@ashleytien240 said:

@skylarcushing19149 said:

same I hated that game. I think I stumbled upon PT9 S3 G3. Tho I think the one on October LSAT was harder

What made October’s harder?

The fact that I didn't get a good game board set up lol. But maybe bc test pressure. I also don't distinctly remember that game anymore

same I hated that game. I think I stumbled upon PT9 S3 G3. Tho I think the one on October LSAT was harder

I really hated this question and think its a poorly worded one. I think it concedes there was profit increase, but weakens it bc it's not a large one. No doubt it waters the profit increase of publishers down but by how much? It could still be a much bigger profit increase even if it's not as big as initially thought if all the subscribers were libraries.

Profit, P, is a function of P(number of customers, sale price, cost) and this would be summed for each group of customer they have. Like julsnet2 said, it could be 50% +1 are individual subscribers, but it could also be that the product of (what the libraries pay ) (the number of libraries) (average number of journals subscribed per each pub) is much greater than what the individuals pay in total even if individuals are 75% or more of the market. And that the delta for the libraries is still much greater than before. "Much" is an imprecise term, as is "most," and I didn't find this answer choice to weaken it much.

All the others absolutely don't do anything to weaken, and this one only has a chance to weaken so that is why D is correct.

So soon after I posted this I thought about it more TLDR it doesn’t matter what the minimum amount required is for meat/dairy because the passage doesn’t say what it is.

By Merriam-Webster minimum is used here most nearly as:

the least quantity assignable, admissible, or possible

And our passage “…a minimum quantity of meat and dairy products is essential for the prevention of [osteoporosis]”

So keeping that the passage doesn’t say what the minimum quantity is. Consider if the minimum quantity required is 2 meat and 2 dairy products per week. Then AC E would weaken the argument. Then consider if it’s 0, then AC E would strengthen the argument. Because being a strict vegetarian means you get no meat products which would certainly be a minimum, it does strengthen the answer. Because you cannot assume what the nutritionist thinks is the minimum required quantity, you have to evaluate each AC whether that quantity is relatively low. If relatively high then that would run counter to the minimum quantity argument. So it’s not that the nutritionist thinks that is as low as possible (i.e. the lower you go the better), but rather that it doesn’t matter whether the nutritionist thinks that there is a minimum threshold or that it is lower is better because you have to evaluate each for both.

I inserted a bias of mine since as an engineer, when we typically say the minimum required [insert variable] we typically mean you cannot go below that setpoint.

same... #help

Q#8. I don't think you can eliminate D based on "scientific controversy" as they do discuss disagreements about the interpretation of data and it seemed like Wenner and their contemporaries mistakenly believed something and that resulted in a faulty hypothesis. However, the you can eliminate D based on "function" as J.Y. said

Did Lawgic on blind review, I think to torture myself. This was a doozy, but good practice!

It’s really hard to provide specific advice without knowing what trips you up. Assuming you have good strategy during the test (avoiding time sinks, adjusting your confidence level to sometimes select the correct answer rather than process of elimination, and you are finishing each section without being rushed) , my advice is to check out the 7Sage statistics to see if there are any particular types of LG types that trip you up and drill those. Then do that for LR and RC. For me, I purchased another book (Manhattan prep) for RC because I didn’t think J.Y’s method worked for me at all and that helped me. Then, if you have the time, perhaps take a break. For some reason, after a break it boosted my score too

Following. After looking at other comments on this page, it is clear that there isn't a sufficient explanation for why B is better than A. According to the Oxford dictionary, an animal refuge is, "an establishment for the care and protection of (domestic) animals that have been abused, neglected, or abandoned." The conclusion that "these efforts" have been wasted is referring to the international efforts to protect the natural habitats of endangered species of animals.

For AC A, the habitat is generally considered the natural habitat where the species live. Yes, you have to assume that being "better able to protect the habitats...than before" is a result of international effort, but you have to make that assumption for each of the other ACs. AC A suggests that preserving the habitat is dampening the rate at which the loss of endangered species is worsening. Without these efforts, the rate would be worse. By continuing these efforts, one could expect further reduction in the rate of loss. How does this not weaken the argument?

For AC B, a refuge is generally for domesticated animals, so it seems like a larger jump to assume that is the natural habitat than for AC A which requires no jump. You also need to assume that AC B is referring to an international effort, like A.

Lastly, it has been argued that the conclusion isn't simply that the efforts have been wasted, but it is that the efforts are wasted as MEASURED by the rate of extinction of animal species. The author does use that as a premise, but it is NOT CLEAR that this is the conclusion. I can agree with everything the author says, but then say they aren't wasted because we are better able to protect natural habitats (which supports animals life) now. How can progress to protect the species' home be a waste?

#help

Not sure if still going on or available, but I am interested. I am in the same boat--low to mid 160s and want 170+ on June LSAT.

Also interested if still available and messaging you my email

I'm interested in this too! For clarification, are you saying that your last 5 blind review scores are between 170-176? Mine are consistently around 171/172 without reviewing each question--only ones that I have time sinks on (>110 secs) or didn't get to bc of time sinks. I haven't done any deep review sessions with anyone and would love to try!

Also that it could be possible that you get better the more hours worked the better you are until you work and then it drops. It doesn't have to start dropping as soon as you start working

C got me because I read that "A" is a factor in causing it but not sufficient to cause it. And if C is true that there are many different factors that may cause ball lightning then I assumed that could mean that more than 1 factor is necessary to cause ball lightning since it is just a factor. (e.g. I have to be in the wrong place and wrong time to be hit by lightning, remove one of those factors and it doesn't happen)