To add one, in my experience, the LSAT, was and continues to be (nov tester!) an incredibly difficult exam and one that not only challenges your logical reasoning but also, and more importantly, your mental fortitude. For context, I've been studying for three years now, and there were definitely times where I felt incredibly discouraged. I often thought that I was not equipped or innately skilled to take this exam or to make improvements. I thought I wasn't cut out to be a lawyer. But, like what others have said, the LSAT does NOT determine your capabilities as a future law student or lawyer. This is something that I had to remind myself regularly.

I think the question you're asking yourself is a really valid one. It's also one that I asked myself when I was feeling disappointed with my score and lack of improvement. The LSAT unfortunately is a necessary evil to go to law school (unless you opt for GRE, which is also valid), so I think it wouldn't hurt to take some time off to reflect on these questions.

What is compelling you to study for this exam? What is keeping you going?

Why did you decide to start this journey? It's a tough and an extremely time-consuming one for a lot of people. A lot of people give up. A lot of people don't take this path.

Why law? Could you imagine a life without a legal career? It's not for everyone, but it is for some.

These are some of the questions that I constantly reverted back to when I was feeling distraught, dismayed, and frustrated at the process.

The process is an illuminating one, and during the three years, it has led me to explore different studying methods, read more books, sharpen my reasoning, and become more interested in thinking critically and logically. The result, your score, can seem daunting, but the process itself can be really enriching and make the journey a less stressful one. Trust the process, trust yourself, and your results will reflect that effort.

We believe in you!

i havent! was also wondering the same.

i think understanding the following would be helpful

to prove this:

NOT (Addiction -> Dependence & Abuse)

show an instance of this:

addiction and NOT (D or A or both)

c: NOT (Addiction -> Dependence & Abuse)

p: cancer patients: dependence & /abuse

in order to prove C (that it's not the case that addiction leads to d & abuse), we need to show one case that's addiction and NOT Dependence or NOT Abuse or NOT both

cancer patient example shows us an example of dependence and /abuse. in order for this to example to be relevant, need to tie it back to conclusion, i.e. addiction, which answer (C) gets at.

thought this was a fine explanation - hope it helps!

https://testmaxprep.com/lsat/community/100001278-pt-14-s4-q13

thank you for the comments -- appreciate it. I think the root of this dilemma stems from my complete lack of motivation to study now, and that made me reflect more about a potential legal career and whether or not I did indeed want to pursue it after years of blindly thinking that I wanted to become a lawyer.

thanks all

s

thought this was a helpful explanation

https://lsathacks.com/explanations/lsat-preptest-70/logical-reasoning-2/q-21/

1

Traditionally believed that immediate aid is most effective. High priority placed on quantity of it, but now ppl are reconsidering this approach.

2

Critics claim this approach causes secondary disasters as communities are pressured w influx of resources

3

a more effective approach, experts say, is to focus on long term (/immediate). This would require community members to define form and method of aid most appropriate to their needs. Grassroots dialogue should be encourage before the disaster

4

Though it sounds great, donors play a critical role in its success. Historically, they’ve been most likely to respond to needs only in immediate aftermath. donors that incorporate dialogue w members of affected communities into their relief plans could foster strategies that more efficiently use immediate aid.

What’s at stake here? WHY did he write this?

MP: to reveal the shift in approach in disaster relief w emphasis on community dialogue

Author: supportive of long term approach

Important point to consider: the stakeholders: we have relief agencies, donors, community members. The author really emphasizes the need for internal dialogue and grassroots efforts. Bringing this language down and defining who the players are

1

MP: need for long term - what’s required of this: community dialogue and role of donors

A most useful. Is it the most useful? 


B just bc donors more likely to support immediate aid doesn’t imply it benefits them more. The second part is accurate


C not difficult BECAUSE of the need for dialogue. Dialogue is actually helpfu

l
D this is good

E not MP

2

Experts rec long term approach and need for community dialogue

A no emphasis on long term


B “several years ago” this is good - emphasizes long term


C this is an e.g. of bad traditional approach

D no no. need for community dialogue/NOT at the request of donors 
E not about quantity

3

author agrees w what

A only for disaster prone communities? Doesn’t imply this at all


B last paragraph suggests otherwise, at least from author’s pov


C speculative - author doesn’t suggest anything about this


D this sounds like author 


E it’s not that communities don’t need short-term aid; they’re overwhelmed by influx of it and don’t know to handle it

4

Highlight a potential obstacle in implementing new approach

A do donors actively disagree w new approach? I don’t think so


B it sounds like it doesn’t have to


C sounds right


D relief and donors share similar views - ac des inaccurate


E author sounds somewhat positive about it, at least not negative

1

struggle to obtain legal recognition of aboriginal rights is difficult. even if a right is written, theres no guarantee that the future won't bring changes to law that undermines it. bc of this, canada extended constitutional protection to those rights.

but, decision placed on provincial courts a large burden of interpreting and translating. result has been inconsistent recognition and est of aboriginal rights

2

aboriginal rights defined as aboriginal peoples' rights to ownership of land and its resources, inherent right to self-govern, and legal recognition of customs.

but difficulties - indigenous diff to interpret. intent of protection to protect trad customs, but only those w legal documentation.

