@branigansatterfield634 said:

That is awesome @nlkhamis275 , I am happy for you. I really like what you said about how much of a privileged it is to be in this position. I have been working in law enforcement full-time, and then I go to the library to study for 4 hours M-Fri after work. I get home and only get to see my wife and child for like an hour before they go to bed. There was about a week where I was starting to feel bad for myself. Luckily, one night when I was driving home from the library, I became aware of how fortunate I am to even be interested in pursuing higher education. So many people that I come into contact with each day didn't have the opportunities that I have had or didn't have the requisite interest. To be in a position where we get to even think about going to law school puts us in a very rarefied, privileged space. Even when studying for the LSAT gets rough, I find it useful to zoom-out and recognize how fortunate I am to even care about it in the first place.

I hope your October score, like your September one, continues to reflect all your hard work, dedication, and mental fortitude. Good luck on your application cycle!

@branigansatterfield634 yes that has always helped me. I would literally keep a sticky note on my laptop reminding me of the reasons why I wanted to go to law school. Thank you so much (3 Best of luck to you, I know you can do it!!(/p)

@stephanieflores8094583 said:

Hello,

Congratulations! this is very inspiring. I was wondering if you know recommend any tutoring services?

@stephanieflores8094583 7sage has tutors and I also tutor! You can dm me for more info (3(/p)

@slyndsey112925 said:

Congrats Nicolekh!! I've been studying off and on for about a year and have been losing so much confidence in myself. I feel like there aren't enough hours in the day, I have 3 crazy animals and a stressful job. After work, I normally just want to relax, until I have to do it all over again the next day. I haven't been particularly active on this board but have decided to reach out more when I'm struggling b/c I really want to get into school. Your post is so inspiring.

@slyndsey112925 remember the light at the end of the tunnel (3(/p)

@drbrown2259 said:

2nd everything you said here! Congrats to you!!

CONGRATS on 174!!!! That is amazing.

@michaelcinco801 said:

Congrats! Always inspiring to read posts like these. I'm also interested in working with refugees/immigrants/victims of human trafficking, so these survivors have been my inspiration to crush the LSAT and go to law school. Kudos to you!

maybe we'll see eachother in the courtroom one day!!

@michaelcinco801 said:

Congratulations! Thanks so much for sharing these tips and your journey thus far!! I totally needed to hear this so thank you! Wishing you all the best in your law career!

@michaelcinco801 you can do it! Dont doubt yourself

@drbrown2259 said:

Congrats! This community is special because of people like you who carry on and advance the mission of giving back to the students still on their LSAT journey. Best of luck with admissions!

Thank you!! Good luck to you as well- thought i saw you say you were applying this cycle?

@drbrown2259 said:

I love this! So happy for you. Congrats-- you deserve all the good things that are coming your way!

(3 thank you(/p)

Main issue/Overarching argument.

Physicists posit that our universe was infinitely small and dense, and then underwent a period of massive inflation (the Big Bang)

Carroll and Chen say this may be the beginning of our universe, but it isnt unique. Furthermore, our universe is part of the Multiverse.

The second law of thermodynamics covers entropy- essential, that as time increases, there will be increasing disorder because there are more ways for things to become disordered than ordered, so time moves towards increasing disorder.

Then we go into the crux of the argument. The Big Bang follows the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but it is a mystery why it would have such low entropy IF it obeys the laws of thermodynamics. But Carroll and Chen actually say the most common initial condition would be cold, empty space. The next paragraph then supports essentially how our universe would be able to come from cold, empty space within the multiverse- through random energy fluctuations of subatomic particles that can give rise to the Big Bang. Therefore, Carrol and Chen take our universe to be the results of the fluctuations of energy of time and space that occur within the multiverse (and not from the Big Bang where we started out as infinity hot and dense)

The last paragraph is saying: while the initial state would be extremely unlikely, in the vastness of the universe it actually isnt that likely bc of the fluctuations in the subatomic particles.

So the main issue is is this paradox, where if we have the second law of thermodynamics (which the Big Bang abides by) why would the universe start out in such as low entropic state? But the argument is basically saying to scrap the dense/small condition as the start of our universe and go with one where our universe started out from cold empty space that then gave rise to our universes and others possibly like it.

sell well could be bc too poppy

sell not well could be incompetent

Therefore, your sales are not an indication of success.

What do we know? that if you sell well it may be because you are to poppy. and if you sell poorly then it may be bc you want to or because you're incompetent. How does this tell us that sales are NOT an indication of success. All we know is that these sales could be an indication that you are poppy. The missing link we have is that then poppy/incompetence means you are unsuccessful.

Got this wrong after getting this right before, but a bit hard to see honestly because the argument confused me lol. This is why translating the stimulus is so important so you can we through that. If someone was like "underground groups can sell great and be too poppy, but also can sell poor and be incompetent. therefore, their sales don't indicate success" Success, for me, would be a dangling variable bc nothing in the premise legit EVER talks about success. So then if we know that they can sell poor and be incompetent, and sell great and be poppy, then it would have to be that poppy means not successful. So therefore something can still sell great--> poppy--> not successful

I think the issue here is you just have to link up selling well to not being successful, and only ac B does that. So therefore we know that even if something sells well, it could be the case that it is poppy and therefore not successful.

