Thanks for posting this and congrats on that great score!

How many months were you studying for the Lsat from start to finish?

@ said:

I just got a 167 too after PT'ing low 170's. I got -6 RC even though this is the first time I actually finished an RC and I thought the passages were pretty easy?! I"m so confused why I got a -6 so if anyone can shed insight that would be great.

What was the breakdown in your other sections if you don't mind me asking? For me, I got -0 LG, -3 LR 1, and -4 LR 2.

How did you study for Reading Comp? I got minus 9 wrong on the Dec. 2017 Reading Comp section. Ended up with a 167 :(.

I was stuck between answer choices A and B and chose A. During blind review, I picked answer B. The phrase "It is a given that..." is a premise indicator or is context itself, and does not need support. On the other hand, the conclusion in the argument must always be supported.

Here's why the answer choice is not E. Read E carefully. While one can conclude that modern literature is not conducive to society in general, notice that E is a comparative statement. We cannot conclude that modern literature is worse or better than the literature of earlier eras. All that we can ascertain about literature from the earlier eras based on the premises is that modern literature treats characters more sympathetically than characters in earlier literature. Because of this sympathetic treatment in modern literature, it is not good for modern society.

To recap, the sympathetic treatment is the sufficient condition. In earlier literature eras, we have a denied sufficient condition (lack of sympathetic treatment), and we cannot conclude anything from a denied/negated sufficient condition. That is why answer choice E is wrong.

Answer choice A when negated, weakens this argument greatly. The key word here is prohibitively. Basically, when negated, Answer choice A states that we will not be using the energy saving tech since it's too expensive. Hence, by not using the technology, we cannot conclude that we will be able to save 200 billion. Also, it you read the stimulus, you'll notice that it's a bridging question that's missing the assumption that requires that we continue to use the energy saving tech.

Here's another reason why I noticed that A is wrong. Notice that it says that "No test INTENDED...." In other words, this means that there could have been tests that existed before that were aimed at diagnosing autism but were unsuccessful at diagnosing it. If you negate answer choice B though, it wrecks this argument because one of the premises states that two children were wrongly identified with having autism yet autistic children are still able to benefit from this test.

Hey everyone.

First, thanks for all the comments and help. I found them very enlightening and helpful.

I've been experimenting with different techniques mentioned here and others I've come across. Recently, I've tried something new with Reading Comprehension sections that seems to work for me in that I've been able to decrease the number wrong to around minus 2 now. This now boosts my overall score greatly.

The technique that I've been doing is that for every paragraph I am reading in the passage, I am just simply looking for the main point/conclusion of only that paragraph. Basically, it's similar to how in LR we look for the conclusion/main point in the stimulus. As I'm reading the reading comp. passages, I'm essentially treating each of the paragraphs as LR stimuluses and I'm looking for the main point.

Also, prior to reading the passage, I now read the first sentence of each paragraph and then read the entire passage. I simply do this because it's hard for me to stay focused and my mind tends to wander a lot. By doing this, I've been able to pay better attention to the passage and no longer find that I have no idea what I'm reading about or that I'm completely lost.

Has anyone else done something similar to this method of looking for the main points of each of the paragraphs? What are your thoughts on this method? It seems to be working for me.

Question 16 was a bit hard for me since I didn't know what oxidize meant.

I hate this passage.

I got this question right during blind review and here's something I noticed: The stimulus tells us that what the scientists are doing is a 1) a potential conflict of interest, and 2) calls into question the integrity of scientific inquiry. It does not say anything about what the scientists SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT be allowed to do. With that in mind, we can easily eliminate answer choices A,C, and D. Since this question is similar to a parallel question, answer choice B cannot be correct. Also, answer choice B is out of scope and misses the point entirely.