@ that’s such a good questions. I’m looking forward to hearing what others think. @ thank you, this is a useful benchmark!

Could anyone point to the CC lesson on pushing a concept up to the domain of discourse. I've seen J.Y use this concept in explaining several questions, but I didn't come across it in the core curriculum and would love to know where to look. Thanks in advance!

#help

Hi all! These are such great suggestions! I’ve been implementing all of them, particularly incorporating a rule check process as part of the set-up. Does it take a few extra seconds? Yes! Is the worth the time? Also yes!

It’s incredible just how easy it is to mess up a rule - it’s like something extra special happens under time pressure, making you mess up! But hopefully confidence and practice and double/triple checking should do the trick!

For (A), did JY here mean to say the overall allergies could have increased, but children’s could have decreased? As it stands now, it seems like what he’s saying is the other way round - overall allergies could have decreased but children’s allergies in smaller families could have increased. But this would be consistent with the hypothesis about smaller families, less exposure to germs and increased allergies, correct? Or am I missing something here?

#help

Hi all! For Q6, ac (A), isn't it reasonable to infer that subtitles are a of type of "explanatory material?" And if we infer that we shouldn't NOT do anything, meaning we should do SOMETHING to make the film accessible/understandable for the Russian audience, doesn't that support the inference that we should provide SOME kind of explanatory material, aka, like subtitles?

#help

Question 18 was very interesting, and I felt all the CC lessons coming together on this question. First was the use of referential phrasing in the ac. I realized upon BR that as I was going through the ac during the test, I didn't explicitly articulate to myself what the referential phrases in the ac were making reference to, so I basically did not know what the subject of each ac was half the time. This is where re-reading the question stem comes in - whenever stuck, re-read the question stem!! Such a useful tactic. Upon re-reading it, you realize the question is basically asking "what can we infer about B and H's peptides?" - plain and simple. Third CC lesson was one that we can draw from LG. J.Y. always says to use the questions themselves to eliminate acs, for example in "complete and accurate list" questions. In this instance, support for ac (a), i.e., peptides as being synthesized, derives from acs for Q19 and Q22, which either talk about directly or imply the notion of peptides being artificially synthesized and tested by B and H. Of course, whether or not we realize this under time pressure is a whole another matter, but useful lessons nonetheless, at least for me.

Last point: For me, support for ac (a) was derived from the sentence that said “However, no known peptide was able to bind to semiconductor materials […]. So Belcher, Hu, and their colleagues GREW a random assortment of one billion different peptides and tested whether any of them bound to silicon, gallium…”

Question 16 is still bugging me. During BR, I eliminated (b) because of the phrase "computer chip speed and efficiency" - I told myself well, the focus is on making computer chips smaller, so that makes (b) factually inaccurate. BUT, going back to the first sentence, making chips smaller is ULTIMATELY intended to make them faster and more efficient. So (b) does pass the factual accuracy test after all.

@ wow! This gives me a very different way to approach LR. I sort of approached it by thinking give a question your all during your first attempt and that’s that. But the prospect of banking time to go back to it for a second take and having to articulate why you’re changing an answer, if you do, is a game changer. I’ll be trying this during my forthcoming drills and PTs. Thanks a lot!

Hi! I would write to LSAC about this, that way you also have their confirmation in writing.

From what I understand, your file is complete and will be reviewed only when you indicate you want it to be reviewed. So if you want them to wait until your Jan scores come out (in Feb), then that’s when your file will be considered. But if you want them to review now and still want to take Jan, you can write to the admissions office and indicate that or just not indicate in your application that you’ll take the Jan test, but this means the possibility of an admissions decision being made before your Jan scores come out! But of course, each school has its own policy, and it is usually indicated in their website, on the LSAC application itself or you can always contact admissions

I was put off by (a) because of "the same amount of mother's milk." We can rightly infer that boiling probably reduces the amount of vitamin C in the boiled milk, but what about the stimulus supports the bit that says that less vitamin C is available in cow's milk than in a comparable quantity of breast milk. I feel like this requires unwarranted assumptions, such as the assumption that a baby would consume just as much cow's milk as it would breast milk. Perhaps cow's milk is more nutrient dense and hence the baby would consume less of it? Perhaps the "the same amount part" can be reconciled because its an MSS question, and not a MBT true question - so we just need to find the answer choice that is MOST LIKELY to be true, doesn't need to be definitely true/completely proven. Thoughts?

#help