Just saw this but thank you! It worked after about 15 minutes of refreshing

Good luck!!

I think C is also incorrect because it could be possible for sea creatures to wreak havoc in a new habitat even though they weren't deposited by oceangoing ships.

NOT survive after having been deposited there by oceangoing ships --> rarely or never wreak havoc in a new habitat

The contrapositive is:

wreak havoc sometimes (=more frequently than "rarely") --> survive after having been dposited there by oceangoing ships

But it's possible for sea creatures that arrived in a new habitat just by swimming there on their own, due to abnormal ocean currents, etc. (and NOT because they survived after being deposited there by oceangoing ships) to wreak ecological havoc.

The stimulus is only concerned with addressing the problem of sea creatures getting into tanks and wreaking havoc in new habitats, not with solving the problem of sea creatures wreaking havoc in new habitats IN GENERAL.

I think 22 B is an incorrect answer because it's incomplete, not necessarily because the part "that there are relationships into which an entity may enter that do not alter the entity's identity" is totally wrong. That part is referring to one of the author's criticism of the theory of internal relations (on which organicism is based) in Paragraph 3: "it is possible for the entity to enter into a relationship yet remain essentially unchanged"(lines 30~33). So I guess it's incorrect because it's only one of the problems with the theory of internal relations. And it's an attack on the theory of IR rather than a direct attack on organicism.

22 E is also incomplete because in the last paragraph, the author points out that the organicists "never advanced any argument to show that laws and initial conditions of complex systems cannot be discovered" (lines 53-55).

Please let me know if others disagree!

So negating answer choice B wrecks the argument because it fails the sufficient condition ("not pursuing personal excellence" is no longer met) and makes the conditional statement irrelevant for the argument.

But it doesn't wreck the argument by ensuring that "they'd be achieving happiness" -- that's how I interpreted the answer and would like to hear if others agree.

.. continuing my comment here because it got cut off

The conditional statement in the stimulus is:

not pursuing personal excellence AND unwilling to undergo personal change --> cannot be genuinely happy

So the contrapositive of the conditional statement in the stimulus is:

genuinely happy --> pursuing personal excellence OR willing to undergo personal change,

and not the reversal of that (pursuing personal excellence --> genuinely happy).

I might be wrong, but I don't think "if people who are accepting of themselves are likely to PPE" then "they'd be achieving happiness".

Hi @natashapawar14593 , I'm so sorry I just saw your comment. I got 9:40PM and 9:50PM EST options ... It might be that the earlier options were already gone by the time you changed the time zone :( I'm sorry I couldn't help!

Yes this whole thing is so inconvenient... I hope they open up more slots for you and best of luck!!

Ahhh I'm so sorry about that.... I sent an email to LSAT (just to let them know the slots weren't there even when I signed in right at noon ET) so maybe you could do that if you haven't already done so?.. It looks like there's an issue for multiple international test takers, so they HAVE to open up more slots for you.. I'm sorry !

FYI The slots show up if you change your time zone to US-Eastern!!!!! And es I'm a repeat test taker!

You may already be aware of this, but LSAC now offers a Score Preview option for all test takers (not just first-time test takers). So you could cancel your 3rd score if it's lower than 172, although you may still worry about admissions officers assuming that you canceled your 3rd score because you scored lower than 172. But at least they wouldn't know whether you canceled it because it was a 171 or a lower score in the 160s.

https://www.lsac.org/lsat/lsat-scoring/lsat-score-preview

Not sure if this is still helpful, but I agree with you that the wording in #3 is asking for the statement that the authors would agree with EACH OTHER on. (So both authors could have disagreed with a certain answer choice and that could have been the correct answer.)

Not sure if this is still helpful, but I agree with you that the wording in #3 is asking for the statement that the authors would agree with EACH OTHER on. (So both authors could have disagreed with a certain answer choice and that could have been the correct answer.)

#help For #25, am I reading too much into it if "a higher PROPORTION" in C also makes it incorrect as opposed to B which says "a higher PORTION"?

Isn't A also wrong because "at least one year" is not the same as "more than a year"? There could be someone who worked for exactly one year and not more than one year.

#help (Added by Admin)

@chang1728539.1728 Thank you for confirming!

Hi, I'm interested!

Hi, I'm interested!

I'm interested! I'm averaging at 174 for the last 4 PTs and scored 170 on my first real test.

Hi! You might have already listened to it, but I found this podcast super helpful. There are episodes about the personal statement in both seasons.

https://law.yale.edu/admissions-financial-aid/jd-admissions/connect-us/navigating-law-school-admissions-podcast/listen-episodes