I'm also going into Criminal Defense, got some acceptances from T14 schools this cycle but am seriously considering taking up full-ride offers from my local universities. If you're not going into Big Law then the T14 is definitely not necessary. Criminal defense will have you working as a PD for a few years until a firm is willing to invest in you or until you go solo, and PD work is always in demand everywhere in the country so you wont have to worry about employment. Where you went to school stops mattering really fast in the criminal defense market. Clients don't care if you went to Yale, It's about how good you are in court and how many cases you've won. Most of law school is theory to prepare you for the Bar, and won't improve your litigation skills. Only actual court practice will do that.

Also the general public skeeves criminal defense attorneys for defending murders, rapists, pedophiles, etc, despite the fact that they're defending the public's right to a fair a trial every time they do so. So it might not be a good idea politically to go from a criminal defense attorney to running for public office as it will be used against you, although it's still possible to win of course. If you want to run for office you will likely benefit more from the connections made at an elite institution in one of the T14.

I think you need to make a decisive decision about what you want to do, and depending on how you answer, that in itself will tell you what schools you should aim for.

Just retake old ones. It'll be a great test for you to see if you ingrained the lessons learned from taking them the first time around. Your score will obviously be inflated on these retakes so don't use that as an indicator of progress, but that shouldn't matter. The benefit of retakes will come during blind review when you can articulate to yourself why the right answer is the right answer, even if you chose it because you remembered selecting it last time. But these will be far and few between. You'll likely have forgotten 95% at the point where you're running out of test material and need to start doing retakes. I scored a 167 in July and toward I'd say that last 2-3 months of prep I was doing this.

Nah you can't. Even if you could, you don't want to. The amount of time you would waste looking up a word would counter any benefit gained from a clearer understanding that you could get from context. The LSAT is written that way specifically so that you don't need to know precisely what is being written but can make inferences from the context. I took every PT ever made and I can only recall /one time/ when knowing the definition of a word actually helped me answer a question, it was a LR question revolving around the word "prudence" and from what I remember it was an old one, somewhere in the 30s I think.

Often = some. The only time often = most is if its modified as 'more often then not'

I used my surface go in June. They didn't say anything to me.

"the only thing you need for A is B"

A --> B

You NEED B to have A, B therefore is necessary

"the only way to have C is through D"

C --> D

You NEED D if you're going to have C, D is therefore necessary.

Those who argue the inverse above are wrong. When a clause is prefixed anytime with "the only" it will always introduce the sufficient condition.

It will happen on tougher LR questions that the writers will sneak in conditionality without using our ingrained indicator words, but just by describing a relationship with conditionality. An example is "As X increases, Y increases." Therefore More of X --> more of Y. When you are at a loss for which direction a conditional is going or whether there is a conditional at all, try and breakdown if there is a relationship of necessity in the statement, it could help net you some free points.

Jy is the best because he's great

That could be a correct answer. It depends on the remaining 4 choices and what they are. MSS questions require us to make assumptions, so being able to assume a conditional relationship between Wednesday and eating pies will depend on how supported and reasonable the other ACs are.

Yea on the proctoru homepage it specifies ios and android os tablets are not supported. So long as you switched out safe mode for windows home on your surface go it should be good.

(B) offers the scenario in which the cause and effect given in the argument's conclusion are actually two separate causes that are unrelated to each other that create an entirety different effect. Trauma causes the threat of developing PTSD, and a preexisting higher than average cortisol production mitigates the threat of PTSD, creating the effect "resistance to PTSD"

The "staying quiet" premise can be ignored, since the argument is about conversing while driving.

Are you sure that the issue is with reading speed? How long do you find yourself taking to answer each question? I ask because reading slower may actually be a strength and not a weakness. I too read slow and reread sentences I don't understand, and generally spend a minimum of 3-4 minutes per passage, maybe 5 if its exceptionally difficult. This is without the low-res method either. RC is my strongest section and have been averaging -1 lately in the 80s. I like to emphasize the comprehension in reading comprehension. There are a lot of threads which people have experienced improvements with increasing their reading speed and some have seen success, others however have also seen no improvement. To quote @ from an RC thread with a similar question (https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/3418):

"[reading faster won't] makes a big difference for RC because the passages aren't long enough for differences in reading speed to make a huge difference. Speed reading a novel might help you finish several minutes or even hours before a slower reader, but RC passages are like the 40 yard dash, they're really isn't that much of a difference between a 4.4 and a 4.7 and the difference there exists is totally blown out of proportion. Subvocalization probably costs you far less time than you think it does, especially in such short passages. RC is what it is and there aren't really any shortcuts, if you're reading the passage in 2-3 minutes with decent comprehension then you're way ahead of the game. You don't need to speed up, you need to deepen comprehension and retention."

