Probably the stamina. I have the same problem. I get 0 to -2 on both LR and RC on timed sections, but I have gotten four 169s on PT in a row. It's funny because 169 is also my official score from April. Section scores have significantly increased since then, but not my PT score. What I recently started to do is take more tests to improve my stamina, which I should've done way earlier since my test is coming up tomorrow lol

@businessgoose Chronic sleep deprivation is a real thing. Lol My commute isn't actually bad. It's around 20 mins one way. I just work long hours.

I get up at 5:30 am for work and come back home between 6-6:30 pm. I wish I had more time to study. I usually do a drill during the weekdays. On Friday, I usually manage to do a section. On Saturday/Sunday, I either do multiple sections or 1 PT. I have no life outside work and study at this point. I got 169 in my last LSAT, and I really just want to be done with the current state of life in the August exam with 175+... But my PT score is so much lower than section scores and blind reviews, so I don't know if that will happen this August :(

It seems like LSAC's trying to curb inflation through shitty interface, not through test itself. lol

@BrooklynHope I approached this question the same way. If you need to create a link between environmental pollution and getting cancer, you might as well link being among the wealthiest in the world and having a high diagnosis rate. Both require a big assumption the AC doesn't state.

And the explanation for B says, "the wealth of a country would need to provide an alternative explanation for the increased cancer rates in high-fat counties." Well, where did D provide that? It didn't.

So I want to know what makes D distinctively better than B.

D presupposes that identical twins watching their twin would have the same effect as watching themselves, and that's a huge assumption. Usually, even if other people can't tell identical twins apart, identical twins know how to tell themselves apart. I cross it out because the situation wasn't similar enough and spent a lot of time deciding between bad choices...

@JohnScott Uh, no. B actually weakens it. You got the question wrong because you can't see why. B basically tells you that they had no other options than lichen and grass to burn. So burning lichen and grass aren't necessarily for smoking.

@QAAA I have tried to do what I like once a week because I don't want to take a full weekend off, but I don't think that was sufficient. I also tried to experiment and take Monday evenings off and do something I like (so taking a break Sunday + Monday evening), but I didn't feel recovered because Monday is... Monday. Fortunately a four-day weekend is coming for me, so I'm trying to see how I'd feel after taking two days off and do what I actually enjoy. A harder part is not feeling anxious or guilty about taking a two-day break out of four-day weekend, which is a rare opportunity for me to spend much time on LSAT prep :\ Good luck to you as well, and thanks for the response!

@alicia-b Thanks. Yes, I think setting a realistic goal (like 10 questions a day) is important. I chugged along in the beginning, but I'm getting to a point where I can't read texts and getting 4 wrong because I read strengthen as MSS, strengthen as weaken, and flipping two subjects in a sentence. I only had one question I actually tripped, and I used to get consistent -1 before a burnout. I think I have a general direction of how to schedule my day without being burnt out, but I honestly don't know how to reset myself to start fresh. If I were a student on a summer break, it would've been as simple as not studying LSAT for a bit, but I'm burnt out from work even after stop studying for LSAT.

Edit: Watched the video. It seems like I interpreted it right by taking it as ~(AvB). But the same question still applies for future reference. Also, what tripped me was that I took it as Samantha wouldn't leave any footprints or fingerprints, not just hers. So when I saw that the fingerprints were left and it was Samantha's it confused heck out of me. Like, was I supposed to go with the common sense when I was interpreting this?

Original comment: What slowed me down on this question was whether to interpret "leaving behind footprints or fingerprints" as ~(AvB), which equals ~A&~B, or ~Av~B. I interpreted as ~(AvB), and it slowed me down when I read they found the fingerprints and still concluded Samantha must be the killer. I was trying to bridge those gaps somehow and wasted a bunch of time until I figured the answer is probably not in this conditional. Any input would be appreciated as to how to determine which one the passage is referring to in the quickest way possible. LSAT is a time-attack exam, and I don't want to waste my previous seconds.

@LowriThomas Thank you! I've never tried this, but I should give it a shot.

@RobertCarlson What is the split approach?

There's r/LawSchoolOver30. Even if you're not literally over 30, if you've been working for 5+ years, I think you'd find the subreddit relatable.

Ofc. I'm 32 and applying for a college. I already changed my career once (was in military), and I don't feel old. "Almost 30 years" isn't old at all.

@Kevin_Lin Yeah, somehow I overlooked "required." It's too obvious when you don't overlook it. Duh.

@Mitch91 That worked for this question, but that's not a logically accurate. If you're going to include likeliness in a symbol, then a condition that doesn't dictate likeliness should be a different symbol. In other words, "likely-B" and "B" denote two different conditions, so if you're going to write likely-B as "Y," then "B" should be "Z."

Therefore, an accurate way to symbolize this argument while including "likely" in a symbol would be A --> B. ~C. Therefore, ~D. This argument is flawed because the premises tell us nothing about the conclusion.

Your symbolization worked by coincidence, and logic in LSAT (especially this one) is a rudimentary one, so that helped. But you can't treat "likely-B" and "not B" as Y and ~Y.

Just five cents because I specialized in analytic philosophy (which means dealing with these types of symbols a lot) on a graduate level.

Then how is "Which one of the following is an assumption the argument requires in order for its conclusion to be properly drawn?" from PT111.S3.Q22 (rattlesnake) Necessary Assumption? Its question stem is a classic Sufficient Assumption, according to this drill. But when you hit Analytics for that question, it says it's NA, not SA. Any answers would be appreciated.

The question is "...an assumption the argument requires in order for its conclusion to be properly drawn?" A question that asks what's required in the argument to back up conclusion is a sufficient assumption question. So how is this necessary assumption question? Every single question stem in this format is identified as a sufficient assumption question in "Skill Builder - Distinguishing Sufficient v. Necessary Assumption Question Stems."

@ArdenAmarelo And my philosophy background helped me with this.

@AgnesAlojado Got your email. I was already using Chrome. I'll see what happens when I take the next drill and let you know if I have any problems.

Interested!

Can you show all the answer choices without marking right or wrong first, and then start to go over them one by one? I prefer trying to solve it myself before I see the explanation, and you showing just A and saying that it's the right choice makes it hard to do it.

I understand why A is right, but I don't understand why D is wrong. To say you recognize someone by appearance is to say you recognize someone regardless of places and circumstances, i.e., purely by their appearance. If I recognize someone who assaulted me, I'd recognize him or her not just at a place of assault but anywhere: in front of my house, in the train, at an airport, etc. If I don't recognize the person who assaulted me when I'm no longer at the place of assault, can I really say that I recognize the assaulter? It seems like recognizing caveman masks anywhere--not just where they were captured but also in other places--seems to be a requirement for "recognizing threatening people."