I am admitted to a law school with a scholarship. The tuition deposit is due 4/15/2020. I am considering to retake the LSAT again for a better score for a more scholarship consideration. The earliest I can re-take is the March Exam (3/30/2020) but the score will not be released until after the tuition deposit deadline. If I get a better score after making the tuition deposit, will the school still consider giving more scholarship?
I don’t believe it is for ultimate and ultimate plus members only. Only ultimate and ultimate plus members have access to that pt66 passage via 7sage. If you can get it by other means, I believe you can join too.
Thank you. I'll be there!
@alan-91620 Thank you so much for fixing it promptly. It works great now!!
@alan-91620 Thank you for fixing it! It is much better.
If I may suggest few improvements...his could be a minor issue, but if you get to it, it would be helpful: when scrolling up and down, now although it does not leave the highlights, it temporarily highlights the whole line and it could be distracting when taking the timed PT.
Also, at the beginning of the PT, it would be great to have little bit of time to adjust font size, view format, spacing, etc.. before the clock starts to tick.
Thank you so much for developing this. It is really helpful!!
Shall we read and answer the questions before the BR call?
@jemimajohn08478 Hi Jemima. Did you have any problem with highlighting at all using iPad? On my iPad, when I scroll down the passage, it highlights the whole line where apple pencil touches. I'm wondering if there is any trick to get over that problem. Thanks.
I am using iPad (6th Generation, 9.7 inch) and I am having a trouble with highlighting. When I try to scroll up and down the RC passage, it highlights a big chunk of the text. Do you guys have the same problem? Is there any way to fix this? Or is there something wrong with my iPad? (I am using OS 12.3.1)
@odeljustin214: Good explanation. BTW, you probably meant to write "expensive."
I am using iPad (6th Generation) and I have trouble with highlighting. When trying to highlight using Apple Pencil, it grabs the entire passage and drags the entire passage to the direction the pencil is moving and does not highlight, when it does, it highlights large chunk of the passage.
Congratulations, Daniel!! That's awesome! You've worked very hard and you deserve it!
The score is out!
@cdawson1970967 Thank you.
LG with truck on east west north south, is it real? It was the Section 3. The second LG for me.
I had LG LR LG RC LR.
RC had DuBois and Washington, Copyright, Beetle, Justified lying (not in order).
Yes, your reasoning seem to be good.
Premise: Oct. & Nov. 1929 suicide number was comparatively low.
When market was flourishing in summer, suicide number was higher.
Conclusion: "suicide wave" after stock market crash of Oct. 1029 is just a legend, not fact.
Weaken: we need to support stock market was indeed the cause of suicide wave.
So we need to show, (1) when there was cause, there was effect or (2) when there was no cause, there was no effect.
Answer choice (C) does (1). In Oct. & Nov.1929 (cause present), suicide rate was higher than those months of other years. (effect occured)
This is a weaken problem, but the task is to strengthen the causal relationship.
As a side note, to strengthen causal relationship: prove that
when cause present - effect occurs, or
when no cause - no effect occurs.
To weaken causal relationship: prove that
cause present - no effect, or
no cause - effect occurs.
B: Deforestration continues at its present pace --> koala approach extinction
P: Stop deforestration --> Koala saved
If you look at this sentence, "All that is needed to save the koala to stop deforestration," it's saying that if you stop deforestration, it is guaranteed that koala would be saved. So stop deforestration is sufficient condition.
(B) is consistent with Biologist. Deforestration being stopped is failing sufficient condition of Biologist, so koala could approaching extinction or not approach extinction. Both are possible. (sufficient fails, rule becomes irrelevant) so deforestration stopped and koala becomes extinct is consistent with biologist's statement.
However, It's inconsistent with the politician. If deforestration is stopped, koala must be saved, but (B) says koals becomes extinct, which is not possible. (sufficient condition satisfied, necessary condition must follow) That cannot be true and is inconsistent with politician's statement.
If you think of "consistent with" as could be true, and "inconsistent with" as cannot be true, it may be little easier. So find a scenario that could be true with biologist's statement, and cannot be true with politician's statement.
To solve this problem quickly, you can just look at what cannot be true with politician's statement first. If there are more than one, then narrow down to something that could be true with biologist's statement, but in this case, there is only one. So find the one that satisfies politician's sufficient condition and fails the necessary condition: stop deforestration, koala become extinct.
