Thanks a lot for the advice guys! I still need to mull it over and take my ED options into consideration, but your encouragement is compelling. Thanks again.

...

I took 4 PTs last week and the last two were my worst scores in 1.5 months. I took a full day off and then did some light practice the day after that, and I scored my highest on a PT the next day! Contrary to what I previously believed, burn out is real and taking time off can be beneficial to your score.

Everyone is different, so you'll ultimately have to decide. I took PT 72 on Tuesday and did pretty well. I was planning on taking PT 71 today, but I decided against it since I started to burn out last week and only improved once I took a few days off before taking PT 72.

I figure I'll probably split up the PT I planned to take today into its different timed sections, and take & review them separately over the course of today and tomorrow.

@kieferlight92174 What does that mean? Just looking at the easier passages for 30 seconds? Trying to answer questions within just 30 seconds?

It doesn't seem like there's much else you can do.

I couldn't imagine consistently having that much time left over. Is there any particularly distinct way you approach the passages?

Sorry about your loss. I usually keep my mind from wandering by trying to be more aware/sensitive to when my mind starts to wander so I can instinctively stop myself before I really start and redirect myself to the material at hand ASAP.

Not sure if that will help, but it's worth a shot.

Or imagine someone calls you an asshole, and follows it up with, "I wasn't being critical; just making observation."

Said person would be using an intrinsically evaluative term as though it was purely descriptive.

Not sure about the "one's own values" part, but I'm pretty sure you get it. It's basically an error of equating something like "The sky is blue" with "The sky is nice."

Found an example in the footnotes of an econ book.

"The term 'hatred' is not purely descriptive but intrinsically evaluative and negative; good hatred cannot exist and being full of hatred cannot be good..."

Simplified example:

You read a book for class and think it's crappy. To prove you that you read the book, your professor asks that you write a brief description of it. You write, "It was crappy."

Your professor gives you an F on the assignment, citing that you "used a term that is intrinsically evaluative as though it was purely descriptive."

How many recent PTs have you taken? There was a trend in recent years where the RC got a lot harder and the LGs were relatively easy. From what I've heard, it seems that both were pretty challenging on the June 2014 LSAT. I haven't looked at that particular test yet, though.

I'm a relative n00b though, so someone else may have more insight about this.

Like the stimulus, "B" states that something explicitly bad will happen if one option is selected over the other. "A" only deals with varying degrees of what is desirable.

@nielsinha488 S....when you say you went through every game, do you mean the ones from the bundle (tests 1-30) or the games from every test in general?

I needed this.

I was also confused by the second part of answer choice D.

Rather than taking for granted that any obligation is a legal obligation, it seemed that he was taking for granted that any legal obligation is an obligation. Still kinda confused.

This isn't much of an explanation, but I'll just try to simplify the explanation.

"An intermediate conclusion, like a main conclusion, is a proposition whose truth is inferred from another statement (or other statements) in the argument."

- LSAC

LSAC is saying that the phrase, "Insects' resistance to insecticides increases with insecticide use" is not enough to infer that "farmers have to use greater and greater amounts of costly insecticides to control insect pests."

In other words, we could not have validly inferred/supported the second half of the stimulus' second sentence if it had not been provided to us. Because of this, it is not a conclusion (and therefore not an intermediary conclusion).

Ohhhh. I get it now...the government is directly responsible for the increase in demand, not the price of gas.

I don't understand why we are expected to assume that the government's policies would be indirectly responsible for increasing demand when that's not specified in the question...what if "policies" refers to a set of policies that are directly responsible for the demand increase?

Halppp.

C'mon bro, you're only supposed to proselytize AFTER you've gotten in to your school of choice.

I'm just a little halfway through the LSAT Trainer and can attest to it being excellent for LR sections. I'm not as far along in 7Sage's curriculum, but I don't think 7Sage and LT are exclusive in their strategies for LR and RC. I would try both out if you're really worried about those sections. J.Y. even recommends using the LSAT Trainer in addition to this course! http://classic.7sage.com/get-the-lsat-trainer/

I was asking about the logic games because I know that both programs have different methods of diagramming, which is kind of problematic.

Appreciate the response!

And I wouldn't know... I'm just an avid drummer who likes to jam out with my friends.