So I think you should burn some older RC sections and experiment to see what works for you. If you read slow, that means you have to go through the questions fast and trust your intuition in what you read. Investing more time in a passage reinforces this trust because you have a greater comprehension than you would if you read faster. Frankly the slow up front approach just makes more sense for me. I'd rather do that then having to end up going back into the passage to find something I could of just understood on round 1. But everyone is different, that's why experimentation is important.

An NA is something that has to be true for the conclusion to follow from the premises. SA is anything that allows the conclusion to follow from the premises. A NA is a lot more stringent, an answer choice could be so strong in an NA that it is no longer made 'necessary,' because there could be a weaker variant that would still allow the conclusion to follow from the premises. With SA you can go all out it can be as strong as possible so long as it allows for the conclusion to follow from the premises.

I read few or none as "at least one and not most or zero" which would of been a tautology. But tautologies have appeared before on LR questions, why do we get to drop the some here for few? #help

I skip the ones I know I will find most boring. This is almost always art. As soon as you start telling me about the expressionists or Rembrandt, you're losing me. I'd rather read about fish hatcheries. It gives motivation to push through it by making it the last passage. Also I find that I am at the height of my concentration trance during the last passage, so it makes sense to kick the passage I will be able to concentrate least on for last.

The way to recognize the disjunctive is that its "Two cases," otherwise it would be just one case if it was a conjunction.

Coming back to this question after a year. Still a tough one. Definitely between (A) and (D), and as is generally the case with very hard LR questions it comes down to occam's razor. I don't think the power of (D) is appreciated in the explanation. If it is the case the that the maximum number of docs that would not have had their seals recast is 40k, and the number of seals remaining today is over 40k, then our reaming seals contain seals that are not part of this non-recycled set. But it doesn't mean that there are not more non-recyclable sets. For (D) to strengthen we have to assume that whatever the number of our remaining seals that are not part of the "important" set, that it would then fall into a set that was recycled. (A) requires no assumptions, and in fact bridges an assumption the argument made in the first place, that their purpose was served and therefore could be recast.

I generally highlight one word per sentence. A word that encapsulates well what the sentence was about. I will never highlight whole sentences or clauses unless it's the thesis, if there is one. I differentiate colors for different viewpoints and also just for visual clarity. I don't use the res-method however. Another tactic that can help raise your score, if you find that there is a particular subject you don't like, relegate it to being your last passage. Works well for me, which is art. I could care less about the expressionists. My most recent LR was was -1 on pt 89.

SAs are nice because the the test writers have 'shown their cards' so to speak in what they are looking for in a credited answer. Because in asking for a sufficient assumption, it is revealed that there is a blatant insufficiency somewhere in the argument - something that is missing that if added will let the conclusion follow from the premises. So you get a very powerful advantage, even when after a first read through of the stimulus you don't see the gap, you know that somewhere it's in there, and you can skip it and come back to it on round 2 to take a crack at it again. The correct answer will always be something so powerful as to force the truth of the conclusion: (correct answer) --> (truth of the conclusion follows from the premises)

I do as you described. The rationale being that you are more likely to find the correct answer with questions in the beginning than toward the end, because the general trend is that the questions do get more difficult as you get further in, despite outliers.

Note you will not be given a second booklet of scrap so be economical with it.

I'm having problems accessing problem sets. Probably a general site issue.

Same on 81. They outdid themselves on the psychology passage.

(A) is tough, because it seems to be exposing a bridging assumption that was made but really wasn't.

The argument can be boiled down to: The internet is complex in its network of transmission points, like a brain. This network is growing, like in a developing brain. Therefore the internet will eventually attain humanlike intelligence.

So we know that the internet is getting more and more complex, and if (A) is true then it is also getting more and more intelligent. So if it's complexity grows, then it will eventually attain human like intelligence because it's intelligence will keep growing. This must be the assumption made, I thought.

But the problem with thinking this is it's assuming that matching humanlike intelligence is just a matter of the internet becoming more intelligent. however the internet could exponentially grow in intelligence and just be smarter in it's own category of 'internet intelligence.' Like chess algorithms made more intelligent over the years. They can now crush grand-masters, they are smarter, but they nonetheless don't have human intelligence.

I would say that the analogy described in C isn't actually being made at all. The analogy being made is an analogy between computers acting as points of transmission for information, as neurons do in a brain and that these are growing, like in a brain. It has nothing to do with the actual information being processed.