@Kevin_Lin I only had one!.

I also was kicked out in the middle of section 3 and had to wait for 10 minutes to resume. Not sure if this happened to anyone else 😭

@Kevin_Lin I just took the August LSAT. They actually removed the dividers in the RC section so you wouldn't know how many Qs in a passage.

Stim Breakdown:

(1) 2 types of questions for each of 400 brands: recognition and perception of quality / approval

(2) two sets of results:

• rating and ranking based on recognition

• rating and ranking based on approval

(3) Results of the survey:

• 27 top-recognized brands were available in those countries

• Approval rankings of these 28 brands differ

• Most of other brands have the same rankings for recognition and approval

Task: MBF

AC Breakdown:

(A) - This is saying that you can't ask questions that doesn't make sense to ask based on the answers to other questions.

For example, if the responder said she doesn't know a brand, then it doesn't make sense to ask her whether she approves the brand

(B) - we don't know if it's difficult to group responses into manageable number of categories / not supported from the stim

(C) - the responders can be anonymous

(D) - it doesn't apply here - it's 2 questions for each of the 400 brands

(E) - there's no indicator that the respondents were afraid of getting the answers wrong / there are no wrong answers

could we have a shirt that says "I love the LSAT"

I was in the same boat - my last PT was much lower than what I've been scoring (even lower than my official score), so I definitely feel you!

Based on what I've heard from other people, it's definitely common and normal to have a drop towards the end of taking PTs. I think the key is to understand why you got the Qs wrong (after maybe cry it out a bit), so you don't make the same mistakes on the test day.

It's easier said than done, but I would try to treat it like a data point instead of a verdict, and try to focus on honing the skills instead of the outcomes. The scores will follow!

This test could definitely make us feel so defeated and question our intelligence, but you can absolutely do it! You got this!

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

(1) Emerging tech will enable speed of info processing to be the most important factor to create wealth

(2) [intermediate concl]: a country's success depends on the relative success in implementing these technology

Concl:

• division of global north vs. global south will be obsolete

Task: what's the flaw

My initial pre-phrase / gap:

• What if the success depends on the country's geographical positions

AC Breakdown:

(A) - the argument DOES take into account of it - it will depend on the relative success incorporating the new technology, not the present economic status

(B) - usually fail to establish [something] means [something] = unwarranted assumption

The argument doesn't assume that / the argument is actually staying away from division of rich countries vs. poor countries

(C) -

Let's say there are 3 factors in determining a country's wealth, each with its corresponding level of importance:

#1: speed of info processing (40% importance)

#2: level of education (30% importance)

#3: manufacturing capacity (30% importance)

Even though #1 is the most important, but #2 + #3 together outweigh the importance of #1.

So in other words, by focusing on #2 and #3, we have a greater chance of being wealthy than just focusing on #1 alone.

[I chose C by using PoE, even though I didn't understand C in the timed condition, and it didn't match my pre-phrase]

(D) - the argument is not saying faster information processing will only have beneficial effects (not supported)

(E) - irrelevant

What have we done to deserve this 😭

@DaisukeKaga yes - thank you for the additional clarification

Stim Breakdown:

Method: monitor how fast the word(s) expressing the new idea are passing into common usage

(the question is asking about the method - the part about dictionary editors is not relevant)

AC Breakdown:

(A) - dictionary editor - not relevant to our method

(B) - same as (A)

(C) - same as (A)

(D) - negate: the meaning significantly changes when it passes into common usage

• so in our example, the word “privatization” is actually slang for “dogs”. Then we can’t say the idea of privatization is spread in the common

(E) - in layman’s term: before the idea were understood, people start using these words (e.g., people just casually use “quarks” in conversation without actually understanding what it means)

Wouldn’t E itself “destroy” the argument, and therefore it’s not the assumption?

I used PoE for this question during my timed take (didn't have time to fully understand what D is saying, but the remaining ACs were wrong)

Stim Breakdown:

Historians:

based on the tariff law enacted by Nayal in the 3rd dynasty (that imported timber from P would be subject to tariff), we can infer that there were trades going on between the two during that time

Critic:

just because a law exists on the book doesn't mean that we still engage the relevant activities. Therefore, that's not a proof

Task - why critic is wrong? Why the law can prove that there were trades between P and N?