In (B), why does it must reflect facts about the interpreter? Couldn't it only reflect his philosophy, opinion, beliefs, or his view of the world and we still know more about the critic than the writer, not necessarily facts? It wouldn't be appropriate to call his philosophy and opinion "facts about him". I don't see why B is absolutely necessary.
I thought, if they can store oxygen directly in their muscle tissue, it could strengthen that they can store oxygen in their spleen. After all, it's storing oxygen somewhere in the body besides lungs.
If (A) supports it because some distant mammal does it too, then for the similar reason, (B) supports it too...
Any thoughts on this?
Helpful to identify with those labels. Thank you.
According to the stimulus, the club president has disallowed Jeffrey to vote. Thomas is arguing that that was in violation of club rules.
(Structure)
Premise 1: Rule: Vote --> Good standing member
Premise 2: Jeffrey is a good standing member
Conclusion: The president’s action of disallowing Jeffrey to vote was in violation of club rules.
Here are club rules: only good standing members may vote. (vote—> good standing member)
Jeffrey paid his dues on time and therefore he is a good standing member. Necessary condition is satisfied, therefore we don’t know if he is allowed to vote or not allowed to vote. There could be other criteria to qualify to vote that Jeffrey does not meet, in which case he is not allowed to vote. Or Jeffrey meets all the criteria to vote, in which case he is allowed to vote. We have no information about it.
But, Thomas concludes that the president’s action of disallowing Jeffrey to vote was in violation of club rules. Disallowing Jeff's vote could or could not be in violation of the rules. In spite of this possibility that it may not be in violation, Thomas made a determination that it is in violation. This is the flaw. He is saying that allowing him to vote is in compliance with (authorized by) the rule. (In other words, to be in compliance, Jeffrey should be allowed to vote.)
And that is what answer choice (A) is saying. His argument fails to take into account the distinction between something not being prohibited (allowing Jeffrey to vote) and its being authorized (in compliance with the rule). He is saying that allowing to vote is in compliance with (authorized by) the rule. At the end of the answer choice A, words “by the rule” is omitted. “Authorized” here does not mean his being authorized to vote, but rather, it means being authorized by the rule.
We can also view it as sufficient condition, necessary condition confusion flaw. Because in reaching the conclusion, Thomas mistakenly assumed the club rule as: good standing member —> vote. But this is not in any of the answer choices.
(A) is the correct answer.
(B) There is no character attack here.
(C) There is no such statement being denied or regarded as true here.
(D) What they were voting about is irrelevant.
(E) Whether Althea is authority in club rules or not is irrelevant.
Answer choice (A) was written very tricky that it was difficult to recognize it was the right answer.
I am having trouble understanding why A is the right answer.
P: Ink from Bible by Gutenberg contains titanium. Ink of another bible from 15th Century contains titanium. Ink from other printing from 15th century does not contain titanium. (from the word "another" I am thinking that Gutenberg Bible was from 15th Century)
Conclusion: This finding supports (1) B3 bible was printed by Gutenberg, (2) We cannot doubt that the Vinland Map is not from 15th century because of the presence of titanium in the ink.
In arriving the first conclusion, the author is making an assumption that only Gutenberg used ink containing titanium in 15th century.
What I don't understand it that in arriving second conclusion, I don't see that the author is making an assumption that ink containing titanium was widely used (not restricted as the answer choice A states). I am thinking that it could be that those Vinland Maps were printed by Gutenberg. In that case, the second conclusion follows well. The second conclusion is based on the premise that ink containing titanium was used in 15th century by somebody. How can we say that the author is assuming that titanium ink was widely used (not restricted) from this conclusion? The premise is talking about one Vinland Map in question and we don't know how popular that map was during that time. It could be there were only few copies made by Gutenberg, then can't we conclude that presence of titanium in the ink of Vinland Map is no longer a reason to doubt of 15th century authenticity?
Thank you for any help you can give.
I am very interested to join, but Tuesday is one of the days I cannot make. Is there any other day of the week you would open BR calls?
When you apply, schools usually email you for an Application Status Checker user ID and a password, which is usually in the receipt confirmation email. Have you received it? If not, you should probably call them.