Subscription pricing
I'm fanatically refreshing my email every 15 minutes now that we have hit 4:30 EST. It doesn't look like it's today, sadly. Commiserate with me, fellow February testers!
PT Questions
publicbenjamin638
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
publicbenjamin638
Saturday, May 06 2017
publicbenjamin638
Tuesday, May 02 2017
I can see why you would have qualms about this AC. However, in the context of the other options, it is the only one that stands to strengthen the statement made in the conclusion. Given the premise that the number of cows needed is to meet demand, if higher quality feed would increase their production, we would need fewer cows. Since we are not given any strong information on how to make the cows fart less, the best way to strengthen the argument is to find a way to reduce the number of cows. Even though it isn't explicitly stated, we are forced to make the assumption and also to recognize that the other ACs do nothing to change the statements made in the stimulus.
publicbenjamin638
Tuesday, May 02 2017
I like @rahelaalam514 's suggestion of going off of a goal score. I went in once I was hitting well above my goal. I didn't quite get the score I wanted, but I would not have wanted to sit for the test with any less studying than I did.
publicbenjamin638
Monday, May 01 2017
I think the important modifier is that the data comes from only respondents to the survey, not to all retired employees. This means that it is an unrepresentative sample, and it does not account for why non-respondents decided not to voice their opinion.
publicbenjamin638
Monday, May 01 2017
I can see how applying the negation test can help to show that C is a strong AC for this question. However, using negation may not work on all strengthening questions, as these can sometimes have more than one 'true' answer with one being more correct. We do know that the correct AC for Strengthen questions also must be true, but that doesn't mean that other ACs can't also be true. The goal is to pick an AC (added premise) that most fortifies the conclusion, so it may be misleading to use negation to suss this out.
Much like in NA questions, negation could help to eliminate some ACs, but it is not a standalone tool.
publicbenjamin638
Wednesday, Apr 12 2017
I spoke to a couple of admissions officers about application timing, and they said that it is best to get in applications within 30-60 days of the cycle opening up. Most of the schools I have looked at will open on Sept. 1, but they also allow you to submit your LSAT score when it is released after applying.
Bottom line is that it is better to be prepared and do well on the LSAT than to apply on the first day applications are accepted. As far as I understand, application officers will still look at your app before the score comes in, but no decision can be made until then. If those three months would be a difference of 3 or more points, I would think it would be well worth waiting.
publicbenjamin638
Thursday, Mar 23 2017
For me, the diagnostic helped to point out areas of relative weakness after completing the CC. It helped me to focus my additional drilling, especially for LR. While one test doesn't give you a perfect model of your testing, it is a great place to start. By the time I hit around 10 PTs, I could see how the areas on which I focused had become stronger, and other weaknesses became more apparent.
It gave me something to focus on in the short run, and it really is fun to take the first timed test!
publicbenjamin638
Thursday, Mar 23 2017
I think that @gregoryalexanderdevine723 makes a good point. While they will look at 'geographical diversity', it seems like this is one of the factors that move applicants from the strong-maybe to the yes pile. This group of applicants is relatively small, and there are several other parts of your application that will have a great deal more sway e.g. gpa/lsat/ps.
While location may give you a small bonus on your application, it seems like a highly secondary thought compared to other parts of your application. Additionally, the admissions officers will see that you went to an out-of-state school, and it's pretty easy to put 2+2 together: you moved to Texas recently. From there, they may ask 'why did @vduran1988561 move to X-town, Texas?'. If it really did become an important point in your application, I would be prepared to address this.
From my own experience, it was more important to live where I could be a part of a community that I loved. Instead of thinking about how to game the application process, think about what will help you to thrive. This can in turn help you to build a stronger resume and personal story.
publicbenjamin638
Thursday, Mar 23 2017
We talked about this in depth in a BR group once. That could really shakes things up! It really changes the conditional relationship.
