Amazing Podcast! Also Amazing Tutor! Keep it up Boss! @

Sounds good

this helped me with flaw questions - understand and memorize the logic of the argument behind the flaw questions. They tend to repeat a lot, the topic or wording may change, but the argument is still the same. At some point it will become intuition, and you can pick these ones off super fast. I can now do these questions in 50 sec max.

C: In political dispute, our side benefit from showing desire to compromise

If opposition responds positively, compromise will be reached. (reached =/= benefit)

If opposition responds negatively (or non positively). They will be held responsible for failing to reach compromise and we will benefit

SA.

How will we benefit from them reacting positively?

A: We already know

B: We don’t care.

C: we need this; just because it is reached doesn’t mean that we will benefit.

D: we don’t care

E: we don’t care

hit me up, stuck averaging 170s, with a few high 170s. looking to push higher

Hey reminds me of my situation! I scored 134 on my diagnostic. in 4 months i was able to bring that to 160. I scored that on the august 2020 lsat. I knew i could do better, so I decided to study the next summer term (this year) for this test. My recent PTs have been 167, 168 and 175. Honestly, treat this exam like a sport., takes a lot of hard practice and a lots of relax...

TLDR: you need more than 4 months.

Nope

Interested!

Check out their apple podcasts!

Convert *

Click covert, add the extra section and click score

Dm me, I can try to help you out

Interested stuck around -2/-4 in rc. other sections are perfect most of the time

18) Tricky wording got me, and my paraphrase was off;

A is supported because a key reason why scientists think this virus "disappeared" is because when its in its dormant state its nonculturable, thus scientists thought it disappeared. But its saying, if the temperature when up (assuming R.C is right) it could trigger the virus from going its dormant state to active state. Now it would be more likely to be captured by the original method (culturing it)

@ said:

@ said:

When I Started I was weak at everything, -20 in LR, -17 in RC and -15 in LG. Took a few months to go from 134 to 155 consistently. From 155-160 was another journey, breaking that 160 took perfecting games. 160-165 was a huge uphill battle, I gave up a few times, but had to reduce the number of incorrect ac choices in LR and RC. 165-170, hardest time of my life lmao, essentially getting very close to perfect in LR and RC, a 170-172 (had one test at 175), took such a deep understanding of the test and deeply looking into my performance.

Thanks for breaking this down. I started at 157 and am currently in the mid-160s trying to hit 170. It definitely has been the hardest to get from 165 to 170 and I had a feeling that was by design. It helps to know others have had a hard time in this bracket as well.

Yeah arguably the hardest resistance to break; Lots of people I've talked to have mentioned this. But dont quit! You got this!!

When I Started I was weak at everything, -20 in LR, -17 in RC and -15 in LG. Took a few months to go from 134 to 155 consistently. From 155-160 was another journey, breaking that 160 took perfecting games. 160-165 was a huge uphill battle, I gave up a few times, but had to reduce the number of incorrect ac choices in LR and RC. 165-170, hardest time of my life lmao, essentially getting very close to perfect in LR and RC, a 170-172 (had one test at 175), took such a deep understanding of the test and deeply looking into my performance.

Do untimed sections until you can score in the 160s, this will help you get the fundamentals down. Then start adding time to it... I started at 134, averaging 169-172 right now. send me a pm if you need more help

I believe its acquired, naturally some people are more critical thinkers from a young age, and over time continue to work on this. Its apparent when we see new test takers score in high %tiles. Regardless, there have been countless stories of people who go from 140 to 170+

Hope this helps. Got #6 wrong too!

C) “Complete Corrido” – Despedida, therefore you have lines 1 and 3. Which is basically MBT at this point

Lines 45-47 indicate that some corrido lines are a set convention, i.e. they don’t change from corrido to corrido.

Lines 1 and 3 are always going to be the same, while 2 and 4 are going to change. So we can say some of them will have the same lines

D) “corrido variants” - Lines 47-48 say that some lines in the Despedida are variable. They can’t have the EXACT same Despedida if 2 of the 4 lines change, while only 2 stay the same. Some of it stays the same while some of it changes.

Looking Forward to it! Had a few tutoring sessions with him too! amazing guy!

The argument breaks down in seconds once you know wherever is a sufficient indicator...

Most of the time, try understanding the meaning/role that part of the text plays in the reading, and how it relates to the paragraph/text above and below.

If its still hard, try replacing these words with the word or words they are referring to.

Hope that Helps!

Take Flex, and then make an "experimental" section by adding a section from a different tests (under problem sets)...

Hi, try pushing time restraints on your fool proofing. Try doing the very easy games under 5 mins and -0. Memorize inferences if you have to. Repeat until you can do it in a very short time. Try this for all basic games, when you have that down turn up the notch. Do medium games in less than 7 with -0/. and so on