"viruses they didn't like"😭 this video is olddd
This is not really answering your question sorry but I did want to ask how you got to the point of scoring low 170s? I cannot break out of the 155 PT / ~170 Blind Review spot and it's really frustrating me :/
Hi! Unsure if you still have availability, but I'd love to take some sessions from you.
Hi! Would love a consultation if you're available :)
For some reason, switching the question stem into flaw language made SO much more sense to me. I don't know why it's so much harder for me to wrap my head around questions when they say "weaken."
@owenm After some thought, I eliminated E because it would actually strengthen the argument. It makes sense that at first glance, basing a judgment off of an unrepresentative sample is a bad thing. However, the stim says that this cardiologist is highly skilled. Meaning, that if E were true, the majority of cardiologists would actually be worse than this cardiologist at correctly identifying heart attacks. Therefore, strengthening the conclusion that we should switch over to computers completely. But the argument wants something to weaken, not strengthen.
I figured this one out quickly because I realized that if Pat got the coupon, watched less than 10 videos, but got it somewhere else than the Main St location, something HAD to be differentiating her from all the qualifiers just stated. Re-read the first part: "Members of the viewers club." It does not say that ONLY members of the viewers club can get the coupon. So Pat must not be a member of the club.
Can someone explain the differences between this and Must Be True questions? For both answers, my current understanding is that if negated/falsified, the argument falls apart. Is one just stating the obvious, and another says something specific to the content of the stimulus?
@jwn1060 This is a good approach. Yeah, I don't think I should give up blind review entirely, but 1) doing shorter drills and 2) critically thinking about my incorrect answers will be the best solution here.
@jwn1060 I was doing occasional drilling (like, very occasional), and I got confident with those when I started seeing improved scores. I now realize I think I need to focus on those almost entirely. Thanks for the RC suggestion as well, I'll definitely try that out.
Hi! I live in the city and would love to join up with some people every other week or so to go over LSAT questions, strategy, etc. on the weekends. I'm aiming for 170+ (ideally mid 170s) and trying to take it in February. Let me know if you're interested!
Hi fellow 7Sagers. I just finished taking my fifth prep test, and I have scored almost the same score (156ish) every time. I go back and do blind review and almost always end up in the 170s, so I'm assuming this is just a timing issue. What do you guys recommend on how to move forward? I've started drilling harder questions and have overall found a significant improvement in getting questions correct (e.g. getting very difficult and most difficult drills all correct, sections with max 3 wrong instead of 8-10 and getting 0 wrong on blind review), but when it comes to these PTs I don't know what's happening to me.
For context, I'm about a month and a half into consistently and rigorously studying for the LSAT. Goal is to take it in February next year. I would appreciate advice from any of guys who may have been in similar situations as me. Thanks :)
In the explanation for A, it says "Even Lurano...acknowledges the chance of snow melting." Am I missing something? Where does he acknowledge that?
"that's not funny idk why i laughed" LOLLLL
I went about this in a completely different way, and still got the right answer (invalid conclusion). Can someone explain to me if this is luck? This is how I did it:
Deliver speech -> vote fails
/(deliver speech) -> assassination attempt fails
FACT: The assassination attempt failed.
Take the contrapositive of the first:
Vote wins -> /(deliver speech)
Create chained conditional:
Vote wins -> /(deliver speech) -> assassination attempt fails.
Based off my chained conditional, it is still not a valid conclusion to say the vote will not pass. It actually CAN pass if the assassination attempt fails, since I have the vote winning as a sufficient condition. Obviously, 7sage did something completely different. Is my line of thinking wrong?
Since my dog ate my homework, I am very mad.
Complex argument: I am six feet tall. All six foot people play basketball. Therefore I play basketball. All basketball players besides Michael Jordan are worse than Michael Jordan. Therefore, I am worse than Michael Jordan.
Minor premises: I am six feet tall; all six foot tall people play basketball
Major premise/sub conclusion: all basketball players besides MJ are worse than MJ.
Main conclusion: Therefore, I am worse at playing basketball than MJ.
1:27 MM flip it around, Wicked Witch...