#help

Just want to be clear on distinguishing A and B because I was stuck between the 2.

The author here is assuming that opposing higher taxes 'will make' a better leader, meaning opposing higher taxes is relevant. So, that author is implicating a causal relationship?

That is why A is the answer, because it is attacking the relationship that the author is assuming, that opposing higher taxes make a better leader by actually saying that opposing higher taxes are not even relevant. If they aren't relevant, how could they make a better leader.

For B, it is saying opposing higher taxes is sufficient, but the author never states it is sufficient, but rather a factor. So causal /= conditional. Even if it can't PROVE being a good leader/ensure being a good leader (aka even if it isnt sufficient), it could be relevant in some way so higher taxes could still be relevant.

C is tricky because this argument calls to mind the flaw that they didn't say anything bad about Thompson. But for C, we would also have to assume that other leaders don't have these questionable things. But what if it was the case that all the other leaders were questionable too but Thompson was the only one opposing higher taxes? Then this doesn't tell us anything new.

important thing to contrast between C and E in 20. As the 3rd passage states, the reflections of the surrounding objects DEFINE the sculpture, so that though these reflections, we see the sculpture. Lines 49-55 support this claim. We know that the invisible sculpture is seen through and is 'communicated through the reflections surrounding it.' This means that the reflections ultimately are what allow us to see/define the sculpture.

C) States that his sculpture appears to have no shape of its own, but rather the shape of the surrounding objects. NO. We know that his sculpture doesn't take the shape (or appear to take the shape of) the surrounding objects, but rather it is the reflection of the surrounding objects that allow us to see the sculpture. These are two different ideas. C is telling us that it takes the shape of the surrounding objects, while the passage is telling us the surrounding objects are what allow us to see the sculpture. So the sculpture doesn't take the shape of anything, rather its shape is discovered through the objects. So, we know that the sculpture does not take the shape of its surroundings, but rather is discovered through the reflection of its surroundings.

Low Res:

Context of IN, how he was very original, and how one sculpture in particular exemplifies his creativity

High Res:

IN was a Japanese sculptor who asked and responded to original questions. He was different from other talented artists insofar as he veered off the 'prescripted path'- one of his sculptors in particular exemplifies this creativity.

Low Res:

Pondering dependence of negative light for sculptors

High Res:

IN goes to Europe, where he is an apprentice for CB. During this time, he. begins to ponder the dependence of negative light for sculptures.

Low Res:

The desire to build a purely reflective sculpture + Finding the material needed

High Res:

IN wants to make a purely reflective sculpture, offers to make a bust for F. F mentions chrome nickel steel, which is now available in massive quantities bc ford makes it available.

Low Res:

Details of sculpture/Qualities of sculpture

High Res:

Sculpture is purely reflective; the sculpture reflects its surroundings which allows us to see the sculpture. Therefore, the experience of the sculpture is secondary, insofar as it is only experienced through and found by the distortion it surroundings.

Low Res: IN Continues to evolve

High Res:

After this amazing discovery, IN stays true to his inquisitive nature, continuing to evolve.

MP: IN conceptualizing a purely reflective sculpture is an example of his originality

Author tone: Author's tone is largely in the last paragraph, and the author is def for IN, saying his discovery was 'stunning'

Low Resolution Summary:

-Law schools don't spend enough time on SL

-SL will be useful in helping lawyers understand what SL are saying (wording)

-SL can also help with the synthesis of interrelated laws

-Criticism to SL, but despite criticism, even if SL can't transfer, skills can.

MP: Teaching SL teaches law school students essential skills

Authors POV: We should encourage the teaching of SL, right now the teaching of SL is not adequate (line 5, 25, 53)

Think about it this way- if scholarships have to be renewed each year than that opens it up to the possibility that people won't get their scholarships renewed. If that is the case, and if people don't get scholarships renewed, that is maybe way there is a change in status of people being able to afford things- they don't have their scholarship money anymore. It does regard a bit of a leap, but I think it is a reasonable assumption to think that if it has to be renewed, that some don't get renewed, vs AC A. AC A talks about faculty salaries. How, exactly, does this impact the ability of students to pay for their tuition? You would have to assume that faculty salaries have a negative impact on students, when we don't even know if they are related because the premise doesn't tell us there is a relationship.

What we know:

Conclusion: It is not true that authors who write in order to give pleasure cannot impart on their readers the truth, meaning

You can write to give pleasure and be truthful

Premise:

If this claim were true [if write to give pleasure and /truth] → [Determine truthfulness by looking at its sales figures] meaning that

If true that write to give pleasure and /truth → [popular →gives people pleasure →/truthful]

But this who claim ( popular →/truthful] is absurd, meaning that we contrapose back, meaning one can write to give pleasure and still be truthful.

