. I wrestled division 1 for four years and graduated with a history major, CS minor, and 3.49 GPA. I have business management experience in restaurants, nightclubs, construction, and bookkeeping.

Your biggest worry about your application.

What theme or parts of myself should I highlight in my LOR and personal statement. (should I have addenda/diversity statement?)

Two ideas for your personal statement.

1. The reason I want to be a lawyer (happened in college). My senior year I took cross registered courses through Harvard Law during the fall and spring semesters (with Professor Gordon-Reed and Professor Unger respectively). In my statement I'd explain how their lectures and readings sparked my interest to pursue the legal profession. Might refer to a rewarding paper I wrote on the patent system. It's thesis was that as result of the modern tech boom, presently patents cannot cover the new questions of intellectual property that go to court. The solution I offered adopted pre-packaged bundles of rights that could be shared, my argument used copyright law and the creative commons as a successful example of such a system.

2. A few months ago I performed an audit and discovered a fabricated company. Then using Lexus Nexus I found the employee who used that company to embezzle funds. My essay would recount this experience, which took place just a few weeks after graduation, and how I handled the criminal activity without undermining my organization in the months that followed .

Did you attend last time? Did I get to you?

Did not attend last time.