Is another reason B is wrong that "sufficiently large quantity" doesn't necessarily mean someone is eating nuts regularly?

@NitinP I think the key assumption here is that the people renting community gardens are individual people who are growing their personal gardens in their spot that they rent in the community garden. Which is why it would strengthen the link and show that personal gardens, or at least people gardening, are all increasing in tandem with the increase in produce prices and the seed sales spike.

I would say highlighting here and there helped me stay active and not lose focus, because this was an issue that I had a problem with for a while. Anytime you see a new opinion, or an author making a point, just highlight the beginning of that sentence so you are signaling to your brain that you're about to then read a new opinion, or an author making a point (these are just a few examples of stuff you could highlight). You could also highlight one word every time you see some kind of evidence to signal to your brain what you are highlighting.. just a small trick that works well for me!

@JacobBaska That makes lots of sense! Just to clarify, do you think it's a good idea in that second email/communication to include a resume, brag sheet (with some bullet points of my favorite experiences/activities with my professor), "why law" info, etc. ? Or is it better in your opinion to keep it vague/open and not provide too much guidance or additional information about me? I also don't necessarily know which specific type of law I want to go into, so I'm not sure how to navigate that either.

I found Loophole to be really helpful with Weaken and Strengthen questions since I had such a similar issue as you. It really helps to slow down in the stimulus and identify the "loophole" in the argument, which means just asking yourself what kinds of facts or situations could be consistent with the stimulus where the conclusion might not necessarily follow? If anything, if you're low on time, just think about what kind of works with the premises to make the conclusion "less believable" (and for Strengthen questions, it would be the opposite). My biggest tip is to practice engaging with the stimulus more and thinking about hypothetical situations that could essentially wreck the conclusion, while the premises given are still true.

Example adapted from online: We found a cache of coins from the reign of King Harthac (AD 900) in a remote cave in North. Since Harthac's kingdom was located entirely in South, and there is no record of trade between the two regions, these coins must have been brought to the cave by a thief fleeing from South.

Here, you can see they are concluding that a thief MUST have brought the coins to the North. We need to question this "MUST." Did it really have to be the thief? Even though the King is from the South, and there was no trade (these facts are established as true), could some band of rebels from the North instead have snuck into the South and looted the coins? This opens up the possibility that it wasn't a thief from the South, but rather some other party from the North coming and stealing the coins. Even if this doesn't end up being the right answer, just thinking about it like this prepares you to understand the answer choices better, and it's really worked for me.

Definitely don't cancel your score! Even if it's not what you wanted, it's your first score and showing an upwards trend is great. I also kept a similar score because I told myself if I cancel it, then everything depends on the next time I take it and I personally wanted to have a backup score on file to fall back on in the worst case scenario, and not be in a situation where I don't have a single score on file that I like.

I have a WAJ where it's organized by question type, and even before all my entries for each question type, I have a brief bullet-pointed section under my question type "header" where I keep reminders for myself for the most common mistakes I make for that question type. Just reading over that before a drill or section is really helpful for me. I just keep all of this on a Google Doc and it works for me!

@PhoebeHopp Thank you so much! This is really helpful.

I've been studying full-time since January, and one concern I've had is that if I score in the low-to-mid 160s, it might be better to cancel because I wouldn't want admissions committees to see that score and assume I've been unable to break into the 170s despite studying for a long period of time.

Is that a valid concern, or would you recommend not thinking about score cancellation that way?

@MikaelaS The author seems to only mention that in the argument that "some legal theorists" put forth. So, since the question stem asks what the "authors" would most like disagree about, I don't think the ""myriad institutional considerations that judges must continuously balance" is technically a part of the author's opinion.

@AnandChoudhary Thank you, this was really helpful!!

How could you tell that this paragraph was the author's perspective, versus just the author listing some evidence of the effectiveness of stealing thunder?

@Jsonf I also thought this. I'm still not understanding why the "while there is no point..." is not author's opinion.

I'm confused because in the prior SA questions, we had to explicitly search for the desired conclusion in the answer choices, and now, we're still technically doing SA questions but looking for the desired conclusion is not a criteria anymore? could someone help explain how this is the case

@Kevin_Lin Makes sense, thank you @Kevin_Lin !

Do you recommend diagramming/writing out Lawgic or notes on the test? Does time allow for that or should we start doing that in our head?

@puddingeveryday Super helpful, tysm!

Just because people are helping detect, how can we assume that more are getting recorded? People could just be helping but doesn't have to mean their efforts are fruitful right?

I'm not really following the whole naive assumption thing. For me, it makes more sense to find an answer choice that is the best hypothesis for the facts. Can someone better explain how assumptions come into play?

With this question, I got caught up in translating the claims using Group 4 indicators (like "not") which threw me off. How did you know to instead interpret the claim using "if"?

3/3 but so bad on time. Will that just come with practice? I'm always 1-3 minutes over the target time.

Can someone explain how in this, "Some alphabets are not phonetic.", the not phonetic became just phonetic? Really struggling with the double negation

How do we know when to bring in general knowledge versus stick to the stimulus? For example, we kind of assumed that racing to develop the vaccine doesn't mean the company is investing all resources right?

But doesn't "some students" imply that the lower bound should be 2, not 1? Since students is plural?