I would say:

-> Take more recent PTs to see the score range.

If you hit the target score range or can open up 8+ hours a day just for studying LSAT, you can try taking the test again in November.

If you cannot hit the target score (e.g. 165+ or 170+) and don't have 8+ hours per day to study for LSAT to improve your scores to the target score range,

(1) consider not to apply to LS, OR (2) apply to LS, but open your target school list to the T25s or T30s, whatever looks feasible.

For (1), consider applying to a graduate school other than LS OR go to work full time if you received any offers. This is not a bad option especially if you are not sure whether you can survive in LS. You can come back to take the test and consider going to LS at a later time when you are more prepared for it.

For (2), after enrollment, if you still want to climb the ladder, thinking about transfer by the end of the 1L. But it will be challenge.

C: NORTHErN Levant

;/

otherwise [definition]: in circumstances different from those present or considered.

otherwise [example]: she drinks beer when it rains; otherwise, she does not.

[example] map: rain -> drink beer; !rain -> !drink beer. rain ↔ drink beer.

-

In this question:

Otherwise it is unacceptable = in circumstances different from the present circumstances, which is [disagree with no more..], it is unacceptable.

which means, not [disagree with no more...] → unacceptable; !disagree -> !acceptable.

therefore, DM ↔ Vote

a - not mentioned what is the consequence if !issue.

b - we are talking about Disagreements in this question. Agreements has nothing to do with the conditions we learn from prompt.

c - same as above.

d - correct answer because (1) # of disagreements are the same for each of the candidates, and (2) DM ↔ Vote, !DM -> !Vote.

e - we are comparing the disagreements between two or more candidates instead of comparing the disagreement and agreement of one candidate.

flaw: because we discovered a fossil, the ice-sheet melting must occured.

the resolution pins to the conclusion that the icesheet melting must occurred. What if it's due to an earthquake the continent submerged?

the entire section of [after all...could have melted the icesheet] doesn't matter at all. it does not touches on the connection between premise (fossil) and conclusion (icesheet melting).

note to self: given position = premise; position in question = conclusion.

saw there's a "lack of evidence" and select b

need to be more patient..

person != committee member.....

persons = all human beings

i hate :/

a, b, simple wrong answer.

c - if + far away as quasar

d - planet?

damn B faked itself as a slippery slop but it did not actually slip to the final slop about prosperity. should read more carefully.

also I should not consider "the overall profit may still be low as COGS may be high" as the only reason - other ones such as low wage itself can also contribute to the conclusion.

i'm like: because other answer choices are wrong i choose D..

except!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

damn can't read

did this in the reverse order, starting from the conclusion that "because we cannot determine the criteria of 'an important factor', therefore the criteria of art is not determined. "

and choose answer choice C because the 'important factor' (which in the context is the representation of art) may not be the only determining factor.

all those complex terms are just for the purpose of confusing us poor test takers; did no contribution to the core logic chain of the argument lol

cd could be false /blah

inference/support

1. in experience, small birds survives less than large birds

2. but another attribute - age - is not expelled from the experiment.

2.1 smaller birds are younger than large ones.

3. thus, the conclusion that size is not determinant is mistaken

3 means the conclusion that "size bigger lives longer" is wrong.

that is, size bigger does not means birds will live longer. Size has nothing to do with survival (while age may do). and this is D.

* if 3 says "not sound", it means that size still have a chance to be true; it was the experience that is not rigorous.

what i know after reading the prompt

1. renzi is fully flooded (ff) because !implode -> ff

2. ff -> sabotage

3. usually, sinks as fast -> !ff. this means ff -> not usually sink as fast.

because of 1, ff.

ff -> either 2 or 3. it means, if !2, then 3.

3 is more inclusive and board than 2. 2 is search for the cause (which there can be many), while 3 is describing the case and it comes before 2 (define the case >> find the cause).

3 must be true unless we face challenge the prompt.