Glad that you were able to break this down solo, as we spent a loooong time discussing it!
publicbenjamin638
Wednesday, Mar 01 2017
@cam860 I'm right there with you. Happy with my score, but not satisfied. I really only feel bad about having to dedicate more time to studying again. That's not all that bad, anyway.
I'm sure we will be seeing each other around the discussion board!
publicbenjamin638
Tuesday, Feb 28 2017
@cam860 Sorry to hear that- I'm sure that if you keep working for it, you'll get the score that you want later this year!
publicbenjamin638
Tuesday, Feb 28 2017
@armontehrani92 It should be by 6:30 pm EST as I understand. They send out emails in batches.
publicbenjamin638
Tuesday, Feb 28 2017
@cam860 @deepikaraj2398 Today is the day! Grey day.
publicbenjamin638
Tuesday, Feb 28 2017
Hi @publicbenjamin638!
I can't speak for others, but I did not do a 5th section for the majority of my PTing. If you can get through a full PT and not feel totally drained, then I don't think it is imperative to add a 5th section every time. When I got closer to my test date, however, I did add the 5th section to simulate the same experience I would have during the real thing. I did this with practice tests for around 3 weeks.
I think the main factor to consider is how strong your test stamina is currently. Why not take a PT with a 5th section and see how you feel mentally? If you do not feel any significant difference in your fatigue, you could probably get away with not adding the section until later. If you notice that you feel pretty beat after 5 sections, then definitely consider adding the 5th every time to increase your stamina.
The other thing to consider is that your score data may change with the 5th section added. It is hard to know how you will be affected without trying it first.
publicbenjamin638
Sunday, Feb 26 2017
I have spoken with an individual who works as IH Counsel for a non-profit and associated LLC. I think that the track really depends on the scale of the business from what he told me. If you are referring to being part of a small team, or being the only lawyer who works for the group, then I would imagine that there is an expectation of experience. He worked in corporate law prior to his current position for over a decade.
Much like any job, if you can get in the door and know the right people, the parameters change quite a bit. Going into an interview as a stranger, though, it can take more convincing for a company to bring you on as a big part of their legal team. I would imagine that company size, age, and overall work culture play a big impact on what they look for.
publicbenjamin638
Saturday, Feb 25 2017
I guess the only solution is to read them all! Good luck!
publicbenjamin638
Tuesday, Feb 21 2017
@taraspencer111392 One thing to keep in mind, in addition to the information above, is that drilling is meant to reinforce strategies/skills/concepts. Using early preptests (1-35) is a good option, because as a whole test, these are less similar to current tests. The fundamentals of the questions are the same, so they are an excellent way to practice question types without using up precious PTs that will be valuable later in your studies.
I use PT 1-35 to reinforce specific question types when I find weak points in the BR process. I use up these questions fairly indiscriminately, because I will not use any of these as a full practice test. This still leaves 40+ blank PTs for you to take later while giving you a huge bank of questions with which to practice during the curriculum! You can always return to the earlier tests to buff up on areas that show weakness once you get to the PT/BR phase.
(These early tests are also where J.Y. draws examples from in the curriculum, so I only pulled drilling questions after I was through the course.)
publicbenjamin638
Monday, Feb 20 2017
@doohocho35 Makes a really good point in his example. The thing to keep in mind in this example is that referential phrasing can lead to very misleading relationships between English and Lawgic.
The phrase "I only work on Tuesdays" is really saying "The only day I can work is Tuesdays", not "If it is Tuesday, then I must be working". Expanding referential phrasing can help to clarify the relationship: DW->T
The relationships between sufficient and necessary conditions can be tricky at first. Speaking from experience, I found this infuriating for longer than I care to admit. English is just so fricking ambiguous sometimes, and the LSAT capitalizes on this. But the more instances of ambiguous arguments that you expose yourself to, the more intuitive translation will become.
