Some more thoughts about why (C) is wrong for question 4.

I think there might be a temptation to misread the question or be led astray by (C) and mistakenly think that what you're looking for is what Rawls and the author would agree about Rawl's theory of justice. However, the question does not say "most likely to agree about Rawl's theory of justice"; answer choice (C) does not say something like "According to Rawl's theory of justice, if an individual..." — nor do any of the other answer choices. So, what we're after is what the author and Rawls both likely believe "personally", based on the passage. On this correct reading, the author explicitly states that (C) is unfortunate, so he wouldn't agree with (C). From lines 6-16 we have support for (A).

However, the author would agree that (C) is an implication of Rawl's theory (lines 51-55), while we don't know whether Rawls would agree, if we stick to the passage. (I do not think that this trades on the distinction, mentioned in the video, between primary and non-primary goods because of the "sometimes", which allows us to consider only situations involving primary goods)

Consider a charitable instance of what (C) suggests: whether we should take some wealth/food (primary goods) from the well-off and give it to people who are dying from starvation. The author's summary of Rawl's view in the passage does not offer us a yes or no answer to this question. All we know from the passage is that Rawl's thought experiment suggests that this is an unjust state of affairs, because rational agents under the veil of ignorance in the original position wouldn't arrive at this situation where most people are well-off and some people starve to death. After all, they wouldn't want to be the ones who are poor, so they would distribute food/wealth equally. We simply don't know what Rawls thinks we should do if we are already in an unjust state of affairs

Should be noted that it's logically impossible to "re"distribute things in the original position, because the veil of ignorance requires ignorance about who has what (lines 38-9). Second, perhaps Rawls considers property rights or the right of not getting your shit taken by authority to be primary goods, so Rawls might argue that rational agents under the veil of ignorance would want laws that prevent their stuff being taken. We don't know from the passage!

We can eliminate (A) on the basis that it contradicts the conclusion, the first sentence of the stimulus. If (A) is true, then how well an underground group's recording sells is a marker of their success as an underground group. After all, we can negate the necessary condition of (A) and reason that if it sells too well then the underground rock group is unsuccessful and if it sells too poorly then it's also unsuccessful. This would make every sentence after the first one in the stimulus completely irrelevant.

What the argument is trying to say: if a recording sells well then it may or may not be successful; likewise if a recording sells poorly. So how a recording sells doesn't tell you anything about the group's success as an underground group.

Answer (C) does like 99 percent of the job of bridging the gap, which is why it's PSA and not SA.

sells well←s→not underground enough→not successful as underground group

sells poorly←s→incompetent→not successful as underground group

This is pretty good, but even with this there are some (reasonable) things taken for granted. Namely the argument needs to allow for some underground recordings to sell well and still be successful as an underground record (otherwise if a record sells well then it must undermine underground success); and that if an underground group desires for their recording to sell poorly, then that's a mark for success as an underground group. (Notice how the stimulus mentions this but never actually makes the connection between desiring shitty sales and success)

So then we would get:

sells well←s→not underground enough→not successful as underground group

sells well←s→it's just good→successful as underground group

sells poorly←s→incompetent→not successful as underground group

sells poorly ←s→actually we wanted it to sell poorly, you just don't get it→successful as underground group

So, just from the stimulus's conclusion and the phrase "If it were true", we know that it's an indirect proof. The argument is going to have to make two assumptions. First, it's going to assume the opposite of what it's trying to argue for. So if it's trying to show not-P, then it's going to assume P. Moreover, by assuming P, the argument needs to show that we arrive at some contradiction. For this to happen, there needs to be some assumption Q, such that when we also assume P, we get not-Q. If we get not-Q by assuming P, then that's in contradiction with what's given as true, namely the assumption that Q. Thus, if by assuming P we arrive at a contradiction, then we have a valid argument for not-P.

