To add my two cents (I recently started PT and finished CC a few days ago), I found it very helpful to bring 7sage with me all the time, whether it's on mobile, laptop, or just the print material. Sometimes when I don't get a concept, I re-watch it when my brain, which enjoys taking mental shortcuts even when I'm not supposed to, is least likely to interfere with learning new material. This also helps me deal with the deadlock feeling of going nowhere when there is one concept that I simply don't get.

As mentioned in some of the great comments here, taking notes is helpful, but I found that I tend to lose interest in the material when it's dry and abstract or, alternatively, when I thought I had mastered it but I hadn't. Occasionally, my brain simply stops paying attention and decides to focus on note-taking instead.

I skipped ahead whenever stuff got boring, which I don't recommend. I also made sure to go back and make sure I didn't gloss over any important concept just for the sake of finishing the curriculum.

Additionally, I didn't start with the CC. Instead, I started with the LG and LR bibles. I just happen to be a verbal learner when it comes to abstract concepts and the bibles helped me a lot; still the CC videos really complemented my learning. If you find yourself losing interest/focus, switch things up to keep you engaged.

For #23, I think while the other AC's are relatively easy to eliminate, I just can't comprehend how B is correct on its own.

First, Isn't "cause" too strong a word to characterize the relationship between demand for antique and demand for new ivory? Isn't this a case where a third factor (conscientious people refraining from buying any ivory at all) caused both two demands to drop? I'm so confused.

Also, Salvador says, "many people who are unconcerned about endangered species but would prefer to buy antique ivories would buy new ivories instead." Doesn't this show that decreased demand in antique ivory actually cause an increased demand for new ivory?

Could someone please point out to me the mistakes in my reasoning, or alternatively, that I should just choose B and ignore my doubts?

A graduate school "statement of purpose" is totally different, just saying. Grad school professors look at applicants as potential future academics and colleagues who will contribute to their area. Law school admissions officers probably don't think of you that way.

I just went to a national law school fair with Columbia, NYU and Cornell among your list represented, and a ton of other T-20 schools as well. My general impression is if you ask about hard factors, you are guaranteed to get the answer, "We look at each applicant holistically." I asked questions about those, and the answers are invariably the same. I honestly see no other appropriate answer, since they are not allowed to give you an estimate of your admissions chances.

A more productive question could be: ask about their specialty programs, clinics and the placement of their graduating class. All those things matter and you can sort of see past the PR talk and get a sense of what they are proud of. And I think the admissions officers are genuinely interested in what you might be interested in their schools' offerings, so don't be scared to talk about your interests. It will generate much more individualized answer than a question about GPA or LSAT.

Reading this as a 20-year-old really inspires me. So many courageous stories. I actually look forward to learning from older peers when I get into law school next year. I also worry if I don't have much "softs," so age could be a positive or a negative, depending on your mindset.

Wow! I took the test in June and BR'ed it one month later, with a ton of lingering questions. This is like a godsend, and right before the September test! Thank you!

Q21 is the only question I missed in the section; I realized I was completely wrong in making the assumption that since Planck made important contributions to classical wave theory, his efforts must all be directed towards making the original theory work. What a subtle but dangerous thing to overlook. Looking back, though it seems like a small thing, it may well cost me more than 1 pt.

Before watching this video I didn't know you could also eliminate AC's in parallel flaw questions based on validity of the argument in AC vs. the validity of the argument in the stimulus. If they don't match up, chances are the AC is not what we are looking for.

I think I got this one correct due to a bit extra sensitivity to the errors in A's reasoning, and additionally, the fact that I had plenty of time to consider each of the answer choices (after initially skipping this one and coming back at the end of the section). Still, I wasn't sure if I should apply the same rigor of scrutiny to each AC as I did with the stimulus. Thanks to JY's explanation, I'll have a better grasp of what to do next time.