Took me forever to come up with numbers to prove D wrong after viewing the explanation video.

Year 2000

$100 spent total

99% to Standard = $99

1% to Non Standard = $1

Year 2010

$5000 spent total

98% to Standard: $4900

2% to Non Standard: $100

Here it's clear that most $ was spend on Standard, rather than Non Standard.

#help Could you make A right by saying "If there are any students who received an A- or above, at least some of them attended every class session."

Or: Of the students who received B- or above, at least some of them attended every class session"

I think that would be right then, because you know

[Attend every class] --> B-^

so

B-^ -s-> [AEC]

#help I somehow talked myself out of B by thinking that there was a difference between the reformer arguing to REDUCE crime vs B's focus on hypothetical increases.

Anyone want to take a crack at making E the right AC?

I overthought E. My thinking was that you could just teach it to everyone, so you're then assuming there is some reason to figure out which kids need this and which don't (rather than teaching it to everyone). C is better.

For D to be right, you essentially need to presume that M's "various effects" include side effects, not just various/multiple therapeutic effects.

Gah really wish this had been as clear to me before all of those N/S flaw questions!

@ said:

I think your writing sample is only valid for one year. Might want to double check with LSAC.

@ said:

@ said:

If I took the LSAT writing last November do I need to take it again this November?

@ If you already have a Writing on file, then you don't have to take it again.

While you only have one year from your test date to complete your writing sample, once it's done, you don't need to do another (per LSAC).

This is a challenging process under the best of circumstances, and it sounds like you're under a lot of pressure. In terms of your immediate needs, can you afford to wait for a year? If you have an income and place to live, it's much easier to study for this test over an extended period of time (provided you actually follow a study schedule) and easier to perform well if you're under less stress. What, if anything, will change for you if you wait a year? There's no real reason to think of waiting for an additional year as a setback, particularly if there are real advantages (better score, better school, better scholarship; less pressure, less covid complications) of holding off. Coming from the perspective of someone who is already well over the typical age to start law school and also considering waiting an additional year to improve my own prospects, in the grand scheme, it's much better for you to put your best self forward in those applications. If that's you in a year from now, wait.

Can anyone provide further explanation why 27 isn't E? "Tentative opposition" seems more appropriate than "explicit non commitment" given that appellate courts shouldresist the temptation to conduct their own independent research....

#help or #feedback ... On the first/MP question for this reading passage and the previous one, for those of us who are looking to reinforce that we rule out the wrong answers for the right reasons, it's not helpful for the video to say "the others are fairly easy to identify why they're wrong."

#help

I'm struggling to see D as wrong.

D. Even well-intentioned attempts to solve problems sometimes make them worse.

Even well-intentioned attempts to solve problems: using satellites to enable pre-crisis stage intervention

Sometimes make them worse: putting new holes in the ozone later makes environmental problems worse

SA: They come in and get the job done

NA: Weak, subtle, gets very little done -- but absolutely required.

You don't need all of the SAs to make the argument land, just one. But you must have every single one of the NAs to make it. If you throw out one NA, your argument is screwed. But having them doesn't actually help your argument that much. However, you can rely on just one SA, as long as you have the NAs.

If a NA is denied, it wrecks your argument. Just like that.

If a SA is denied, fine, hopefully you have others.

You can have all of the NAs and still have a weak argument.

Example: I read books, so therefore I am one of the smartest people in the world.

SA: I understand all of the most complex books written.

SA: I remember everything I read, and I read a lot.

NA: I can read.

NA: I've opened a book.

NA: I can think.

Is there a reason you feel you must take the June LSAT, if you think you need to improve your score by 20+ points? If you just took a diagnostic and it was in the 130s, and you have all the time in the world to study for the next month, you might be able to make some pretty big gains. But if you're talking about improving from a 150 to a 170, for example, that's a whole different ballgame. You might want to consider seeing how much you can improve by June, but also planning to take the August test.

Fractals are cool: https://hmco.enpc.fr/UNIT_ComplexSystems/~gen/6_MultiScaleAnalysis_Fractal/6_MultiScaleAnalysis_Fractal_web.publi/web/co/module_MultiScaleAnalysis_Fractal_15.html

https://lifethroughamathematicianseyes.wordpress.com/2016/01/10/beautiful-fractal-art/

This is great! Any chance you'll post a recording or podcast of this discussion for those of us who cannot participate during that time?

If you are strong in LR and weaker in RC and/or Games, then your 4 section score will be better than your 3 section score, as each section is weighted equally within each tests. As in, roughly speaking, in a 4 section test, LR ends up being half of our score (with each section as 25% of your score, so 50% total) but in a 3 section test, it's only a third, so mistakes on RC and Games will have a bigger impact on your total score.

#help Q6 Why on earth is it reasonable to assume the author would NOT want "nothing" done? Author seems to have real issues with both subtitles and dubbing, with dubbing being the worst. I'm not sure it's a common sense assumption here that something should be done, given the author seems to argue for a high level of purity in the reproductions in these films. Wouldn't it be equally appropriate to assume the author feels it is better to have a smaller audience that can view a genuine reproduction than a larger audience that views a mutilated adaptation?