Can we pretty much say at this point that it won't happen today if it hasn't happened already? Fricken hate this wait!

@yimei438 Glad to help!! Now go get some rest and try not to think about it too much :)

I had a dream last night that I went in to take the test and next thing I know I was at a yoga class where for some reason the teacher had everyone's test booklets (not scantrons though) and was reviewing how we did even though scores weren't released. When he got to me everything was okay up until the RC 3rd section and the last coupe of questions were left blank on the page. Then he flipped to the next section which I guess was supposed to be LG and it was entirely blank. At that moment (in the dream of course) it hit me why I couldn't remember anything from the test. Apparently I fell asleep towards the end of the RC section. I thought the LSAT dreams/nightmares would stop after taking the test! And yeah the bubble thing... don't get me started.

@yimei438 I can assure you there was no LR section with 27 questions. To my knowledge, there has never been an LR section with more than 26 questions, and if there has been it is EXTREMELY rare. If someone said that then they misspoke or confused that with the RC section, which did have 27 questions on this test (not 28 as it sometimes does). Hope that helps :)

@kazrah837

Virus game rekt me; I'm finding solace in reading everyone else's rage about it. It was my last game, and I took a few minutes during the writing sample to redraw the whole game. Found out how to solve it but it was way after the fact.

@kazrah837 if I can ask, how did you figure it out after? I was trying to do the same but couldn't.. not sure if that's something that can be discussed in general terms but I'm racking my brain trying to figure out that game still...

Getting extra time is pretty tough if you didn't have them previously, and if your only issue is ADHD. I wouldn't say it's impossible, but it is much harder than someone for example who has dyslexia or something else in addition to ADHD. I got accommodations for this LSAT due to bad ADD, but instead of extra time I requested a private room since my real issue is with noise. I never had accommodations in the past for this but I wrote in my statement that there was never a need since tests were never timed so strictly in undergrad making it an issue. So I guess it really depends on both how helpful your doctor is and how convincing you can make your personal statement. Please know though that if you get extra time they have for this test onward made it so that all accommodated test takers do have to take the experimental section as well. That means it could be a SUPER long test day. Just things to consider. Hope that helps!

anyone know a comparable game to the computer virus one? someone mentioned zephyr airlines from PT 40 . . . feel like it's an issue when a rule seems weird/hard to interpret and keep having to go back to see, like is that what they're saying? or is this what they're saying? lol Thoughts?

I started laughing when JY explained E because that is exactly why I chose that answer when I did the PT. So hilarious the way he puts it.

This question isn't too bad if you just realize that the conclusion is giving a solution and saying it's possible to do the solution. If you keep that in mind then E makes a lot of sense because if none of the ships could actually maintain proper stability as they say earlier they need to be able to do, then the argument falls apart because their solution is no longer feasible and it rests on them saying it is in fact viable.

I just did 10 people in each group and then for the Skilled Banjo (SB) I put 6/10 = skilled at guitar and for Skilled Guitar (SG) I put 4/10 = skilled at banjo which makes the totals: 14 SB since 4/10 + the 10 then 16 SG since 6/10 + the 10 for that group. Just more of a numerical version if you were wondering what that might look like. I also like to use 10 since it's easy to add with fewer potential mistakes (math ain't my friend).

I think this is a great question to illustrate the importance of not eliminating on the grounds that an answer doesn't match exactly with what you thought it would be. POE gets us to B, and it's the only one that hits the language shift in the conclusion. I was too quick though in eliminating it my first round through because it didn't seem like what I was looking for. Lesson - only eliminate that which is obviously wrong or what you can conclusively say is wrong for at least one reason, not just because of a hunch that it doesn't match what you expected.

Quick update - took PT 74 this morning after drilling on pacing the last couple of days and brought my score up to a 168. Hopefully can keep that up! Thanks again for all the encouragement and suggestions. Happy studys!

what really tripped me up on this is the subtle wording in the conclusion of 'is no mark of success' to imply not successful, since there are a few answers that also trade on this ambiguity. I didn't pick up the first time through that that meant those things = unsuccessful. I just thought that it meant they aren't good indicators for whether or not a group is successful. Tricky question.

@jhaldy10325 @stepharizona288 and @stepharizona288 Thanks for all the input. I think those are solid suggestions on the timing strategies and trying to figure out where my weakest areas are. I imagine, just as for everyone else, it's about finding and then sticking with and a strategy and I think I tend to skip around trying to figure out which ones work without staying consistently with any particular one, which at this point isn't helping. I also think I do tend to spend more time than I need on the easier ones checking to make sure the answers I didn't pick are for sure out. I guess it's a confidence thing perhaps. I will definitely put all these great suggestions to practice this week while doing my remaining PTs and BR. Again, thank you!

Thanks @nessak130467.k13.0 I'll give those a shot. I have checked the analytics but it seems my weak areas are pretty spread apart and vary pretty significantly from test to test, but maybe that just means I need to do some more question-specific drills in general to solidify my process.

Forgot to mention that my BR I'm getting max -1 total so usually 179/180

So they couldn't access the same data (I mean of course they couldn't it was ancient times and we're talking modern technologies) - that means that they had their own reasons for coming up with the prohibitions, which makes sense then why the conclusion says we can't know the ORIGINS of the prohibitions, in other words, how the prohibitions came about. Maybe they saw a bunch of people get sick from some food or like JY said in the video, certain animals were too economically valuable. But, is it really possible for us to know the exact context of how the prohibitions came about? No, unless there is some document where they wrote that stuff down, like "okay so we saw that when the such and such group ate the purple plant they all got fevers and died in a couple days so in order to protect the rest of the population we are going to ban the purple plant," the data alone can't explain the origins. Perhaps we can now understand that the purple plant is super toxic and hey look, this group of people prohibited it, good for them! But how did they know it was toxic? What was their reason for prohibiting it? We can only know the origins if we were somehow able to know their motives for creating them, yet their motives couldn't have been exactly the same as the reasons gleaned from the modern data because they had no way of knowing any of that info.

Sorry for the ramble, I just thought if anyone else had been struggling to wrap their head around this one that might help clarify a little.

Seems like the whole aspect of saying 'support' and then 'subsidy' was just a means to confuse you so that you completely miss A in thinking that because theirs had a slightly different albeit synonymous meaning, that the answer choice would also need to reflect that level of detail.

I know your post was a while ago but the reason B is right is because as a proposition (i.e. principle) if the problems of farming should be viewed in all their complexity then that would mean the strategy usually used by industrialists (which tend to oversimplify) wouldn't work. It hits the point you are making that industrialists probably shouldn't get involved in farming, but it does so in a way that is less prescriptive (like D) and more embodying the underlying principle the argument employs in its reasoning.

In other words, you are the author and you're trying to illustrate that "the problems of farming should be viewed in all their complexity," then it makes sense that you would discuss why industrialists do not adhere to this idea in showing that their mode of oversimplification leads to more problems.

These types of questions are essentially asking you to EXTRACT the principle/proposition/rule that is driving the author's argument.

The phrasing in C wasn't connecting for me first time through but I kept it because I couldn't find anything specifically wrong with it. The other four were pretty easy to eliminate so yay for process of elimination!

With A, what if it said instead that Anyone who is 65 years old has worked at least 40 years? I'm thinking still wouldn't work but it does bridge that link better than the reverse since it can be said the author is assuming that those who would work beyond 65 have worked at least 40 years given the premise about it not being fair for those who have worked 40+ years to deprive others of opportunities. Just curious what others think since answers for NA questions could come from random language shifts and it's good to be prepared for any of them.

wouldn't another issue with E be that 'various sleep-related ailments' is too wide in scope for the argument, which is specifically about insomnia?

When the stem said "trade on the ambiguity" I immediately thought of equivocation. This question could easily be a flaw question with the answer hitting the equivocation issue either by stating that type of flaw or by describing what he interpreted risk to mean.