Practice makes perfect!
publicbenjamin638
Monday, Feb 20 2017
When I was skipping questions in RC, it was largely because I did not adequately absorb the information in the passage. Either there was specific info that I could not refer to quickly or other concepts that I did not retain that were needed to answer the question. In having to return to the passage, I was wasting a lot of time, and I tried skipping these to answer questions that I could do right away. In the end, skipping these was not a fault of me not understanding the question stems or ACs, but instead not working enough on the stimulus.
I think it is really important to distinguish why you are skipping the questions. If it is because it is hard to remember the referenced information, this is a problem that can be addressed through improving reading strategy. It is another thing entirely if the question feels difficult because of phrasing or misleading answers. I found that when I worked on my reading strategy for the stimulus, I was much less compelled to skip questions in this section.
Obviously, there are going to be hard questions mixed into the RC section. However, all of the questions rely on a strong understanding of the passages. My experience was that as I improved my strategy on the passage, I could skip a hard question here and there to finish at the end. But similar to LG, each passage has 6-8 questions, so skipping more than 1-2 questions in a passage would suggest that it may help to focus on overall understanding.
publicbenjamin638
Saturday, Feb 18 2017
@doohocho35 is right on the money with this one.
When I was learning the lawgic form, I followed the rules like gospel, but I also found that it was helpful for me to understand the why behind the lawgic structure. For some conditional relationships, it can be clarified by turning the sentence into an if/then statement.
In this example there is only one way that this would make sense: "If in Philadelphia, then it must be sunny". That is totally feasible and it maintains the original intent of the sentence. Alternatively, "If sunny, it must be in Philadelphia". Here we can see how to logical structure does not follow the intent of the original sentence. It's just silly; it's going to be sunny in Cabo, and that's definitely not Philly. I'm not going to Philadelphia to get my base tan, because plenty of other places get lots of sun and have better margaritas.
While this is not a foolproof technique, especially when you are dealing with conditional relationships that may not be as cut and dry, I used it as a learning tool to improve understanding.
publicbenjamin638
Saturday, Feb 18 2017
@aaronwfrank90 No problem! Let me know what you think of notation once you give it a shot!
publicbenjamin638
Saturday, Feb 18 2017
Hey @aaronwfrank90 !
For me, note taking was an important part of practicing the memory method in the untimed phase of my study.
The goal when timed for me, however, is to have practiced the memory method so much that I can do it without writing down summary notes. I can't speak for others, but I rarely write more than one word as a small reminder when taking a timed section.
Instead, I notate the stimulus with a legend that I adapted from this strategy designed by Nicole Hopkins, who has done a webinar on BR for 7Sage:
In doing so, I am able to mark important concepts and keywords quickly without having to write anything out. This can save huge amounts of time and is worth at least trying, and it acts more as a reference tool than a summary.
In the end, RC strategy is not as cut and dry as LR or LG. Since we are dealing with a much larger amount of information at a time compared to other sections, it is definitely important to find a way to effectively compartmentalize that information. If improving your time is the main goal, and you do not use your notes, I would consider employing a strategy that relies more on mental note-taking or notation.
publicbenjamin638
Friday, Feb 17 2017
Happy to help @aaronwfrank90 !
publicbenjamin638
Friday, Feb 17 2017
See you soon, @nessak130467
Hey @bswise2931 !
I worked through this problem in BR for the exact same reason. I think it is safe to conclude that we cannot attribute knowledge to the scientists in D. While 'many' scientists have knowledge of the impact of pollution, that word means it could be just one guy sitting in his lab. It could be that this one scientist didn't get the memo that this had other impacts, like affecting the size and intensity of the fires. There is a lot of room for D to be false, and I see that 'many' word as the red flag. It seems like the author wants us to assume that the majority of scientists are aware of the impact of pollution so that we can attribute knowledge to them.
E, however, follows a very logical chain and does not have room for error. Given the information we are provided, we can safely infer this relationship to be true.
Hope this helps! If you'd like a more in-depth analysis, I'd be happy to talk through it in discord. I synthesize better out loud than typing.