AC Breakdown:

(A) - the conclusion is flipped. "there not having been any trades.." - wrong side of the argument

(B) - we are using an analogy here to make a point, and it is relevant

(C) - the critic does recognize that this is an indirect evidence

(D) - (initially I was confused / didn't recognize the flaw) This is saying that law enactment vs. law existing are two different things - when you enact a law, the law must be relevant at that time.

• the critic is equating law enactment with law's existence, and he actually does provide evidence to support historian's view (i.e., "regulating activities that were once common)

(E) - he's not agreeing with historian's assumption / there's no sign of him doing that

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

(1) intention: double blind tests: neither subjects nor the researchers know who is given what

Concl:

• this intention is frequently frustrated

Pre-phrase:

Think of reasons why this intention cannot be achieved

AC Breakdown:

(A) - researchers would know who receives what

(B) - neither subjects nor the researchers would know who receive what

• If we could see that the group who received the drug improves significantly, and the group who didn’t doesn’t improve, then that would also be a good answer choice 

(C) - not relevant

(D) - that’s ok / arguably better, because the researchers wouldn’t know who was given what

(E) - the volunteers are informed of the possibility, but they still don’t know what they receive

I chose (B) because I thought the placebo effect would mess up the experiment / we would not know whether the drug worked or not.

However, the conclusion is "the intention", not the outcome

I chose B because I was wondering why can't the large finch just rely on the large hard seeds to survive. Why do they have to rely on small seeds at all?

Stim Breakdown:

(1) M --> /in love 😢

(2) C --> in love 🥰

(3) C --> /M (we can also infer this from (1) + (2))

(4) /M --> intemperate

(5) M --> /intemperate

Things we can infer:

(3) + (4): C --> intemperate

(4) + (5): bi-directional

• M <--> /intemperate

• /M <--> intemperate

AC Breakdown:

(A) - in love --> C (sufficiency-necessity confusion of (2))

(B) - /C --> M (sufficiency-necessity confusion of (3))

(C) - Intemperate --> in love

• We can't infer this from:

• C --> in love and C --> intemperate

(D) - Intemperate --> C (sufficiency - necessity confusion of (3) + (4))

(E) - C --> Intemperate (yes this is (3) + (4))

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

defendants with expensive private lawyers have a lower conviction rate than defendants with public defenders

Concl:

criminals who commit lucrative crimes are less likely to be convicted than criminals who commit street crimes 

Task: strengthen

Initial Gap:

(1) criminals who commit lucrative crimes use private lawyers; street criminals usually use public defenders

AC Breakdown:

(A) - this weakens the argument

(B) - 2 reasons I don’t like this AC:

1. this arguably weakens the argument - it’s not because of the lawyers, but because of the prosecutors, that we see the outcome differences

2. we are assuming embezzlement has highly technical financial evidence, and street crimes are robbery and simple assault - don’t know if these assumptions are merited

(C) - we are focusing on the rate of conviction, not the #s

(D) -  this eliminates an alternative explanation

• alternative explanation: embezzlement criminals actually are framed / their convictions fall apart easily in front of the judges

(E) - 2 reasons I don’t like this AC:

• This also weakens the argument (similar to B) - just swap out prosecutors with jurors

• Are street crimes violent? Are embezzlement crimes “victimless”? Again, not sure these assumptions are merited 

I've never encountered a MBF like this before, and therefore initially I didn't know what the approach should be. After reflection and reading the analysis / other people's comments, I hope my explanation can help someone

The question is asking what would be false if all the premises are true

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

(1) - Alicia + Peter both stole cars

(2) - Alicia - defective taillights, let go with a warning; Peter - was hit by taxi, noticed by the police, and charged with auto theft

(3) - the damage was not because there's a difference in the blameworthiness of their behavior

Concl:

• Alicia should also be charged with auto theft

Task - which one is MBF / contradicts the premise?

