I just took a PT and scored a 141 with a BR score of 162 and my previous PT being 147 with a BR score of 154 about 2 months ago. I don’t understand how I dropped so much compared to my previous PT. I am aware that timing is probably the biggest factor that’s killing my score. But I don’t understand how I dropped so much when I’ve been drilling for the past 2 months. During the LG section I could not solve one of the games (it was a miscellaneous) so I got 7 wrong there automatically because I ran out of time and I rather not guess on the questions so I don’t have a possibly inflated score. And I got 4 wrong on the other games. The RC section was brutal I got -19 and during BR brought it down to -10. I can’t seem to finish the section I can only get to 3/4. This is by far my worst section. For LR I got -13 and during BR brought it down to -5. This drop in score from a already low score of 147 to an even lower score is demoralizing and makes me questions if this is even for me. But my BR score is significantly higher than my PT score which is clearly an indication of a timing issue. I know I definitely need to work on all the sections but can anyone give me any advice on what I should do as I am planning on taking the June LSAT because LG is by far my best section. And I am completely baffled by this and don’t even know how to proceed. Any help is appreciated. Thank you
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
I viewed the conclusion as if it would be unethical to eat meat because there was a grain shortage so there would be a meat shortage because the animals that eat the grain would have a shortage of their food supply so if theres a shortage of animals that feed of the grain and produce meat that it would be unethical to eat the meat. B made complete sense to me for the reason that if the animals did not need to feed on grain and could feed on something else then there would not be a meat shortage so it would not be unethical to eat meat since the animals would still be having a reliable food supply and there would still be animals getting produced for meat. Can anyone let me know if this is a good or bad way to think about this?
The anthropologist argument was SURVIVE -> COPE. Would it be wrong if i wrote the authors conclusion as COPE -> /SURVIVE? It seems like writing it this way would still be confusing necessity for sufficiency because the authors conclusion is saying that the afarensis coped but did not survive, therefore making the COPE a sufficient condition when its a necessary condition for SURVIVAL but not a sufficient one. Can anyone tell me if I'm correctly going about this? Also, can anyone explain to me the difference from a necessity for sufficiency confusion vs a sufficiency for necessity confusion.
I'm currently stuck between taking the June or April (or both) LSAT since I want to try and take them before the logic games goes away in August. In the beginning of February I took my first PT after finishing the core curriculum and scored a 147 and my BR score was a 154 (my cold diagnostic was a 139). I want to take the LSAT with the logic games because it's supposed to be the most learnable section. Since my last PT I have been drilling LG 6 times a week for 5-6 hours a day using the foolproof method for games 1-35 (also I am currently a student in my last semester of undergrad and I do not work so I am able to put in a good amount of hours towards studying for the LSAT). I would love to take the April and June LSAT so I can have 2 go's at it but I'm worried that the April LSAT might be too soon since I still have to drill for LR and RC as I am not prepared at all in those sections. My RC is a -15 and LR -13. Also, the fact that I have to PT before the exam date worries me since I would need time to take PT's as well and I'm assuming I'd need at least few weeks for that. I'm planning to apply for the 2025 cycle and want to apply anywhere from September - December. Does anyone have any advice on what I should do? Should I even be considering the LSAT with LG or should I just be focusing on the other sections and plan to take it later without the LG? My goal score is 170, I know its high and probably unrealistic but I am willing to put in the work to get there. Any advice would be appreciated.
Thank you
I eliminated E right away because I saw it was telling us her purpose. Is this only supposed to be used for these types of questions (necessary assumption)? #help (Added by admin)
#help Is there any lessons that go over the kind of reasoning the arguments use?
#help Can someone explain to me how B is correct I had the correct chain but I don't understand how "if the cost of living in the downtown area decreases, the profits of the downtown businesses will increase." How do we know that the profits will increase if we do not know about the downtown traffic decreasing or not. To me it seemed as if the stimulus had no opinion on it. Can someone explain this logic to me.
#help Any advice on how to see these types of questions more intuitively. Im struggling because I cannot see the logic without drawing it out.
#help Can someone help me better understand why C is the wrong answer? I'm still confused as to why it cannot be right.
#help I read it as the house on Oak Avenue being in a different location than Prairieview. So that messed me up and is why I choose C. Any tips on how to not get confused?