@natashapawar14593 said:

@colbyweaver1840 said:

anyone who had only one LR and had questions abt Buddhism and Shintoism?

I had 2 LR but I had this question!

I had 2, and I just rly wanted this one to be the real one. The other one was pure evil.

anyone who had only one LR and had questions abt Buddhism and Shintoism?

when do we know which one is experimental

#help

I chose D cuz if D is correct, then no matter how you break down the vacation the reduction of stress would be the same as long as the total vacation time is unchanged. Then surely we can't conclude that "to reduce stress as much as possible we should go for several short vacations instead of a long one".

For E I don't think the author would disagree with this— it's entirely consistent for the author to concede that one long vacation indeed reduces stress more than one short vacation, but the difference could be between like 5 for a long one and 3 for a short one. But still if we could have more than two short vacations it's gonna reduce more than one long vacation, and the conclusion still holds.

Could someone help explain?

Thanks this makes a lot of sense!

#help

Having a hard time figuring out what's wrong wt D without the knowledge that all lives are related. (I don't think that's required knowledge for LSAT so there must be a way we can tell why D is wrong without this knowledge?) If the recently discovered dinosaur is related to T.rex, then probably it got its features from the T.rex, which makes it less compelling as a counterexample then. If it's not related to the T.rex, then it has independent reasons to have developed such features and would be a stronger counterexample.

@jhaldy10325 said:

@sliao22105 said:

My score fluctuations mostly depend luck... like whether the passages in RC happen to make sense to me, or whether I happen to spot the subtle flaws in LRs. I feel like those things rly ain't within my control that's why I'm all freaked out. My worst score could go down to 166, with one RC passage almost all wrong.

I don't have much use for luck, either good or bad. RC passages don't happen to make sense or not. I make sense of them or I don't. That is a matter of preparation. I never happen to spot subtle flaws in LR. I spot them because I have trained tirelessly to be able do so.

I actually missed a question with a student yesterday because I didn't see the flaw. I don't like knowing the answer upfront or else I inevitably will work my reasoning backwards, so it happens every now and then. But I didn't just happen to miss it. I missed it because I wasn't prepared. I'd never encountered an argument quite like it. It was an inventive and cleverly packaged question. Simply put, I failed.

But that's not at all out of my control. So afterwards, I did the work and I cracked it. I figured out the nuance and subtlety. I studied how the argument had been crafted to disguise the critical relationship and how it had successfully led my reasoning astray. In hindsight, it feels like such an obvious solution and a really amateur mistake. But it only feels that way because I've now done the work. The next time I encounter something like it, I will spot the flaw and it will not have anything to do with luck.

I do not accept explanations for my performance which are not actionable. Luck cannot be improved. It is out of my hands, there is nothing I can do about it. If there's nothing I can do, then I am a passive player in my own endeavors. That is untenable. So I find better explanations--explanations that leave me in charge. Those better explanations always boil down to the same thing: Failure. Failure is painful, but at least it is the result of my control. And as long as I'm in control, I can change my outcomes. And as long as I can change my outcomes, I have work to do.

Thanks that's rly insightful. I do look at the questions I got wrong in the way you suggested, and every time I thought if I encounter something like this next time I'm gonna nail it. Well it worked pretty fine for older PTs. When I got to 80+ PTs, it just seems there's a lot more unpredictability and subtlety especially for LR, and I always get questions wrong for new reasons. The worst part is there's an increasing proportion of wrong questions for which I couldn't rly make sense of the right answer. This makes it extra hard to track down the reasoning pattern of the test writers and extra hard to rly gain control over my performance.

wouldn't B show that clergies aren't actually "occupied with religion"?

#help (Added by Admin)

@jhaldy10325 said:

@sliao22105 said:

@jhaldy10325 said:

I retested a 170, but my PT average was 176 at the time of the retest. I think that was critical. If you can get your PT average up to mid-170’s+, then go for it. As it is, though, it looks like you maxed out your current score range. Very little reason to expect improvement unless you change your range in practice first. So I’d keep studying to see if you can change your standing, but I would withdraw if I didn’t see improvement. A lower score is unlikely to hurt you, but I just don’t see a reason to test without a reasonably grounded expectation to improve.

And so you know, law schools don’t care about the rigor of your ug. So congrats on a stellar, universally-above-median gpa without any need to qualify!

