I was between A and E, but I opted to go for E because I thought the first sentence where the cafe closed down hinted that we would look for the contrapositive of the stim.

Do parallel reasoning questions always ask to mimic the conditional chain of the stim (as A does), or would there ever be a situation where the contrapositive of a conditional chain is asked (where E would be correct)?

#help (Added by Admin)

Am I the only one that thinks the 1st and last sentence both fit into the "why? test"? It seems like they could support each other, which is why I got this wrong. #help

Same here. I was originally really attracted to chasing A, but the word 'ordinarily' just made me feel like it took the strength out from under it.

In the video JY says AC D is wrong because the word "only". Since only is added, that means that the bacteria is only sustainable on it own. As pointed out in the video, a group of people in a lab could theoretically keep the bacteria alive through a controlled environment.

I understand there is a threshold between assumption and "going out of scope", but how can one draw the line on where to bring outside idea is counterintuitive?

I chose D because "only" is a Group 2 indicator.

Therefore, If bacteria are to thrive indefinitely→ colony must be in an environment w/o oxygen & killed other organisms.

How is D wrong?

I was between A and D on this one. Ultimately, I chose A because it was broader.

This Ap Q's, would it be better to try to cover specific points in the argument, or aim for an AC that covers the most of what an argument is describing?

#help (added by Admin)

I can see why A and C are attractive answers. But I am unable to differentiate between A and C.

The reason I chose C is because when the stimuli states "A recent study has shown that prescribing estrogen to women after menopause, when estrogen production in the body decreases, may prevent them from developing the disease," would that not imply that the C is the main point, since women who go through menopause earlier in life than do most other women have an increased risk of contracting Alzheimer's disease?

Am I accidentally inferring something from the C that is making it stand out more than A?

#help

I really like this breakdown. This is kind of how I guided through the questions. However, is there not a level of real world bias in that strategy? How can one separate obvious terminology (such as judges, as opposed to lawmakers or general society) without risking too much real world influence?

I am having trouble separating ability to judge and years of training.

"John's literature professor believes that the ability to judge the greatness of literary works accurately can be acquired only after years of specialized training. Such training is, in fact, what is required to become a literature professor."

Therefore, wouldn't all lit prof be able to accuracy judge literary works, since it is implied it takes years of training to become a prof and develop the skills to judge? (AC B).

Why would one be incorrect in structuring this as: Years of training→Lit Prof and Judge? Meaning, if you have the training to become a Lit Prof, you also inherently have the training to Judge, meaning all Lit Prof can Judge accurately.

#Help

I am lost as to why it is not A. Throughout these questions, it has been repeated that everything stated in LSAC stimuli is to be taken as fact or truth. So why do I have to incorporate the conclusion to add a strong claim if I follow the aforementioned rule?

#help

@claremont525 said:

I'll summarize what I've heard other prep companies say:

-Applying in January is not too late in the cycle, especially if you're not shooting for a T14.

-Applying later in the cycle with a higher LSAT score is better than applying sooner with a lower score (within reason).

Thank you for easing my nerves lol

I was between B and E, but decided to go with B because stimulus does not talk about overall outcome of painting, but rather the small increments of ensuring the layering is done adequately; even mentioning the importance of priming and preparation. Therefore, this would be more closely aligned with B, since a student’s “grasp of fundamentals” would ensure they are prepared for their educational futures. Again, small increments.

E talks more about the finished product of properly preparing (layering). I liked this A/C until I saw the word “overall”, which I thought brought out the A/C further than what the stimulus was talking about and made it the wrong choice.

I feel like I am looking too deep into these in the wrong way.

I am confused on how this one is not E. Rita states that the survey is useless in any way, shape, or form. This is because people lie on surveys, therefore, questioning the validity.

Hiro steps in and tells Rita that he is aware people lie, but the survey will still capture sufficient data to give a glimpse of the survey they are doing. If Hiro and Rita are debating the validity of test because people either lie or tell the truth, how would that not connect to the number of adequate people = purpose of the survey is fulfilled?

#help (added by Admin)

I was initially looking at D, but crossed it off because why would the expertise of 20k people even matter? Instead, I went with B because it directly connects to the argument's structure. The letter's statement offers no argument besides "hey do not do this, here's 20k signatures," which provides no viable alternative.

I was between C and D, but I went with C because D seemed like it was focusing on customer convenience, which the stimulus is not even arguing for.

The argument that we have to challenge is that the new program will either keep the cost the same or worse. If that is the case, wouldn’t it make more sense for the city to collect more frequently?

D just seems too out of scope for me, and it is because it sounds irrelevant what talking about recycle collection frequency.

Hiya, I am taking January LSAT for Feb apps too. I do not think it is too late, but it is hard to ignore that seats will be taken up. I would say scholarship $$ will also be taken up.

For what it is worth, my approach has been boosting my safety schools + I am also using 7Sage's Admissions Consulting program to boost my soft scores.

Best of luck!

158 is very good. I would be over the moon. Tie that score with a solid PS and LOR and You're competitive to a lot of respectable schools.

@abspierce703649 said:

I think this is something you would need to determine once you see your score. I know when I first took it I told myself that if I scored any lower than a certain score I would cancel it. I am pretty sure law schools can see how many times you attempted the LSAT, but it is not unfavorable towards admissions unless you take it multiple times and you either do not improve or you go down in the score. If the second LSAT score is higher then law schools can still see your first score if you do not cancel it, but it looks good to law schools because they see that you improved. I would recommend not taking the LSAT again until you know for sure that you will improve.

I figured that having a decent score, is better than none at all, especially if one does the same or worse on their second try. I would be taking my first LSAT, but since I have horrible test anxiety, I feel I will not do so well. Thank you!

May count to 7. I recommend reaching out to LSAC folks and confirming what the outcome is, since LSAC will be reporting to Law schools.