@ Hey Helen, no problem. As with any drug you can take the side effects will usually be different for each person which is why I recommend trying it for practice tests before the real thing. As for me, propanolol had no negative effects at the dosage I took(20 mg). I have used it on the real test and I was able to stay relatively calm and keep it together. I also took many timed PT's with the same dosage to simulate what test day would be like so I would be more comfortable taking it on test day. Here are some reviews of propanolol from people who use it for performance anxiety https://www.drugs.com/comments/propranolol/for-performance-anxiety.html. Always ask your doctor's recommendation before taking any new drug of course. I hope this information helps out. Good luck!

For people who get extreme performance anxiety I always recommend asking your doctor about beta blockers. Some people just have a fight or flight mode that shuts down their minds way more than the average person and beta blockers can keep your body from getting all those negative fight or flight effects. I have used propanolol myself when I have had to give speeches or do presentations and it is a life saver. It doesn't stop you from being nervous still but it blocks the racing heart, the panicked mind stuck in neutral, etc. Best of luck and I hope next test day will be your winner.

This used to be a big problem for me too and I know the frustration. I just kept drilling more and more and eventually I got to the point where I just understood the main point because I knew what to look for as I was reading. Asking yourself why the author is writing this paragraph and trying to understand the main point of each paragraph can help you piece it all together at the end. Actively reading to anticipate what will potentially be asked in the questions seemed to be help a lot as well. It took me a bit more time but it was worth it when I got to the questions.

I think getting more familiarity with the passages is ultimately what you need to succeed in RC. It was hard for me at first to try and anticipate and wonder where the author was going with the passage, while simultaneously trying to read for clarity and understanding, but after enough passages I just seemed to happen naturally. So keep at it and eventually it should become easier for you. Best of luck.

If there is any harm in delaying your application(and I don't believe there is), it would surely be far less than a poor LSAT score. So delay away and get a great score and go to the school of your dreams, possibly with money if you score high enough on the LSAT.

Logic games are just like any game. You need to keep practicing until you are good. Eventually they will come natural to you and you will be much faster.

I think you are just judging B too harshly as if it's a MSS question or similar. While it's true that nothing is mentioned about staying in power, that doesn't really matter for this question. We just need a sentence that makes sense given the context of the passage. The last sentence is setting the stage for disagreements becoming a problem so we need something that addresses the issue of the problems, which B does.

Did you use their cropping tool on the website? It should mostly fill in with their cropping tool.

I called LSAC because no matter how many times I cropped the image, it still slowed a sliver of white on the edges. Despite it saying it has to be completely filled in, the phone rep told me it's fine if it isn't filled all the way in as long is it can clearly identify you. Make sure the picture looks like the examples given and crop it and you should be good.

@ said:

You know nothing, "work all week"

The Jurist of the North disagrees.

I argued that in certain cases, reneging on the vow is appropriate. For instance, say you are someone whose father has connections to the one true king; in this case, you would be free to renege on your oath in order to join the king on an adventure to recapture your homeland without repercussions.

Ya it's so important to pick the right test center. There are some websites and blogs out there with reviews of the centers. http://www.simugator.com/lsat-test-site-rater.php

Each term in a biconditional relationship has a necessary and sufficient condition, so they trigger no matter what. K(-------)/M breaks down to:

K--------->/M and /M-------->K, with contrapositives M------->/K and /K---------->M

So it doesn't matter if you have K or /K, M or /M, each one is sufficient to trigger it's necessary condition.

Thanks for the great session everyone, I found it very helpful.

Thanks for the great review everyone, it was very helpful!

It lays out routine non-punishment as a sufficient condition for chaos and then implies that sometimes allowing an instance of non-punishment will lead to chaos, since it concludes we should never allow any instances of non-punishment when rules are broken, rather than saying we should never routinely allow instances of non-punishment when rules are broken. So it's basically confusing the sufficient condition of routine for sometimes. Hope I am explaining this alright.

P.S. Is your name a Scrubs reference?