May I ask how did it go for you? I'm currently PTing in a score higher than my last one, but with large fluctuations; there're times where I score significant lower than my last test. I'm retaking in October but feel really unsure whether I could place my hope in getting a better score.

It went well, I scored a 176 official. Your fluctuations are an issue you want to address. My 176 PT average was inside a very tight range of +/-2. I also diagnosed and corrected a lot of weaknesses, big and small, between my official 170 and 176. So that's another factor to consider. What is different between now and then? I had a lot of specific answers to that question, so I wasn't just hoping to score better. I had specific, tangible reasons to expect better. A lot of times large score fluctuations are the result of haphazard strategy, procedure, and time management. If these aren't things you've actively studied and addressed, a bit of work on that might be your best way to tighten up your range.

My score fluctuations mostly depend luck... like whether the passages in RC happen to make sense to me, or whether I happen to spot the subtle flaws in LRs. I feel like those things rly ain't within my control that's why I'm all freaked out. My worst score could go down to 166, with one RC passage almost all wrong.

I originally eliminated E cuz I was thinking the same thing, but the other ACs are just plainly not supported at all, while it's arguable that fashion is somehow related to cultural trend.

I think in this PT we just see lots of questions that require us to make much more assumptions than we used to do in other PTs, both in LR and RC section. Terrible PT, at least to me.

@jhaldy10325 said:

I retested a 170, but my PT average was 176 at the time of the retest. I think that was critical. If you can get your PT average up to mid-170’s+, then go for it. As it is, though, it looks like you maxed out your current score range. Very little reason to expect improvement unless you change your range in practice first. So I’d keep studying to see if you can change your standing, but I would withdraw if I didn’t see improvement. A lower score is unlikely to hurt you, but I just don’t see a reason to test without a reasonably grounded expectation to improve.

And so you know, law schools don’t care about the rigor of your ug. So congrats on a stellar, universally-above-median gpa without any need to qualify!

May I ask how did it go for you? I'm currently PTing in a score higher than my last one, but with large fluctuations; there're times where I score significant lower than my last test. I'm retaking in October but feel really unsure whether I could place my hope in getting a better score.

don't we have about half a day among which we could choose a time slot that works best for us?

I thought "in the building's vicinity" excludes the parking lot in front of the building and dismissed C as irrelevant, cuz when the parking lot is open the person wouldn't have to go to the building's vicinity to park

#help for 11, I was looking back at the first paragraph, where T says essentially all arts embody the ideology of the elite class, so that encompasses the most successful arts in today's world. Could someone explain why this reasoning doesn't work to justify answer choice B?

#help why can we just assume vigorous=strenuous

#help

I didn't catch that conjunction part. Now just out of curiosity, what would the sentence look like if it were to refer to conditional possibility? To me the sentence as the way it was put in the stimulus is the equivalent of "in a car accident, one is less likely to be injured if one drives a large car...". With only a replacement of the phrase "in a car accident", it becomes totally like talking abt conditional possibility.

#help

for Q25 answer choice B, why it can't be understood as "a particular style of writing" referring to fictions in the 1850s and 1860s, to which Jewett's work can be seen as paradigmatic in the sense that it becomes more like arts

#help I haven't seen anyone making a case for E for Q17 but Idk why E is incorrect... when the court didn't recognize collective property of course it's not gonna recognize native Canadians' property so it would decide in the museum's favor, and after it has realized the need to include collective property it would be more likely to respect native Canadians' property rights so will be less likely to decide in the museum's favor

For question 13 and other weakening questions, isn't providing counterevidence a way of refuting premises? And aren't we told not to refute the premise, but rather weaken the support it gives to the conclusion? This has been bothering me forever cuz I clearly remember being told not to weaken the premise, but from time to time LSAT gives right AC that does weaken the premise.

#help

For A, if A isn't the case, that taking an interest in the well-being of children doesn't entail subsidizing day-care, doesn't that weaken the argument? Since if the former doesn't entail the latter, why does the conclusion "gov should subsidize day-care" follow from the premise that gov should improve the well-being of children?

#help (Added by Admin)

would AC (C) be a necessary assumption?

#help (Added by Admin)

for Q26 AC E, where does the passage mention the relation between constitutional reforms and current law and how is that misconstrued here?