3

diff to det what rights amount to. e.g. ownership - 1984 case claimed that property rights should be interpreted as full ownership in contemporary sense of private property, but court rules that law recognized aboriginal right to use land (not sell)

author says court was "extremely conservative" and that supreme court is only hope for satisfactory app of constitutional reforms

What's at stake here? WHY did he write this?

MP: decision placed on provincial courts a large burden of interpreting and translating. result has been inconsistent recognition and est of aboriginal rights

Author: unsatisfied w court's ruling/in favor of aboriginal rights

1

we learn that brown v boe was not Marshall's first case before Supreme Court. Some scholars believe that the cases presented in earlier years were necessary for success of this case, saying they were used as tests for legal strategies and early erosions of foundations of discrimination against aa.

2

two approaches to proceeded against doctrine promoted "separate but equal" facilities in schools. 1- emphasizes schools werent equal and argue for improvement of them 2- more theoretical - argue that concept of separate but equal schools for races was by nature impossible to fulfill

marshall correctly believed latter would be the one but felt it necessary to try other cases using former approach

3

several years before able to leap from individual instance to broader social arg.

shelley's data demonstrated that individual transactions constituted pattern of insupportable discrimination, which marshall would use as a strategy. scholars (same as first para?) argue that this use prepared court to accept data as evidence

What is at stake here? WHY did he write this?

MP: offer a more nuanced approach to success of brown v boe, specifically that of strategy by illustrating two approaches, individual case -> broader social arg, and use of data

Author: engaged - "correctly believed"

Imp points to consider: trying to bring down “separate but equal” into layman terms. Understanding what this is actually referring to.

1 context and snell (indiv autonomy)

there's a debate regarding whether greek tragedy is influenced by individual autonomy or power of gods.

Snell argues the former, using Aes as an example. These characters are faced w a decision and must reexamine their deepest motives and act w determination. only given two alts and make a decision after internal debate.

Zarbu finds that this is reflective of greek civilization's view of autonomy at the time

2 Rivier (gods)

Rivier argues the latter, explaining that all the deliberation does is allow character to "realize" the gods' choice.

3 Lesky (tension of the two)

Lesky disagrees w both and argues that there's a constant tension bw autonomy and power of gods in affecting protagonists' decisions. Gives ex of Agamemnon who recog gods' choice but also desires the choice for himself.

What's at stake here? WHY did he write this?

MP: to better understand how protagonists of greek tragedies make decisions by exploring three views.

Author: fairly neutral but also engaged. no extreme stance

points to highlight: Lesky's quote, distinction bw choosing and realizing in rivier's para, role of Zarbu (what's she/he doing there)

1 phen/stats

earth's popn expected to increase to 10bn. ideally, all would enjoys standards of living that exist today, but if we consume NR the way we are now, standard of living would last a few years

2

purpose of mentioned stats to encourage conservation and alt model: industrial ecosystem, which would optimize energy and materials, minimize waste and pollution, and recycle the effluents

3

making use of "designed offal" would still require expenditure of energy and generation of some waste and harmful product but not the current pace.

4

industrial ecosystem wont be happening anytime soon due to tech limitations, but if nations embrace major/minor changes, possible to develop a more sustainable system

what's at stake here? why did he write this?

MP: to shed light on industrial ecosystem, raise alarm at current status of environment. does this by stats, intro to new system, and suggesting action generally

Author: concerned about the topic

1

Okapi presents many diff questions, one of which is how to classify it. Originally perceived as horses, okapis are now viewed as being more closely to giraffes.

2

The other question is size of popn. Some believed they were a rare popn, but others hypothesized that their habits kept them out of sight. Using this tracking method, they uncovered that okapis were not as rare as initially perceived, but rather were just keeping to themselves in a limited area.

3

Why seem scarce - partly bc of camouflage and partly bc of their travel habits, namely that they tend not to travel in groups or w large animals. Now, why do they do not travel in groups or w large animals? Their eating habits - experimenting w diff leaves

4

Other questions remain. Two are addressed here: why do they remain in forested area when there are other more suitable areas? Why are they absent from other forest regions that seem suitable for them? For the first, perhaps competition drives them out. For the second, they’re respecting borders (don’t know what this means).