An alternative explanation would work for weakening if the conclusion was "the reason these reporters are paid less is because they get compensation in the form of valuable training." Then you could say "no it's maybe because of this reason instead." But we don't need to give an alternative reason. His conclusion is that the pay is justified, not why the reporters are paid less. So the premise is that "the reporters are given alternate compensation in the form of valuable training which makes up for the pay gap", and conclusion is "therefore the pay is justified". We need show why that premise doesn't actually support the conclusion as well as it seems. Answer B does that by saying most of the reporters are already very experienced, so they aren't actually receiving valuable training compensation on the job.

As far as B going too far, it's not that much of a stretch but ya sometimes you have to jump a little gap. That's why you need to rely on elimination very often to get the curve breakers. Your reasoning seems good, just don't pick answers you know clearly have problems such as C. Anytime I don't feel good about an answer choice I head right back to the conclusion to make sure I didn't miss anything. You got this, keep up the good work.

A or B translates to /A -----> B, or is negate sufficient. The not both just makes it a biconditional /A (-----) B. So that would just be two worlds, A in, B out and B in, A out.

The quick way to see maximum or minimum can be done by counting your unique not both, either or, or forever apart biconditional rules. Not both and forever apart biconditionals limit your maximum and either or and forever apart biconditionals limit your minimums. Your rules have 2 unique not both rules so your maximum would be 8(with BCEFGHIJ in, A and D out). One either or rule would mean one minimum(B or I in alone). If C and E occur it would be 8/3 max/min.

Try a different browser. I couldn't print on firefox on my system but chrome was fine.

I second @ with searching for other sources to complement your strategy. I like to google and search for different strategies when I run into an issue with certain problem types or RC in general, etc. But ultimately it just came down to me drilling problem types to finally break through. The one that was hardest for me at first were flaw questions. I couldn't for the life of me figure out the flaw before going to the questions on most problems but after drilling and watching J.Y's explanations on the vids it just eventually sunk in. I never had a eureka moment, I just started seeing the flaws far more often and that was that. Same with parallel reasoning. Just keep at it and you'll get it and check other sources when you hit roadblocks for some insight that may help you out.

I am much sharper and more attentive after an exercise so I will be doing this on test day, but if you don't exercise regularly it may throw you for a loop. Regular exercise is always recommended because we just perform better mentally when our body is in good shape. Cheers.

This is a great idea. Sami our hero. (3 Would love this to be in the 50-59 but I guess patterns are patterns so they should show up in the older tests as well, even if they aren't as wordy as the modern versions.(/p)

Even if D suggested that beauty could be subjective, that isn't what we need because it doesn't affect how the premise supports the conclusion. That may weaken the conclusion, but that isn't what our job is. We have to weaken the support the premise gives to the conclusion. The premise is "there is remarkable similarity in what is considered beautiful between earlier cultures and our culture." The conclusion is "Therefore, beauty is not subjective." One good way to weaken the support of that premise is to say as C does "our standard of beauty is based on the earlier cultures." This hints that the two beauty standards didn't independently come to the same agreement about what beauty is. This greatly reduces the support that premise gave to the conclusion.

You need to be able to fully understand how to get the questions right in an untimed setting before you should start worrying about timing. Going faster means nothing if you can't get the problems right. With more understanding, will come faster times. You will understand the stimulus better and know exactly what the question wants from you so you can go through the answer choices much faster because you will see whats obviously wrong and quickly eliminate them instead of taking a while to consider each answer choice.

Drill and revisit the curriculum until you can get near to 180 on blind review. Doing a timed PT every now and then to track your progress is fine, but save at least 20 PTs until you can reach near 180 on blind review consistently. Figure out your weaknesses during blind review and drill those questions types in between your next PT. During blind review make sure you understand why you got each problem wrong so you learn from those mistakes. Good luck, you got this.

I think it's the first one you did. Nothing would be negate necessary indicator and fails would be a negative. So you'd get "If you should not have desired it in the first place, then it is a pleasure". No one who studies for the LSAT fails to be annoyed by its garbled grammar. :smile: