how tf am I supposed to make the assumption that fire pits were used for lighting as opposed to lamps? Wtf even is a "fire pit"? I assumed that it was a pit in the ground used for cooking or disposing of waste or some shit? Even if it's the case that it was used for lighting, because a fire pit emits light, how tf would it be a substitute for a fucking lamp. Also. What? Humans went from big pits in the ground that are on fire to making fucking lamps? In short, whoever made this question deserves to trip and fall into a fire pit. Thank you for coming to my ted talk.
@ said:
I am in a similar situation... The only reason I am hesitant to postpone is because of the cost of the test. Is taking the test more than once harmful in any way to my application? I have heard of many people taking it more than once, but I am not feeling too confident currently.
As I understand it, (Canadian) universities do not really care if you take the test 2-3 times. After the third time, its not looking too cute. A few lawyers I know have taken the test twice, so I really wouldn't sweat it if you have to do it again :)
Am interested!
It really seems like the answer should be (D), can someone explain to me how (B) could possibly be read as consistent with the biologist's claim. It is the exact opposite of what they are claiming????
Admin note: For the community to better assist you, please include PrepTest number, section number and question number in the following format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question"
Hi there, my name is Skye. I'm interested in joining your group! Am taking my first LSAT in June and want to meet some friendly people to help motivate me.
can someone explain (E) being incorrect to me?
It really seems totally unrelated to the hypothesis which is why i picked it. I don't understand J.y.'s explanation. #help
I chose C, but was really uncertain about this choice because of JY's explanation on another question about Correlation between Pet Owners/Non-Pet Owners and Happines..
See, in my mind, Just becaus the number of high school graduates recruited increased between 1980-1986, this does not negate the possibility that the proportion of high school drop outs recruited over 1980-86 did not also "subtantially" increase.
Essentially, I don't see how AC (C) actually attacks the causal relationship stated in the conclusion. #help
I am interested too!