Basically it's like this:

Show P:

1. Q (Assumption) [Not actually in the stimulus, but it's needed]

2. not-P (Assumption for Indirect Proof)

3. If not-P, then not-Q. [P, because if it were not-p, then bla bla bla crazy shit, e.g., not-Q, happens]

4. not-Q (2,3 not-P→not-Q) [This is what I'm looking for in the stimulus; what seems to be the thing that is taken to be absurd/contradictory?]

5. Q (1) [This is what I'm looking for in the answers]

6. Contradiction! (4 and 5)

In real time, I looked at the stimulus, recognized what it was trying to do, and figured that the assumption needed to be the opposite of whatever the string of conditionals was trying to arrive at. In other words, I knew roughly that the necessary assumption needed to be in contradiction with the proposition that "at least some of what is written in the book is not true". (I say roughly because I was more concerned with the conclusion, rather than the jump from sales figures to popularity) Well (D) does what I was focused on, which says that if the book is written for pleasure, then the author intended to have that effect, which is to say that the truth of the book consists in the imparting of pleasure. But that's in contradiction with the conclusion that the indirect proof arrives at.

@ said:

Real LR

1.Debates and discussions about false ideas 2. Rising apartment costs and economy improvement 3. Manufacturers competition and specialized suppliers 4. Electing politics outsiders (can’t remember if that was the same section) 5. Pretty sure one of the first questions in the real lr was about short stories and political messages. I don't remember the other and I think nutritional deficiencies was the second question in the real LR.

Moon Gravity 6. Payroll & Tax Increases (Mayor v. Economists) - Possibly Experimental @ and others who had 2 LG confirm please, thanks!

I definitely did not have a question about moon gravity. Not sure about 6.

@ said:

Can anyone confirm the question with metamaterial affecting human vision as real or experimental LR section?

Definitely did not have a question about metamaterial effecting human vision.

@ said:

@ said:

@ The real LG on today's LSAT was then:

Art installations 

Garden/Department store with furniture, gardening, housewares

City workers

8 Diplomats/delegation sitting clockwise at a circular table

It appears for me that my 3rd section on logic games (one containing Junior and senior XYZ) was the real one? Can someone please confirm

yep that one was the real one

Are the answer sheets made available upon score release or do they not do that for undisclosed exams?

@ said:

These are few I remember from Lr: all real just had two sections.

-teddy bears that look like humans(?)

-Kitten shrunk

-paper currency Quebec

-full time zookeepers

Most of the exam was a blur.

teddy bear question gave me fits

I think some apps ask that if you have a C&F disclosure to make that you submit/upload a document/addendum to do so, others just simply have a text box I think. In either case you need to disclose, unless the C&F on that particular app specifically makes an exception.

If the app just has a text box for C&F disclosures, then it doesn't strike me as something worthy of having another addendum.

Here's an argument analogous to the one presented in the stimulus and why (A) is not a flaw.

Only a very small percentage of males ever become T-14 law school students. This shows that males are underrepresented in the best law schools in the U.S.

This argument should come off as ridiculous and it's not because of a sample-size issue. A very small percentage of people ever become T-14 law school students, period. You might argue that it is a flaw to take the T-14 as the best law schools, but that's not a sample-size issue.

Similarly, you might argue that it is a flaw to go from 600 of the largest North American corporations to most important North American corporations. To suggest that this is a sample-size issue is to suggest that by considering, say, all of the corporations in North America, we can then more accurately represent something about the most important corporations. But that seems plainly false.

I see how answer choice (D) is correct, but I don't agree (as some comments seem to suggest) that merely because the argument concludes we "ought to do X", it is necessary that people give a shit about X. This explanation is faulty and will just confuse some people.

To show this, consider the following:

Premise 1: People kill babies for fun.

Premise 2: (Insert your ethical framework here that bravely suggests that we ought not to kill babies for fun)

Conclusion: We ought not to kill babies for fun.