What’s at stake here? Why did he write this?

MP: author explores the diff questions related to okapi, some of which he addresses and some of which he leaves to us. also to showcase the unique qualities of okapis.

Author: interested and engaged in questions introduced by okapis. No adj that pop out other than “seeming scarcity” - they’re not actually scarce .

1

A understanding effects of new tech not MP

B this is attractive but fails to address the responses to these questions. 
C I think this is good


D again, not about tracking effects


E really? We answered some in this passage

2

3rd para is about explaining why popn seems scarce but not actually so. D

3

Eating behavior is very experimental / non-commital

Like D

5

A bc infrequently hunted


B first para


C lines 30-34


D eating habits 
E

6

A dont know if many times. Could be more but where are we getting many times

B still unanswered questions despite tracking

C ya they’re seeming scarcity might do it

D but they dont

E would it? Seems like their behavior is a little atypical (last para)

1: arg against oath

critics argue it's outdated, meaning its fixed moral rule incompatible w today's, encourages authorian drs, emphasizes individual patients wo regard for larger social context, and impedes market forces (ugh). Also faulted for its omissions, including failure to mention vital modern issues. there are also historical doubts.

2: arg for oath

historical arg can be dismissed bc those who appraise and judge the oath become its authors. morally based args cannot negate patients' need for assurance that dr will pursue appropriate goals in treatment in accordance w acceptable standards of professionalism. to do this, core values of oath ought to be retained, w adaptations, if necessary.

MP: core value of oath ought to be retained.

Author: other than critic, author is the only voice in this piece, so he believes oath ought to be retained and disagrees w critics

1

Haraway's book is the most ambitious book on science history from feminist perspective. Primatology is particularly apt for themes such as race, class, colonial culture, bc primates seem so much like us (ok).

2

but, what's really at stake here? It's her radical departure to challenge the traditional notion of active knower v passive subject. this desire to understand nature is colonialist. in response, she proposes an alt more radical view that recog other actors and the passive subjects as active participants and insists that perspectives by these diff agents cant be reduced to a single reality.

3

this view is further reflected in her writing style, meaning she preserves the fragmented narrative. in doing so, she presents a complex alt to trad history. (question about what he means by trad history)

4

also, she's innovative in how she incorporates cultural issues. the norm is to write about internal and external issues, but she simply ignores it and writes about popular culture (truly radical). in this way, author writes that to appreciate her approach, one ought to come wo assumptions about science studies.

MP: to shed light on Haraway's radical approach to study of science history.

Author: i think he's somewhat open and curious to Haraway's approach but warns that one ought to be really open and wo assumptions to digest her work.

Iconoclastic: characterized by attack on cherished beliefs or institutions

22, I initially chose E thinking that this question was about MP rather than a summary of the contents

25, misconception that Vernon dispelled, wanted to explain why rice, gives two different explanations.

A is wrong bc no competing theories, just different theories dependent on which phen (pre/post abolition)

1

Vernon uncovered that Africans cultivated rice through an analysis of a 1876 document. this observation is especially compelling because it was originally believed that french acadians introduced rice.

2

In an economy focused on maximizing cotton production, why is it that Africans focused on cultivating cotton? there are two potential explanations dependent on time. During slavery, plantation owners ate rice and therefore tolerated after-hours cultivation. It also gave slaves some relief.

3

but the question is especially perplexing after slavery. They preferred to eat corn, no market for the small amount of rice produced, and only cotton was accepted as commodity, so why rice? Perhaps it might have to do with the notion of transforming land.

4

Vernon suggests that Africans transformed land not as a means to an end but an end itself. they viewed the land as an extension of self and home and so wished to nurture and make it their own. in addition, it was also a political symbol of reclaiming the land that the US gov had promised to give but never did.

MP: Vernon's study reveals that 1) Africans introduced rice and 2) that cultivating rice was more than just a means to an end. It played a larger role, and this can be explored in asking "why did they cultivate rice when cotton was the focus?"

Author: has an appreciative tone. can be seen particularly when she says Vernon's study was esp compelling. other than that, author takes a somewhat neutral tone to the vernon's study, but at same the time, doesn't at all interject w critical comments.

for sentence 2, JY translates it like so:

Dep C → (ACG → Fert), which is also Dep C and ACG → Fert

is it logically equivalent to translate it like this?

/(Dep C→/ACG) → Fert

the contrapos:

/Fert → (Dep C →/ACG)

/Fert and Dep C →/ACG

ACG → Fert or /Dep C

we know /Fert, therefore /Dep C (Answer choice C)

#help