AC Breakdown:

(A) - this could be true / doesn't contradict the premise

I initially chose this one because it contradicts with the conclusion. However, that's not what the ask is

(B) - doesn't contradict with the premise

(C) - there IS a difference in the blameworthiness. Peter was at fault here for running the light

(D) - this could be true - we are focusing on the the blameworthiness of the damage / lack of damage

(E) - this is irrelevant - we are focusing on the current incident (auto theft); their past history is irrelevant

Key Takeaway for myself: really understand what the question is asking for!

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

(1) A ban was implemented 8 years ago

(2) Now deer population was 6 times of that before the ban

(3) Deer are causing trouble

• in other words: Deer --cause--> dangers to public safety

(4) There were never hunting-related injuries

Concl:

• ban --cause--> dangers to public safety

Gap:

Ban --cause--> deer population to go up

AC Breakdown:

(A) no such ban, and deer population stays in check

• strengthening the causal relationship:

  • A correlates with B, and no A correlates with no B

(B) - I recognized that this is a repeat of the stim, but I thought "often" strengthens the frequency of the serious injury mentioned in the stim

Picture of this groundbreaking sculpture:

Low res for this passage:

P1: [main point]: Noguchi is creative / different from convention

P2: [Elaborate / questions]: sculpture had been relying on shadows - predict that Noguchi will do something different

P3: [Elaborate / solution]: Used chrome-nickel steel to make reflective sculpture

P4: [implication]: invisible sculpture - discerning shape through surrounding

P5: [aftermath]: moved on to next new thing

AC Breakdown:

(A) - not supported about what Fuller had done

(B) - not make the sculpture more commercially viable.... Noguchi was not looking to sell the sculpture in mass

(C) - this is tricky and I chose this AC initially. However, this is not descriptively correct

"The viewer's awareness of the "invisible" sculpture's presence and dimensional relationships would be derived only secondarily."

this means that the sculpture DOES HAVE SHAPE / DIMENSIONS, but the viewer sees it only secondarily through the distorted shapes around it

(D) - "realistic likeness" - that's not discussed in the passage.

(E): this is implied. If E is wrong, then using reflective materials wouldn't be creative as the author claims.

In addition - "Noguchi did not think of it as merely a shiny alternate model of traditional, negative-light sculptures" - this implies that the traditional, negative-light sculptures are not reflective.

@KSki just registered! Thank you!

@Adam this makes sense - thank you! Did not know the difference between EDT and EST until today.

@KSki They sent me an email as well and it's still shown it's not open. And I logged on the website 30 min before...

@Dagny 😭

Is it just me, or the scheduler has not opened yet?

I was between C and D. The reason I eliminated C is the following:

Breaking down (C): It is possible to write articles and essays... (the rest is just modifier)

Of course it's possible / you can absolutely do this / there's no physical limitation. However, the point of the argument is about whether if you will be successful / make money.

Whereas D mentions the success factor - Babson would agree with this, and Cortez would not.

Hope this helps / let me know what you think

I have a different interpretation to the official 7sage analysis / this is what my thought process is during the drill - please let me know what you think!

Stim Breakdown: 

Glen:

Prem:

(1) Only focusing on procedure –cause→personal rights concerns –cause→ individual’s indifference

(2) Law’s role is to create virtuous citizens

Concl: [implicit]

• we should not only focus on procedure

Sara:

Prem:

• if that’s indeed law’s role, then that would encourage government to decide what’s virtuous or not, and that’s more dangerous than personal rights concerns

Concl: [implicit]

• that shouldn’t be the role of the law

Task: Point of Disagreement

AC Breakdown:

(A) - not relevant; we are talking about the role of law / government here, not whether citizens are capable of something

(B) - we don’t have the concept of importance here

(C) - I don’t like this because Sara’s point is more a comparison (i.e., “more dangerous”), and this is a very absolute claim (i.e., “inherently dangerous”).

(D) - Sara has no opinion on this

(E) - Glen definitely agrees with this; Sara doesn’t