Here, it's simply not a problem for the argument if no one doesn't give a shit whether we kill babies for fun. It should still follow that we ought not to kill babies for fun. It's also not completely analogous to the actual stimulus.

The actual stimulus makes this mistake: its only premise is a description of the current state of affairs, "in the absence of a legal will, distant relatives whom one has never even met bla bla bla...", which is then used to conclude that it is obvious that we ought to change the current state of affairs.

Thus, if we negate answer choice (D) and say that literally no one gives a shit about the state of the affairs that is described in the stimulus, then it quite simply doesn't follow from the description of the current state of affairs that it's obvious we ought to do something. You need to give an actual reason suggesting that the current state of affairs is undesirable or bad or something.

@ yeah the unemployment % of BU and BC scare me a bit, which is why I prefer Minny over Boston. I guess Harvard competition is a thing, but there are only so many of them and some of them will head off to D.C.

Outside of comparing something like Nov. vs Jan., your best bet is to just look at mylsn's admissions graphs for the schools you're interested in. Some seem to release their decisions in batches, which potentially makes early Sept. versus late Oct. probably irrelevant. Harvard is a pretty clear case of this, but let's look at Vandy's.

If you look at Vandy's timeline (http://mylsn.info/d/vanderbilt/1718-NoED/), you'll see that someone who got in their app in late August received their decision on November 8th, the same date as someone who got in their app on Nov. 2nd. You'll also see that a September app actually received a decision in December. So if you're applying to Vandy, I wouldn't be splitting hairs over early Sept. and mid-Oct — just get the best app in before thanksgiving.

Others seem to have a more linear timeline, so the earlier you apply, the earlier the decision. But even the earliest of linear timelines seem to start mid-Oct. I wouldn't split hairs over early Sept. versus October. But do check out the graphs for yourself.

@

@

thanks guys! I don't have any strong feelings about big law and I feel that the COL in Minneapolis makes big law/six figures off the bat less of a do-or-die thing. The 25th percentile is 70k, which is not bad at all for me. So yeah, I'm probably more focused on an acceptable salary than anything else. I imagine my feelings might change once December comes around. I'll definitely be applying pretty broadly.

@

Really appreciate the insight.

Can you expand on your comment that upper-mid level legal positions don't pay six figures? I'm looking at lstreports (https://www.lstreports.com/schools/minnesota/sals/) and see that 52 percent of 2016 grads went into the private sector, and of the 31 percent that reported their salary, it looks like the median salary is 110,000. NALP in their 2016 buying power index stated that the median salary at law firms in MPLS is 115,000. (https://www.nalp.org/class_of_2016_buying_power_index).

Granted, almost half the graduating class went into public and I guess we don't know how much of that is because they couldn't get a job in the private sector. I don't know whether that's a thing.

But at any rate, from nalp's numbers, apparently $83,295 has the same buying power in MPLS as $180,000 does in NYC. That's wild, but I believe it given nice studios for 1.5k a month are a thing there. So while 150k in loans is still 150k in loans, at least I can live ok in a nice city. (I don't have any UG debt.) And I don't care about prestige, though it does hurt when my mom asks me if they have Uber there.

I'm sure that the legal market there would prefer T14 over UoMn, but I imagine T14 grads coming back to MPLS represents a really small group. I agree that if someone had above-average grades at a T14 and is from Minnesota, then they'd get jobs over UofMn grads easy. But given that I'm not from there, don't look I'm from there, I feel like I'd be on my own getting in touch with firms in MPLS and trying to convince them that, despite going to school, let's say, in St. Louis, and having no ties to MPLS, that I want to work in MPLS for the summer or something.

thanks for the responses everyone. I'm leaning against retaking, as no one has stated that an increase in a score will likely bump up scholly from the schools I'm interested in. Poll also isn't definitively in favor of retaking.