So now, we have the simple argument form:

One can write to give pleasure and still be truthful.

Therefore,

one can INTEND to give pleasure and still be truthful (which is 'it is not the case that writers who write in order to give pleasure cannot impact on readers truth')

Now we see what we have to do. In order for one to write pleasure and still be truthful to support the claim one can intend to give pleasure and still be truthful, we have to assume one writing to give pleasure = one intending to give pleasure.

Feel for D and was also super confused by the question stem, which probably aided in helping me get this question wrong. This is a simple P then C structure, where the author is assuming that if something is ineffectual then therefore it is unjustified.

D) tells us good intentions are irrespective of whether something is justified. But this still doesn't call out the assumption the author is making, and doesn't tell us that these actions WERE unjustified, it just tells us that the intentions are irrelevant to something being justified, but that still begs the question of whether or not these actions were justified in the first place. By saying something is irrelevant to justification is not the same thing as saying something is unjustified.

A good strategy for this would have been POE, which I need to work on more. However, what is helpful here is realizing the argument. If we are given an argument by tautology, like A is, we know that no matter what, one of these two worlds MUST exist via the argument by tautology, meaning that one must happen, allowing us to trigger the sufficient and affirm the necessary.

By establishing that in either world, we there is no purpose, then, there is indeed no purpose because in both worlds it is not needed.

I chose B just because I was stumped on this question, but mostly because I saw if the email does not elsewhere suggest in A and was like this isnt what the author is talking about. But now I know not to write it off so quickly.

B) Is telling us if illegal, then substantial penalties. But how does this tell us there is no purpose in these disclosures.

C) this is baiting us to think that somehow if it is ignored that it has no purpose? This doesn't help us get from p to c

D) this is trying to make us assume that there is illegal advice and that people would follow it, making us erroneously trigger the illegal advice part. But the argument says IF, it never says there is and we can't assume that the emails have illegal things in them

E) Argument is about the company's disclosure, not the clients.

Flaw:

Individually cannot do all

Conclusion: together cannot do all (kill)

B)

Individually cannot do both (all)

Therefore, together cannot do both (need outside help)

This one was hard for me because I thought almost every one helped exaplain the discrepancy. My first error was that I did isolate what was the discrepancy, which is really majors staying constant but those getting degrees declining.

The second thing is that I made assumption that were unreasonable.

A) Requires assuming that these students are the ones who are the ones majoring in chemistry, and that this 'many' is enough to account for the significant decline

B) Just because there is a decline doesn't explain WHY there is a decline.

C) Just because they are unsure doesn't mean they are actually going to drop. I could be unsure but then come to love my major.

D) This is what I picked and for this I assumed job prospects were worse. What if they are equal? still doesn't explain why there are less majors.

E) This is correct because it tells us that even thought the same numbers go in, once they get into those chemistry classes, its very boring. If the classes are boring then it makes it more likely that you will drop that major, making it more likely that there will be less chemistry majors. Simply put, this tells us they are dropping chem majors because it is boring. This explains why.

For B, I feel like if people picked it you are automatically assuming that them rejecting the argument is on the basis of them thinking they are unreliable. But that isnt what they are doing it. They are rejecting it on the basis of not that they are unreliable but rather because they have certain motivations. This is akin to saying just because I have a certain motivation for something that any argument about that thing should be rejected. me having a motivation towards that thing is irrespective of whether or not my argument is valid. So the author isnt assuming I'm unreliable, but rather that my motivations are enough to discredit any of my arguments about that thing from being valid.

I think the best way to think about this one is really by the argument by analogy framework. The arguer is presuming that the example regarding the babies/full moon is relevantly similar to the the experience with patients. In order to be relevantly similar, all aspects have to be similar, which is why B is correct because it tells us that med staff are more likely to remember these instances, showing that this example is indeed like the babies example. This shows us that it isnt actually the case that patients can make predictions, but rather medical staff are more likely to remember when they are.

If the babies analogy is relevantly similar to the other phenomenon, and it was disproven, it makes it much more likely that the other phenomenon is disproven.

If the arguer is saying that the babies example is analogous to the medical patients, he is assuming that they are relevantly similar. For NA questions, we must affirm the author's assumptions and to do that we have to say that the babies example is parallel to the medical patients. B tells us that they are similar in the relevant respects. If we negate B, then there is a difference between the two, and we can't use something different to support something else, because it wouldn't be applicable.

Did not really see this as a whole to part flaw on my first run. I wanted to review this because I couldn't pinpoint the flaw exactly but knew the other 4 were wrong.

A survey says that 40%/20%?40%

Therefore, MOST CITIZENS want to see this percentage reflected in the legislature. The arguer is assuming that this survey is

1) representative of most citizens

Just because the group wants it doesn't mean that most citizens want this. It could be that the group wants this layout, but in reality if you are a democrat you would want it to be 100% liberal. So that doesn't support the claim that one person, and especially not most, would want that split