Actively reading. Understanding and dissecting what you're reading rather than just absorbing it pointlessly. For RC I think you need to go back to the syllabus and work on re-learning low-resolution summaries.

This is definitely a tougher question. But after really considering what exactly is being stated in the stimulus, you can see that A is the right answer.

There are two types of data, surveys and designer interactions with consumers. Designer interactions are superior to surveys EXCEPT that they don't explain how things need to be changed. This subtly implies that surveys, a form of data gathering, does do this (explain how things need to be changed).

So on careful review, A states that this data can contribute to successful design, and we can conclude this based on the fact that one of these surveys explains change needed and whats wrong with the current designs.

D is wrong because it goes too far to say that a car WILL have unappealing features. Thats way too strong and its making the assumption that manufacturers can't design a car with good features without this data collection.

This was the game I had to experience during my first ever official LSAT. It was awful. But after reviewing the game when the exam was released, I realized it was actually much much easier than I thought.

I have no idea why you'd take it in your junior year. The very minimum would be your senior year.

So I am going to say no unless your PT scores have been higher, on average, than a 161. If you are, on average, scoring over 161, then why not take a fourth time.

Basically say that you were scoring higher in practice and felt like your official scores up until your latest were not representative of your abilities.

I hate this question. I reluctantly picked C because it felt like it established a baseline. But I knew that the argument is not what makes one more productive than the other, just that breakfast makes workers more productive. It was still the most attractive to me, but I still don't understand how A is correct. #help

I just simplified it as I reviewed it. Got it wrong the first time. The argument talks about what is likely if strangers are the same age. But the argument totally ignores what would happen if they were not the same age. What if being 15 years apart makes people more comfortable to approach each other? The stimulus totally ignores that.