@ They seem to be slightly stingier relative to other schools in terms of % of students they give grants to (Minn's 15.6 to BU's 8.5 paying full price for example), but when it comes to the actual monetary amount, seems like Minnesota's 75th is well above other 75th's, at 40k, and they have the same median amount generally, 25k.

@ I feel pretty set on Minneapolis or Boston. I'm certain I don't want to be working in NYC, as I did my undergrad there. I loved it, but I need an affordable studio and I'm way too much of a homebody to be paying out the ass for one in NYC; done with the shoebox, mattress-on-floor life. I feel like being uninterested in NYC makes Wustl/Vandy's higher ranking irrelevant and just makes it a matter of which region I'd like to work in. I prefer cold to hot weather, MPLS seems better culture wise compared to St. Louis and Charlotte. Thoughts?

@ I'm honestly burned out. Didn't see an increase from my third to fourth take and I'd just like to move on with my life, after spending over a year thinking about the lsat. I'd only take it if a decent amount of people thought ~2/3 points would have a non-trivial impact on chances of a 75th percentile scholly because that's a lot of money. Yeah it lowkey hurts my ego to feel like I'm "settling" but that's definitely a bad reason to re-take. I also am really uninterested in NYC (and DC, having visited) and I feel like the schools above Minn and outside/low T14 only have that to offer for me.

I only mentioned percentages because I don't know what their percentile breakdown for schollys were five years ago.

@ said:

also feel like no ones mentioned a game with catering crews and a game with performers???

Was the catering crews one the last game? I had a similar sounding game and it was (thankfully) experimental.

Another red flag with (A) is that it's unnecessary that the crop in question be alfalfa. It could just be any other green-manure crop such as balfalfalfa, which is what (E) accommodates by simply picking out the class of green-manure crops and not alfalfa in particular.

This question would have been easier had the stem been formulated as a necessary assumption.

Don't be me and hesitate on (C) because you're unsure whether the modifier "visible" is problematic on a most strongly supported question (and start wondering, is a non-visible scratch still a scratch?)

@ said:

My early curve prediction: -11 -to -13. Significantly harder LG than September, easier RC (I still get upset when I hear the word candor), and comparable LR. I believe LG is the main driver of the curve.

Thanks for your candor!

@ said:

@ said:

My early curve prediction: -11 -to -13. Significantly harder LG than September, easier RC (I still get upset when I hear the word candor), and comparable LR. I believe LG is the main driver of the curve.

I think LG s going to be the main driver of the curve too, but honestly it wasn't as bad as some of the really wacko mid 70s LGs. My greatest fear is that there won't be much of a curve at all.

What's the average? 10? Think it will be that. I found RC and LR to be easier than Sept's. LG was definitely harder but not as hard or unorthodox as the game with buildings being traded and shit.

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

Anyone have a LR question about increasing rain and less hot days.

I don't remember that one. I only had two LR's

There was a question comparing two cities and their temperatures. I believe it was a resolve question in what was for me the first 26-question LR of a test that had two 26-question sections and three LR dections, the first one being real and on 25

Definitely had question comparing two cities and temperature. The one in question was about humidity being the cause, i guess that's experimental. Thanks!

@ said:

@ said:

Anyone have a LR question about increasing rain and less hot days.

I don't remember that one. I only had two LR's

Ah thanks. Ended up guessing on that one.

@ said:

Does anyone remember whether the apartment LG game and the voting and zoning commission question were part of the same section?

Yes. They were.

Anyone have a LR question about increasing rain and less hot days.

I had three LR sections and my brain is so fried that I can't remember which questions came in which section... :c

@ lmao yeah no one should get worried, nor should anyone get their hopes up. My comments are based on selective memory, most likely.

I've found in my prep that the -12 to -14 tests generally had RC sections that many people found to be especially challenging. I wonder if there's any way to find out whether such tests generally had RC sections where they expected more incorrect answers (more passages and questions that are rated rather difficult), or whether the expected increase in misses were distributed fairly evenly across the three types of sections.