I thought we weren't supposed to make assumptions? how do we know that people getting along is beneficial to society?

#help (Added by Admin)

I firmly object to question 26. C forgets about the key term of "small", the text refers to a universe that is small hot and dense being one of low entropy. How do we know whether or not a universe being small is a key determinant of entropy or not? Could there no be a possibility that a large, hot, and dense universe being very high entropy? We don't know and as such I don't think we can presume that.

Who tf uses the word preponderance anyways?

Misread CPU chip for computer some how or my brain confused them. Damn, this was the only wrong LR question I had for this test too.

Damn this was actually my worst single RC passage ever even though at the time it seemed really easy. Strange.

This question violates my 8th amendment rights

Why would you want to? Its not like the questions are fact-based

Please don't cancel your test. The last 5 tests before the October flex were terrible for me, and in the end I still got a 175 on the actual. You'll be fine so long as you don't think about it

Not with a 149 I'm afraid. Good news is you have the much more important part done already, a good GPA. Increasing your LSAT score is a lot easier than trying to raise your GPA.

Unless you have phenomenal softs (I'm talking like wounded in battle, Rhodes Scholar, or decades of existing work experience in a prestigious field), you will need at least a high 160s, even if you are URM.

That seems like a big jump, but I believe you can do it! The LSAT does become easier overtime like with all tests. Retake in January then see. If its not what you wanted and you still want to go to harvard, it might be better to wait until next cycle.

My dude, actual legend. I haven't ever scored that high on my PTs even

@ said:

Amazing score, congrats! Any words of wisdom?

@ said:

Can you share, how you were able to get this amazing score?

Hey guys, for some reason I can't reply directly so I hope you see this.

I don't have much great advice except that you should just follow the 7sage curriculum, don't skip any sections even if they seem useless at first. Beyond that, just make sure to do full, timed, PTs, try not to split up whole tests. The actual LSAT is timed and thats how you should take it.

For LR, practice practice, practice. There are no real "unique" questions like you sometimes get with LG, they are all very similar. Overtime, if you do all 89 PTS, with two sections of LR each, you'll have done something like 4450 LR questions and be very able to see the similarities. There's enough specific advice on here already.

For LG, I will go counter to what is normally said and say don't try to make too many inferences at the beginning. Look for the obvious ones, then take another quick look for any possible deeper connections, and after that just move on. Early on I tried way too hard to fill in the entire game board like JY does. If you can do that, great, but most people can't. And its much better to use that extra time on the questions.

For Reading comprehension, I really can't help you. I'm a social science kid so all we do is read over-complex articles.

More generally, don't be afraid of one bad score! Remember that outliers are a thing and not to be discouraged by them. Just keep trudging on

Good luck to you guys

Damn son

I didn't understand this game that well but got perfect mostly through process of elimination. Sometimes its not necessary to be 100% clear on what the passage is saying so long as you get what the passage is not implying. The really hard last three questions all had some easily eliminated answer choices.

Another problem with A is that it only says there is a decrease in average # of children, not whether families switched from large to small. It could be true that the average size only changed from 20 to 19, which by all accounts are still large families, which makes A useless.

Idk if this will help anyone, but I got this question right through intuition rather than pure logic. I read it to mean that there's basically two ways to establish the existence of sentient beings: number one which is to fly a spaceship there or two communicate with them. Number one is not possible as established by the premises. Number two implies that the beings have intelligence similar to ours. Therefore, the conclusion says that if we are to establish the existence of sentient beings they have to be as intelligent as us.

The flaw here is what if there is some other way? What if we could establish existence through like a telescope or something. Answer D removes that possibility by making it clear that if they don't communicate with us, then we can only use spaceships, which is impossible.

In other words, the only possible way to establish existence currently is through communication, which implies intelligence always.

This may be terribly wrong so take it with a grain of salt lol.

I found this one really hard for some reason. Still got it right though.

Sneaky LSAT, missed the word "encouraged" which weakens C quite a bit.

Damn this was a hard question, I got it mostly by looking for something to connect "judge" with and got B. Educated guess.

Another bullshit question, the jump is just way too big for C, how do we know the question stem is inferring that the author makes the claim about ineffective camoflage through his own vision rather than some other way? Big red flag for me

#help (Added by Admin)

This is a terrible question, the amount of assumptions you have to make for both C and D are ridiculous. Like does LSAC really expect us to think that looking at a twin= looking at yourself or how reading and exercise are supposed to be similar?

Overthought this one, it was so easy too!

14 is just ridiculous

I overthought this one because I was confused as to what "more often" exactly meant, I thought it meant like a higher percentage whereas this one seems to be thinking of absolute terms(?). It sucks cause I swear I've seen this exact question on the LSAT like 4 times before which made me extra suspicious of A. Oh well it was a good test otherwise.

This is a stupid question I thought. The flaw here is that there is no contradiction, one can be critical towards authority and still use it sometimes which I think B does a better job at getting at.

#help with the last question. The author says that the fungi occasionally move towards mutualism, presumably a middle ground between symbiosis and parasitism. The author only says that parasitism occasionally moves towards mutualism and then reverts to parasitism, never that parasitism moves towards symbiosis. The author's criticism is that the fungi do not always move towards symbiosis, so I fail to see how answer E really weakens the argument.